A vote on a motion among four was taken during a Greenville County Republican Party special-called meeting.

On September 14, 2023 15 ECs called a Special Meeting in which four motions were presented to the body. The body voted by majority to pass each motion presented to them. Since that time the GCRP Chairman has failed to fully comply with all the motions. In addition, many narratives have been put forward that inaccurately present the facts related to those motions, the status of compliance with them, and the motives of those who continue to seek compliance from the Chairman. In order to provide clarity, we have documented a more detailed explanation of the facts related to each motion and included the supporting evidence that was discussed during the Special Meeting and that has occurred since. 

We thank you for reading through the evidence. We hope that you will fully educate yourselves on the facts of this situation and become part of the solution of holding the GCRP officers to the standards of integrity and transparency that we demand from our other elected representatives. 

  1. Motion 1 Review: Motion 1 directed the Chairman to provide the body with a copy of the full 2023 Budget, voted on via Zoom on 1/31/23.
    Motion 1 Update: After that meeting the body was given a screenshot of an image with a red square around the words “2022 Budget Proposal,” posted on the website by Mr. Davis. That “2022 Budget Proposal” provided a few lines of expenses that did not reflect our current expenses or income for fiscal year 2023, such as the 2023 ReOrg, the 2023 Membership Drive, etc. The GCRP officers then spent several months attempting to convince the body that this “2022 Budget Proposal” image was the working 2023 Budget and all those who objected or asked questions were causing division or members of a “splinter group.” All of this was especially egregious in light of the Treasurer’s own admission on 6/29/23 that there was no budget (see email).

Then two months later, after much objection by members that an image of the “2022 Budget Proposal” is not a working budget, the Chairman sent an excel spreadsheet “budget.” After the email was sent, select GCRP board members attempted to push a narrative that this spreadsheet has always been available. This assertion is illogical, especially in light of the concerted effort made on the part of the GCRP board members to convince the body that the image of the “2022 Budget Proposal” was the actual 2023 budget. It has also been suggested that the 15 ECs are somehow not satisfied with the 2023 “budget” due to formatting. We want to be extremely clear that while there is a generally accepted budget format, it is irrelevant what format the budget is provided in, so long as the substance is relevant, accurate, addresses the needs of the fiscal year, and that the body is approached with integrity and respect. To gaslight the body in this way is disrespectful and is an attempt to rewrite history.

The biggest issue now is that actions taken by the GCRP leadership appear to be deceptive in nature. Elected members of the body privately requested the budget before the 1/31/23 budget vote and then for months after (see here for the email thread containing all those requests). Instead of being provided with the budget or an honest admission that a 2023 Budget did not exist, we were presented with what can only be perceived as an intentional cover-up campaign by the GCRP leadership, making it seem as though the “2022 Budget Proposal” and now spreadsheet was available before, during, or after the 1/31/23 vote, when it clearly was not. (See original 1/31/23 Meeting announcement with no proposal included and the email from Frohawk precinct stating they would vote NO because no budget was presented to the body).

  1. Motion 2 Review: Motion 2 directed the Chairman to provide the current signed lease between the GCRP and 1776 Services LLC for 2505 Wade Hampton Blvd. to the body via email or mail, and the motion to post it on the website was voted down by the body (see Motion 2 minutes here).
    Motion 2 Update: To date, only an alleged copy of the lease has been posted on the website with redacted signature lines. When communicating with the Chairman about her non-compliance on this issue, she stated via email on 11/20/23 (see here for the entire email conversation), “under no circumstances will I be responsible for sharing a physical document with Jeff or my legal signature.” She also communicated the same sentiment to the body via an email on 11/29/23. This sentiment is contrary to the following facts:
    1. Per Robert’s Rules of Order (RRoO) the Chairman has no authority to elevate her opinions over the vote of the EC body. She is to remain an unbiased facilitator. Once the motion was passed, her role became to simply comply with it.
    2. The issue of their signatures was not brought up by Ms. Julian or Mr. Davis during the Special Meeting, calling into question the legitimacy of the concern. (see Motion 2 minutes here)
    3. Both Ms. Julian and Mr. Davis’s signatures are available and easily found in the public record due to Ms. Julian’s filing to run for the SC House District 25 seat, the multitudinous number of lawsuits Mr. Davis has filed, and the 4 illegitimate No Trespass Notices sent to GCRP members (see here for their signatures found on the public record). 

We continue to be confounded by the lengths the Chairman has gone in order to avoid transparency with the body. 

  1. Motion 3 Review: Motion 3 directed the Chairman to provide the body with several sets of missing meeting minutes prior to the October Business meeting, allow the body to provide amendments, and then consider them for approval at the October Business Meeting.
    Motion 3 Update: Although a version of the missing minutes were sent by the Chairman to the body at 3:40 pm on the day of the October Business Meeting, the body was not allowed an opportunity to present changes or approve them. The factual details are as follows:

When a member rose to question why the Chairman was moving on from the minute approval portion of the agenda, without addressing the remaining sets of minutes, the Chairman first stated she had decided the “motion was moot” because “the minutes had already been approved.” This is incorrect.  

