THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

IN THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

Darrick Jackson, as Mayor of the Town of Timmonsville,

Petitioner,

v.

Mark Sanford, Governor of the State of South Carolina and as Chairman and Ex-Officio Member of the State Budget and Control Board; Converse Chellis, Treasurer of the State of South Carolina; Richard Eckstrom, Comptroller General of the State of South Carolina; Hugh Leatherman, Chairman of the Finance Committee of the South Carolina Senate; Daniel T. Cooper, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the South Carolina House of Representatives, as Ex-Officio Members of the State Budget and Control Board; Frank Fusco, Executive Director of the State Budget and Control Board;

Glenn F. McConnell,

President Pro Tempore of the South Carolina Senate, and Robert W. Harrell, Jr., Speaker of the South Carolina House of Representatives,

Respondents.

NOTICE OF COMPLAINT

TO RESPONDENTS AND COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS:

Petitioner Darrick Jackson, Mayor of the Town of Timmonsville, files an action in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of South Carolina. The Complaint may be found at Exhibit 1, attached to the Petition for Original Jurisdiction. Pursuant to Rule 245, SCACR, Respondents have twenty (20) days from the 'date of service to file a return with the Clerk of the Supreme Court.

July 30, 2010

James E. Smith, Jr. James E. Smith, Jr., P.A. 1422 Laurel Street

Columbia, South Carolina 29201 (803) 933-9800

Debra S. Tedeschi

The Tedeschi Law Firm, P.A. 1422 Laurel Street

Columbia, South Carolina 29201 (803) 540-3090

Attotneys for Petitioner

2

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

IN THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

Darrick Jackson, Mayor of the Town of Timmonsville,

Petitioner,

v.

Mark Sanford, Governor of the State of South Carolina and as Chairman and Ex -Officio Member of the State Budget and Control Board; Converse Chellis, Treasurer of the State of South Carolina; Richard Eckstrom, Comptroller General of the State of South Carolina; Hugh Leatherman, Chairman of the Finance Committee of the South Carolina Senate; Daniel T. Cooper, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the South Carolina House of Representatives, as Ex-Officio Members of the State Budget and Control Board; Frank Fusco, Executive Director of the State Budget and Control Board;

Glenn F. MCCOlIDcIl,

President Pro Tempore of the South Carolina Senate, and Robert W. Han-ell, Jr., Speaker

of the South Carolina House of Representati ves,

Respondents.

PETITION FOR ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Petitioner Darrick Jackson, as Mayor of the Town of Timmonsville, respectfully requests that

the South Carolina Supreme COUlt entertain the instant action in its original jurisdiction. A

Complaint for declaratory judgment is attached as Exhibit 1. Pursuant to Rule 245, SCACR,

Petitioner asserts that an urgent matter affecting the public interest is involved, and therefore, the

Court should exercise its original jurisdiction. See also S.C. Const. art. V, § 5; S.C. Code Ann. § 14-

3-310.

I. BACKGROUND

1. Veto 52

On June 3,2010, the General Assembly sent Respondent, Governor Mark Sanford ("the

Governor"), Bill H. 4657, the Annual Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 201 0-2011 ("the Bill"). The

Governor returned the Bill on June 9, 2010, with 107 separate vetoes. Of significance to the instant

action, the Governor issued Veto 52 which targeted funds appropriated to the State Budget and

Control Board ("the Board"). See Exhibit 2. Veto 52 reads as follows:

Veto 52

Part IA; Section 80A; I Pages 258 through 272; Budget and Control Board; (All General Fund line amounts); $25,234,009.00.

Our purpose with Veto 52 is to veto all items and sections that appropriate general funds to [the Board]. All items and sections that we are vetoing are identified on pages 258 through 272 and total $25,234,009 as identified on page 272 on theline "Total Funds Available" in general funds.

We are vetoing $25,234,009, the total amount of state general fund appropriations that [the Board] receives in this budget, because this agency has sufficient carryforward and other funds to maintain its operations in this fiscal year. The Board has over $1 billion in carry-forward funds, including approximately $60 million in unrestricted accounts. Additionally, the Board receives a total of $223,648,033 in other funds that it receives from state agencies in the form of rent, fees, and other charges. The Board and the General Assembly could also implement millions in

I Part lA, Section 80A of the Budget is included at Exhibit 3. 2

savings recommended by the GEAR Commission. We believe that using available funds and implementing cost-cutting measmes will sustain this agency easily over the next fiscal year.

(Emphasis added).

For fiscal year 2010-2011, the total appropriation to the Board by the General Assembly is

$248,882,042.00. Veto 52 specified that the Governor was vetoing only a monetary portion of that

total appropriation - an amount of$25,234,009.00. The explanation provided for in the Governor's

Veto 52 message on the one hand indicates that the veto affects "all items and sections" that

appropriate monies from the general funds to the Board. On the other hand, it.is clear from the veto

message that the Governor did not seek to eliminate the Board or its operations. Rather, the veto

sought to eliminate solely the $25,234,009.00 in funding that was to come from "general funds."

Although the Legislature overrode approximately half of the Governor's 107 vetoes, Veto 52

was sustained. As a result, the Board was without general funds money for the fiscal year beginning

July 1, 2010. Forreasons discussed infra, Veto 52 is unconstitutional.

2. The Transfer from the Rural Infrastructure Bank Trust Fund

On or about July 1,2010, the Governor and the Board's Executive Director, Respondent

Frank Fusco, approved a transfer of over $13 Million Dollars in order to provide stop-gap funding

for the Board. The Board explained the transfer in the following message which was posted to its

website' on July 2,2010:

The Governor and the Executive Director have endorsed the transfer of subfund 3482 RuralInfrastructure Bank in the amount of $13,295,390.64. The transfer is pursuant to legislated authorizing provisos 80A.38 and 89.87. A portion of these funds will be used for payroll and essential operating costs for the first quarter of the fiscal year. Balances in this sub fund have accumulated since its creation and there have never

2 See http://vrw,v.bcb.sc.gov/BCB/BCB-index.phtm. On a sidebar of the home page of the Board's website is a link entitled "Joint Flexibility and Reform Project" This hyperlink downloads a .pdf tile called "Vetokestoration l-I.:

3

been expenditures from the subfund.

See Exhibit 4 (hereinafter "Veto Restoration Message").

The Rural Infrastructure Bank "subfund" referenced by the Board is derived from the Rural

Infrastructure Fund ("RIF"), which itself was statutorily authorized by the Rural Development Act of

1996. The purpose of the RlF is outlined in S.C. Code Ann. § 12-10-85, which provides as follows:

(A) Funds received by the [Department of Revenue ] for the State Rurallnfrastructure Fund must be deposited in the State Rural Infrastructure Fund of the Council.3 The fund must be administered by the council for the purpose of providing financial assistance to local governments for infrastructure and other economic development activities including, but not limited to:

(1) training costs and facilities;

(2) improvements to regionally planned public and private water and sewer systems;

(3) improvements to both public and private electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications systems including, but not limited to, an electric cooperative, electrical utility, or electric supplier described in Chapter 27 of Title 58; or

(4) fixed transportation facilities including highway, rail, water, and air.

S.C. Code Ann. § 12-1 0-85 (emphasis added). Significantly, section 12-1 0-85(E) requires that the

Department of Revenue "retain unexpended or uncommitted funds at the close of the state's fiscal

year of the State and expend the funds in subsequent fiscal years for like purposes." The RIF is

funded from job development credits ("JDCs,,).4

3 "Council" means the Coordinating Council for Economic Development which is part of the Department of Commerce. See S.C. Code Ann. § 12-10-30. According to the South Carolina Department of Commerce website, this Council was established in 1986 by the General Assembly, and "was formed in response to a general need for improved coordination of economic development efforts by those state agencies involved in the recruitment of new business and the expansion of current enterprises throughout the state." See http://scconunerce.com/locate-sc/grantsincentives/discretionary-incentives; see also S.c. Code Ann. § 13-1-1720 (outlining the purpose and duties of the Council and stating that it "shall enhance the economic growth and development of the State through strategic planning and coordinating activities").

4 See S.C. Code Ann. § 12-10-80(E) (The Coordinating Council "shall certify to the [Department of 4

The Rural Infrastructure Bank Trust Fund - a fund separate from the RlF -- was legislatively

created by Proviso 64.21 in the Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2005-06. This same proviso,

although now found at Proviso 81.3, remains unchanged in the current appropriations bill. Proviso

81 .3 states:

81.3. (DaR: Rural Infrastructure Fund Transfer) Notwithstanding Section 12-10- 85, the Department of Revenue is authorized to deposit revenues from the Rural Infrastructure Fund in excess of $12 million dollars to the RuraJ Infrastructure Bank Trust Fund under the Budget and Control Board, Office of Local Government. Any revenues in excess of $17 million shall be deposited in the Rural Infrastructure Fund under the Department of Commerce, Coordinating Council.

