The Charleston Museum has recently announced the retirement of its director of 30 years, Dr. John Brumgardt. As head of the search committee that brought John to the museum, I feel compelled to write about his service to both the museum and our community.
John’s stewardship of the museum was characterized like a sea captain with a steady hand on the tiller in stormy waters. His thoughtful decisions, excellent planning and management of the museum were the hallmarks of his tenure.
Some of the significant accomplishments during John’s service were a new exhibition plan, display of the silver and textile collections, strategic planning, the introduction of the Museum Mile, the celebration of the museum’s 225th anniversary and its new courtyard, just to mention a few.
In recognition of his service, the board of trustees has named John director emeritus. Seventeen years ago, John hired Carl Borick as chief financial officer, later moving him to assistant director and grooming him to become the museum’s next director. We thank John for his loyal service and welcome Carl as our new director.
HUGH C. LANE JR.
‘Cutting edge’ law
I was inspired by the Oct. 24 front page article in The Post and Courier regarding the North Charleston City Council considering a “cutting-edge” ordinance.
Evidently, the efforts of some citizens to maintain their physical health through regular walks is being impeded by grass encroaching on some neighborhood sidewalks.
As concerned citizens, one couple took this issue to the City Council, seeking relief through a city ordinance.
To its credit, North Charleston City Council saw the potential pitfalls of allowing grass encroachment and took immediate action through the proposal of a regulation.
If I may be so bold as to suggest to the council, I think part of the proposal should include a guideline for their Grass Encroachment Enforcement Officers (GEEOs).
I recommend a limit of 1 3/16-inch encroachment because once you pass 1 1/4 inch there is a high potential for an out-of-control situation.
As a Mount Pleasant resident, I am considering bringing this issue to our Town Council. A proactive government solution such as the one North Charleston is considering is preferable to the potential pitfalls of neighbors talking to each other or offering to help with the trimming. Another benefit would be the employment opportunities in Mount Pleasant if we had our own staff of GEEOs.
Articles and letters in The Post and Courier for the past year have blamed trees in the median of I-26 for the deaths of scores of people. The tragic news of another fatal accident (“Mom, son killed in notorious I-26 zone,” Oct. 25), implies these trees have claimed more victims. The report said the driver went off the right shoulder of the road and struck a tree. How would removal of trees in the median have prevented this tragedy?
I haven’t seen any reports that separate the number of accidents on the right side of the road from those on the median side. If more accidents occurred off the right lane would we consider removing all trees on both sides?
It also would also be illuminating to examine the number of such fatalities that involved drivers and passengers who were not wearing seat belts, as well as drivers distracted by using hand-held devices or eating food. Without such analysis, the decision to replace these trees with a guardrail would simply be ridiculous.
We all know that trees don’t run at high speed into unsuspecting vehicles. Blaming the trees is just another sign of people refusing to take responsibility for their own actions or misjudgments. I pray for the souls of those unfortunate fatalities on I-26, but I don’t think that cutting down countless innocent by-standing trees is an appropriate response or memorial, nor is it environmentally responsible.
PETER B. MUMOLA, Ph.D.
The proposed Clemson Architecture Center is just another box-like commercial building with some unusual windows. Please. Charleston deserves better.
KENNETH S. ANDERSON JR.
I was excited to walk my dog over the Ravenel Bridge recently. I did not see any “No Dogs Allowed” signs, so off I went, dog in tow. I passed many people, and none said a word to me other than a cordial “hello” until I was about three-fourths of the way up the bridge. That’s when a young lady informed me that I was facing a $150 fine to have my dog on the bridge. Back down the bridge I went, praying that I would not be ticketed.
Along the way I started paying attention to those around me, and I was shocked. I was a woman, walking alone, thus the big husky with me. I was blown away by all the pretty women walking alone on the bridge after dark. I passed a large group of intoxicated young men and was truly afraid for the oblivious women.
When I reached the bottom of the bridge I saw it — a sign saying “No pets allowed.” What I would prefer to have seen is a sign encouraging women to pair up, not to walk alone.
Or, can there be blue light emergency phones as on college campuses? The walk from the bridge to my car in front of the Shriners’ building was dark and scary.
I had my dog, but two women ahead of me were walking alone.
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point.