Dakota News Now has a story about the malcontents in the Minnehaha County Republican Party organization attempting to oust Minnehaha County Chairman Korry Petterson, and about how the (former 32-year Democrat) Chair Jim Eschenbaum ruled that it could not be done.
The South Dakota Republican Party said Minnehaha County GOP Chairman Korry Petterson will remain in office.
A vote to remove him on Monday was ruled invalid by the state’s executive board.
In a Facebook post, SD GOP Chairman Jim Eschenbaum said the bylaws don’t allow county members to oust elected officials without a state-level amendment.
Read and watch the story here.
But.. is it? Is it really over? Because after Eschenbaum felt the need to publicize his pronouncement to the entire central committee and facebook. And there was an interesting reply. One important one in particular:
All,
I appreciate the openness of Chairman Eschenbaum and the executive board regarding letting us know their decision. I respectfully disagree. I don’t want to post this on Facebook, because it is an internal matter for the Party and not the general public, and not something that needs to be in social media. Therefore I am sending out an email.
I have no dog in the fight between the two factions and Minnehaha County. I don’t take a position as to who should be chair, as I haven’t heard the evidence. But, I do have an interest, as a member of the state central committee, in the state central committee retaining authority over membership disputes of the body when there is a dispute.
The bylaws are very clear that Robert’s Rules of Order apply to County Central Committees in Section III.3.D., which states: “The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the County Central Committee in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the County Central Committee may adopt; however, unless any member objects, the committee may act informally at the discretion of the county chairman.” As recognized in the statement by the Chairman, there are no bylaw provisions regarding removal, which means there isn’t anything inconsistent. Therefore, Robert’s Rules is the gap filler and plainly governs under the bylaws. There is language about events causing a vacancy, but that language is not competitive or mutually exclusive to language authorizing removal by a body for cause or otherwise.
Moreover, as a prior member of the bylaws committee (though quite some time ago) and prior parliamentarian for the state party at several times in the past, the bylaws were written in a way to allow removal of officers by a county central committee. Section III.3 states the term of county officers is “shall hold their offices for a term of two years or until their successors have been elected.” The language “or until their successors have been elected” has significance under Roberts Rules to specifically allow for removal. That choice was deliberate and was made knowingly and discussed in the past.
…
Lastly, I don’t think the executive board has jurisdiction to make a final decision on this matter, except in an interim fashion until the next central committee hearing. Under Section I.2, the State Central Committee has this authority. It also, of course, has the authority to do this in determining its own membership. I have no intention to bring a motion on this issue, but it is my opinion that this issue is ripe for resolution by the Central Committee rather than the Executive Board.
So, in Stanley County, we will follow State law, the State GOP Bylaws, and Robert’s Rules, in that order. If the Stanley County central committee chooses to throw me out, so be it. I would encourage other counties to do the same.
Justin Bell
Stanley County GOP Chair
Why is this an important footnote to pay attention to? If you’ve not been paying attention, Justin Bell had recently been doing double duty as the SDGOP Treasurer and the Republican Party’s attorney in just about every election matter for the last decade. Justin is a darn good attorney, and his win/loss record has been tremendous in fighting for the party.
Justin is the one who kept Lora Hubbel off the ballot when she was trying to run for Governor with the Constitution party – in a year where Governor Noem won by 11,458 votes. And had she been on the ballot, she would have stolen those votes from Kristi, not Billie. And it would be a much different South Dakota political scene.
So when Justin gives you free legal advice, and tells you that you may be in error, you should probably listen.
Of course not everyone agreed.
Since you have no information I disagree with you. The State board took care of the situation and there you have it. They ruled after careful consideration and consultations. Thank you for not giving your option social media.
Amy Wagner
(Pennington County GOP Chair)
Which goes to show you that there’s a place for the hopelessly low-information & clueless in the SDGOP.
