Letter of Support for Pickens

It’s a meaty read but worth the simplified explanation of the Pickens issue as it relates to our party rules.

Also, as an update I still have not received any response from Chairman Mark Weber regarding my questions and concerns about this matter.

————————

LETTER OF SUPPORT :

Colleagues,

As it states in the South Carolina Republican Creed, I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud, and unafraid. To think and act for myself. And never cower before any master, save my God.

I choose to be uncommon in these political times to put honesty, transparency, right over might, and fidelity to the values and principles of our platform over party power, position, and internecine tribalism. To adherence to both the spirit and letter of our rules.

Per SCGOP Rules 2(b) and 7(c), we, the duly elected State Executive Committeemen from our respective counties, are accountable for the general management of the State Republican Party and the final arbiter of all disputes that may arise within our party according to SC Law, our SCGOP Rules, and Robert’s Rules of Order. The rules of the National Republican Party may be followed as a guide.

I am writing this open letter to each of you with sincerely and in the spirit of appealing to each of you to honestly and objectively to consider a recommendation as to how we, as the SCGOP, can resolve “the Pickens issue.”

My intent is not to ascribe blame. My intent is to advocate for the resolution of the issue, restoration of the full body, and, most importantly, transparency, fairness, and due process within our party.

I cannot speak to any of the allegations of rules violations by Pickens County during the 2025 Reorganization because that would require knowledge of specific charges, presentation of actual evidence, objective evaluation and consideration of that evidence, and due process according to our rules.

I simply and more importantly want to speak to the process by which the Pickens issue has been managed.

This is my understanding of the facts surrounding the issue with the Pickens County Republican Party (PCRP) and how it has been managed by the PCRP, the SCGOP staff, the State Convention Credentials Committee, and the SCGOP Executive Committee. Should anyone have any factual evidence that would prove my understanding to be incorrect, I am open to receiving such information.

• The PCRP did in accordance with SCGOP Rule 4 conduct 2025 county precinct reorganization on March 8th and precinct reorganization make up March 22nd

• PCRP did in accordance with SCGOP Rule 5 duly hold its 2025 county convention on April 5th

• There were no proper or timely appeals as to the county convention credentials committee report, either during the convention or immediately thereafter

• A complaint regarding the conduct of the 2025 PCRP precinct reorganization and the PCRP convention was submitted to the SCGOP Chairman on April 30th by an unsuccessful candidate for the PCRP Chairman position (Chris Clark) at the 2025 PCRP convention. The complaint did not question the qualifications of any specific PCRP state delegates. The complaint did not include copy to the PCRP, and it was not timely per SCGOP Rule 10(b)

• For only the sake of argument, accepting the April 30th complaint should have required, Per SCGOP Rule 10(b), that the State Chairman shall call a meeting of the state executive committee no later than two weeks after an appeal has been filed with the State Chairman. The complaint was not a credentials matter under the purview of the State Convention Credentials Committee but, rather, a complaint about the legitimacy of the PCRP reorganization and convention which falls under the auspices of the SCGOP EC.

• Again, for only the sake of argument, accepting the April 30th complaint as under the purview of the State Convention Credentials Committee, its report to the State Convention body recommending that the entire PCRP delegation not be seated is not in keeping with adjudicating the qualifications of individual delegates and is wholly unprecedented. Further, based on direct feedback from at least five people who were members of the State Convention Credentials Committee, its proceedings were questionable and not conducted using due process and in accordance with the rules.

• The PCRP was duly recognized by the SCGOP EC at its quarterly meeting on June 7th.

• The motion adopted at the June 7th quarterly meeting to “not recognize the PCRP as part of the SCGOP body” is inconsistent with the fact the SCGOP EC body did duly recognized the PCRP at the June 7th meeting. The motion was improper, did not allow due process, and was not in accordance with the rules, specifically Roberts Rules of Order section 61. Further, there are no provisions in SCGOP Rules regarding “recognition.” For only the sake of argument, either a motion to formally suspend the PCRP pending proper due process or a motion to declare the PCRP unorganized should have been made.

• You may recall that at the SCGOP June 7th quarterly EC meeting I made a motion to create an ad hoc committee to do a root cause analysis of the Pickens issue. Though the motion failed, my genuine interest in making our SCGOP processes better and less prone to error remains. I have received no official communication since the June 7th meeting regarding the Pickens issue. However, it is my understanding and belief, though I have not received any formal communication from the SCGOP Chairman, that a committee, comprised of a small number of hand-picked individuals, including several who are a party to the alleged Pickens issues, has been considering the Pickens issue. I note that per SCGOP Rule 7(c)(6) any such committee requires the approval of the SCGOP EC. As there has been no committee formally appointed by the Chairman and approved by the SCGOP EC, no such committee exists.

Given the facts as to how the Pickens issue has been managed, I respectfully ask that you honestly and objectively consider all that is presented here and agree with me that the SCGOP EC must:

• rescind in accordance with RONR 35 the previous motion to “not recognize the PCRP as part of the SCGOP body”

• reaffirm by acclamation that the PCRP is a recognized member of the SCGOP EC

• acknowledge that, while there clearly was miscommunication, discrepancies, and inconsistencies as part of the PCRP 2025 Reorganization, there were no such issues that rise to the level of suspension or expulsion (“unorganized”) and that, further, given past history in many counties’ reorganizations across our state, such miscommunication, discrepancies, and inconsistencies have also happened

• work together to examine our SCGOP precinct, county, and state reorganization processes, procedures, training, and communications and ensure they are transparent, fair, proper, and efficient for the 2027 reorganization cycle, and

• mutually turn our focus and attention to what should be our shared mission as stated in the Preamble to our SCGOP rules.

• I remain open-minded and objective, willing to consider additional facts and willing to discuss any honest, transparent, and sincerely held and reasoned perspectives.

If your reaction to this open letter to you as a colleague is to deride me rather than objectively and critically question my argument, I ask that you check your emotions and feelings and reconsider the facts. Facts do not care about our feelings.

If you have questions, need additional information, or would like to discuss this further, please feel free to contact me directly.

Regards,

Jim

Jim Lee
South Carolina Republican Party Congressional District 1 Vice Chairman
Dorchester County Republican Party State Executive Committeeman