See H. 4657, Part IB § 81.3. The Rural Infrastructure Bank Trust fund, established by this proviso, is

the same "subfund 3482" that the Governor and the Executive Director raided to transfer money to

the Board (although they referenced it as the "Rural Infrastructure Bank,,).5

Thus, the RIF is funded by JDCs pursuant to statute, see §§ 12-10-80 & -85, and if the RIF

exceeds $12 million, then funding of the Rural Infrastructure Bank Trust Fund is authorized by

Revenue J the maximum job development credit for each qualifying business. After receiving certification, the department shall remit an amount equal to the difference between the rnaximumjob development credit and the job development credit actually claimed to the State Rural Infrastructure Fund as defined and provided in Section 12-10-85."). The Department of Commerce website explains JDCs as follows:

A Job Development Credit (JDC) is a discretionary, performance-based incentive that rebates a portion of new employees' withholding taxes that can be used to address the specific needs of individual companies. JDCs are approved on a case-by-case basis by the S.C. Coordinating Council for Economic Development (CCED). To qualify, a company must meet certain business requirements and the amount a company receives depends on the company's pay structure and location.

See http://sccommerce. com/Jocate- sci grants- incenti ves/discreti onary- iucenti ves.

5 To further confuse matters, on May 26, 2010, a separate statute entitled the South Carolina Rural Infrastructure Act became effective. See S.c. Code Ann. §§ 11-50-10 et seq. This statute creates the South Carolina Rural Infrastructure Authority and also references a "Rural Infrastructure Fund." See § 11-50-30. Although the same nomenclature is used, this is not the same fund as the RIP created by § 12-10-85.

5

proviso - but only up to $5 million annually; any additional monies would stay in the RlF. Between

2005 and 2010, deposits were made into the Rural Infrastructure Bank Trust Fund and a balance of

over $13 million accwnulated. The Board is now using this legislatively-created trust fund -

. intended to provide financial assistance to local govenunents for infrastructure and economic

development - to pay for the Board's "payroll and essential operating costs." See Veto Restoration

Message, supra.

For reasons discussed infra, this transfer is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of

powers doctrine.

3. The Flexibility Provisos

The two "flexibility" provisos cited by the Board as authority for this transfer state as

follows, in pertinent part:

80A.38. CBCB: SCErS Flexibility) In addition to the flexibility authorized in provision 89.87 CGP: Flexibility), the Executive Director of the Budget and Control Board is directed to transfer and utilize funds from any other accounts within the agency in an effort to maintain critical development of infrastructure assets of the statewide SCErS implementation until further funding is appropriated by the General Assembly.

89.87. CGP: Flexibility) In order to provide maximum flexibility in absorbing the general fund reductions mandated in this act as compared to Fiscal Year 2008-09 general fund appropriations, agencies are authorized for FY 20 1 0-11 to spend agency earmarked and restricted accounts designated as "special revenue funds" as defined in the Comptroller General's records, to maintain critical programs previously funded with general fund appropriations. Any spending authorization for these purposes must receive the prior approval of the Office of State Budget and must be reported to the Governor, Senate Finance Conunittee, and the House Ways and Means Committee. The Comptroller General is authorized to implement the procedures necessary to comply with this directive. This provision is provided notwithstanding any other provision of law restricting the use of earned revenue ....

See H. 4657, Part IE §§ 80A38 & 89.87.

6

Petitioner believes the Legislature also committed a separation of powers violation by including these provisos in the Bill. As will be further discussed below, the ability to appropriate lies solely with the legislative branch, yet these provisos broadly (and inappropriately) delegate this authority to the Executive Branch.

4. The Town's Interest

Petitioner, as Mayor of the Town of Timmonsville ("the Town"), comes to this Court on behalf of the citizens of the Town he represents. Both the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) and the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been involved with monitoring the Town's water and waste water treatment systems because the Town is. out of compliance with applicable regulations. Indeed, the Town is subject to an ongoing consent order with the EPA and DHEC. The Town is in dire need of financial assistance to improve its public water systems; without 311 influx of funding to improve the Town's water infrastructure, the Town will not be able to get into compliance with the governing regulations. Therefore, Petitioner is particularly interested in monies appropriated by the Legislature for rural infrastructure development, specifically for the improvements of public water systems. See S.C. Code Ann. § 12-10-85. Accordingly, Petitioner feels especially aggrieved by the improper transfer of monies set aside for development of rural infrastructure.

II. RELIEF REQUESTED

Through this petition and the attached complaint, Petitioner seeks to have this Court issue a declaratory judgment that the Governor's Veto 52 is an invalid, and therefore unconstitutional, veto. See s.c. Canst. art. IV, § 21; Drummond v. Beasley, 331 S.C. 559, 503 S.E.2d 455 (1998). Furthermore, Petitioner seeks a declaratory judgment that the transfer of monies from the Rural

7

Infrastructure Bank Trust Fund to the general fund for the purpose of paying for the Board's payroll and other costs for the first quarter of fiscal year 2010-11 is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. See S.C. Const. art. I, § 8; State ex. reI. Condon v. Hodges, 349 S.C. 232, 562 S.E.2d 623 (2002). Thirdly, Petitioner requests a declaration that the Legislature improperly delegated its authority to appropriate state funds to the Executive Branch, which is also a separation of powers violation. See S.C. Const. art. I, § 8; State ex. reI. McLeod v. McInnis, 278 S.c. 307.295 S.E.2d 633 (1982).

Finally, Petitioner seeks an Order from this Court that: (1) because Veto 52 was unconstitutional, the funds provided for in Section 80A of the Bill be appropriated to the general fund; (2) the monies transferred to the general fund revert to the Rural Infrastructure Bank Trust Fund; and (3) the flexibility provisos are unconstitutional.

III. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IS JUSTIFIED

This Court should exercise its original jurisdiction and grant this petition because clearly an urgent matter affecting the public interest is involved. See Rule 245(a), SCACR (original jurisdiction is appropriate if "the public interest is involved, or if special grounds of emergency or other good reasons exist"); see also S.C. Const. art. V, § 5. "Only when there is an extraordinary reason such as a question of significant public interest or an emergency will this Court exercise its original jurisdiction." Key v. Currie, 305 S.C. 115, 116~ 406 S.E.2d 356, 357 (1991).

Urgent questions of significant public interest are presented by the instant petition. The allegations are that the Executive Branch has exceeded its veto power as well as violated the constitutional mandate of separation of powers. Moreover, the Legislature has also violated the separation of powers doctrine by delegating legislative authority to those in the Executive Branch.

8

Certainly, there is an extraordinary reason that this action should be heard in the Court's original

jurisdiction.

The Court has entertained similar challenges of this type in its original jurisdiction. See, U,

State ex. reI. Condon v. Hodges, 349 S.C. 232,562 S.E.2d 623 (2002) (Court accepts action in its

original jurisdiction where a separation of powers issue is raised); Drummond v. Beasley, 331 S.C.

559,503 S.E.2d 455 (1998) (Court decides case involving challenge to gubernatorial vetoes in its

original jurisdiction); State ex. reI. McLeod v. McInnis, 278 S.C. 307, 295 S.E.2d 633 (1982)

(original jurisdiction invoked to hear declaratory judgment action challenging the legislation creating

the Joint Appropriation Review Committee); State ex. reI. McLeod v. Edwards, 269 S.C. 75, 236

S.E.2d 406 (1977) (original jurisdiction granted in action brought challenging constitutionality of the

legislation creating the State Budget and Control Board).

The instant case is one of significant public interest, and the circumstances create a public

emergency regarding public funding. Moreover, this case involves critical issues related to the

proper operation of government - specifically, whether the constitutionally-mandated separation of

powers remains intact. Accordingly, the Court should accept the case in its original jurisdiction to

determine these significant issues of constitutional importance.

IV. PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO DECLARATORY JlJDGMENT

For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner is entitled to declaratory judgment on all three

causes of action outlined in the attached complaint.

1. Veto 52 is Invalid because it Exceeds the Line-Item Veto Authority Granted by the South Carolina Constitution

The Governor's Veto 52 exceeds the line-item veto power authorized by the State

9

Constitution because the veto was not directed at an item, section or subsection of the Bill. Instead,

the Governor's veto attempted to alter a section of the Bill by reducing the amount appropriated.

