Complaints Resolved

Based upon the evidence presented and the filing of the required forms, the State Ethics Commission determined that the Respondent Patricia Pringle had complied with the disclosure requirements of the Ethics Reform Act of 1991; however, the Respondent Patricia Pringle had not complied with the payment of the late filing penalty.

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it was ordered that the Respondent Patricia Pringle pay the reduced late-filing penalty for failure to file her 2003 Statement of Economic Interests and four quarterly Campaign Disclosure forms.

It was further ordered, pursuant to Section 8-13-320, a Judgment be entered against the 
Respondent Patricia Pringle; provided, however, the Judgment would be suspended upon 
Respondent's payment of the late-filing penalty within six months after receipt of the order.

It was further ordered by the Commission that the Clerk of Court of the County in which Respondent Patricia Pringle was last known to reside enter the Order in its Judgment Rolls, without cost to the State Ethics Commission upon the Commission's filing of same with the Clerk of Court's Office.  Respondent Pringle paid the reduced late filing penalty on February 17, 2004.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

An investigation was conducted by the State Ethics Commission which found that a violation had not occurred.

Based upon evidence presented, the State Ethics Commission determined that there was not probable cause to indicate that the Respondent, Inez Brown-Crouch, violated Section 8-13-700(A), (B) and 8-13-100(11)(B), S.C. Code Ann., 1976, as amended.  The Commission dismissed the charges in accordance with Section 8-13-320(10)(i), Code of Laws for South Carolina , 1976, as amended, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

An investigation was conducted by the State Ethics Commission which found that a violation had not occurred.

Based upon evidence presented, the State Ethics Commission determined that there was not probable cause to indicate that the Respondent, Jane McMackin, violated Section 8-13-765(A), S.C. Code Ann., 1976, as amended.  The Commission has therefore dismissed the charges in accordance with Section 8-13-320(10)(i), Code of Laws for South Carolina , 1976, as amended, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

An investigation was conducted by the State Ethics Commission which found that a violation had 
not occurred.

Based upon evidence presented, the State Ethics Commission determined that there was not 
probable cause to indicate that the Respondent, Caroline Rhodes, violated Section 8-13-700(B), 
S.C. Code Ann., 1976, as amended.  The Commission dismissed the charges in accordance with 
Section 8-13-320(10)(i), Code of Laws for South Carolina, 1976, as amended, and the rules and 
regulations promulgated thereunder.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

An investigation was conducted by the State Ethics Commission which found that a violation had 
not occurred.
Based upon evidence presented, the State Ethics Commission determined that there was not 
probable cause to indicate that the Respondent, Robyn Lee, violated Section 8-13-765(A), S.C. 
Code Ann., 1976, as amended.  The Commission therefore dismissed the charges in accordance 
with Section 8-13-320(10)(i), Code of Laws for South Carolina, 1976, as amended, and the rules 
and regulations promulgated thereunder.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

An investigation was conducted by the State Ethics Commission which found that a violation had 
occurred.

Based upon the evidence presented and the filing of the required form, the State Ethics 
Commission determined that the Respondent Ezell G. Middleton had complied with the disclosure 
requirements of the Ethics Reform Act of 1991; however, the Respondent Ezell G. Middleton had 
not complied with the payment of the late filing penalty.

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it was ordered that the 
Respondent Ezell G. Middleton pay the reduced late-filing penalty for failure to file a pre-election 
Campaign Disclosure form timely.

It was further ordered, pursuant to Section 8-13-320, a Judgment be entered against the 
Respondent Ezell G. Middleton; provided, however, the Judgment would be suspended upon 
Respondent’s payment of the late-filing penalty within thirty days after receipt of the order.

It was further ordered by the Commission that the Clerk of Court of the County in which 
Respondent Ezell G. Middleton was last known to reside enter the Order in its Judgment Rolls, 
without cost to the State Ethics Commission upon the Commission's filing of same with the Clerk of 
Court's Office.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

An investigation was conducted by the State Ethics Commission which found that a violation had 
occurred.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the State Ethics Commission 
determined based upon a preponderance of evidence that Respondent Virginia S. Sanders was in 
violation of the Section 8-13-1110 for her 2003 Statement of Economic Interests form; and 
therefore, Respondent Virginia S. Sanders was publicly reprimanded and a fine was assessed, in 
addition to the late-filing penalty.

