2026-09-02 - Commission on History

05:04the uh St. Phillips plaque

05:08that we discussed last time. Um,

05:14as you know, it was placed on public

05:17property. I think the indication is is

05:20that at this point it would require some

05:24change, you know, if we decided to make

05:26any changes to it, it would require that

05:28the plaque have to be redone. Uh I think

05:32when at the last meeting we learned that

05:34there seemed to be um a little bit of

05:37lack of communication in terms of the

05:40authority of this committee and the fact

05:42that if it was going to be put on public

05:45property that the committee would have

05:47to review the language on the plaque as

05:50well as the the size and the look of the

05:54plaque.

05:56Uh that didn't happen. Uh but the city

05:59now has put forth ideas for making sure

06:02that that that this

06:05um lack of communication doesn't happen

06:08again. So they've suggested a variety of

06:11check offs between uh the departments

06:14that are involved the city departments

06:17that are involved with the creation of

06:19signs to make sure that all the steps

06:22are carried out before the sign is

06:25actually fabricated.

06:27So, um,

06:30there unless there is further discussion

06:32on this.

06:36>> So, we're not going to see them. They've

06:39decided not to push it back through.

06:41>> Correct.

06:42They've decided not to push it back

06:44through. That's

06:45>> who is they the city. Oh,

06:50>> but the the new process is going to

06:53ensure that

06:56it basically can't happen again.

06:58>> Correct.

06:58>> Just moves moves the sign. The city,

07:01>> right?

07:04>> And it's my understanding they didn't

07:06move it on their own. It was moved by

07:08the city.

07:10>> Yeah. Am I correcting?

07:14I can say my understanding but any uh

07:16questions I would have to relay to staff

07:18but my understanding is that the church

07:20requested that the city move it into the

07:23public right of way

07:24>> and that's how it went.

07:29>> Hi Ken Scarlet. Uh

07:34there were two questions that were put

07:37forth. I I had several people call me

07:40about that and uh Philip, were you able

07:43to get a copy of the questions? I think

07:44I sent you copy copy of the questions

07:47>> to me or to Phillip?

07:49>> Phillip

07:51uh with Haron and it shows that you were

07:54copied to Phillip.

07:58>> Let me I'm pulling it up.

08:05>> Yes, I have them here.

08:06>> Okay. I'm sure we all want accuracy on

08:08the historical markers and the two uh

08:13[clears throat]

08:14big questions that that have come up

08:18is number one is there I I was hoping

08:20that that would be resolved by today's

08:22meeting. Is there professional

08:24documentation about the asserted

08:26beginning date of Revolutionary War of

08:291770 appearing inside the blue logo at

08:32the top that can be furnished to the

08:35Commission on History? That's number

08:37one. Number two, is there precedent

08:40elsewhere of a blue advert logo on the

08:43top of an official state historical

08:46marker rather than the South Carolina

08:48Archives specified South Carolina flag

08:51insignia that can be ver furnished to

08:54the commission on history.

09:01So that marker is their logo, the SC250

09:05South Carolina logo is my understanding.

09:07Um I do not have any information about

09:11how that is. I can relay any further

09:13questions to uh the appropriate

09:15channels.

09:17So for clarification,

09:20uh, Mr. Chairman, uh, chair,

09:24uh, lady,

09:26are

09:28are we supposed to have a discussion

09:30about this or

09:33I'm I'm just looking at my notes from

09:34the last meeting. The meeting was

09:37adjourned

09:38uh, right after there was some concerns

09:43about this sign being brought up. uh

09:47being erected and um that was previously

09:52preva fabricated a long time ago and sat

09:55in the cemetery of that if I remember

09:57that story correctly and then uh I

10:01personally went down and went down with

10:03some others to look at the sign several

10:05times also I wasn't even aware of the

10:06sign and so these questions came up and

10:10these are professional historians that

10:12have asked these questions

10:14and if there his documentation that the

10:17revolutionary war started in 1770. I

10:21have not personally been able to find

10:23any historian uh on record of saying

10:27that that was the beginning of the

10:29Revolutionary War or

10:32um

10:33war for American independence.

10:37So I mean that had we're the Commission

10:39on History. If we're okay with that,

10:42then that's fine. If that's not a

10:44subject of this discussion, then I'll

10:45understand that as well.

10:49>> Well, I think the issue here is whether

10:52or not the we are prepared or the city

10:56is prepared to go back to St. Phillips

10:59and say that the sign has to be redone.

11:02Um the you know I think the

11:07the the issue also is is that St.