Because this effectively modified rather than nullified the legislation, the COUlt should declare the

veto invalid.

Article IV, section 21 of the South Carolina Constitution bestows general veto power on the

Governor. The Governor's veto power can only be exercised "when clearly authorized by the

constitution, and the language conferring it is to be strictly construed." Drummond v. Beasley, 331

S.C. at 564,503 S.E.2d at 457.

Regarding legislative bills which appropriate money, the State Constitution provides a very

specific type of veto power:

Bills appropriating money out of the Treasury shall specify the objects and purposes for which the same are made, and appropriated to them respectively their several amounts in distinct items and sections. If the Governor shall not approve anyone or more of the items or sections contained in any bill appropriating money, but shall approve of the residue thereof, it shall become a law as to the residue in like manner as if he had signed it. The Governor shall then return the bill with his objections to the items or sections of the same not approved by him to the house in which the bill originated.

S.C. Const. art. IV, § 21 (emphasis added). As this Court has aptly explained:

The Executive power of veto is ordinarily exercised only with respect to the whole of a bill or joint resolution but with reference to bills appropriating money from the State treasury the constitution expressly makes an exception to the rule and as to them the veto may go to any items or sections without impairing the residue.

Parker v. Bates, 216 S.c. 52, 71, 56 S.E.2d 723, 731 (1949). In both common parlance and the

language used by this Court, this limited type of veto power for appropriations bills is termed 'line-

item' veto power. See Drummond v. Beasley, 331 S.C. 559,503 S.E.2d 455; South Carolina Coin

10

Operators Ass'n v. Beasley, 320 S.C. 183, 186,464 S.E.2d 103, 104 (1995).

The Court has had occasion to determine what is meant by "items and sections" of an appropriations bill. In Coin Operators, this Court held that where the Governor had vetoed subsections of a permanent provision in the appropriations bill, the veto was proper. The Court stated that the Constitution's "requirement of itemization is to be given a common sense construction." Coin Operators, 320 S.c. at 187, 464 S.E.2d at 105. The COUli noted further that "[1 Jong established practice has great weight in interpreting constitutional provision[ s J relative to executive veto power," and as far back as 1949, subsections were upheld as appropriate targets of the line-item veto. rd. at 187-88,464 S.E.2d at 1 05 (citing and discussing Parker, supra). Accordingly, because the parts of the bill vetoed in Coin Operators were subsections, the Court upheld the veto as valid.

In Drummond, however, this Court was faced with the question of whether the Governor could veto sentences and phrases from an appropriation when those sentences and phrases were not distinct items, sections, or subsections. The COUli found that the veto "of sentences, words and phrases does not meet the common sense construction of an item or section" and therefore concluded the Governor "can only veto those parts labeled by the legislature as items or sections." Drummond, 331 S.c. at 564, 503 S.E.2d at 457. The Drummond Court explained that the Govemor'sveto power is the power to negate, rather than create, legislation. "By selectively striking a word, phrase, clause or sentence, the Governor creates legislation inconsistent with that enacted by the General Assembly." Id. at 564, 503 S.E.2d at 457 (emphasis added). Thus, because the Court found the challenged vetoes in Drummond would "effectively modify legislation rather than nullify

11

legislation," those vetoes were invalidated. rd. at 564,503 S.E.2d at 457.

Likewise, in the instant case, the Governor has with Veto 52 effectively modified legislation

rather than merely nullifying it Petitioner emphasizes that the Governor's veto did not strike out any

line-item within Part 80A; he merely requested that the Board locate $25,234,009.00 from some

place other than the general fund. Indeed, Veto 52 does not really negate any line items ~ instead,

it selectively strikes out a column of funding, i.e., those funds specifically from the general fund.

The Governor's highly selective editing improperly creates legislation inconsistent with that enacted

by the Legislature. See id. Thus, Veto 52 is an impermissible use of veto power under Article IV,

section 21 of the South Carolina Constitution.

Stated differently, the Governor simply "has no power to alter an appropriation in the sense

that he lines out an item and replaces it with his own, different amount." Rios v. Symington, 833

P.2d 20, 30 (Ariz. 1992) (emphasis in original). Yet that is precisely what Veto 52 seeks to

accomplish. The Governor's veto sought to transform a $248,882,042.00 appropriation into a

$223,648,033.00 appropriation. Because the power to make appropriations lies exclusively with the

Legislature, this creative use of veto power clearly falls outside the limited power outlined by the

State Constitution. See Drummond v. Beasley, supra (the Court must strictly construe the language

conferring veto power on the Governor).

Accordingly, since Veto 52 did not strike out any item or section, but merely modified

Section 80A, this Court must declare the Governor's veto invalid and unconstitutional.

2. The Executive Branch's Transfer from the Rural Infrastructure Bank Trust Fund Violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine.

When the Governor and the Board's Executive Director approved a transfer of over $13

12

million from the Rural Infrastructure Bank Trust Fund, they violated the constitutional mandate of separation of powers. Therefore, the Court should declare the transfer of funds unconstitutional.

The South Carolina Constitution proclaims that "[ijn the government of this State, the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the government shall be forever separate and distinct from each other, and no person or persons exercising the functions of one of said departments shall assl_lme or discharge the duties of any other." S.C. Const. art. I, § 8. A primary reason for separation of powers is "the desirability of spreading out the authority for the operation of the government to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of too few and provide a system of checks and balances." Edwards v. State, 383 S.C. 82, 90,678 S.E.2d 412, 416 (2009); accord State ex reI. McLeod v. McInnis, 278 S.C. 307,312,295 S.E.2d 633, 636 (1982). Under this system of checks and balances, the legislative department makes the laws, the executive department carries the laws into effect, and the judicial department interprets and declares the laws. Id.

The Legislature "has the duty and authority to appropriate money as necessary for the operation of the agencies of government and has the right to specify the conditions under which the appropriated monies shall be spent." Edwards v. State, 383 S.C. at 90, 678 S.E.2d at416 (2009); see also State ex. re1. Condon v. Hodges, supra; State ex. reI. McLeod v. McInnis, supra; S.c. Const, art. X, § 8 (money may be drawn from the State Treasury only pursuant to appropriations made by law). This duty lies exclusively within the legislative branch. As this Court has noted, "the General Assembly cannot delegate this legislative power even if it so desired." State ex reI. Condon v. Hodges, 349 S.C. at 246,562 S.E.2d at 631; accord State ex reI. McLeod v. McInnis, 278 S.C. at 317,295 S.E.2d at 639 ("Legislative authority may not be delegated. ").

In contrast, the Governor is charged with executing the law. S.C. Canst. art. IV, § 15 ("The 13

Governor shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."). The Governor, of course, plays a

critical role in the legislative process through the veto power conferred upon him. See S.C. Const.

art. IV, § 21.

In State ex reI. Condon v. Hodges, the Legislature passed the 2001 General Appropriations

Act which reduced the base-line budgets of the state's colleges and universities; but in an effort to

offset these reductions, the Appropriations Act also included a proviso directing the State Treasurer

to transfer $38,500,000 from the Extended Care Maintenance Fund to state colleges and universities.

The Governor thereafter vetoed the base-line budget reductions which returned the colleges and

universities to the prior year's funding level. The effect of the vetoes, however, put the budget out of

balance, and the Governor directed the colleges and universities to return the monies transferred to

them by the proviso.

The Court therefore was faced with the issue of whether "the combined actions of members

of the executive branch violated the separation of powers doctrine by having funds that the General

Assembly had specifically appropriated to the schools returned to the General Fund." State ex reL

Condon v. Hodges, 349 S.C. at 243,562 S.E.2d at 629. The Court held that the transfer had indeed

encroached upon the Legislature's exclusive power to transfer appropriated money:

[T]here is no provision in the South Carolina Code or Constitution which provides that the members of the executive branch have the ability to transfer funds from those to whom the General Assembly has appropriated money. In fact, there is clear legislative intent that the ability to transfer appropriated money will lie only with the General Assembly. See S.C. Code Ann. § 11-9-10 (1986) ("It shall be unlawful for any moneys to be expended for any purpose or activity except that for which it is specifically appropriated, and no transfer from one appropriation account to another shall be made unless such transfer be provided for in the annual appropriation act.") (emphasis added); S.C. Code Ann. § 11-9-20(A) (Supp. 2001) ("It is unlawful for an officer, clerk, or other person charged with disbursements of state funds appropriated by the General Assembly to exceed the amounts and

14

purposes stated in the appropriations, or to change or shift appropriations/rom one item to another. Transfers may be authorized by the General Assembly in the annual appropriation act for the State. ") (emphasis added).