It was further ordered, pursuant to Section 8-13-320, a Judgment shall be entered against 
Respondent; provided, however, the Judgment would be suspended upon Respondent filing her 
2003 Statement of Economic Interests form, her payment of the late-filing penalty and her 
payment of a fine within thirty days after receipt of this order.

It was further ordered by the Commission that the Clerk of Court of the County in which 
Respondent was last known to reside enter the Order in its Judgment Rolls, without cost to the 
State Ethics Commission upon the Commission's filing of same with the Clerk of Court's Office.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

Based upon the evidence presented and the filing of required form, the State Ethics Commission 
has determined that the Respondent, Joseph E. Summey, had complied with the disclosure 
requirements of the Ethics Reform Act of 1991; however, the Respondent, Joseph E. Summey, had 
not complied with the payment of the late filing penalty.

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it was ordered that Respondent 
Joseph E. Summey   pay the late-filing penalty for failure to timely file his 2003 Statement of 
Economic Interests form.

It was further ordered,  pursuant to Section 8-13-320 ( ) (Supp. 2002), a Judgment in the amount 
be entered against  Respondent Joseph E. Summey; provided, however, the Judgment would be 
suspended upon  Respondent's payment of the late-filing penalty  within thirty days after receipt of 
the order.

It was further ordered by the Commission that the Clerk of Court of the County in which 
Respondent Joseph E. Summey was last known to reside enter the Order in its Judgment Rolls, 
without cost to the State Ethics Commission upon the Commission's filing of same with the Clerk of 
Court's Office.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

An investigation was conducted by the State Ethics Commission which found that a violation had 
occurred.

Based upon the evidence presented and the filing of required form, the State Ethics Commission 
determined that the Respondent, James S. Russell, had complied with the disclosure requirements 
of the Ethics Reform Act of 1991; however, the Respondent, James S. Russell, had not complied 
with the payment of the late filing penalty.  Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and 
Conclusions of Law, it was ordered that Respondent James S. Russell   pay the late-filing penalty 
for failure to timely file his 2003 SEI.

It was further ordered,  pursuant to Section 8-13-320 ( ) (Supp. 2002), a Judgment be entered 
against  Respondent James S. Russell; provided, however, the Judgment would be suspended 
upon  Respondent's payment of the late-filing penalty  within thirty days after receipt of the order.

It was further ordered by the Commission that the Clerk of Court of the County in which 
Respondent James S. Russell was last known to reside enter the Order in its Judgment Rolls, 
without cost to the State Ethics Commission upon the Commission's filing of same with the Clerk of 
Court's Office.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

An investigation was conducted by the State Ethics Commission which found that a violation had 
occurred.

Based upon the evidence presented and the filing of required form, the State Ethics Commission 
determined that the Respondent, Kerry D. Singleton, had complied with the disclosure 
requirements of the Ethics Reform Act of 1991; however, the Respondent, Kerry D. Singleton, had 
not complied with the payment of the late filing penalty.

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it was ordered that Respondent 
Kerry D. Singleton   pay the late-filing penalty for failure to timely file his 2003 Statement of 
Economic Interests form.

It was further ordered,  pursuant to Section 8-13-320 ( ) (Supp. 2002), a Judgment be entered 
against  Respondent Kerry D. Singleton; provided, however, the Judgment would be suspended 
upon  Respondent's payment of the late-filing penalty  within thirty days after receipt of the order.

It was further ordered by the Commission that the Clerk of Court of the County in which 
Respondent Kerry D. Singleton was last known to reside enter the Order in its Judgment Rolls, 
without cost to the State Ethics Commission upon the Commission's filing of same with the Clerk of 
Court's Office.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

An investigation was conducted by the State Ethics Commission which found that a violation had 
occurred.

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the State Ethics Commission 
determined based upon a preponderance of evidence that Respondent Jerry T. Witherspoon was in 
violation of the Section 8-13-1110 for his 2003 Statement of Economic Interests form; publicly 
reprimanded and fined in addition to the late-filing penalty.

It was further ordered, pursuant to Section 8-13-320, a Judgment be entered against Respondent; 
provided, however, the Judgment would be suspended upon Respondent filing his 2003 Statement 
of Economic Interests form, his payment of the late-filing penalty and his payment of a fine within 
thirty days after receipt of the order.

It was further ordered by the Commission that the Clerk of Court of the County in which 
Respondent was last known to reside enter the Order in its Judgment Rolls, without cost to the 
State Ethics Commission upon the Commission's filing of same with the Clerk of Court's Office.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

An investigation was conducted by the State Ethics Commission which found that a violation had 
occurred.

