THAT'S VERY CLEAR, MR. OBVIOUS

Yesterday, we gave a brief rundown as to the "accomplishments" of Monday's County Council meeting. Today, we would like to explain some of the technicalities of the new Council system.

At the reorganization meeting earlier this month, Mr. Davis led the charge to change County Council Rules. He insisted that the committees of the whole were not working well. He said the old system took too long and most of the citizens didn't have a clue as to what was going on. He said his new system would fix all these problems. He contended that committees comprise of only 5 Council members would be much more efficient and easier for the public to understand.

Let us begin with a brief overview of the old system:

1. Under the Council of the whole system, ALL members of Council sit on EVERY committee.

2. The Chairman of a committee does not have a vote. (unless there's a tie)

3. On several vital committees, one of Mr. Davis' supporters was chairman.

4. This meant the 4 Conservatives had a majority vote on several vital committees.

5. This threw a monkey wrench into many of Mr. Davis' plans.

Now, let's look at the New system:

1. Under the new system, there are only 5 members on each committee.

2. The Chairman still doesn't have a vote.

3. On the new vital committees, Mr. Davis seated all 4 of his supporters.

4. With only one vote on these committees, the Conservative Councilmen have no effective voice.

5. Mr. Davis has complete control of the agenda.

Then, when controversial issues come before full Council, the vote is tied 4/4 and Mr. Davis breaks the tie in his favor.

At the first full Council meeting under the new and improved Rules, things did not go as smoothly as advertised. It soon became apparent that it wouldn't be "efficient" to have the audit report given to the Finance Committee alone when 3 members were excluded. Also, it proved problematic to have "just" the Finance Committee go into Executive Session, leaving 3 Council members in the dark.

Finally, the situation was rescued by that pinnacle of intellect and sense of fair play, Councilmen Call. He announced that it was never the intent of the new Rules to exclude any member of Council from any of the Committee meetings. He said he wanted the input of all members of Council on all issues. He, also, stated that all members should be allowed to attend all Executive Sessions.

In case you missed anything, let us recap the new change in Council Rules:

1. All Council members attend all Committee meetings.

2. All Council members attend all Executive Sessions.

3. All Council members can voice opinions during Committee discussions but only Committee members can vote.

4. On the vital Committees, the 4 Conservative members of Council still have no voice.

As usual, Mr. Call decided to deviate from Mr. Davis' script and has thrown a bright light on the true facts of the situation. Now, thanks to Mr. Call, it is quite clear why Mr. Davis wanted these new Rules. The 4 Conservatives will be included in all functions of Council except the vote.

Do the meetings move more quickly? NO

Is the process more efficient? NO

Are the proceedings more understandable? NO

Is there more unity on Council? NO

The new Rules achieve only one change. The 4 Conservative Councilmen have been affectively disenfranchised.

Due to Mr. Call drifting off the reservation, Mr. Davis has inadvertently achieved complete transparency.

WHAT "WE" HAVE ACCOMPLISHED

GE&P attended the BC Council meeting last night. Or, at least we think we did. We're not sure. Judging from the events we think we witnessed, we could have just accidentally meandered into the Twilight Zone. But, being as the proceedings were so far fetched and so removed from the normal operations of a Representative Republic, they are worth noting.

We will begin with the audit report.

During the course of this presentation, it was difficult to discern whether Mr. Finney was explaining the financial state of the county or presiding over a testimonial to the Supervisor, Dan Davis. (At notable points during this salvo of accolades, GE&P observed several members of the audience lifting their feet off the floor.) Mr. Davis was all smiles, seemingly pleased that the script was being delivered as written.

But, there are a few glaring facts that Mr. Finney neglected to mention.

1. On the first graph of his presentation, the bar representing the Fund Balance for 2010 far outreached that of 2006. In fact, the Fund Balance for 2006 was in excess of 16%. But, we are certain this misrepresentation was a minor error by the graphics department.

2. The report said, "As of 6/30/10, the Fund Balance was 15%." Mr. Finney did not answer the question as to what percentage is present as of today. Many people, much to the chagrin of Mr. Davis, know that the FILOT funds from Mt. Holly and the remainder of the money borrowed or transferred (according to which version the county is using today) from BCW&SA was deposited into the Fund Balance account just long enough for these funds to register on the 2010 audit. After that feat was accomplished, these funds were transferred to the general fund. From there, it is anyone's guess as to when or where these funds were spent. The only unavoidable fact is that these funds are no longer there.

Mr. Finney did not mention that the FILOT funds from Mt. Holly are one and the same funds taken from the BC School District. Granted, these funds legally belong to BC government but there was a long time agreement that these funds were to be shared with the School System to supplement the School System's revenue. Mr. Davis dispensed with that agreement and kept all of the funds.

Also, GE&P is somewhat confused about the $10 Million loan/transfer of funds from the BCW&SA Fund Balance. At one point in time, when the legality of this transaction was questioned, the forces that be said this was a LOAN because it would be illegal to transfer funds from the Authority to the general fund of BC government. Last night, we were told that this was an INTER-DEPARTMENTAL TRANSFER OF FUNDS. Which is it? It appears to GE&P that legal opinions from BC government are dependent upon many factors, namely, time of day, temperature, phase of the moon, day of the week, and which lie Mr. Davis wants to justify.