State ex reL Condon v. Hodges, 349 S.C. at 245-46,562 S.E.2d at 630-31.

The straightforward rule announced by the Court in State ex reI. Condon v. Hodges is that the

authority to transfer appropriated money lies with the General Assembly and not the .Executive

Branch. Accordingly, the $13 million transfer from the Rural Infrastructure Bank Trust Fund to the

General Fund is patently unconstitutional.

3. The Executive Branch Cannot Rely on the Flexibility Provisos to Justify the Transfer from the Rural Infrastructure Bank Trust Fund Because Those Provisos Also Violate the Separation of Powers Doctrine.

Petitioner anticipates that respondents may argue the Flexibility Provisos outlined above

properly authorized the transfer of funds from the Rural Infrastructure Bank Trust Fund. This

argument, however, is untenable.

As discussed above, the duty to appropriate monies lies exclusively with the Legislative

branch, and this duty is nondelegable. See,~, State ex reI. Condon v. Hodges, supra; State ex reI.

McLeod v. Mchmis, supra.

Proviso 89.87 attempts to authorize agencies "to spend agency earmarked and restricted

accounts designated as 'special revenue funds' ... to maintain critical programs previously funded

with general fund appropriations." Proviso 80A.38 gives the Board's Executive Director the

authority to "transfer and utilize funds from any other accounts within the agency in an effort to

maintain critical development of infrastructure assets of the statewide SeErS implementation until

further funding is appropriated by the General Assembly."

Clearly, these "flexibility" provisos are unlawful delegations of legislative power to the

15

Executive Branch. As much as the General Assembly may wish to provide the Executive Branch with spending flexibility in these trouble economic times, the bottom line is that it is unconstitutional for the Legislature to hand over to the Executive Branch the ability to transfer appropriated monies. State ex reI. Condon v. Hodges, 349 S.C. at 246,562 S.E.2d at 631 ("the General Assembly cannot delegate this legislative power even if it so desired"); see also State ex reI. Mc.Leod v. McInnis, 278 S.C. at 317, 295 S.E.2d at 639 ("Legislative authority may not be delegated."); Gilstrap v. South Carolina Budget & Control Bd., 310 s.c 210, 216, 423 S.E.2d 101, 105 (1992) (the Legislature may not delegate its power to appropriate public funds).

"A statute which, in effect, gives an administrative body 'an absolute, unregulated, and undefined discretion" bestows arbitrary powers and is an unlawful delegation of legislative powers." Gilstrap, 310 S.C. at 216, 423 S.E.2d at 105 (citation omitted). It is clear in this case that by including the provisos discussed above, the Legislature effectively gave executive agencies unlimited discretion to move state funds around as they saw fit. This constitutes an unlawful delegation oflegislative powers, and therefore, the Executive Branch may not rely on these provisos to justify its transfer of money from the Rural Infrastructure Bank Trust Fund.

Accordingly, Petitioner requests that the Court declare these provisos unconstitutional.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Petitioner asks the Court to grant the Petition for original jurisdiction as well as the requested declaratory relief.

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] 16

Ju]y~, 2010

Respectfully submitted,

James E. Smith,1r. James E. Smith, Jr., P.A. 1422 Laurel Street

Columbia, South Carolina 29201 (803) 933-9800

Debra S . Tedeschi

The Tedeschi Law Firm, P .A. 1422 Laurel Street

Columbia, South Carolina 29201 (803) 540-3090

Attorneys for Petitioner

17

Exhibit 1 Complaint

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

IN THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

DarrickJackson, as Mayor of the Town of Timmonsville,

Petitioner,

v.

Mark Sanford, Governor of the State of South Carolina and as Chairman and Ex-Officio Member of the State Budget and Control Board; Converse Chellis, Treasurer of the State of South

. Carolina; Richard Eckstrom, Comptroller General of the State of South Carolina; Hugh Leatherman, Chairman of the Finance Committee of the South Carolina Senate; Daniel T. Cooper, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the South CarolinaHouse of Representatives, as Ex-Officio Members of the State Budget and Control Board; Frank Fusco, Executive Director of the State Budget and Control Board; Glenn F. McConnell,

. President Pro Tempore of the South Carolina Senate, and Robert W. Harrell, Jr., Speaker of the South Carolina House of Representati ves,

Respondents.

COMPLAINT

Petitioner Darrick Jackson, as Mayor of the Town of Timmonsville, by and

. .

through his undersigned counsel, respectfully complains of the Respondents herein and

alleges as follows:

PARTIES

1. Petitioner Darrick Jackson is Mayor of the Town of Timmonsville, which is located in

Florence County, South Carolina. Both the South Carolina Department 'of Health and

Environmental Control (DHEC) and the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

have been involved with monitoring the Town's water and waste water treatment systems

because the Town is out of compliance with applicable regulations. The Town is subject

to an ongoing consent order with the EPA and DHEC. The Town is therefore in need of

financial assistance to improve its public water systems.

2. Respondent Mark Sanford is Governor of the State of South Carolina and is also

Chairman and an Ex-Officio Member of the State Budget and Control Board ("the

Board"), a citizen of the State of South Carolina, and is sued in his representative

capacity as the Governor, Chairman and Ex-Officio member of the Board.

3. Respondent Converse Chellis is the Treasurer of the State of South Carolina as well as

an as Ex-Officio Member of the State Budget and Control Board, a Citizen of the State of

South Carolina, and.is sued in his representative capacity as Ex-Officio member of the

Board.

4. Respondent Richard Ec~strom is Comptroller General of the State of South Carolina as well as an as Ex-Officio Member of the State Budget ·and Control Board, a citizen ofthe

State of South Carolina, and is sued in his representative capacity as Ex-Officio member

of the Board.

2

5. Respondent Hugh Leatherman is Chairman of the Finance Committee of the South Carolina Senate and an as Ex-Officio Member of the State Budget and Control Board. a .citizen of the State of South Carolina, and is sued in his representative capacity as ExOfficio member of the Board.

6. Respondent Daniel T. Cooper is Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the South Carolina House of Representatives and an Ex-Officio Member of the State Budget and Control Board, a citizen of the. State of South Carolina; and is sued in his representative capacity as· Ex -Officio member of the Board.

7. Respondent Frank Fusco is Executive Director of the State Budget and Control Board, a citizen of the State of South Carolina, and is sued in his capacity as Executive Director. 8. Respondent Glenn F. McConnell is President Pro Tempore of the South Carolina Senate, a citizen of the State of South Carolina, and is sued in his representative capacity as President Pro Tempore of the South Carolina Senate.

9. Respondent Robert W. Harrell, Jr., is Speaker of the South' Carolina House of Representatives, a citizen of the State of South Carolina) and is sued in his representative capacity as Speaker of the South Carolina House of Representatives.

JURISDICTION

10. This Court has jurisdiction over the' parties and the causes of action asserted by Petitioner pursuant to its original jurisdiction under Rule 245, SCACR; S.C. Const. art. Y, § 5; and S.C. Code Ann. § 14-3-310 (1976).

11. This Court also has jurisdiction of this case pursuant to the Declaratory Judgments Act, S.C. Code Ann. 15-53-10 et seq.

3

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

12. On June 3, 2010, the General Assembly sent Governor Sanford Bill H. 4657, the annual appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010-2011 ("the Bill").

13. For fiscal year 2010-2011, the total appropriation to the State Budget and Control

" Board ("the Board}') by the General Assembly is $248,882,042.00.

14. The Governor returned the Bill on June 9, 2010, with 107 separate vetoes.

15. The Governor's Veto 52 sought to veto all items and sections that appropriate general funds to the State Budget and Control Board ("the Board"). Veto 52 specifically vetoed the general funds amount of $25,234,009, but not the remaining $223,648,033 in other funds appropriated by the General Assembly.

16. Veto 52 was sustained by the General Assembly. The Board was therefore without general funds money for the fiscal year beginning July 1,2010.

17. On or about July 1, 2010, the Governor and the Beard's Executive Director, respondent Frank Fusco, approved a transfer of over $13 million from the Rural Infrastructure Bank Trust Fund with the intention that these funds be used for the Board's payroll and essential operating costs for the first quarter of FY 2010-11.