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the State Ethics Commission 
determined based upon a preponderance of evidence that Respondent Grady Butler was in 
violation of three counts of Section 8-13-1308; and therefore, Respondent Grady Butler was 
publicly reprimanded and fined in addition to the late-filing penalty.

It was further ordered, pursuant to Section 8-13-320, a Judgment be entered against  Respondent; 
provided, however, the Judgment would be suspended upon  Respondent filing a proper final 
Campaign Disclosure Form, payment of the late-filing  penalty  and payment of a reduced fine 
within thirty days after receipt of the order.

It was further ordered by the Commission that the Clerk of Court of the County in which 
Respondent was last known to reside enter the Order in its Judgment Rolls, without cost to the 
State Ethics Commission upon the Commission's filing of same with the Clerk of Court's Office.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

An investigation was conducted by the State Ethics Commission which found that a violation had 
occurred.

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the State Ethics Commission 
determined based upon a preponderance of evidence that Respondent Norman R. Knight, III was in 
violation of the Section 8-13-1110 for his 2002 Statement of Economic Interests form; and publicly 
reprimanded and fined, in addition to the late-filing penalty.

It was further ordered, pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §8-13-320 (Supp. 1997), a Judgment in the 
amount of $2600.00 be entered against Respondent; provided, however, the Judgment would be 
suspended upon Respondent filing his 2002 Statement of Economic Interests form, his payment of 
the $600.00 late-filing penalty and his payment of a $1000.00 fine within thirty days after receipt of 
this order.

It was further ordered by the Commission that the Clerk of Court of the County in which 
Respondent was last known to reside enter the Order in its Judgment Rolls, without cost to the 
State Ethics Commission upon the Commission's filing of same with the Clerk of Court's Office.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the State Ethics Commission 
determined based upon a preponderance of evidence that Respondent Lester L. Moulder was in 
violation of Section 8-13-1110 and ordered that Respondent Lester L. Moulder pay the reduced 
late-filing penalty of $300.00 for failure to timely file his 2002 Statement of Economic Interests 
form on or before the deadlines.  The Commission chose not to assess a fine of $2000.00 since 
Respondent Lester L. Moulder did file the required form.

It was further ordered,  pursuant to Section 8-13-320, a Judgment in the amount of $300.00 is, 
entered against  Respondent; provided, however, the Judgment would be suspended upon  
Respondent paying the reduced late filing penalty of $300.00  within thirty days after receipt of the 
order.

It was further ordered by the Commission that the Clerk of Court of the County in which 
Respondent was last known to reside enter this Order in its Judgment Rolls, without cost to the 
State Ethics Commission, in the amount of $300.00 upon the Commission's filing of same with the 
Clerk of Court's Office.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

The State Ethics Commission hereby finds Jill Conway in violation of Section 8-13-1308(F) of the 
Ethics Reform Act, and adopted the Statement of Facts, Conclusions of Law, Admissions, and 
Disposition as agreed upon by Jill Conway.

The State Ethics Commission publicly cautioned Jill Conway for violation of Section 8-13-1308(F) of 
the Ethics Reform Act and ordered that Jill Conway be diligent in complying with the Campaign 
Practices of the Ethics Reform Act in future campaigns and ordered Jill Conway to pay an 
administrative fee within thirty days of receipt of the signed order.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

Based upon evidence presented, the State Ethics Commission determined that there was not 
probable cause to indicate that General Spears violated Sections 8-13-765, 8-13-1180, 8-13-1302, 
8-13-1304, 8-13-1306, 8-13-1308, 8-13-1312, 8-13-1354, S.C. Code Ann., 1976, as amended.  
The Commission therefore dismissed the charges in accordance with Section 8-13-320(10)(i), 
Code of Laws for South Carolina , 1976, as amended, and the rules and regulations promulgated 
thereunder.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

Based upon evidence presented, the State Ethics Commission determined that there was not 
probable cause to indicate that the Patriots Club and H. Arnold Price, violated Sections 8-13-765, 
8-13-1180, 8-13-1302, 8-13-1304, 8-13-1306, 8-13-1308, 8-13-1312, 8-13-1354, S.C. Code Ann., 
1976, as amended.  The Commission therefore dismissed the charges in accordance with Section 
8-13-320(10)(i), Code of Laws for South Carolina , 1976, as amended, and the rules and 
regulations promulgated thereunder.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

