Editor’s note: Charleston City Paper publishes letters received each week on Saturdays. To submit your own reaction to City Paper coverage or local issues, we welcome letters to the editor.
Mission Critical candidates
Mission Critical initiatives are the culmination of years of studies, planning and community collaboration. These initiatives begin to close the achievement gap in our schools by accelerating growth for students in some of our lowest performing schools and give our failing schools a real chance to improve.
The proof is in the pudding. A new early learning center in North Charleston has opened. More students have a chance to attend our best schools like Buist. CCSD now has a plan to improve. And, as the Superintendent has repeatedly made clear, there is no plan to privatize any CCSD schools.
Having attended or watched school board meetings the past two years, I know the Mission Critical initiatives have taken root and, if they are allowed to continue and grow, the sons and daughters of Charleston County will be able to attend better public schools–regardless of where in the County they live.
There are those standing in the way of progress. Chris Collins and Kevin Hollinshead both incumbents-voted against Mission Critical initiatives. Other candidates seeking to get on the board oppose Mission Critical and spread false information that somehow it’s a program to privatize our schools. It’s not.
Incumbent Chris Fraser sees things differently, he recognizes the value to our children in the Mission Critical initiatives. New candidates Hunter Schimpff, Charles Monteith, Courtney Waters and Lauren Heterich also support Mission Critical.
School board candidates who support Mission Critical deserve our vote.
Charleston RISE coordinator, School Board Accountability Committee
Save Parris Island
Parris Island is incredibly important to our economy in the Lowcountry, and to our rich military history. We need to protect it. While I’m glad that Congressman Joe Cunningham introduced the Parris Island Protection Act, I wish he hadn’t put it in the position to close in the first place. He clearly understands his mistake after it was pointed out by Gen. Berger (USMC), and Rep. Nancy Mace, his opponent in SC-01.
He’s covering his tracks and trying to come out of this situation a hero — a situation he created! If Parris Island is so important to him (or to his political career) why did he vote to put it on the chopping block in the first place? Did he not understand what his vote would do? Does he read the legislation he votes on, or just go along with liberal Democrats in Congress putting CA values before ours?
I want someone to represent the Lowcountry to beat back against the swamp. I want someone who is an independent thinker, and who reads what she votes on before she casts her vote! That’s why I’m voting to send Nancy Mace to Washington.
Democrat Congressman Cunningham bowed to the extreme fringes of his party and supported H.R. 5. This radical measure would force government institutions to conform to “politically correct” social experiments and mandate gender neutral rules.
I thought that was extreme enough, but then he voted for an amendment to the NDAA (the bill that funds our military) that would bring those PC gender neutral rules to our own backyard — to Parris Island. That vital base would have to conform to these radical rules or shut down.
To make my point even more clear, the amendment was proposed by a California liberal. Do they have Lowcountry values? Do they put our needs and wants first?
Our representatives to Congress should vote with the needs of their community — not California. Congressman Cunningham clearly does not know what Parris Island means to our military, our families, and our local economy? It means $800 million for the Lowcountry’s economy. It means 6,000 jobs.