Speaking of hopelessly low-information, the SDGOP’s highest ranking Obama voter, Chairman Jim Eschenbaum did reply that party leadership will do what they seem to be focused on most lately, exclusive of fundraising, candidate recruitment or being a functional political party – they’ll have more meetings on it:
I am making it a priority to pass a removal process in February, even if we have to make amendments to the proposed amendment, it needs to be done. I just don’t like where we are right now relying on a process of attempting to read between the lines, or argue about the meaning of a word. Also, I am hoping to find reasonable thresholds for notice of meeting, possibly 30 days, work with accused on meeting date, charges included in the agenda, a good quorum of the full body, (State or County) and a 2/3rds vote for removal. Conflict like this further strengthens our bylaws and brings clarity to operations of the party, so it’s not all bad. But just to be clear, removal from office is not regular business, and shouldn’t be handled as such.
Just another day of chaos in the Republican party.
I have been a member of the Bylaws Committee for five years and was chair until I was replaced by the current chair.
When I was asked how someone can be removed from office, I held a conference call with Justin and two other attorneys who were also members of the 2024 Bylaws Committee. One of them was chair when the bylaws were initially adopted. He, like Justin, said the language adopted “who shall hold their offices for a term of two years or until their successors have been elected.” was specifically chosen because it allows removal without requiring an investigative committee.
From Robert’s Rules of Order: if the bylaws state a term for the office but adds “or until [the officer’s] successor is elected,” or contains other wording explicitly indicating that the officer may be removed before the term expires, then the officer can be removed from office by a two-thirds vote, by a majority vote when previous notice has been given, or by a vote of the majority of the entire membership—any one of which will suffice. A successor may thereafter be elected for the remainder of the term.
Since previous notice was given, only a majority vote was needed. Even if they had found that the previous notice was inadequate, the vote for removal was over 90%. Thus, two of the three requirements were met with only one being needed.
The one other bylaw provision that is pertinent is that the vice-chair will assume the chairmanship in the event of a vacancy. This modifies but does not negate the removal authority.
The ruling was apparently based on research provided by Tanna W Brummett. Tana holds only an appointed position as she failed to be elected as a committeewoman in the last three elections. I have no idea what her qualifications are to give legal advice to the Executive Board.
The fallacy in Tana’s assessment is when it states that because there is a forfeiture clause in the bylaws that RROO on removal do not apply. Ignoring the fact that they are two separate issues.
Robert’s Rules of Order forfeiture versus removal from office
“Forfeiture and removal from office are two distinct actions within Robert’s Rules of Order. Forfeiture typically involves a member’s loss of privileges or rights within an organization, such as being barred from participating in certain activities or receiving certain benefits. In contrast, removal from office involves a member’s complete departure from the organization, often due to misconduct or failure to meet the organization’s standards.
I would agree that RROO on forfeiture may not apply, but saying the removal section is invalid as well is not credible.
I was told that a request was made for me to attend the state meeting to provide background information. Since I did not receive an invitation, I can only assume the request was denied. I had also recommended that if the executive board had doubts, the party hire a certified parliamentarian and get an official ruling. This is recommended under RROO but was not done.
My involvement is because I was asked and believe we need to follow correct procedure. There is obviously disagreement, but my money is on Justin.
Let’s be honest — this whole thing has turned into a joke. The bylaws aren’t that complicated; people just use them as weapons when it fits their agenda.
I don’t have a leg in this fight — and frankly, I strongly dislike all of them. Every side has spent more time quoting bylaws than living up to them. This isn’t about process anymore; it’s about power, ego, and who gets to hold the gavel in a room no one respects.
That said, both Justin Bell and Jim make some fair points. I actually agree with Justin that the State Executive Board overstepped. They don’t have the authority to decide county disputes — that power belongs to the State Central Committee. On that front, Justin is right. The Executive Board shouldn’t be playing judge and jury.
And I’ll admit Jim’s interpretation of the bylaws and Robert’s Rules isn’t entirely wrong either. Section 47:8 of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th Edition) says that if an officer’s term is written as “two years or until their successor is elected,” that can allow removal before the term expires, provided the proper procedure is followed — a two-thirds vote, a majority with notice, or a majority of the entire membership. So, technically, the structure for removal might exist.
