Editor's Note: The following letter was emailed to all Greenville County Republican Party Precinct Executive Committeemen and Presidents (Click HERE for the Motions addressed in this letter.)
---------------
We, the 15 ECs who called for the September 14th Special Business Meeting, are writing to respond to the passing of the deadline of September 24, 2023 without any compliance from Chairman Yvonne Julian.
An egregious campaign has been engaged in, before and after the Special Meeting, by Ms. Yvonne Julian and Mr. Jeff Davis to malign our character, assume our motives, and ultimately distract from the real issues. Let us be clear: we are all Patriots, are not aligned with any group or politician, and are actively engaged in all the issues vital to our county. Any attempt to minimize the countless hours of work we are doing in Greenville County is reprehensible, especially coming from Officers, and should be rejected by all fair minded members of the body. In addition, many of us began addressing these issues prior to 2023 ReOrg, so any effort to state our motives are due to a “loss” at the County Convention is demonstratively false. We called a Special Business Meeting, not an “emergency” meeting, in accordance with our county rules. We provided notice beyond the required 24 hour minimum and handled all the details for the location, set up/take down, parking, etc. to ensure minimal inconvenience to the body. It was unfortunate that the air conditioning stopped working, but it was no less uncomfortable than the heat, mosquitos, and traffic noise we endured graciously during each meeting held in the HQ backyard. It is unbecoming conduct of Officers to mock people and go after their personal lives, businesses, etc. in response to reasonable requests to be given documents all ECs have a right to see.
The goal of the 15 ECs who called the Special Meeting extends no further than this: we wish to return the GCRP to order, to ensure all rules are followed and all documents are properly retained, and to restore the authority of the GCRP back to the EC body. Just as the power of the United States Federal Government rests in The People, so the authority of the GCRP rests in the EC body. Only the EC body sets policy. Our Officers are elected to carry out administrative tasks for the body and the Chairman has been granted authority by the body to be the official spokesperson for the party (County Rule 4A3). Any authority the Officers have to act on behalf of the party is granted to them by the EC body. So we seek a county party organization where the Officers support and lift up the EC body equally as we set policy and carry out the work to better our county and grow our party. This is the totality of our “agenda.”
We will now address the motions passed by the majority of the body at the Special Meeting and the confusing narratives that have been spread since then. Please feel free to review the attached document that provides the original motions presented at the Special Meeting and the final motions that were approved by the majority vote of the body.
Regarding Motion 1: Much discussion has been generated regarding the 2022 budget, but in the end it amounts to nothing more than a distraction and is irrelevant to the motion passed by the body. The comments from the State EC on the GCRP website are inappropriate because he has no right to speak officially on behalf of the party, but even his comments do not contain an active link to the 2022 budget, further reinforcing its irrelevance. To bring the issue back into focus, the motion presented to the body on 9/14/23 was not asking for the 2022 budget or to prove it was ever created. The motion was only for a copy of the 2023 budget to be provided to the body. Using the 2022 budget as a starting point for the 2023 budget is acceptable, but doing so does not absolve the Officers of their duty to create a 2023 budget that accounts for our new expenses and revenue and present it to the body for review. Any statement otherwise is nothing more than a talking point to distract from the obligations of the Officers.
Regarding Motion 2: No EC has seen a signed copy of the lease for 2505 Wade Hampton Blvd. No one denies that a draft lease was sent out to the EC body during the 2021-2023 term, but that is not a final lease containing a signature. The body has no way of knowing if any terms changed after the draft was sent and before the lease was signed. We also have the right to see this document and voted by majority to have a signed copy of it provided to all members of the body. Neither was there any wording in the motion requiring members to schedule an appointment to view it. Therefore, it should be emailed or mailed to the body. Since the lease involves the GCRP and does not contain personal information, there is no reason Chairman Julian cannot follow the directive of the motion.
