.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Friday, January 30, 2009

 
SC DSS DIRECTOR SAYS SCAM VICTIMIZED ENTIRE STATE

The Director of the South Carolina Department of Social Services is probably correct regarding her assertion that the recently discovered scam at DSS victimized the entire State of South Carolina to the tune of $5.5 Million. But this particular "victimization" pales in comparison to the victimization of the State caused by DSS's continuing failure to implement the federally mandated computerized child support collection system. Not only have fines assessed against the State reached almost $60 Million, but the aggregate arrearage owed to obligees in South Carolina is increasing by approximately $50 Million per year.

Maybe this situation will soon be rectified. Last year the South Carolina Legislature passed legislation requiring:
the Department of Social Services shall prepare a detailed report on the status of the Child Support Enforcement System. The report shall include, but not be limited to, actions currently being undertaken to become compliant with federal government requirements; the cost required to meet minimum federal guidelines; total funds spent so far on the system; the amount of fines assessed by the federal government associated with non-compliance; how much has been spent to satisfy actions taken by the state judicial system; and how much has been spent related to actions taken by any other entity which may have altered the amount required for meeting minimum federal guidelines. The report shall be submitted to the General Assembly by August 31st of the current fiscal year.
We have yet to have seen the required report, but we will post it here when, and if, we receive it.

Labels: ,


Tuesday, January 27, 2009

 
STATE SENATOR DEMANDS ANSWERS FROM DSS, REQUESTS LEGISLATIVE HEARING

SC HOTLINE reports in "STATE SENATOR DEMANDS ANSWERS FROM DSS, REQUESTS LEGISLATIVE HEARING," that South Carolina State Senator Mike Fair is upset about the recently discovered embezzlement at DSS. We believe that Senator Fair is justified in demanding an explanation, an accounting, and an investigation. However, we also think that Senator Fair should try to find out why South Carolina has spent almost $100 Million on a computerized child support collection and tracking system and it is not yet in place.

Labels: , ,


Wednesday, January 21, 2009

 
SC AG OBTAINS REFUND OF MONEY FOR DOWNLOADED DIVORCE FORMS

According to the on-line article published on WCIV'S website Money Refunded for Downloaded Divorce Forms:

The South Carolina Attorney General's office says people who paid to download divorce forms from a Canadian service should get a refund since the forms didn't comply with state laws.

The South Carolina Bar Association said Friday people who paid $500 to download forms from A Divorce Fast should get their money back because the company wasn't licensed to practice law in South Carolina.

The Bar says courthouses across the state turned the forms down, leaving people without their money or their divorce.

The Bar says victims were referred to the attorney general's office, which settled with the owner of A Divorce Fast.

Six people have gotten refunds so far.

A phone number listed for A Divorce Fast had been disconnected.

Monday, January 19, 2009

 
"KEEPING THEM OUT OF JAIL"--IS THIS PROGRAM COST EFFECTIVE?

The program featured in this article appears to be the kind of program that we could support. Among other things, it teaches job skills to former inmates so that they can earn money to meet their child support obligations. That, in turn, may help alleviate jail overcrowding, reduce the welfare rolls, lessen the need to construct more jails, and reduce the Family Court Docket. Our only question is whether the public is getting its money's worth on the $30,000--mostly taxpayer money--being spent to train each participant.

Labels:


Friday, January 16, 2009

 

SCAMS, FRAUDS, AND WASTE AT DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

The Charleston Post and Courier has reported Ex-official accused of embezzling.

While scams, frauds, and waste at either DSS or the Family Court is not a new development in either South Carolina or other states, one has to wonder how this particular scheme went undetected for so long. One also has to wonder who was the Director of DSS when this occurred, whether that person is the same person who is responsible for South Carolina's failure to implement the federally mandated child support tracking system, and whether that person is still employed in a high-paying South Carolina State job.

Rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic is not a solution to the problem.

Labels: ,


Thursday, January 15, 2009

 

IS SOUTH CAROLINA THE BEST FRIEND OF A DEADBEAT DAD?

Everyone should view A DEADBEAT DAD, SOUTH CAROLINA IS HIS BEST FRIEND.

We do not know that we would have been quite as hard on Senators Graham and DeMint and Governor Sanford as the person who created this presentation. Still, the author made some valid points.

There is no excuse for being the only State in the Nation without a computerized child support tracking system.

Labels:


Monday, January 12, 2009

 

SOUTH CAROLINA LAWYERS "ANGERED" OVER LACK OF PAYMENT OF FEES

The Beaufort Gazette has reported in Lawyers angered over lack of payment in non-capital cases:

A Beaufort defense attorney appointed to represent a St. Helena man who faces rape, armed robbery, kidnapping and carjacking charges is asking that his client's trial be delayed because the state won't cover his legal fees.

The South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense voted late last month to stop paying court-appointed attorneys in non-capital criminal and civil cases, a decision that has angered many in the state's legal community.

Beaufort lawyer Jim Brown filed a motion in Beaufort County court Wednesday to halt prosecution of Alfonzo Howard, who faces eight felony counts and up to 150 years in prison if convicted. Brown was appointed to represent Howard in spring 2007.

Brown wants his client released on bond -- which was set at $1 million after his May 2006 arrest. He also wants Howard's trial, scheduled for February, postponed yet again. Brown argues that he can't adequately represent Howard if the state won't pay his legal fees.

"This conflict is a realization of the tension between Howard's needs for vigorous representation, involving hundreds of hours of work, and counsel's financial interests in maintaining a solvent solo practice," Brown wrote in his motion. "The current situation of certain non-payment of attorney fees guarantees that counsel will be deprived of any payment for his services, will foot the bill for his office overhead and will be forced to forgo other profitable compensation."