    1. The minutes from October 3, 2022, January 7, 2023 and January 31, 2023 still have not been approved by the body. 
    2. As addressed above, the lack of a working 2023 budget leaves the body unnecessarily vulnerable. But even worse, without approved minutes there is no true and accurate record of a budget ever having been passed. 
    3. In addition, the minutes for January 7, 2023 and January 31, 2023 have been added to the GCRP website without the word DRAFT on them, which creates confusion for the body.

When the member then clarified that the Chairman has no authority to render a motion moot after the body passes it and that there had been no opportunity to approve the minutes in question, she declared the member “out of order” and then moved to table the motion. Again, this was incorrect.

    1. Per the GCRP bylaws and Robert’s Rules of Order, the Chairman has no authority to make or table a motion during a Business Meeting and there was no motion on the floor to be tabled. The member had asked a question as to why the Chairman was not complying with the directives of the motion passed by the body on 9/14/23. Again, this is not a motion being presented for the body to consider. It is a point of information and is not at the discretion of the Chairman to “table.”
    2. The motion being discussed had already been passed at the Special Called Meeting in September. Her role was simply to comply with it during the October Business meeting. Failing to do so left the body unnecessarily vulnerable.

No one should take lightly the vulnerable position the GCRP is now in. Having a record of our actions as a body is not a minor thing that “gets in the way” of electing Republican candidates. In fact, it ensures that our officers have clear parameters in which to act freely towards that mission. Currently we have no proof a 2023 Budget was approved, so every expenditure in fiscal year ‘23 was outside of the bounds the GCRP rules set forth to provide protection for the GCRP organization as a whole. 

  1. Motion 4 Review: Motion 4 directed the Chairman to publicly declare, via email, that all members of the GCRP are welcome at our HQ building. The motion did not include any wording that allowed for the exclusion of any members from having equal access, regardless of any prior attempts to bar individuals from participation in party business taking place at 2505 Wade Hampton Blvd.
    Motion 4 Update: The Chairman sent an email to the body at 3:40 pm on the day of the October Business Meeting defying the motion passed by the body by stating that those who had been previously sent “unauthorized” No Trespass Notices (per the Chairman’s statement at the Special Meeting), were still banned from the HQ building. Despite her inaccurate statements that members were banned for not maintaining decorum in the building, she later contradicted herself on 11/29/23 by attempting to claim that the GCRP has not banned members. As she stated to us in an email on 11/15/23 (see here), her role as the Chairman is to implement the will of the majority of the EC body, and we have seen no due diligence or adequate attempt to do so in this matter. This constitutes a dereliction of her duty, continued disrespect of the authority of the EC body, and a determination to disregard the GCRP precincts’ rights to be represented by their elected officers at the HQ building, where GCRP business and activities are occurring. 

These are the facts related to the status of the four motions passed by the body on 9/14/23. We hope that they will provide clarity as you reconsider the narratives that have been shared since the Special Meeting. Based on the Chairman and officer board member's actions, the entire GCRP organization is now operating outside the boundaries of the GCRP rules and the authority granted by the EC body. 

Our Work Towards Compliance Since 9/14/23

Since we had seen no due diligence to comply fully with the four motions passed, which we detailed above, we felt it necessary to again reach out to the Chairman in good faith, offering to sit down and discuss these party issues. We offered for a group of 3 GCRP members who called the Special Meeting, and First Vice Chair Joe Dill, to sit down with the Chairman on 11/20/23 to discuss the four motions. We hoped to hear from her with an open mind, try to understand why there had only been partial compliance, and discern what we could do to help her return our body to order. Unfortunately, we were met with excuses and deflection. The Chairman stated in her email on 11/20/23 that “under no circumstances would it be appropriate to meet with you as a group on these issues that concern the entire EC body.” This was a surprising response because we have attempted on multiple occasions to appropriately address these issues during Business Meetings, but those efforts have been shut down.

She then stated that we would need to meet with the Conflict Resolution Committee about any further questions on compliance with the motions. However, the Conflict Resolution Committee has no authority to ensure the Chairman is in compliance with the motions. This suggestion is also a contradiction of her statement that discussing party issues with individual ECs is inappropriate. If her claim is true that it is inappropriate for the Chairman to discuss these matters with ECs, despite her having the authority to implement the will of the body, then it is even more inappropriate for her to direct us to a committee with no authority to implement the will of the body. 

Despite all of this, we still went to the pre-arranged meeting place on 11/20/23 and waited for 5 hours in the hopes that the Chairman would decide to fulfill her duty and meet with members of the body who represent entire precincts. She did not come to the table. From the individuals who continually repeat, “We have an open door policy” and “We’ll come to the table to talk with anyone”, there continues to amass a body of evidence that this narrative is false. 

Call to Action

You have now been provided with ample evidence to understand the actions of the current GCRP board members. Actions that we would call tyrannical if they originated from any other elected representative. We call on you, the GCRP body, to remember your role. You were elected to represent entire precincts of voters in one of the most strategic counties in the state. We encourage you to fully embrace your duties as an elected EC or President. This includes being well informed on the issues and votes you will take on behalf of your precinct, as well as holding the GCRP officer board accountable to implement the will of the body on these four motions and any motions to come.

In February we hope to find a body reinvigorated to enforce conservative policy within the GCRP with the same strength of conviction that they fight against Democrats and RINOs. Be bold, stand, and ensure our county party is in order for a successful 2024!  

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 

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

User Rating: 5 / 5

Star ActiveStar ActiveStar ActiveStar ActiveStar Active