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.