11:10Phillips apparently was given the

11:12go-ahad or with city help to put the

11:16sign where it is now. Um, so going back

11:20and and according to what I've been

11:23told, they thought that they had checked

11:26with every organization possible to make

11:28sure that that would be okay. Um, so

11:32we're talking about a sign that started

11:34on private property and it's now on

11:36public property. Correct. So, um

11:41I'm not I really don't have an answer in

11:44terms of how we resolve this without

11:46without the sign not coming back through

11:49and a new sign being created.

11:52um if there are issues with content as

11:54well

11:58and you know again

12:01I'm assuming we can make some type of

12:04recommendation but the city I believe

12:07feels that they

12:09gave the assurances that they have the

12:12authority to put the sign where it is

12:14and there it is.

12:17>> I'm personally confused.

12:20I thought the there was a different

12:22issue. Do we need to read the minutes

12:24from the last meeting to to to figure

12:27out where we were when we adjourned and

12:31if we were going to revisit that? But it

12:33feels like that we're talking about a

12:36whole another

12:38uh

12:40thing now

12:43>> in terms of what

12:48>> that it's a mood point. Well, so from

12:52the communication that I have received,

12:56the understanding is that SC250

13:00believes that the sign is historically

13:03accurate. Um

13:06uh and that

13:14and that if there had been any problems

13:16in terms of a design issue,

13:19they would have asked for final approval

13:23from the city. So

13:26honestly, I don't know where to go from

13:28here.

13:29>> Have you seen the sign?

13:30>> Oh, yeah.

13:32>> Oh, there it is. And um

13:35>> I went right after the last meeting.

13:37>> Right. Right. Right.

13:39Um what was in that logo space when it

13:42sat in the graveyard? Does anyone

13:46um have an answer to that before the

13:49250 logo appeared on there? Was there

13:52something in that space before?

13:53>> If you go if you look in the cemetery

13:56now across the street, there is another

13:59sign very similar to it. I mean, they

14:01just copied the sign that was that they

14:04had in the cemetery across the street.

14:08Um, and I didn't go close enough to see

14:11what that logo is. Um, so you're you're

14:16taking issue with the 1770 in the logo.

14:20>> Well, I I'm not taking issue. What I'm

14:24saying is if we are interested in

14:26accuracy, we need documentation on the

14:301770 if that's the charge of this

14:32commission. If it's not the charge of

14:34the commission, we need to forget about

14:35it and I'll move on. But uh that's

14:39number one. Number two,

14:42uh if if the logo I didn't bring up this

14:45point. I think other people uh brought

14:48up this point last time, but my notes

14:49are very clear that uh are we is the

14:54blue logo now and that's an advertising

14:57logo. Um I I sit on the SC250 commission

15:01so this stuff was before my time. Um as

15:05a historian I would have taken issue

15:07with the 1770 uh or I would have asked

15:10for um scholarship relating to that. I

15:14have not been able I've scoured the

15:15internet to try and find scholarship on

15:18the 1770. Most people will acknowledge

15:21that of course the Boston Massacre took

15:23place on that um that time. Uh and um

15:32and then the so there's two issues and

15:34both of those issues were brought up by

15:37other members of this commission last

15:39time. I've just did my homework as a

15:41diligent commissioner and now bringing

15:43them back to the commission since we are

15:46supposed to be discussing this. If we're

15:48not supposed to discuss it and keep

15:49quiet, I can keep quiet. Well, I think I

15:53think the logo

15:56is a conversation that has to be had

15:59with the South Carolina 250 because it

16:03is their logo and they have put you know

16:071770 to 1783. So that is a much larger

16:11question than what we can deal with here

16:15during this meeting because it's a logo

16:18that has been plastered everywhere. Are

16:20we the guardians of of accurate history

16:25for the city of Charleston? I think

16:26that's the larger question.

16:29>> I think we are a committee of city

16:30council.

16:32>> Yes, ma'am. And is our uh duty due

16:36diligence to make sure that uh things

16:39that are erected around town have

16:42historical integrity to them?

16:44>> I'm sure we do.

16:45>> Yes, ma'am.

16:46But we are now near the end of 2026 and

16:52this logo has been out there a lot.