Mr. Shuler admitted that he participated in campaign related activities in a public building and 
agreed to the consent order.  The State Ethics Commission strongly cautioned Mr. Shuler, and 
ordered him to pay an administrative fee within thirty days of the issuance of the Order, and 
further ordered Mr. Shuler to review the Campaign Practices section, Article 13, of the Ethics, 
Government Accountability and Campaign Finance Act prior to participating in any future political 
activities.  In addition, because the Commission found that no probable cause existed that Mr. 
Shuler violated S.C. Code Ann. §§ 8-13-1180 or 8-13-1332 (Supp. 2001), those allegations were 
dismissed with prejudice.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

On September 18, 2002, the Commission issued a complaint against Mr. Stewart and found that 
no probable cause existed that Mr. Stewart violated S.C. Code Ann. § 8-13-765(A); however, the 
Commission did find that probable cause existed that Mr. Stewart violated S.C. Code Ann. §§ 
8-13-1336(A) and 8-13-1346(A) (Supp. 2001).  As a result, the Commission issued a Notice of 
Hearing alleging that Mr. Stewart violated S.C. Ann. §§ 8-13-1336(A) and 8-13-1346(A) (Supp. 
2001).

Mr. Stewart admitted that he participated in campaign related activities in a public building and 
agreed to the consent order.  The State Ethics Commission strongly cautioned Mr. Stewart, and 
ordered him to pay an administrative fee within thirty days of the issuance of the Order, and 
further ordered Mr. Stewart to review the Campaign Practices section, Article 13, of the Ethics, 
Government Accountability and Campaign Finance Act prior to participating in any future political 
activities.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

The State Ethics Commission found the Greenwood County Republican Party in violation of Sections 
8-13-1304 and 8-13-1308(F) of the Ethics Reform Act, and adopted the Statement of Facts, 
Conclusions of Law, Admissions, and Disposition as agreed upon by the Greenwood County 
Republican Party.

Therefore, the State Ethics Commission issued the Greenwood County Republican Party a written 
warning for violation of Sections 8-13-1304 and 8-13-1308(F) of the Ethics Reform Act and 
ordered that the Greenwood County Republican Party be diligent in complying with the Campaign 
Practices of the Ethics Reform Act in the future, to include quarterly disclosure of all contributions 
received and expenditures made to influence elections and ordered the Greenwood County 
Republican Party to pay the late-filing penalty of $200.00 within thirty days of receipt of the signed 
order and ordered the Greenwood County Republican Party to pay an administrative fee within 
thirty days of receipt of the signed order.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

An investigation was conducted by the State Ethics Commission which found that a violation had 
occurred.

Based upon the evidence presented, the filing of the required form, and the payment of the late 
filing penalty, the State Ethics Commission determined that the Respondent, Kevin Gray had 
complied with the disclosure requirements of the Ethics Reform Act of 1991.  Therefore, in 
accordance with Section 8-13-320(10)(i), Code of Laws for South Carolina , 1976, as amended, 
and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder the State Ethics Commission waived further 
proceedings.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

An investigation was conducted by the State Ethics Commission which found that a violation had 
occurred.

Based upon the evidence presented, the filing of the required form, and the waiver of the balance 
of the late filing penalty, the State Ethics Commission determined that the Respondent, SC Bail 
Agents, had complied with the disclosure requirements of the Ethics Reform Act of 1991.  
Therefore, in accordance with Section 8-13-320(10)(i), Code of Laws for South Carolina, 1976, as 
amended, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder the State Ethics Commission 
waived further proceedings.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

Based upon the evidence presented, the filing of the required form, and the waiver of the late-filing 
penalty, the State Ethics Commission determined that the Respondent, Terry A. Jones, had 
complied with the disclosure requirements of the Ethics Reform Act of 1991.  Therefore, in 
accordance with Section 8-13-320(10)(i), and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, 
the State Ethics Commission waived further proceedings.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

An investigation was conducted by the State Ethics Commission which found that a violation had 
occurred.

Based upon the evidence presented, the filing of the required forms, and the wavier of the 
late-filing penalty due to Respondent’s health condition, the State Ethics Commission determined 
that the Respondent, Jimmy D. Wood, had complied with the disclosure requirements of the Ethics 
Reform Act of 1991.  Therefore, in accordance with Section 8-13-320(10)(i), and the rules and 
regulations promulgated thereunder, the State Ethics Commission waived further proceedings.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

An investigation was conducted by the State Ethics Commission which found that a violation had 
occurred.