All in all, the testimonial, excuse us, audit report was long on fictitious kudos and short on applicable and accurate particulars.

Then the Finance Committee went on to try to preempt Mr. Callanan's attempt to address the Transparency issues. Mr. Schurlknight attempted to place the blame for this issue not being addressed earlier on the shoulders of Councilwoman Cathy Davis. Mr. Schurlknight stated that Mrs. Davis was appointed chairwoman of that subcommittee and she had never called a meeting. This sounded valid until Mrs. Davis pointed out the fact that Mr. Schurlknight had never announced the members of the committee. The last she heard of this potential committee was when Mr. Schurlknight said he "would get back to her when he had the committee formed".

Mr. Davis was correct when he stated it would be "political suicide" to ignore the Transparency issue. The folks are watching. But, Mr. Davis has a few big problems. He cannot afford to allow an independent effort to televise the Council meetings. If the general public has the ability to witness the proceedings in full, Mr. Davis would be facing an uprising of protest. He has to maintain editing rights so only that which he wants to be made public will be and that which he doesn't won't be. It will be interesting to watch how he solves this problem.

Televising the Council meetings is not Mr. Davis' biggest problem. The Resolution, also, calls for making ALL financial records easily accessible on the county website. This move would mean disaster for Mr. Davis. As things stand now, a private citizen or even some Councilmen cannot get their questions answered about how the tax dollars are spent. Funds travel around the county in a manner that would put a check kiting scam to shame. (The Fund Balance is but one example.)

Another Example: Several citizens who regularly attend the Council meetings observed construction of a water line project underway in the Queeney community last year. These folks knew they had heard nothing about this project at the Council meetings. They notified their member of Council. (The law says that ALL contracts exceeding the Supervisor's discretionary spending limit of $50,000 must be approved by Council) Their Councilman knew nothing about the project. When members of Council questioned the fact that the project was underway without the approval of Council, they were told that Greene Construction Company had "gotten a jump" on the project but a contract had not been signed yet. It is of note to remember this was a $1.2 Million project and the Supervisor wants us to believe this company would purchase material and complete over 50% of this project without the safety and security of a signed contract. Staff members told Council they had to approve the contract (after the fact) or risk a lawsuit by the contractor. Council approved the contract (we wouldn't have) and as if by magic, two weeks later the document appeared with a current date. No one asked that Greene Construction provide their copy of the contract. The issue was dropped.

Now, GE&P has learned of yet another example of Mr. Davis' transparency policy at work. As we all know, the Hanahan/ Murrey Blvd. Intersection Improvement Project is well under way. The project is due for completion in June 2011. The cost of this project is between one and two Million dollars. According to Banks Construction Company, the bid for this project was accepted on August 10, 2010 and the contract was signed on October 8, 2010. This contract was never presented to Council for approval. At least 4 members of Council knew nothing about this contract. When an inquiry was made, BC government claimed this project was bid, and the contract assigned, by SCDOT, not BC. Even if it is common practice to delegate this authority to SCDOT on some projects, permission for this action would have to come with approval of Council. It didn't.

Maybe we were asleep when this happened but we would beg the question, "When did SCDOT acquire the power to usurp the legal authority of Berkeley County Council to control and approve the expenditure of BC's designated tax dollars?"

There were other lapses in protocol and deviations from Law and Rule exhibited at the meeting but why bore you with repetitions of behavior that only applied to different issues?

In all honesty, GE&P must commend Mr. Davis and his other four Rinocrats on County Council for a job well done last night. Mr. Davis' script was concise and so easy to follow that even Mr. Call didn't louse up his part. (And that's saying a lot) Mr. Davis orchestrated the proceedings beautifully and his four followers definitely earned their forty acres and a mule.

WHO'S ON FIRST?

GE&P is predicting that the County Council meeting tomorrow night has the potential to turn into a real Chinese fire drill. Consider this scenario if you will.

The committees now have only five members each. The agenda for tomorrow night's meeting notes an Executive Session for the Finance Committee. None of the four Conservative members of County Council sits on that committee. If that committee holds an Executive session, only seated members of that committee and possibly lawyers will be able to attend. You can't attend and we can't attend. Also, the Rules state that, outside of the meeting, no one can discuss items covered during this Executive session.

Here's the question: How can all eight members of County Council vote on an issue covered in Executive Session if only four members know any of the facts of the issue discussed? We know Mr. Davis will counter by saying Mr. Fish was asked to sit on the Finance Committee and declined. That is true. But, even if Mr. Fish did sit on that Committee, how would that solve the problem for the other three Conservative Council members?

We expect Mr. Davis to break the Rules yet again and invite the non-committee members to attend this Executive Session. Would we be out of line to suggest that our four Conservative Council members will probably not agree to voluntarily break the Rules?

It would appear that Mr. Davis' new and improved Rules are working well so far.