18. Pursuant to Proviso 81. 3 of the Bill, the Rural Infrastructure Bank Trust Fund is funded from excess revenues deposited into the Rural Infrastructure Fund ("RIF"). The RIF is authorized by S.C. Code Ann. § 12-10-85, and the purpose of RIF monies is to provide financial assistance to local govenunents for rural infrastructure and other economic development activities, such as improvements to water and sewer systems.

19. The Bill also contains two Flexibility Provisos. Proviso 80A.38 authorizes the Board's Executive Director "to transfer and utilize funds from any other accounts within

4

the agency in an effortto maintain critical development of infrastructure assets of the

statewide SCElS implementation until further funding is appropriated by the General

Assembly."

20. Proviso 89.87 authorizes agencies "to spend agency earmarked and restricted

accounts ... to maintain critical programs previously funded with general. fund'

.appropriations. Any, spending authorization for these purposes must receive the .prior

approval of the Office of State Budget and must be reported to the Governor, Senate

Finance Committee, and the House Ways and Means Committee,"

21. The Governor's Veto 52 exceeds the limited veto power granted by the South

Carolina Constitution.

22. The transfer of money out of the Rural Infrastructure Bank Trust Fund and into the

general fund for the Board's essential operating costs violates the separation of ' powers

, . '

doctrine,

23. The General Assembly's attempt to delegate legislative powers via the Flexibility

Provisos also constitutes a separation of powers violation, and therefore, the Governor

and the Board's Executive Director may not rely on these provisos as authority for the

funds transfer.

FOR FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

24, Each of the above allegations is incorporated by reference into the cause of action,

25. Petitioner seeks, a declaratory judgment from this Court that Veto 52 IS

unconstitutional because it exceeds the limited veto power authorized by S,C. Const. art.

IV, § 21, in that it does not veto an item 01' section, but instead improperly modifies the

amount of the appropriation.

5

26. Accordingly, the Court should invalidate Veto 52 and restore the general funds appropriated by the General Assembly to the Board.

FOR SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

27. Each of the above allegations is incorporated by reference into the cause of action.

28. Petitioner seeks a declaratory judgment from this COUlt that the Executive Branch's transfer of funds from the Rural Infrastructure Bank Trust Fund is. a violation of the South Carolina separation of powers provision, found in S.C. Canst. art. I, § 8, because only the Legislature has the authority to appropriate money.

29, Accordingly, the Court should declare the fund transfer unconstitutional and order that these funds revert back to the Rural Infrastructure Bank Trust Fund.

FOR THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

30. Each of the above allegations is incorporated by reference into the cause of action.

31 .. Petitioner seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court that the General Assembly's inclusion of the Flexibility Provisos in the Bill constitutes a violation of the South Carolina separation of powers provision, found in S.C. Const. rut. J, § 8, because these provisos improperly delegate legislative authority ..

32, Accordingly. the Court should declare that the Flexibility Provisos unconstitutionally delegate legislative power to the Executive Branch) and therefore, the Executive Branch. cannot rely on the provisos as authorization for the fund transfer.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that the Court issue an Order granting the following relief:

A. Declaring Veto 52 invalid and unconstitutional.

6

B. Declaring.the transfer of funds from the Rural Infrastructure Bank Trust Fund

unconstitutional as it violates the separation of powers doctrine.

C. Declaring the Flexibility Provisos unconstitutional as they violate the

separation of powers doctrine.

D. Providing for such other and further declaratory relief, as may be just and

-proper.

James E. Smith, Jr. James E. Smith, Jr., P.A. 1422 Laurel Street

Columbia, South Carolina 29201 (803) 933-9800 .

Debra S. Tedeschi

The Tedeschi Law Firm, P.A. 1422 Laurel Street

Columbia, South Carolina 29201 . (803) 540~3090

Attorneys for Petitioner

'70 ..

July) .. 2010

7

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

IN THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

Darrick Jackson) as Mayor of the Town of Timmonsville,

Petitioner,

v ..

Mark Sanford, Governor of the State of South Carolina and as Chairman and :Ex-Officio· Member of the State Budget and

. Control Board; Converse Chellis, Treasurer of the State of South Carolina; Richard Eckstrom, Comptroller General of the State of South Carolina; Hugh Leatherman, Chairman of the Finance Committee of the South Carolina Senate; Daniel T. Cooper, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the South Carolina House of Representatives, as Ex-Officio Members of the State Budget and Control Board; Frank Fusco, Executive Director of the State Budget and Control Board;

Glenn F. McConnell,

President Pro Tempore of the

\ South Carolina Senate, and Robert W. Harrell, Jr., Speaker of the South Carolina House of Representatives,

Respondents,

AFFIDA VIT OF DARRICK JACKSON

Personally appeared before me the undersigned who, being first duly sworn, deposes and

says:

1. I am over eighteen (18) years of age and of sound mind.

2. I am the Mayor of the Town of Timmonsville in the State of South Carolina.

3. I haye reviewed the grounds set forth in the Petition and Complaint; to the best of my knowledge, the allegations are true and grounds exist for this Court to exercise its

original jurisdiction,

. .

FURTHER AFFIANT SA YETH NOT.

This:Z~ day of July. 2010.

Darrick Jackson

Sworn to and subscribed before me, This-<8"~aYOf~2010

2

Exhibit 2 Veto 52

(Pg. 20 & 21 of Governor's Veto Message on Bill H; 4657)

· being laid-off or furloughed, we are compelled to veto the budget increases for the Senate and the House.

Veto 50

Part lA, Section 73; Page 244, Lieutenant Covemor's Office, Section J. Administration; Personal Service; Unclassified Positions; $159,238.

We are vetoing $159,238 from the Lieutenant Governor's administrative personal services budget to eliminate funding for his security detail, which is required under Proviso 89.80. We are vetoing this proviso and its funding because these funds would be better spent on core government functions. As we said in previous years, former Lieutenant Governor Bob Peeler set the correct example when he refused his security detail, a practice that served his office and state taxpayers well for a decade. Based on the tight financial times we are facing, it would be

prudent to return to that model, -

Veto 51

Part lA, Section 79; Page 256; Election Commission, Section IV. Distribution to Subdivision; Aid to County-Electlon Commission; $449,017;

There are hundreds of boards and commissions across our state that do not provide a stipend. The $1,500 per member currently offered is not only at odds with the remuneration offered to others who serve across the state) but very difficult to justify given this year's budgetary climate.

Veto 52

Part lA, Section 80A; Pages 258 througb 272; Budget and Control Board; (All General Fund Une amounts); $25,234,009.

Our purpose with Veto 52 is to veto all items and sections that appropriate general funds to the Budget and Control. All items and: sections that we are vetoing are identified on pages 258 through 272 and total $25,234,009 as identified on page 272 on the line "Total Funds Available" in general funds.

We are vetoing $25,234,009. the total amount of state general fund appropriations that the Budget and Control Board receives in this budget; because this agency has sufficient carryforward and other funds to maintain its operations in this fiscal year. The Board has over $1 billion in carry-forward funds, including approximately $60 million in unrestricted accounts. Additionally, the Board receives a total of $223,648,033 in otherfunds that it receives from state agenciesin the form of rent, fees, and other charges. The Board and the General Assembly could also implement millions in savings recommended by the GEAR Commission. We believe that

20

using available funds and implementing cost-cutting measures will sustain this agency easily

over the next fiscal year, .

Veto 53

Part IB; Section 1.91; Page 313; Department of Education: Salary Increase

Suspension .

This proviso allows school districts to suspend the annual salary step increases for teachers in FY 2010-11; but protects salary increase for administrators. We are vetoing this proviso because we recently signed H. 4838, which froze the annual teacher and administrative salary increases for FY 2010-1 I. Given the House and Senate concurrence in what is our shared belief that it would be bad policy to protect salary increases for administrators while allowing cuts for teachers, we are vetoing this proviso. Not to do so would effectively negate the action just taken by the House and Senate.

Veto 54

Part IB; Section 21.44; Page 353; Department of Health and Human Services; Rural Hospital Grants

Veto 55

Part IB; Section 21.47; Page 353; Department of Health and Human Services; Community Health Plan Grants

Veto 56

. .