Private-practice lawyers are appointed by a judge in criminal and some civil proceedings if the defendant cannot afford an attorney and if there is some conflict of interest that prevents a public defender from representing them in court. Court-appointed attorneys received $40 per hour for out-of-court work and $60 when in court. Lawyer fees are typically capped by the state at $1,000 to $3,500, depending on the type of case.

The Commission on Indigent Defense said it will review its decision "within 90 days" to determine if lawyers can again be paid.

Howard was one of two men arrested May 26, 2006, for allegedly abducting a Nashville, Tenn., couple at gun and knifepoint from a parking lot in downtown Beaufort.

Investigators say Howard and Lorenzo Hicks, 25, took the couple to a wooded area near Beaufort High School and sexually assaulted the woman after binding her husband's hands with a belt and blindfolding him.

Police say the man escaped and ran to a nearby home, where he called 911.

Howard and Hicks were arrested that night and have been held at the Beaufort County Detention Center awaiting trial ever since.

Postponing the trial would be another blow to the couple's already wavering faith in the state's criminal justice system, said the man that Howard and Hicks are accused of attacking.

"That would be a travesty," he said in a telephone interview from his home in Tennessee. "It's just a joke. As citizens, we have a right to speedy trial, and this just scares me. I'm not sure what I'm going to tell my wife if that happens. She's just lost so much faith in the system. She's going to be demoralized.

"I hope that the judge says, 'Look, it's been almost three years, we've got to get on with the prosecution.' I hope that for Mr. Brown, as well, so he doesn't have to do any more work on this case."

Fourteenth Circuit Deputy Solicitor Angela McCall-Tanner will try the case for the state and said she's sympathetic to the plight of state defense attorneys. However, "I can't stop prosecuting because the economy is in a rut," she said.

"I'm going to continue preparing for this case, and await the judge's ruling," she added. "I understand the argument of the defense attorneys, but I've got a job to do. My office has faced budget cuts, too, but I still have to prosecute."

The Commission on Indigent Defense voted last month to suspend payment of legal fees to court-appointed attorneys after its budget was slashed by more than 25 percent, according to a statement issued by the commission.

Court-appointed attorneys handled more than 7,500 cases last year. The state's public defenders handled about 70,000 cases. The commission budget also pays the state's public defenders.

Patton Adams, the agency's executive director, told The State newspaper that the commission will do everything it can to pay attorneys for their work.

"I and the commission have every intention of making sure the lawyers get paid," Adams was quoted as saying. But he added, "It may be a slow process."

Now faced with being asked to work without pay, attorneys are trying to figure out what to do next.

Brown said the commission's decision affects all of the players in the criminal justice system -- including victims of crimes like the Tennessee couple.

"It's ultimately going to be an unwise decision because it cheats everyone involved with the criminal justice system," he said. "It hurts the judiciary, it hurts defense attorneys, it hurts our clients and it hurts prosecutors because whatever happens in a trial is subject to scrutiny down the road. It's more expensive to try a case two or three times than it is to do it right the first time.

"And it hurts victims of crimes, who may have to see convictions get overturned because of these types of issues. It impacts everyone."

Brown said the commission isn't entirely to blame for the situation.

"I'm not taking a swipe at the commission," he said. "What they're dealing with is not having enough money in their pockets, but they don't control the purse strings. It falls on the legislature to do what both constitutions -- the state and the federal -- require."

State Sen. Tom Davis, an attorney with two court appointments in his caseload, said the legislature should prioritize spending in the face of slumping tax revenues.

"As an officer of the court, you've got an obligation to take on those appointments," he said. "We're in tight financial times, and quite frankly (paying court-appointed attorneys) is pretty far down on the list of priorities, behind health care and education and a host of other things.

"As members of the bar, we just have to take up that burden right now."

State law requires that all active lawyers sign up to take either criminal or civil cases. Exemptions are available to attorneys who have been practicing law in the state for at least 30 years, who are older than 62 or who work for judges and legislative committees.

Of the 8,824 practicing lawyers in the state, 3,131 are exempt from appointments, according to the S.C. Bar Association.

South Carolina ranks 43rd in the nation in public defense spending, according to the Bar Association and stands to fall even further in defending indigent clients with the commission's latest decision, said Flo Vinson, a Florence attorney and president of the organization. The legislature appropriated $8.6 million to the commission this fiscal year. The state spends $7.65 per capita on public defense, according to a study by the National Legal Aid and Defender Association.

"The recently announced elimination of funds to provide representation for many of those accused of crimes further undermines the ability to protect the constitutional rights of our citizens," Vinson said in a statement. "Public defense is a constitutional right and in many instances a legislative mandate, not a discretionary
program."

Labels:


Friday, January 09, 2009

 
AS INMATES GREW THINNER, SHERIFF'S WALLET GREW FATTER

The Southern Center for Human Rights is to be congratulated for bringing a halt to the practice discussed in this article.

On a local level, some of the changes reported in Knight making changes are encouraging. It, will however, be interesting to learn whether Sheriff Knight will end some of the long-standing abuses referenced in our April 2, 2005 post "PROFITING FROM INMATE LABOR" or whether it will be "business as usual."

Granted, some of these practices are "legal" in the same manner that the Decatur Sheriff's actions are "LEGAL." But, that makes them neither moral nor ethical. Starving people in order to line your own pocket is sinful and should be a crime.

Labels:


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?