Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
TO OFFICIALLY AND PUBLICLY CENSURE COUNCIL MEMBER ROBERT O. CALL, COUNCIL MEMBER JACK H. SCHURLKNIGHT AND SUPERVISOR DANIEL W. DAVIS
WHEREAS, Council Member Robert O. Call, Council Member Jack H. Schurlknight and Supervisor Daniel W. Davis sought elections as Republicans in the Berkeley County General Elections, and
WHEREAS, Council Member Robert O. Call, Council Member Jack H. Schurlknight and Supervisor Daniel W. Davis publicly and actively campaigned as Republicans, and
WHEREAS Supervisor Daniel W. Davis attended and addressed the Berkeley County Republican party on more than one occasion, and
WHEREAS, Council Member Robert O. Call, Council Member Jack H Schurlknight and Supervisor Daniel W. Davis have rendered irrevocable damage against the Berkeley County Republican Party and, specifically the Berkeley County Republican Party Executive Committee, by their premeditated, deliberate and irrevocable actions, and
WHEREAS, on November 2, 2010, Supervisor Daniel W. Davis publicly participated in Council Member Caldwell Pinckney’s (Democrat) election victory over Republican candidate William Fennell, and
WHEREAS, Supervisor Daniel W. Davis, on three different occasions publicly misrepresented the Berkeley County Executive Committee’s official request, by Resolution, dealing with transparency in three very specific areas, and
WHEREAS, the official request, by Resolution, did not request a reorganization of Berkeley County Council as presented by Supervisor Daniel W. Davis, and
WHEREAS, on November 2, 2010, Council Member Robert O. Call and Council Member Jack H. Schurlknight publicly participated in the victory celebration of Democrat Council Member Caldwell Pinckney, and
WHEREAS, Council Member Robert O. Call and Council Member Jack H. Schurlknight supported Supervisor Daniel W. Davis in the misrepresentation of the proposed Berkeley County Party Executive Committee’s Resolution requesting transparency, and
WHEREAS these actions exhibit extraordinary disloyalty to the countless Berkeley County Republicans without whom their careers as elected officials would never have been possible.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE BERKELEY COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE publicly censure and repudiate the actions of Council Member Robert O. Call, Council Member Jack H. Schurlknight and Supervisor Daniel W. Davis.
ADOPTED in a meeting duly assembled this _____ day of _______ 2011.
BERKELEY COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
This is the official Resolution to censure these three elected "Republican" officials.
OFFICIAL STATEMENT FROM DANIEL W. DAVIS,
BERKELEY COUNTY SUPERVISOR, AND JACK H. SCHURLKNIGHT AND
ROBERT O. CALL, BERKELEY COUNTY COUNCILMEN
Late last night, we learned that we had been censured by the Berkeley County
Republican Party (BCRP) Executive Committee. Before we address the censure, we
would like to point out that we were not given an opportunity to address the allegations
listed in the censure. This is a complete violation of due process, which is an absolute
right, guaranteed by the Constitution via the 5th Amendment. It is astonishing to us that
the executive committee--the leadership--of a political party would so blatantly violate a
pillar of our country’s fundamental Constitutional rights.
There are two specific allegations in the censure. The first is that we publicly
participated in a local Democratic candidate’s election victory on November 2, 2010. As
a gesture of goodwill, we did congratulate Mr. Caldwell Pinckney, Jr., on the night of the
election; he is a decent man and an exemplary public servant. Other local Republican
leaders and businessmen publicly and/or financially supported Democratic candidates
without being criticized by the local executive committee. We would ask the BCRP
Executive Committee to explain why a congratulatory visit to a fellow councilmember
has, as stated in the censure, “. . . rendered irrevocable damage against the Berkeley
County Republican [P]arty . . . ” or has ”. . . exhibited extraordinary disloyalty . . . ” to
Berkeley County Republicans? In addition, why does public and financial support for a
Democratic candidate not garner the same criticism we have received?
The second item the censure addresses is that of transparency. We share in the BCRP
Executive Committee’s call for transparency. As a first step, we wanted to ensure a
clear, understandable legislative process. In reviewing ways to make the process
easier for the public to understand, it appeared obvious that, before spending large
amounts of money investing in the visual and audio equipment necessary to televise the
council meetings, a more fundamental issue of clarity and transparency during the
meetings needed to be addressed. We were hopeful that the transparency sub-
committee, formed in May of 2010 and chaired by Councilwoman Cathy Davis, would
address not only the requests in the proposed resolution, but other issues of
transparency as well. In the absence of a recommendation from Mrs. Davis’ sub-
committee, the Chairman of County Council took the initiative to begin to address this
issue. The fact that the BCRP Executive Committee can find fault for that is
incomprehensible. Furthermore, why has the chairman of the Berkeley County
Republican Party, who is also a member of County Council, not made a motion to have
the meetings taped and televised? And again, we ask, how does attempting to
streamline the legislative process to improve clarity and transparency “. . . render
irrevocable damage against the Berkeley County Republican Party . . .” and “. . . exhibit
extraordinary disloyalty to the countless Berkeley County Republicans . . . ”?