Based upon the evidence presented, the filing of the required forms, and the payment of the 
late-filing penalty, the State Ethics Commission determined that the Respondent, James S. Truett, 
had complied with the disclosure requirements of the Ethics Reform Act of 1991.  Therefore, in 
accordance with Section 8-13-320(10)(i), and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, 
the State Ethics Commission waived further proceedings.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

An investigation was conducted by the State Ethics Commission.

Due to the Commission’s inability to serve a Notice of Hearing on Respondent, a hearing could not 
be scheduled until Respondent is located. Accordingly the State Ethics Commission dismissed the 
complaint without prejudice.  Upon Respondent’s return to Columbia, he will be served a Notice of 
Hearing and this matter will be returned to the Hearing Docket.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

An investigation was conducted by the State Ethics Commission which found that a violation had 
not occurred.

The State Ethics Commission found that during the time of the acts complained of in the complaint, 
the Respondent served in a volunteer status as town manager of Atlantic Beach, SC, and the 
actions complained of are not covered by the Ethics Reform Act’s rules of conduct provisions and 
the complaint against Carolyn Montgomery should be dismissed.  The Commission dismissed the 
complaint.

An investigation was conducted by the State Ethics Commission which found that violations had 
occurred.

Based upon the evidence presented and the filing of required form, the State Ethics Commission 
determined that the Respondent, Tommy E. Knisley, had complied with the disclosure 
requirements of the Ethics Reform Act of 1991; however, Respondent Tommy E. Knisley had not 
complied with the payment of the late filing penalty of $2260.

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it was ordered that Respondent 
Tommy E. Knisley pay the late-filing penalty of $2260 for failure to timely file two quarterly 
Campaign Disclosure forms.

It was further ordered,  pursuant to Section 8-13-320 ( ) (Supp. 2002), a Judgment in the amount 
of $2260 be entered against  Respondent Tommy E. Knisley; provided, however, the Judgment 
would be suspended upon  Respondent's payment of the $2260 late-filing penalty  within thirty 
days after receipt of the order

It was further ordered by the Commission that the Clerk of Court of the County in which 
Respondent Tommy E. Knisley was last known to reside enter the Order in its Judgment Rolls, 
without cost to the State Ethics Commission, in the amount of $2260 upon the Commission's filing 
of same with the Clerk of Court's Office.

An investigation was conducted by the State Ethics Commission which found that no violation had 
occurred.

Based upon evidence presented, the State Ethics Commission determined that there was not 
probable cause to indicate that the Respondent, The Citizens Forum, violated Section 8-13-1304 
and 8-13-1308, S.C. Code Ann., 1976, as amended.  The Commission dismissed the charges in 
accordance with Section 8-13-320(10)(i), Code of Laws for South Carolina , 1976, as amended, 
and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.

An investigation was conducted by the State Ethics Commission.  Based upon the evidence 
presented and the filing of required form, the State Ethics Commission determined that the 
Respondent, Theodore C. Parker, Jr., complied with the disclosure requirements of the Ethics 
Reform Act of 1991; however, Respondent Theodore C. Parker, Jr. had not complied with the 
payment of the late filing penalty of $600.

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it was ordered that Respondent 
Theodore C. Parker, Jr. pay the late-filing penalty of $600 for failure to timely file his 2003 
Statement of Economic Interests form.

It was further ordered,  pursuant to Section 8-13-320 ( ) (Supp. 2002), a Judgment in the amount 
of $600 is be entered against  Respondent Theodore C. Parker, Jr.; provided, however, the 
Judgment would be suspended upon  Respondent's payment of the $600 late-filing penalty  within 
thirty days after receipt of this order.

It was further ordered by the Commission that the Clerk of Court of the County in which 
Respondent Theodore C. Parker, Jr. was last known to reside enter this Order in its Judgment 
Rolls, without cost to the State Ethics Commission, in the amount of $600.00 upon the 
Commission's filing of same with the Clerk of Court's Office.

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the State Ethics Commission 
determined based upon a preponderance of evidence that Respondent, Richard Johnson, was in 
violation of the Section 8-13-1110 for his 2003 Statement of Economic Interests form; and 
therefore, Respondent, Richard Johnson, was publicly reprimanded and fined $2000.00 in addition 
to the late-filing penalty of $600.00.