Part IB; Section 89.87; Page 466; General Provisions; FJexibility~ Lines 39-45

Veto 57

~

Part IB,.8ection 89.87; Page 467; General Provisions; FlexibiUty, Lines 1~2

Veto 58

Part IB, Section 89.87; Page 467; General Provisions; Flexibility, Lines 14~ 15

As we stated earlier, Part IV intends to fund additional maintenance of effort dollars for the state's Medicaid program. Given the uncertainty of Congress. appropriating additional FMAP funds, as envisioned by PartN, we have vetoed that section. However, this does not remove the need for additional dollars to ultimately fund the Medicaid program .. The vetoes listed above will remove pass-throughs and restrictions imposed on the Department of Health and Human Services that, we are told, reduce the amount of additional funding necessary to sustain the Medicaid program for the fiscal year. In an effort to reduce further the need for additional spending at some later date, we are vetoing these provisions to ensure that the Department of Health and Human Services can better manage the Medicaid program both this year and next.

Veto 59

Part fB; Section 35.4; Page 374; CU-PSA: Spring Dairy Exhibition

21

Exhibit 3

Bill H. 4657

SC State Budget (FiscaJ Year 2010-201l)

Part lA, S-ection 80A

South Carolina GeneralAssembly 118th Session, 2009-20]0

R293, H4657

STATUS INFORMATION General Bill .

Sponsors: Ways and Means Committee

Document Path: 1:\council\bills\bbm\9622htcIO.docx Introduced in the House on March 9,2010 Introducedin the Senate on April 20,2010

Last Amended on June 3, 2010·

Passed. by the General Assembly on June 3> 2010· Governor's Action: June 9,·2010, Certain items vetoed

Legislative veto action(s): Certain vetoes sustained; other vetoes overridden-

Summary: Appropriations Bill, 2010·20]] .

Part lA·Section gOA BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD Page 258

1 SEC. 80A

BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD TOTAL FUNDS

GENERAL FUNDS

I. OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR A. BOARD ADMINISTRATION

PERSONAL SERVICE:

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

173,380 173,380
(1.00) (1. 00)
154,248 45,351
(3.04 ) ( .90)
266,373 79,577
(2. 00) (.60)
20,560 20,560
614,561 318,868
(6.04) (2. SO)
109,812 25,390
724,373 344,258
(6.04) (2.50) CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS

OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES

OTHER OPERA'l'ING EXPENSES

TOTAL BOARD ADMINISTRATION

B. GENERAL COUNSEL PERSONAL SERVICE:· CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS

126,000 (3.00) 736,500 (6.00)

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

862,500 (9.00) 180,000

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES

TOTAL GENERAL COUNSEL

1,042,500 (9.00)

====~===================~======

TOTAL OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

1,766,873 (15.04)

344,258 (2. 50) .

===========================~~z~

II. OPERATIONS AND EXECUTIVE

TRAINING

A. AGENCY SUPPORT PERSONAL SERVICE:

CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS

232,608 (5.50) 113,632 (1.00 )

69,082 (2.35) 34(090

(.30 )

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

346,240 (6.50) 8,181 PAGE:

103,172 (2.65) 1,741

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES

258

1 SEC. 80A

BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD '.!'9TAL FUNDS

+

TOTAL AGENCY SUPPORT

B. INTERNAL OPERATIONS PERSONAL SERVICE; CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS

OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES

TOTAL INTERNAL OPERATIONS

TOTAL OPERATIONS AND EXECUTIVE TRAINING

III. INTERNAL AUDIT AND PERFORMANCE REVIEW PERSONAL SERVICE:

CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES

TOTAL IN'l'ERNAL AUDIT AND PERFORMANCE REVIEW

IV. BUDGET AND ANALYSES DIVISION A. OFFICE OF STATE BUDGET PERSONAL SERVICE:

CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS

OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

GENERAL FUNDS

354,421 (6 .. 50)

104,913 (2.65.)

1,356,302 (36.95) 339,309 (3.01) 92,754

395,459 (10.98) 101,793

( . 9q) 27,826

1/788;365 (39.96) 1,339,749

3,128,114 (39.96)

31482,535 (46.46)

525,078 (11 . 88) 783,250

1,308,328 (11.88)

1,413,241 (14.53)

=======~~~=============~~~~====

303,940 67,178
(6.00) (1.80)
303,940 67,178
(6.00) (1. 80)
51,015 1,270 =================~======~===~==

354,955 (6.00)

1·,190,429 (21.83) 317,863 (3.99) 60,865

68,448 (1. 80)

1,190,429 (21.83) 317,863 (3,99) 60,865

1,569,l57 (25.82) PAG.E:

1/569,157 (25.82)

259

1 SEC. BOA

BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD TOTAL FUNDS

GENERAL FUNDS

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES

258,885

258,885

TOTAL OFFICE OF STATE BODGET

1,828,042 (25.82)

1,828,042 (25.82)

B. OFFICE OF RESEARCH & STATISTICS

1. ADMINISTRATION PERSONAL SERVICE:

CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

366,350 183,833
(9.00) (4.70)
122,170 85,51~·
(1. 00) ( . 70)
488,520 269,352
(10.00) (5.40)
193,865 28,083
682,385 297,435
(lO.OOl. (5.40 ) UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES

TOTAL ADMINISTRATION

~======~==~========~~~=========

2. ECONOMIC RESEARCH PERSONAL SERVICE:

CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

234,915 234,915
(4.00) (4.00 )
121,8.33 121,833
(1.00) (1. 00)
356,748 356,748
(5.00) (5.00)
34,730 34,730
391,478 391,478
(5.00) (5.00) UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES

TOTAL ECONOMIC RESEARCH

==========~================~~==

3. HEALTH AND DEMOGRAPHIC STATISTICS

PERSONAL SERVICE:

CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES

1,5.57,932 475,968
(28.00) (10.00)
771,667
2,329,599 475,968
(28.00) (10.00)
1,203,683 160 f 4 69
3,533,282 636,437
(28.00) (10.00) TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES

TOTAL HEALTH AND DEMOGRAPHIC STATISTICS

PAGE; 260

BU.DGET AND CONTROL BOARD TOTAL FUNDS

GENERAL FUNDS

4. DIGITAL CARTOGRAPHY PERSqNAL SERVICE; CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES

TOTAL DIGITAL CARTOGRAPHY

5. GEODETIC AND MAPPING SURVEY PERSONAL SERVICE:

CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

OTHER OPERA'l'ING.EXl?ENSgS SPECIAL ITEM:·.

MAPPING

TOTAL SPECIAL ITEMS

'I'OTAL GEODETIC AND MAPPING SURVEY

6. SUCCESSFUL CHILDREN'S PROJECT

PERSONAL SERVICE:

UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS

OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES

TOTAL SUCCESSFUL CHILDREN'S PROJECT

TOTAL OFFICE OF RESEARCH &

91,871 91,871
(3.00) (3.00)
91,871 91,871
(3.00) 0.00)
63,100 63,100
154,971 154,971
(3. 00) . (3.00) ===============================

459,793 404,833
(10.00) (.10.00)
61/563
521,356 404,833
(10.00) (10. ·00)
392,972 50,436
195,831 195,831
195,831 195,831
1,110,159 651,100
(10. 00) (10.00) ==========================~===~

119,603 (1. 00) 94,639

214,242 (1.00) 98; 292

312,534 (1. 00)

===================~=~=~=====~=

STATISTICS

C. BOARD OF·ECONOMIC ADVISORS

6,184,809 (57.00)

2,131,421 (33.10)

==;.-====-==========.=~~~~,:;;::=========

PAGE: 261

1 SEC. eOA

BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD TOTAL FUNDS

GENERAL FUNDS

PERSONAL SERVICE:

CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES

SPECIAL ITEMS:

CHAIRMAN'S ALLOWANCE APPOINTEE ALLOWANCE

TOTAL SPECIAL ITEMS

TOTAL BOARD OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS

D. OFFICE OF HUMAN RESOURCES 1. ADMINISTRATION

PERSONAL SERVICE:

CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS

• TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES

TOTAL ADMINISTRATION

2. HUMAN RESOURCE CONSULTING PERSONAL SERVICE:

CLASSIFIED POSI'l'IONS

OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES

TOTAL PERSONAL:SERVICE

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES

TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCE CONSULTING

294,609 294,609
(4.00) (4,00 )
294,609 294,609
(4.00) (4,00)
26,334 26,334
10,000 10,'000
16,000 16,000
26,000 26,000
346,943 346,943
(4,00) (4.00) 207,662 207,662
(4.00) (4. 00)
116,984 116,984
p.OO) (1. 00)
3-24,646 324,646
(5.00) (5.0.0.)
56,500 56,500.
381,146 381,146
(5.00.) (5.0.0) ============~:=======':::::;~=='=!=:=:====

1,0.11,681 (20.17) 3,00.0

1,0.11,681 (20..17) 3,000

1,014,681 (20.,17) 366,60.3

1,014,681 (20.17 ) 366,603

1,381,284 (20.17)

1,381,284 (20.17)

3. HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PERSONAL SERVICE:

CL~SSIFIED POSITIONS

1 SEC. eOA

=======================~~===~==

408,530 (11.00) PAGE: 262

87,800 (4.75 )

BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD 'J.'OTAL FUNDS

GENERAL FUNDS

UNCLASSIFTED POSITIONS

OTHER PERSONAL SERVrCES

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES

TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMEN'r SERVIcES .