Finally, in light of the recent tragedy in Arizona as well as the recent observation of
Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday, we call on all residents of Berkeley County, both
Republican and Democratic, to rise above the current level of vitriolic rhetoric, and to
engage in informed and respectful debate about the issues. The discussion has
become negative and personal, and is not leading to any solution of the major issues.
We were elected to represent all citizens of Berkeley County, not just the conservatives,
not just the Republicans, not just the Tea Party, but also the liberals, the Democrats, the
independents, the Green Party, and any other group that might be out there. It is not an
easy task, as we must balance various viewpoints in determining the best course of
action for the future of Berkeley County. However, it is a task that we are committed to
Daniel W. Davis,
Berkeley County Supervisor
Jack H. Schurlknight,
Councilmen, District 6
Robert O. Call,
Councilmen, District 3
January 18, 2011
First, we will address Mr. Davis' comments about "Due Process".
If these three elected officials were members of the BCGOP, the SCGOP and BCGOP Rules would have been followed and they would have been called before the Committee to answer all complaints. Since neither man belongs to the BCGOP but are officials elected as Republicans, our Rules process does not apply to them and censure is the correct avenue for addressing complaints against them.
Now, we will address the complaints contained in the censure.
We accused the three of supporting a Democrat in a contested election. In Mr. Davis' reply, he did not deny the charge. He justified his behavior and that of the other two by saying that "another Republican" in BC was guilty of the same behavior and we didn't censure him. There was another notable Republican in BC who supported a Democrat in the November election. But, the big difference in the two cases is the "other" Republican was a member of the BCGOP but demonstrated the good character and integrity to resign his position with the party BEFORE he came out publicly with his decision. The two cases are by no means even similar.
Secondly, we accused the three of misrepresenting the BCGOP's Resolution asking the County Council for transparency. Nowhere in this Transparency Resolution did the BCGOP Executive Committee request a change in Council Rules. We requested that the finances of BC government (revenue and expenditures) be put on line and that the County Council meetings be televised. Period. (At the time, Mr. Davis said the county could not afford to televise the Council meetings.) But, on at least two public occasions, Mr. Davis used the Transparency Resolution as "evidence" that the BCGOP Executive Committee wanted the changes in County Council Rules that he orchestrated at reorganization of Council. These statements by Mr. Davis were utterly false.
Mr. Davis has argued that Transparency is the only result of his drastic changes in Council Rules and organization. This statement is, to say the least, disingenuous. Before the changes, the 4 Conservatives on Council could exercise some control over reckless spending by Mr. Davis. The failure of Mr. Davis' plan to purchase the Carolina Nursery property is but one example. After the changes, Council no longer has "committees of the whole". Each committee now has only 5 members. On the newly arranged committees that handle the taxing and spending for the County, Mr. Davis has seated his 4 Democrat supporters, leaving only one seat for one of our Conservatives. Simply put, his 4 supporters do Mr. Davis' bidding on these committees. The result is ONE MAN RULE.
Getting back to Mr. Davis' reply to the censure, we would be remiss if we didn't publicly disavow Mr. Davis and the other two for the opportunistic and self-serving reference to the tragedy in AZ and the MLK holiday. Democrats across the nation tried to blame individual Conservatives, Conservative talk radio, and Conservative groups such as the Tea Party, for the senseless violence of one deranged nutjob in AZ. Now, our three homegrown Democrats, masquerading as Republicans, are attempting the same shameful maneuver. How could they possibly connect a censure for their political behavior with the perpetration of such violence? This political expediency is shameful. Isn't it odd that the louder these three protest being called Liberal Democrats the more they act just like Liberal Democrats?
Mr. Davis, Mr. Call, and Mr. Schurlknight were not personally attacked in this censure. They were CENSURED for improper political activity and misrepresenting a BCGOP resolution. And, so far as these three advocating civil discourse, would this cause not be better served if Mr. Schurlknight would stop referring to his political opponents as a "very vile, venomous, hate-driven group"? And would the atmosphere not be more congenial if Mr. Call would stop referring to one Conservative County Council member as a Nazi, Hitler, and a KKK member? We won't even go into all the negative personal attacks on numerous members of the BCGOP made with the knowledge of Mr. Davis by one of his supporters.