It was further ordered, pursuant to Section 8-13-320(  )(amended 2002), a Judgment in the 
amount of $2600.00 be entered against Respondent; provided, however, the Judgment would be 
suspended upon Respondent filing his 2003 Statement of Economic Interests forms, his payment of 
the $600.00 late-filing penalty and his payment of a $1000.00 fine within thirty days after receipt of 
the order.

It was further ordered by the Commission that the Clerk of Court of the County in which 
Respondent was last known to reside enter this Order in its Judgment Rolls, without cost to the 
State Ethics Commission, in the amount of $2600.00 upon the Commission's filing of same with the 
Clerk of Court's Office.

An investigation was conducted by the State Ethics Commission.  Based upon the evidence 
presented and the filing of required form, the State Ethics Commission determined that the 
Respondent, Mark Durham, had complied with the disclosure requirements of the Ethics Reform 
Act of 1991; however, the Respondent, Mark Durham, had not complied with the payment of the 
late filing penalty of $600.

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ordered that Respondent 
Mark Durham pay the late-filing penalty of $600 for failure to timely file his 2003 Statement of 
Economic Interests form.

It was further ordered,  pursuant to Section 8-13-320 ( ) (Supp. 2002), a Judgment in the amount 
of $600 be entered against  Respondent Mark Durham; provided, however, the Judgment would be 
suspended upon  Respondent's payment of the $600 late-filing penalty  within thirty days after 
receipt of the order.

It was further ordered by the Commission that the Clerk of Court of the County in which 
Respondent Mark Durham was last known to reside enter this Order in its Judgment Rolls, without 
cost to the State Ethics Commission, in the amount of $600 upon the Commission's filing of same 
with the Clerk of Court's Office.

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the State Ethics Commission 
determined based upon a preponderance of evidence that Respondent, Joshua Gaskins, Sr., was in 
violation of the Section 8-13-1110 for his 2002 Statement of Economic Interests form; and 
therefore, Respondent, Joshua Gaskins, Sr., was publicly reprimanded and fined $2000.00 in 
addition to the late-filing penalty of $600.00.

It was further ordered, pursuant to Section 8-13-320, a Judgment in the amount of $2600.00 be 
entered against Respondent; provided, however, the Judgment shall be suspended upon 
Respondent filing his 2003 Statement of Economic Interests forms, his payment of the $600.00 
late-filing penalty and his payment of a $1000.00 fine within thirty days after receipt of this order.
It was further ordered by the Commission that the Clerk of Court of the County in which 
Respondent was last known to reside enter the Order in its Judgment Rolls, without cost to the 
State Ethics Commission, in the amount of $2600.00 upon the Commission's filing of same with the 
Clerk of Court's Office.

An investigation was conducted by the State Ethics Commission.  Based upon the evidence 
presented, the filing of the required form, and the payment of the initial late-filing penalty, the 
State Ethics Commission determined that the Respondent, Martha H. Hollis, complied with the 
disclosure requirements of the Ethics Reform Act of 1991.  In accordance with Section 
8-13-320(10)(i), and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, the State Ethics 
Commission waived further proceedings.

An investigation was conducted by the State Ethics Commission which found that the violations had 
occurred.

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the State Ethics Commission 
determined based upon a preponderance of evidence that Respondent Stanley S. Pasley was in 
violation of five counts of Section 8-13-1308 ; and therefore, Respondent Stanley S. Pasley was 
hereby publicly reprimanded and fined $10,000.00 in addition to the late-filing penalty of 
$28600.00.

It was further ordered, pursuant to Section 8-13-320, a Judgment in the amount of $38600.00 be 
entered against  Respondent; provided, however, the Judgment would be suspended upon  
Respondent filing a proper final Campaign Disclosure Form and payment of the $28600.00 
late-filing  penalty within thirty days after receipt of the order.

It was further ordered by the Commission that the Clerk of Court of the County in which 
Respondent was last known to reside enter the Order in its Judgment Rolls, without cost to the 
State Ethics Commission, in the amount of $38600.00 upon the Commission's filing of same with 
the Clerk of Court's Office.

An investigation was conducted by the State Ethics Commission which found that no violation had 
occurred.

Based upon evidence presented, the State Ethics Commission determined that there was not 
probable cause to indicate that the Respondent, Samuel Rivers, violated Section 8-13-700 (A), 
8-13-100 (21) and 8-13-100 (4), S.C. Code Ann., 1976, as amended.  The Commission therefore 
dismissed the charges in accordance with Section 8-13-320(10)(i), Code of Laws for South 
Carolina , 1976, as amended, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.