TOTAL OFFICE OF HUMAN RESOURCES

E. CONFEDERATE RELIC ROOM & MILITARY MUSEUM

PERSONAL SERVICE:

CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

ONCLASSIFIED POSITIONS

OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES

TOTAL S.C. CONFEDERATE RELIC ROOM AND MILITA

TOTAL BUDGET AND ANALYSES DIVISION

V. DIVISION OF GENERAL SERVICES A. BUSINESS OPERATIONS PERSONAL SERVICE

CLASSIFIED POSl'l'IONS

UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS

98,715 (1.00)

98,715 (1. 00) 1,202,625

1,709,870 (12.00) 240,237

186,515 (5.75) 30,237

1,950,107 (12.00)

216,752 . (5.75)

3,712,537 (37.17)

1,979,182 (30.92)

219,000 219,000
(7.00) (7.00)
77,000 77,000
(1.00) (1. 00)
10,·000 10,000
306,000 306,000
(8.00) (8.00)
428~882 370,782
734,882 676,782
(8.00) (8. 00) 12,807,213 (131.99)

6,962,370 (102.14)

700,754 (15.00) 215,011

OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES

(2. 00) 108,640

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

1,024,405 (17.00) 493,136

PAGE: 263

'OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES

1 SEC. 80A

BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD TOTAL FUNDS

GENERAL FUNDS .

+

TOTAL BUSINESS OPERATIONS

1,517,541 (17.00)

8. FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 1. FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

PERSONAL SE~VICE;

CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

4,221,378 (159.13) 138,949. (1.00} 186,060

UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS

OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

11,546,387 (160.13) 15,179,316

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES SPECIAL ITEMS:

CAPITAL COMPLEX RENT STATE HOUSE MAINT & OPERATIONS & RENOVATI

800,000

800,000

700,000

700,000

TOTAL SPECIAL ITEMS PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS:

PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS

1,500,000

1,500,000

3,000,000

TOTAL PERM IMPROVEMENTS DEBT SERVICE

PRINCIPAL - LOAN NOTE INTEREST - LOAN NOTE

3,000,000

TOTAL DEBT SERVICE

109,379

TOTAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

24,335,082 (160.13)

1,500,000

==============~=~~=~~~~~~~~~===

TOTAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

24,335,082 (160.13)

C. AGENCY SERVICES 1. SURPLUS PROPERTY

P£RSONAL SERVICE:

CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

UNCLASSIFIEb POSITIONS

580,382 (23,00) 19,090 (,23) 132,059

OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES

731,531 (23,23) 641,500

PAGE: 264

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES

1 SEC. 80A

BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD· TOTAL FUNDS

GENEimL FUNDS·

+

TOTAL SURPLUS PROPERry

1,373,031 (23.23)

2. INTRA STATE MAIL PERSONAL SERVICE:

CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS

232,503 (14.00) 4,980 (.06) 267,725·

OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

505,2.08 (14.06) 380;200

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES

TOTAL INTRA STATE MAIL

885,408 (14.06)

=====~=~=~~====================

3. PARKING PERSONAL SERVICE:

CLASSIFIED POSITIONS.

UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS

89,209 (4.25) 2,325 (.02)

24,919 (3.25)

TOTAl, PERSONAL SERVICE

91,534 (4.27) 271,770

24,919 (3.25) 96,895

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES

TOTAL PARKING

363,304 (4.27)

121,814 (3.25)

===========~~=~~~==============

4. P.RINT SHOP PERSONAL SERVICE:

CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS

1.50,335 (7.00) 3,320 (.04 )

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES DEBT· SERVICE

PRINCIPAL

INTEREST

153,655 (7.04 ) 418,021

13,849 701

TOTAL DEBT SERVICE

14,550

TOTAL PRINT SHOP

586,226 (7.04 )

~==~============~=~============

PAGE; ·265

.1 SEC. BOA

. BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD TOTAL FUNDS

GENERAL FUNDS

5. STATE FLEET MANAGEMENT PER$ONAL SERVICE:

CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

1,107,017 (34.97)

UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS

(.65)

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

1,107,017 (35.62) 2.1,940,694

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES DEBT SERVICE:

PRINCIPAL INTEREST

3,603,904 305,935

TOTAL DEBT SERVICE

3,909,839.

TOTAL STATE FLEET MANAGEMENT

26,957,550 (35.62)

========~====~~================

TOTAL AGENCY SERVICES

30,165,519 (84.22)

121,814 (3.25)

====~=~=~=~=~=======~======;===

D. STATE BUILDING & PROPERTY

SERVICES

PERSONAL SERVICE:

CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS

290,919 (9.00) 133,575 (1. 56)

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

424,494 (10.56) 320,739

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES

TOTAL STATE BUILDING &

PROPERTY SERVICES

745,233 (10.56)

====~~====================~=~~~

TOTAL DIVISION OF GENERAL SERVICES

56,763,375 (271.91)

VI. PROCUREMENT SERVICES

DIVISION

PERSONAL SERVICE:

CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

3,012,083 (61.99) 170,438

(1. 50) PAGE: 266

UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS

1 SEC. aOA

BUDGET AND CONTROL ·BOARD TOTAL FUNDS

OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES

14,365

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES

3,196,886 (63 .. 49) 954,565

1,621,814 (3.25)

905,917 (19.99) 115,776

(1. 00)

GENERAL FUNDS

1,021,693· (20.99) 163,799

~~===~===================~~~=~~

TOTAL PROCUREMENT SERVICES DivISION

4,151,451 (63.49)

1,185,492 (20.99)

==~============================

VII. INSURANCE AND GRANTS DIVISION

A. OFFICE Of INSURANCE RESERVE fUND

PERSONAL SERVICE:

CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

3,012,609 (58.25.) ·278,106 .(2.35) 18,360

UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS

OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

3,309,075 (60.60) 3,549,873

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES

TOTAL OFFICE OF INSURANCE RESERVE FUND

6,858,948 . (60.60)

~==============================

B. EMPLOYEE INSURANCE PERSONAL SERVICE:

CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

4,499,838 (85.44) 318·,502 (2.45)

UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS

OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES SPECIAL ITEMS:

ADOPTION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

TOTAL SPEC.IAL ITEMS

TOTAL EMPLOYEE INSURANCE

C. 'OFFICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMEN')'

1 SEC. 80A

240,000

5,058,340 (87.89) 5',037,025

500,000

500,000

10,595,365 (87: 89)

PAGE: 267

BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD TOTAL FUNDS

1. ADMINISTRATION PERSONAL SERVICE:

CLASSIFI'ED POSI'I'IONS

UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

OTHER OPERATING ~XPENSES SPECIAL I 1'EMS :.

TOBACCO SETTLEMENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUND

LOCAL GOV'l' GRANTS PROGRAM

TOTAL SPECIAL ITEMS

TOTAL ADMINISTRATION

2. STATE REVOLVING FUND A. LOAN OPERATIONS PERSONAL SERVICE:

CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES

TOTAL LOAN OPERATIONS

4,502 (2,00) 42,681 (1. 50)

GENERAL FUNDS

4,502 (2.00) 42,681 (1.50)

47 r 183 (3.50) 105,000

3,500,000 1,860rOOO

47,183 (3.50)

. L, 860, 000

5,360,000

1,860,000

.5r512r183 (3.50)

1,907,183 (3.50)

========~======================

366,000 (.5.80) 64,000 (1. 00)

430,000 (6.80) 175rOOO

605,000

B: LOANS SPECIAL ITEMS:

LOANS

TOTAL SPECIAL ITEMS

TOTAL LOANS

TOTAL STATE REVOLVING FUND

3. se RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE BANK TRUST FUND

SPECIAL ITEMS:

se RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE FUND

(6.80)

1,550,000

1,050,000

11550,000

1,550,000

1,050,000

2,1551000 (6.80)

1,050,000

====7~==========~==========~===

15,000

TOTAL SPECIAL ITEMS 15,000 15,000

PAGE: 2.68

1 SEC. BOA BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD

TOTAL FUNDS GENERAL FUNDS

+

TOTAL SC RURAL

INFRASTRUCTURE BANK TRUST FU

TOTAL OFFICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

D. ENERGY OFFICE

1. ENERGY PROGRAM PERSONAL SERVICE:

CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS

OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES ALLOC MUNICIPALITIES ALLOC CNTY-UNRESTRICTED ALLOC SCHOOL DIST

ALLOC OTHER STATE AGENCIES DISTRIBUTION TO SUBDIVISIONS; ALLOC OTHER ENTITIES

TOTAL DIST SUBDIVISIONS

TOTAL ENERGY PROGRAM

·15,000

==~~~====~~~====~==============

7 16821183 (10.30)

2,972,183 (3.50)

~;:-;~:~=========~===== ============= =

8151231 (13.30)

972,525 (13.90) 5,248,441 2,000,000 5,000,000

20,5001000 10,613,474

L 531, 500

39,644,974

45,865,940

(13.90) .

