Opinion ID: 1287437
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Testimony of Purvis Collins about Legislative Intent Was Inadmissible

Text: The Employees argue that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of Purvis Collins and relying on his testimony in construing section 9-1-10(17). We agree. Purvis Collins, who at the time of this case was retired and is now deceased, was the director of the Retirement System for 24 years. Mr. Collins has been recognized nationally as one of the country's leading governmental retirement system administrators. This Court has the highest respect for Mr. Collins' knowledge, ability, and integrity. Nevertheless, as a matter of law, the testimony of Mr. Collins, an executive branch officer, as the author of a legislative amendment, is not admissible as evidence of legislative intent. Not even members of the General Assembly are permitted to so testify. It is a settled principle in the interpretation of statutes that even where there is some ambiguity or some uncertainty in the language used, resort cannot be had to the opinions of legislators or of others concerned in the enactment of the law, for the purpose of ascertaining the intent of the legislature. Greenville Baseball, Inc. v. Bearden, 200 S.C. 363, 371, 20 S.E.2d 813, 817 (1942)(emphasis added). In the current matter, the Retirement System claims that Collins' testimony is admissible because it only addressed problems surrounding the 1978 version of the statute and not the legislative intent. The record does not support the Retirement System's position. Collins' testimony goes well beyond any limited role claimed for it by the Retirement System. Collins testified extensively about how he drafted the amendment and what he intended the amendment to accomplish. Such testimony of what he intended as author of the amendment, as well as what problems he intended the amendment to address, are not proper legislative history for a court to take into account. See Tallevast v. Kaminski, 146 S.C. 225, 143 S.E. 796 (1928). Collins' testimony is not completely inadmissible. In his role as the head of the South Carolina Retirement System, Collins' testimony is relevant, although not controlling, to the extent that it discusses how the executive branch interpreted the amendment after its enactment. See Nucor Steel v. South Carolina Public Serv. Comm'n, 310 S.C. 539, 426 S.E.2d 319 (1992). For the reasons discussed, we find the executive agency's interpretation does reflect the legislative intent of the section. In light of our holding, we do not need to address the Employees' claims concerning the class certification and statute of limitations.