The State Ethics Commission found Oscar Tribble in violation of Section 8-13-700 (A) of the Ethics 
Reform Act and adopted the Statement of Facts, Conclusions of Law, Admissions, Discussion and 
Disposition as agreed upon by the Committee.

The State Ethics Commission issued a public reprimand to Oscar Tribble for his violation of Section 
8-13-700(A) of the Ethics Reform Act and ordered him not to use his official employment to obtain 
an economic interest for himself or a business with which he is associated and, ordered him to pay 
an administrative fee within 30 days of receipt of the signed order.

An investigation was conducted by the State Ethics Commission which found that no violation had 
occurred.

Based upon evidence presented, the State Ethics Commission determined that there was not 
probable cause to indicate that the Respondent, Theodore E. Gagliano, violated Section 8-13-700 
(A), S.C. Code Ann., 1976, as amended.  The Commission dismissed the charges in accordance 
with Section 8-13-320(10)(i), Code of Laws for South Carolina , 1976, as amended, and the rules 
and regulations promulgated thereunder.

An investigation was conducted by the State Ethics Commission.  Based upon the evidence 
presented, and the filing of the amended Campaign Disclosure form, the State Ethics Commission 
determined that the Respondent, Bronco Bostick, complied with the campaign practice 
requirements of the Ethics Reform Act of 1991.  In accordance with Section 8-13-320(10)(i), and 
the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder the State Ethics Commission waived further  
proceedings.

The State Ethics Commission found Susan Simons in violation of Section 8-13-1308 (F) of the 
Ethics Reform Act, and adopted the Statement of Facts, Conclusions of Law, Admissions, and 
Disposition as agreed upon by Susan Simons.

The State Ethics Commission publicly cautioned Susan Simons for violation of Section 8-13-1308 
(F) of the Ethics Reform Act and ordered that Ms. Simons be diligent in complying with the 
Campaign Practices of the Ethics Reform Act in future campaigns and ordered Ms. Simons to pay 
an administrative fee within thirty days of receipt of the signed order.

With regard to Count Two, the State Ethics Commission found J. Felton Burton in violation of 
Section 8-13-700(A) of the Ethics Reform Act, and adopted the Statement of Facts, Conclusions of 
Law, Discussion, Admissions, and Disposition as agreed upon by the Respondent.  Count One was 
dismissed.  Therefore, the State Ethics Commission issued J. Felton Burton a written warning for 
violation of the State Ethics Act, Section 8-13-700(A) and ordered him to pay an administrative fee 
within thirty days of receipt of the signed order,

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

The State Ethics Commission determined, based upon a preponderance of evidence and the 
totality of the circumstances, that the Respondent, John Hamby, violated Section 8-13-700(A) of 
the Ethics Reform Act after he participated in the changes to the Town of Duncan’s wrecker 
ordinance as set forth in count one, which effectively removed from the rotation list his main 
competitor and  added to the list Respondent’s tenant; therefore, obtaining an economic interest in 
the change to the ordinance by being only one of two wrecker services allowed to tow cars in the 
city limits rather than the past random drawing procedure and under the changes receiving a 
payment for each time the second wrecker service had to store cars on the leased property.

Therefore, the State Ethics Commission issued a public reprimand and further advised Respondent 
to refrain from participating on matters in which he or a business with which he is associated has 
an economic interest.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

An investigation was conducted by the State Ethics Commission.  The Respondent, Joel Greer, 
admitted he unintentionally violated Section 8-13-700(A) of the Ethics Reform Act. 

The State Ethics Commission found Joel Greer in violation Section 8-13-700(A) of the Ethics 
Reform Act and adopted the Statement of Facts, Conclusions of Law, Admissions, Discussion, and 
Disposition as agreed upon by the Respondent.  The State Ethics Commission issued a written 
warning to Joel Greer for his violation of Section 8-13-700(A) of the Ethics Reform Act and ordered 
the Respondent not to use his official employment to obtain an economic interest for himself or an 
individual with whom he is associated and ordered the Respondent to pay an administrative fee 
within 30 days of receipt of the signed order.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

Based upon the evidence presented and the filing of the required form, the State Ethics 
Commission determined that the Respondent Felicia O. Cloud complied with the disclosure 
requirements of the Ethics Reform Act of 1991; however, the Respondent Felicia O. Cloud had not 
complied with the payment of the late filing penalty.

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it was ordered that the 
Respondent Felicia O. Cloud   pay the late-filing penalty for failure to file a pre-election Campaign 
Disclosure form.