Regarding Motion 3: Robert’s Rules of Order 48:9 states, “In an organization that holds regular meetings at frequent intervals, such as weekly, monthly, or quarterly, the minutes of each regular or special meeting are normally read and approved at the beginning of the next regular meeting, immediately after the call to order or any opening ceremonies.” Many ECs are not aware that our body has no way to verify that any of our minutes have been approved after August 2022 through January 2023. No meetings were held after January 2023 until the June 2023 Business Meeting. So we are missing approved minutes for the Business Meetings held in September and October 2022, as well as January 7 and January 31, 2023. This means all business conducted by the body during that time is null and void until the body knows those minutes have been approved. Therefore, the resolution to protect human life, presented in September 2022, null and void. The resolution to honor those killed on 9/11 and after, presented in September 2022, null and void. The budget in question from January 2023, null and void. A video of a meeting cannot substitute for written Meeting Minutes. Written and approved minutes are the only proof of the actions of the GCRP body and having them on record is of vital importance to our mission. The body voted by majority to pass the motion requiring all those minutes to be provided to them for consideration prior to the October meeting and then be approved by the body at the October 2023 Business Meeting.
To claim our rules do not require the Officers to keep the records of the continuous body is another deliberate twisting of the meaning of words and a perversion of our rules. County Rule 4A5 states, “all officers of the County Republican Party shall keep appropriate records in duplicate, one copy for the county Chairman and one copy to be retained by the officer.” Here is the definition of “county officer” found in County Rule 2G6, “’County Officer’ shall mean any officer of the party at the county level, duly elected or appointed, other than county committeemen.” So precinct officers are not the officers required to retain records, and it would not make sense for them to do so considering how often people move out of a precinct during various points of any given ReOrg term. Any attempt to use these rules to avoid providing missing meeting minutes or documents is weak at best and should be viewed as nothing more than a deflection from the Officer’s carrying out their duties.
Regarding Motion 4: False statements have also been made about the purpose of the motion to ensure equal access for all members to GCRP resources. The motion was not about reversing any “No Trespass Notices” since it was clarified by the Chairman that Mr. Davis had no right to issue them. Therefore, no valid “No Trespass Notices” exist for any GCRP members. That said, the body voted to proceed with the motion so there would be a directive from us on the record that no more “No Trespass Notices” could be sent in the future. The only changes to the motion were to remove wording that would require moving the HQ to a new location if compliance could not be obtained and to add an amendment to clarify what behavior would be expected going forward from those in attendance. Many objected to the amendment because it was vague and provided no clarification on who would decide what “appropriate behavior” is. It also opened a loophole that could be exploited by those not acting in good faith. Despite the objections, the amendment passed but by a very narrow margin.
As of 9/27/23, Chairman Yvonne Julian has not complied with any of the motions passed by the body. To restate facts, the State EC, Jeff Davis, has no authority to respond to the motions passed by the body. The Chairman is the only Officer granted authority by the body to officially speak on behalf of the party. In addition, the Chairman has no right to disregard the vote and authority of the body or to modify, change, or amend the motions we passed in any way. Motions are commands by the body for action to be taken. This disregard of the EC body’s authority is unacceptable and cannot be ignored.
In conclusion these are the facts, the 15 ECs called a Special Business Meeting to request documents that every EC in the body has a right to see. Those of us who had been requesting those documents, via the private channels we’d been instructed to use, were stonewalled for 3-9 months. Therefore, we brought the requests to the body and the body voted with us by majority on each motion. Chairman Yvonne Julian has refused to follow the directives from the body, which is not within her right to do. Unfortunately, our Officers are now engaged in the very definition of tyranny—arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power or abuse of authority. It is indefensible that this has expanded into a much bigger issue due to the inactions of Chairman Julian and must now be addressed by the EC body. We cannot allow a precedent to be set where Officers disregard the authority of the ECs.
We hope this email has provided clarity through a reiteration of the facts. We look forward to meeting with you and addressing these things at the October 2nd Business Meeting.
Sincerely,
Jeff Magg, Palmetto EC
Tiffany Mauk, Frohawk EC
Karen Eachus, Castle Rock EC
Anita Lane, Northwood EC
Judith Tanzola, Circle Creek EC
James Hoard, Mountain View EC
Yelizaveta (Liz) Liokumovich, Tyger River EC
David Bell, Boiling Springs EC
Kelly Wood, Pelham Falls EC
Mary Ann Coleman, Stonehaven EC
Elizabeth Williams, Del Norte EC
John Murphy, Riverwalk EC
Marcus Griffis, Fork Shoals EC
Arthur Springer, Sevier EC
Lois Gates, Travelers Rest 2 EC