2. RADIOACTIVE WASTE PERSONAL SERVICE:

CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

101,689 (2.65)

UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS

OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES

(.50) 33,104

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES

134,793 (3.15) 150,000

284,793 (3.15)

TOTAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE

==~===~====~===================

TOTAL ENERGY OFFICE

46,150,733 (17.05)

====~~~~=~~~===~===============

PAGE: 269

1 SEC. BOA

BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD TOTAL FUNDS

GENERAL FUNDS

TOTAL INSURANCE & GRANTS DIVISION

71,287,229 (175.84)

2,972,183 (3.50)

==~=======~===================~

VIII. DIV. OF STATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY A. SUPPORT SERVICES PERSONAL S8RVICE:

CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS

1,305,459 (49. 00) 215,796 (2.00) 85,476

OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

L 606, 731 (51.00) 1,469,283

OTBER OPERATING EXPENSES

TOTAL SUPPORT SERVICES

3,076,014 (51. oo:

B. DSIT OPERATIONS PERSONAL SERVICE:

CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS

6,584/953 (186.00) 120,788 (1. 00) 556,742

OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

7,262,483 (187.00) 27,978,875

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES SPECIAL ITEMS:

SERVICE CONTRACT 800MHZ SCHOOL TECHNOLOGY ,

1,261,064 16,000,000

129,176

1,261,064

TOTAL SPECIAl .. ITEMS

17,'261,064

TOTAL DSIT OPERATIONS

52,502,422 (187.0P)'

1,261,064

1,390[240

c. rr PLANNING & MANAGEMENT SERVICES

~~========~=~======~~===~=~====

PERSONAL SERVICE:

CLASSIFIED POSITION&

UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS

4,343,488 3,292,125

(99.50) (63.50)

116,951 116,951

(1.00) (1.00)

PAGE; 270

1 SEC. aOA

BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD TOTAL FUNDS

OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES

241,982

GENERAL FONDS

200,000

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

tl,702,~21 (100.50) 2,866,619

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES DEBT SERVICE:

3,609,076 (64.50) '2,434,385

TOTAL IT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES

7,569,040 (100.50)

6,043,461 (64.50)

TOTAL DIVISION OF STATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOG

63,147,476 (338.50)

7,433[701 (64.50)

===============================

IX. BC RETIREMENT SYSTEMS PERSONAL SERVICE:

CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

8,680[777

(182.00) 947,331 (1O.00) 272,829

UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS

OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICE

9,900,937 (192.00) '7,794,432

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES

TOTAL SC RETIREMENT SYSTEMS

17,695,369 (192.00)

===============================

X. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

C. STATE EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS

17,425,566

3,232,502

. 'TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS

17,425,566

3,232,502

TOTAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

17,425,566

3,232,502

XI. NON-RECURRING APPROPRIATIONS

TOTAL NON-RECURRING

=~========~==~~========p=~~~~~~

BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD.

PAGE: 271

1 SEC. BOA

BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD TOTAL FUNDS

GENERAL FUNDS

T TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE

TOTAL AUTHORIZED FTE POSITIONS

248,882,042 (1,241.23)

25,234,009 (213.21)

=~====~=~============~=========

PAGE; 272

II.-·~ •.•• ·.~· .• ·~····.~-~.·.· .•...•. ··:'-· .. :· ......• : .. .- :.: :.-.~ :.~::::.- .. -.

;=========:.:=:; ::.::: .. _:::: ::.:.; :.:_:: .. ":.::: .. _:::; = ~ ' ~ """" _~""'''''h _ __ ..

Exhibit 4

"Veto Restoration Message"

· / . .

The Governor and the E'xecutlve Director have endorsed the transfer of subfund 3'182 Rural

Infrastructure Bank In the amount of $13,295,390,64. The transfer Is pursuant to legislated authorizing provlsos·SOA.38 and 89.87. A portion of these funds will be used for payroll and essential operating costs for the tlrst querter of the fiscal year. Balances In this subfund have accumulated since' Its creation and then~ have never been expenditures from the subfund.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

IN THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

Darrick Jackson, Mayor of the Town of Timmonsville,

Petitioner,

v.

Mark Sanford, Governor of the State of South Carolina and as Chairman and Ex-Officio Member ofthe State Budget and Control Board; Converse Chellis, Treasurer of the State of South Carolina; Richard Eckstrom, Comptroller General of the State of South Carolina; Hugh Leatherman, Chairman of the Finance Committee of the South Carolina Senate; Daniel T. Cooper, Chairman of the Ways and Means Conunittee of the South Carolina House of Representatives, as Ex-Officio Members of the State Budget and Control Board; Frank Fusco, Executive Director of the State Budget and Control Board;

Glenn F. McConnell,

President Pro Tempore of the South Carolina Senate, and Robert W.HarreU, Jr., Speaker of the South Carolina House of Representatives,

Respondents.

CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL

The undersigned hereby certifies that the petition for original jurisdiction complies with

Rules 240 and 245, SCACR.

Respectfully submitted,

July 30,2010

James E. Smith, JT. James E. Smith, Jr., P.A. 1422 Laurel Street

Columbia, South Carolina 29201 (803) 933-9800

Debra S. Tedeschi

The Tedeschi Law Film, P.A. 1422 Laurel Street

Columbia, South Carolina 29201 (803) 540-3090

Attorneys for Petitioner

2

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

IN THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

Darrick Jackson, Mayor of the Town of Timmonsville,

Petitioner,

v.

Mark Sanford, Governor of the State of South Carolina and as Chairman and Ex-Officio Member of the State Budget and Control Board; Converse Chellis, Treasurer of the State of South Carolina; Richard Eckstrom, Comptroller General of the State of South Carolina; Hugh Leatherman, Chairman of the Finance Committee of the South Carolina Senate; Daniel T. Cooper, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the South Carolina House of Representatives, as Ex-Officio Members of the State Budget and Control Board; Frank Fusco, Executive Director of the State Budget and Control Board;

Glenn F. McConnell,

President Pro Tempore of the South Carolina Senate, and Robert W. Harrell, Jr., Speaker of the South Carolina House of Representati ves,

Respondents.

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, THE UNDERSIGNED Attorney, of the Tedeschi Law Finn, P.A., attorney for Petitioner, do hereby certify that I have served all counsel in this action with a copy of the pleading(s) hereinbelow specified by having a copy hand delivered to the following addressees):

Pleadings:

Notice of Petition for Original Jurisdiction Notice of Complaint

Parties Served:

The Honorable Henry D. McMaster Attorney General

State of South Carolina Rembert C. Dennis Bldg. Columbia, SC 29201

Executive Director Frank Fusco

South Carolina Budget and Control Board 1200 Senate Street

6th Floor Wade Hampton Building Columbia, SC 29201

The Honorable Robert W. Harrell, Jr. Speaker of the House

South Carolina House of Representatives 506 Blatt Bldg.

Columbia, SC 29201

The Honorable Glenn F. McConnell President Pro Tempore

South Carolina Senate

101 Gressette Bldg.

Columbia, SC 29201

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

2

July 30, 2010

Respectfully submitted,

James E. Smith, Jr. James E. Smith, Jr., P.A. 1422 Laurel Street

Columbia, South Carolina 29201 (803) 933-9800

Debra S. Tedeschi

The Tedeschi Law Firm, P.A. 1422 Laurel Street

Columbia, South Carolina 29201 (803) 540-3090

Attorneys for Petitioner

3