Response to the 1st Vice Chair

As a follow-up from my last post, First Vice Chairwoman Debbie Heim has responded to my email that was addressed to Chairman Mark Weber.

Pictured below is her email, and below this body of text is my response. I encourage everyone following the Pickens issue to read both thoroughly.

Like Debbie says - “Rules matter. Leadership matters.”

This isn’t just a Pickens County issue. Charleston, Darlington, Georgetown, Lexington and many others were affected by this corrupt convention and reorg process. And these are only for THIS year.

We MUST demand accountability in these dealings. If we shrug our shoulders or turn a blind eye, all we do is further engorge the Swamp we swore to drain.

———————————————

Debbie,

Thank you for taking the time to respond, but I do need to address several issues in your letter, as they not only contradict the facts but also your own words from our county reorganization.

1. Contradictory Standards

After our Lexington County ReOrg, you yourself stated that allowance of Form 1’s after ReOrg and the makeup meeting are “under the chair’s purview and discretion.” By that very standard, the chair does have the authority to accept or decline delegates — meaning your justification for suspension directly conflicts with what you previously affirmed. This inconsistency is exactly why we raised concerns in the first place.

2. Delegate Harvesting

I never accused you or Mark of turning away submitted forms. On the contrary, you and Mark took additional Form 1’s beyond ReOrg and the makeup meeting, soliciting signatures outside the official process. According to the state rules, delegates are only elected at ReOrg and the makeup meeting — nowhere else. That’s why we called it “delegate harvesting.” To then accuse Pickens of breaking the rules while excusing your own overreach is deeply problematic.

3. Rhonda Billingsley’s Statement

I personally spoke to Rhonda Billingsley. She did not tell you that forms submitted on time were turned away. What she confirmed was that 10–20 mishandled forms existed and these were uncontrolled copies, not properly filed forms. This misrepresentation needs to be corrected. Furthermore, if you continue to claim that eligible voters were denied participation, please provide specifics: who these individuals were, what forms were allegedly rejected, and when this occurred. Thus far you have only provided second-hand claims, not documented proof.

4. Open Discussion Has Not Been Encouraged

Your letter asserts that the leadership has openly discussed the Pickens suspension and allowed questions. That is simply not true. At the May county meeting, when the credentialing chair gave his report, multiple questions were raised but Chairman Mark Weber shut down discussion instead of allowing it. Far from being transparent, the process has been tightly controlled and dissenting voices have been silenced.

5. Disproportionate Punishment

For the sake of conversation, let’s say hypothetically that 10–20 individuals were disenfranchised by actions of the former Pickens chair. Even if that were true, how does it justify punishing the 300+ participants who filed properly, followed procedure, and acted in good faith? Entirely suspending a county party over a handful of disputed forms disenfranchises exponentially more people than the alleged violation. Furthermore, the SCGOP executive committee is penalizing the current PCRP leadership and the entire county for supposed actions of the former chairman. That is not fairness — it is collective punishment.

6. Lack of Authority for Suspension

There is no allowance for suspension of a county party anywhere in the SCGOP rules. None. Robert’s Rules further makes clear that any disciplinary action regarding accusations not personally witnessed must be brought to a trial. The State EC bypassed both state rules and Robert’s Rules in this action against Pickens.

7. Accountability in Response

Finally, I wrote my letter to Chairman Mark Weber. Why am I receiving a response from you instead of from him directly? And why does your letter take such a personal tone rather than focusing strictly on the rules and procedure at issue? This matter should not be reduced to personal grievance. It demands clear, documented evidence and proper process.

In closing, the suspension of Pickens was not supported by state rules, was not conducted according to Robert’s Rules, and was justified by contradictory and in some cases factually false claims. The people of Lexington (your constituents), and indeed the entire party, deserve a straightforward explanation rooted in rules, not personal narratives.

Sincerely,

Sarah Grace Allen