Guest Editorial
by Peter DeLorme
October 16, 2024

In the first week of October, Ms. Maria Sullivan of Aiken had a letter printed in the Aiken Standard. It praised the Aiken County Board of Elections for its quick action during the first week of August when it appointed to the Elections Office Interim Director Ms. Judy Justice, and Interim Assistant Director Ms. Amy Nichols. These appointments were triggered by the resignations of the Elections Office’s Director Cynthia Holland in May, and Assistant Director Michael Bond in July. The interim employees were to fill the management void until a new Director was hired.

Ms. Sullivan’s letter went on to lament the sudden dismissal of those same interim employees and to complain about the makeup of the committee that had conducted the search for a new Director.

First, let’s look at what really happened with the flawed appointments of the interim employees, and how they relate to the statement “someone did something they should not have done” made recently by the Board’s Chair Ms. Blanche Wimberly.

Early in her interim tenure Ms. Justice relayed to me two important pieces of information. One was that both she and Interim Assistant Director Nichols had been simultaneously appointed by the Board. The other was that she had no input into the decision to appoint Ms. Nichols.

SC Law grants the Elections Board the authority, in a public meeting, to appoint the Director. It grants to the Director the authority to select and manage the Office staff, which includes the Assistant Director. Clearly, the Board should not have appointed the Interim Assistant Director, nor should the Interim Director have been appointed in a non-public Board meeting.

The State Elections Commission (SEC), in relation to these Board actions, has stated “We have had conversations with multiple people in Aiken County about this issue but have not heard a consistent story of how these hirings were made by the board.” What does it say about our Elections Board that its members cannot explain to the SEC how the interim employees were lawfully appointed?

Second, Ms. Sullivan comments that the interim employees were abruptly terminated and there was not a suitable transition period.

Remember, these were interim appointments.  It is not surprising that Ms. Justice was replaced immediately upon the hiring of a permanent Director.  

I am similarly not surprised that Ms. Nichols was not retained. In one of her Facebook posts, she wrote: “Yet (sic), the election was manipulated in two critical ways: First, the government dishonestly used the coronavirus pandemic to make wholesale changes to our voting rules that made it easier for Democrats to amass ballots.”  Posts such as this made her unsuitable for a management position in the non-partisan office charged with conducting our elections.   

Were the interim appointments made so quickly that there was no proper vetting of the candidates?  It would be useful to know who proposed this person be hired and appointed.

As it relates to the abrupt termination of the interim employees by the new Director, the SEC also referenced the SC Code of Laws, writing:

“Once hired, it would be the responsibility of the director to hire and manage all subordinate office staff, which would include the position of assistant director (see SC Code of laws Section 7-5-10 (B)).”

This statement clearly puts into the hands of the Director the ability/responsibility to terminate (or to use Ms. Sullivans term, ‘fire’) Elections Office employees.

It is clear from an article printed in the Aiken Standard on Sept. 18 that the decisions on the terminations were properly made by the new Director, Ms. Dana Burden. As to whether or not there was sufficient turnover, what took place during the transition were personnel matters, so it is unlikely we will ever know what turnover, if any, took place.

It is commendable and important that the Board was supporting Ms. Burden as she considered whether or not to retain the interim employees and that she was given that leeway by the board. That is a good start to a new era in which there needs to be more cooperation and trust between the Board and the Director.

Third, in the middle of her letter complaining about how the recent transitions took place, Ms. Sullivan brought up old news about the make-up of the committee performing the search for the new Director. Her implication was that Ms. Wimberly acted improperly when she did not appoint to the committee Ms. Lori Boddy, who was the only Board officer not so appointed. Why this was improper, or how this presumed appointment failure negatively impacted the search was not explained. Nor was it explained how this presumed failure related to the hiring or firing of the interim employees.

There has been turnover and irregular activity in the Election office the last few months, but a visit to the Elections Office will show that preparations and training for the election are well underway. 

Unfortunately there are still unfilled 300 of the needed 900+ Clerk and Poll Manager positions.   All civic-minded citizens are urged to sign up NOW, and to say YES when contacted by the County elections office, to work the polls.   Yes, it is a long, long, day, but it provides a very satisfying experience.