This might be a first.
An e-mail chain went out to Republican Central Committee members where “Chairman’s Assistant Tanna Brummett,” (a.k.a. the hired help) as a SDGOP employee seems to have used the party’s e-mail to actively engage in attacking an elected executive board member in messaging sent out to both the executive board and the entire central committee.
From: office@sdgop.com <office@sdgop.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 08:50
To: ‘Jim Eschenbaum’; ‘State Central Committee’ ; ‘Executive Board’; ‘State Officers’
Cc: ‘Finance Director’
Subject: RE: Proposed bylaws amendment, draft #2
Hi Jim,
I’m reaching out to clarify whether we’re discussing Advisory Board Members or At-Large Board Members, as those are two entirely different roles with distinct responsibilities and authority.
If we’re referring to At-Large Members, the bylaws—as written and consistently upheld for over 25 years—identify appointed At-Large Members as part of the Executive Board, meaning they are voting members. They are not automatically part of the Central Committee unless they also serve as precinct members, in which case their voting rights extend to that level. The County Central Committee remains the governing body.
It’s important to be clear that At-Large Members, though appointed, are in no way representative of a so-called “dictatorship.” Suggesting otherwise mischaracterizes their role and contribution.
Asking individuals to commit their time, resources, and efforts without affording them any input or vote on the responsibilities they are expected to shoulder is both short-sighted and counterproductive.
Additionally, I’d urge caution when relying on hypothetical scenarios—such as the idea of a county chair “stacking” the board to sway votes. In the county from which this bylaw originated, during the most recent two-year term, there were only two or three votes with even a single dissenting voice. One of those, as I recall, was regarding whether board members could consume alcohol at an event.
It’s also worth noting that this bylaw proposal was introduced by someone who, during the same term it was created, failed to attend meetings for over 15 months. As a result, it was often the At-Large Members who stepped up and supported the active board in carrying out its work.
Further concerns arise from the fact that the original bylaw proposal was submitted without attribution. It was later revealed that Representative Tom Pischke was the author—although it has since been associated with John Wiik’s name. Email correspondence on the matter indicates that Representative Pischke collaborated with then-State Chairman Wiik to shield his authorship, and it has now come to light that the original draft was authored by former Senator Wheeler.
Given this lack of transparency, I’m struggling to understand why Representative Pischke—who has historically positioned himself in opposition to the establishment—would work in a way that directly undermines the continued success of county GOP efforts.
In my opinion, the lack of openness surrounding the origin and intent of this proposal alone should call into question the necessity of the proposed bylaw amendment itself.
Best regards,
Tanna B
Granted, they’re attacking Executive Board member and State Senator “Sticky” Tom Pischke, so it’s always going to be funny, but this certainly makes it seem like no one is really in charge at the state’s Republican Party.
In both of my stints where I was an employee of the SDGOP (in 1988 and 1990), way back in the olden days when we didn’t have e-mail, I would imagine if I’d sent something like this out to the entire Central Committee, I would have been fired immediately and sent packing for such an egregious violation of the chain of command.
Even more kooky is that the criticism is being leveled because Pischke is being accused of committing a sin by working on a bylaw change with Party leadership, as if the SDGOP’s leadership and County GOP groups are somehow working in opposition to the other.
But, that’s what you get when the inmates run the asylum. The hired help gets to attack their employer.