It was further ordered, pursuant to Section 8-13-320(14), a Judgment be entered against the 
Respondent Felicia O. Cloud; provided, however, the Judgment would be suspended upon 
Respondent's payment of the late-filing penalty within thirty days after receipt of the order.

It was further ordered by the Commission that the Clerk of Court of the County in which 
Respondent Felicia O. Cloud was last known to reside enter this Order in its Judgment Rolls, 
without cost to the Commission, upon the Commission's filing of same with the Clerk of Court's 
Office.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

Based upon the evidence presented and the filing of the required form, the State Ethics 
Commission determined that the Respondent Rodney Giles complied with the disclosure 
requirements of the Ethics Reform Act of 1991; however, the Respondent Rodney Giles had not 
complied with the payment of the late filing penalty of $2600.00.

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it was ordered that the 
Respondent Rodney Giles pay the late-filing penalty for failure to file a pre-election Campaign 
Disclosure form.

It was further ordered, pursuant to Section 8-13-320(14), a Judgment in the amount of $2600.00 
is, be entered against the Respondent Rodney Giles; provided, however, the Judgment would be 
suspended upon Respondent's payment of the late-filing penalty within thirty days after receipt of 
the order.

It was further ordered by the Commission that the Clerk of Court of the County in which 
Respondent Rodney Giles was last known to reside shall enter the Order in its Judgment Rolls, 
without cost to the Commission, upon the Commission's filing of same with the Clerk of Court's 
Office.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

Based upon the evidence presented and the filing of required form, the State Ethics Commission 
determined that the Respondent, Elizabeth D. Gilland, had complied with the disclosure 
requirements of the Ethics Reform Act; however, she had not complied with the payment of the 
late filing penalty, therefore, based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it 
was ordered that Respondent Elizabeth D. Gilland pay the late-filing penalty for failure to timely file 
her 2004 Statement of Economic Interests form.

It was further ordered, pursuant to Section 8-13-320 (14) (Supp. 2002), a Judgment in the amount 
be entered against  Respondent Elizabeth D. Gilland; provided, however, the Judgment shall be 
suspended upon  Respondent's payment of the late-filing penalty  within thirty days after receipt of 
the order.

It was further ordered by the Commission that the Clerk of Court of the County in which 
Respondent Elizabeth D. Gilland was last known to reside enter the Order in its Judgment Rolls, 
without cost to the State Ethics Commission, upon the Commission's filing of same with the Clerk 
of Court's Office.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

Based upon the evidence presented and the filing of the required forms, the State Ethics 
Commission determined that the Respondent Gary W. Coulter had complied with the disclosure 
requirements of the Ethics Reform Act of 1991; however, the Respondent Gary W. Coulter had not 
complied with the payment of the reduced late filing penalty.

Therefore, based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it was ordered that 
the Respondent Gary W. Coulter   pay the reduced late-filing penalty for failure to file four 
Campaign Disclosure forms.

It was further ordered, pursuant to Section 8-13-320(14), a Judgment be entered against the 
Respondent Gary W. Coulter; provided, however, the Judgment would be suspended upon 
Respondent's payment of the late-filing penalty within thirty days after receipt of the order.

It was further ordered by the Commission that the Clerk of Court of the County in which 
Respondent Gary W. Coulter was last known to reside enter the Order in its Judgment Rolls, 
without cost to the Commission upon the Commission's filing of same with the Clerk of Court's 
Office.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.

Based upon the evidence presented and the filing of required form, the State Ethics Commission 
determined that the Respondent, Clarence Joe, had complied with the disclosure requirements of 
the Ethics Reform Act; however, Respondent Clarence Joe had not complied with the payment of 
the late filing penalty.  Therefore, based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 
it was ordered that Respondent Clarence Joe pay the late-filing penalty for failure to timely file his 
2004 Statement of Economic Interests form.

It was further ordered,  pursuant to Section 8-13-320 (14) (Supp. 2002), a Judgment be entered 
against  Respondent Clarence Joe; provided, however, the Judgment would be suspended upon  
Respondent's payment of the late-filing penalty  within thirty days after receipt of the order.

It was further ordered by the Commission that the Clerk of Court of the County in which 
Respondent Clarence Joe was last known to reside enter this Order in its Judgment Rolls, without 
cost to the State Ethics Commission upon the Commission's filing of same with the Clerk of Court's 
Office.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the State Ethics Commission.