But here’s the thing — procedure means nothing when no one involved acts in good faith. You can have all the right words on paper, but if the people in the room are just using them to settle personal scores, it’s worthless. The notice, the process, the vote — none of it matters when it’s all driven by vendettas instead of purpose.
Minnehaha County GOP has turned into a circus where every faction thinks it’s the hero of the story. One side hides behind “process,” the other behind “authority,” and both have managed to destroy whatever credibility the organization once had.
At this point, I’m past trying to assign who’s right — because none of them are. The State should have just disorganized the entire county party and hit reset. It’s the only way forward. Start from zero. Let people with actual discipline and no personal grudges rebuild something that resembles a functioning political organization.
Because right now, this isn’t leadership — it’s dysfunction on repeat. It’s people confusing noise for impact, rules for righteousness, and chaos for purpose.
If this is what “grassroots” politics looks like, no wonder sensible people want nothing to do with it.
So I want to add a part to my message; because Jim brought up “I had also recommended that if the executive board had doubts, the party hire a certified parliamentarian and get an official ruling. This is recommended under RROO but was not done.”
That’s exactly the problem, Jim — hiring a certified parliamentarian costs money, and nobody in this organization is focused on fundraising or actually building the resources to function like a real political party.
If the county GOP can’t even afford professional guidance or the awareness to get it, then the bylaws and Robert’s Rules don’t matter. You can’t claim to “follow procedure” when no one has the competence or discipline to do it right.
I remember talking with Joe Kipley last December — and I don’t agree with him on much — but we both said the same thing: people have completely forgotten that this is supposed to be civil service. It’s meant to serve the public, not personal grudges. Instead, the entire county organization has turned into a cult of ego, where everyone thinks they’re saving the party while tearing it apart.
When we say the State Party is wrong, we also have to admit that everyone in the county bears blame too. No one’s leading, no one’s fundraising, and no one’s building anything that matters. Until that changes, all the talk about bylaws and procedure is just noise from people arguing over rules they don’t understand
If mr bell reads this could he prehaps shed some insight on where each side stands, legally, and how this could get resolved?
Keep in mind, that there are many other issuses surrounding the calling and execution of the oct 19th meeting. For some reason the vote on the chairman is grabbing the limelight.
I always thought the line about county officers served two year terms or until their successors were elected meant that whoever held an office was stuck with it until somebody else volunteered to relieve them.
In the past, these were jobs nobody wanted. There is no power or prestige involved, just a lot of your time and often a lot of your own money.
What I find curious about all of this is that instead of being grateful that somebody agreed to do the job, there are people who want the job so badly they can’t wait to take over. For what???
What’s the point of rules, if they’re not being followed? Good for those who are asking questions, insisting rules be followed and not caving to the “old way” of bending to pressure. Then, follow the money trail, follow the power plays and follow the pride.
my experience in county leadership took me down a money trail all right: there’s a parade, somebody needs to buy candy and gas for the truck. . We need money, somebody needs to have a fundraiser. There’s a Lincoln Day Dinner, somebody needs to buy a table. A former governor died, somebody needs to send flowers. There’s a campaign, somebody needs to distribute yard signs. And make phone calls, and recruit volunteers, etc.
Being a county chairman is a good way to become somebody.
Herr Eschenbama has spoken so shall it be. The dictator, running the sinking SDGOP ship, shows his fascist self by publicly declaring he’s correct and disregarding the county parties. Meanwhile, good soldiers like Justin Bell, (the same Justin Bell that saved the election for Noem against Billie Sutton by getting the Con Party booted), is right. The problem is that the state party exec board is ran by a group that has less years of involvement in the state party than people like Bell… COMBINED! Grand Leader Eschenbama just got involved less than 2 years ago and Treasurer Mulally spent the last few years fighting economic development and ruining the finances of the SD Federation of Republican Women. Bell has been carrying water for the elephant for over half his life. I would trust Bell any day over the idiots running the SDGOP into the ground.