ALERT TO ALL BC VOTERS

GE&P would urge all concerned citizens to attend the BC Council meeting on Monday evening at 6 pm. The meeting will be held at the County Administration Building.

This will be the first full Council meeting since Supervisor Davis changed all the Rules. Attend and see how well everything works out.

RESOLUTION

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

do.

Respectfully Submitted,

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.

NOTE:

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.

Mr. Davis' actions have proven that he has, and never has had, any intention of working with the Conservatives on County Council or the Conservative voters in BC. He knows very well that 1/2 of Council and a huge number of Conservative voters disagree vehemently with many of his policies. These Conservatives have made their thoughts on the issues very clear to the Supervisor but their words have fallen on deaf ears. Mr. Davis has never made any attempt to include the 4 Conservatives and their ideas in the governing process. Since Mr. Davis has achieved total control over BC government by joining forces with the other Democrats on County Council, he has displayed nothing but contempt for the 4 Conservatives on Council and the Conservative voters of BC.

Mr. Davis, as a citizen of this great nation has the Constitutional right to say anything he choses, whether his words are true or not. Mr. Davis never misses an opportunity to fully exercise these rights.

CAN ANYONE SAY, "ABOUT TIME?"

Tonight the Berkeley County Republican Party Executive Committee voted unanimously to censure Dan Davis, Bob Call, and Jack Schurlknight.

The basis of the censure is as follows:

1. Dan Davis, Bob Call, and Jack Schurlknight supported and campaigned for Democrat Caldwell Pinckney in the November, 2010 District 7 Council race against the Republican, Bill Fennel. The three even joined Mr. Pinckney in celebration at his victory party election night.

2. Dan Davis repeatedly misrepresented a transparency Resolution issued by the Executive Committee to County Council. Mr. Davis used the Resolution as support for and justification of his reorganization of County Council.

Copies of all documents will be posted ASAP.

AT LEAST HE'S CONSISTENT

We, along with 20 or so other BC citizens, attended Supervisor Davis' community meeting in Goose Creek tonight. The results would have been annoying if they weren't so predictable. Folks asked questions and, with most, Mr. Davis either totally avoided an answer or provided false or misleading information. Nothing new on this front. But, just for fun, we will recount some of the exchanges.

The question came up about the 29% of our property tax relief that has been taken by Mr. Davis. First Mr. Davis said the funds were being used to satisfy debt. Then, he changed course and said the funds were being used for Capital Improvements.

Mr. Davis was asked by several people about the Fees In Lieu of Tax funds that had been taken from the schools. For once Mr. Davis answered the question directly and honestly by admitting the funds belonged to the county and he would spend them as he pleases.

Mr. Davis, for the third time, blamed the changes in Council procedure on the Resolution demanding transparency sent to him by the BCGOP. We attempted to correct this misconception by pointing out that the Resolution demanded transparency by way of taping the Council meetings for airing on a local cable channel but our protest fell on deaf ears. We asked if Mr. Davis would give our videographer permission to plug into the Council chamber's sound system. Mr. Davis said one of the Councilmen would have to make a motion and Council could vote on it. Considering the makeup of Council and who has the tie breaking vote, that should provide a real solution.

So, all in all, the meeting was the same old dog and pony show we've all seen a thousand times before. The only real difference was that there were many new faces in the crowd. Of these new folks, the majority were not buying the answers they were given and they saw through the rhetoric. This fact is very encouraging.

If any of the readers want more specific information on any of the issues mentioned here, please comment.

HAVE PATIENCE, PEOPLE

GE&P has received zillions of calls inquiring as to when a new post will appear. Give us a break. Repeating stories about what has already happened won't increase your knowledge or expose corruption. Each of these results requires a huge amount of investigation.

Fear Not, news is on the way.

STARTING THE NEW YEAR OFF RIGHT

Dave Munday wrote a very balanced story in the P&C today on the County Council meeting scheduled for tomorrow night. He outlined the controversy over Supervisor Dan Davis' intention to change our form of County Council operations. The article gives both sides of the argument and indicates the importance of tomorrow's meeting.

As is always the case, here is where things go haywire.

GE&P received numerous calls this morning from people who read the article or heard about the article through the grapevine and checked the P&C website to leave a comment. No one could find the story on line.

GE&P called the P&C to inquire as to the reason for the exclusion of the story on line. We were told it is the practice of the P&C to post stories on the website as soon as they are submitted. Since this story was submitted late last night, it was posted immediately. We were told that the story had been posted in the story index for January 2, 2011. That was yesterday. Well, that makes a lot of sense.

There's just one tiny thing wrong with this explanation. GE&P and several others searched the P&C archives today for this story and it wasn't there. Had the story been posted last night, it would have popped up under the search. How many of you readers are wondering about exactly what's going on with our only "newspaper of general circulation"?

UPDATE:

GLORY BE!!!!!

GE&P just received a call and, guess what? This article has been moved to today's P&C story index. It is the LAST article on the list. Considering the number of complaints the P&C received about this issue, maybe they reconsidered their decision as to placement of the article? Hmmmmmm. You can bet that Mr. Davis is not pleased with this development.