16:56>> Ma'am, I'm I'm not

17:00I'm not I'm not debating the logo. I'm

17:03debating that the

17:06the commission

17:09is it the duty of the commission to make

17:11sure that there's historical accuracy

17:13regardless of whether it's a federal

17:16logo or a state logo or an advertising

17:19logo or whatever it is. Are are we the

17:23only screening force

17:26uh to to ask for

17:32uh scholarship academic documentation

17:36that that it is correct

17:39and that's what we've asked for and

17:43um from from my perspective I would

17:48perceive that the duty of this

17:50commission is to at least get

17:52documentation

17:54to certify from academicians that that

17:59uh 1770 is correct

18:03and the two questions that were raised a

18:05month um I don't know a month six weeks

18:07ago however long it was so there's been

18:09adequate time to have this however I

18:13don't want to waste the committee

18:14commission's time

18:16I'm just doing what I feel is my duty as

18:20a commissioner

18:21based on

18:23uh what was brought out from the last

18:25meeting that I didn't even participate

18:27in the discussion with.

18:29>> So perhaps the way to resolve this is to

18:32ask um city staff to approach the South

18:37Carolina 250 commission and ask them to

18:40verify or to provide documentation for

18:44the dates. Would that would that help?

18:46and that could be recorded at the next

18:48meeting

18:49>> if you as the chairperson feels that

18:51that's the duty of this commission to

18:54do. I'm I'm

18:56think

18:57>> would others like to comment on this.

19:03>> We need to turn off some of the green

19:05ones.

19:06>> Oh, okay.

19:07I just feel like we need to make we have

19:09a have to have a threshold here because

19:10if we're analyzing everybody's logos

19:13every I mean I I would think that our

19:15job is the content of the marker and the

19:18history. I get I get that with the logo

19:21and the organization is a history based

19:22organization but I do think we need

19:25specific

19:26clarity on what our threshold is on

19:30these markers. Is it the content of the

19:32history or is it the sponsoring

19:35organization and their mission and their

19:37date? And I I just think we need some

19:39clarity on that.

19:44>> Please go right ahead. That'd be great.

19:47Thank you.

19:49>> Give me just a moment as I screen share

19:51that for us.

19:55>> But maybe they can quickly tell us by

19:57the time it looks.

20:00>> Yeah. So I can read it out. Um

20:04>> the history commission we have uh part A

20:06purpose to discover and as appropriate

20:08circulate information pertinent to the

20:10historical identity of the city of

20:12Charleston to cooperate with other

20:14persons, groups, organizations, and

20:17agencies in preserving the history and

20:19heritage of the city and to identify,

20:22document, interpret, and preserve the

20:24history of Charleston, South Carolina.

20:26Um it's called the Commission on

20:28History. Then there's membership details

20:30and then powers. The commission shall

20:33act as an advisory board in promoting

20:35the collection and preservation of

20:37historical data, publicizing and

20:39commemorating persons, deeds, events,

20:41and things of historical interest

20:43through publication, erection of

20:45monuments, markers, and otherwise. The

20:47commission may also serve as a resource

20:50for the verification of information to

20:51be included on city historical plaques,

20:54markers, publications, and monuments,

20:56and shall further report to the council

20:58at least annually the condition of city

21:00statues and other monuments and make

21:02recommendations to the council

21:04concerning the proper conservation

21:05thereof.

21:10>> This raises an interesting question.

21:12What how deep does our goal go then?

21:15Well, I think again, you know, we are a

21:18commission of the city of Charleston and

21:20the what Philip just read, I think does

21:25state that fairly clearly that our

21:27responsibility is to get the history of

21:29Charleston accurate

21:31>> and not um we do not have purview over

21:35the state of South Carolina. So, this we

21:39have a marker that was created with the

21:44um with the assistance of South Carolina

21:47250

21:49and whatever whoever they chose to work

21:52with to create the marker and the

21:54information. It was taken from private

21:57property and put on public property. Uh

22:00so

22:02I am pleased in hearing from Jennifer

22:06and others um in the you know with city

22:11government that steps are being taken so

22:14that various departments in city

22:18government know that we have um or

22:22should have the opportunity to review

22:24all markers going forward. uh this is

22:27certainly this particular incident has

22:30certainly brought this to the four and

22:34you know that will be followed going

22:36forward. Uh but you know at the end of

22:40the day I think the city's position is

22:43that St. Phillips thought they had gone

22:46through all the proper steps and had the

22:50marker installed in the sidewalk and

22:53therefore it's not

22:56they didn't do anything wrong.

23:01>> May I speak

23:02>> please?

23:06I I don't

23:08I don't think the issue is whether or

23:10not uh St. Phillips did anything wrong.

23:14I mean, they're church, they do

23:15everything right. And so, I think we can

23:18all agree on that. [laughter]

23:20I I wish I could be that heavenly, but

23:23um

23:26I going winding back to uh what what

23:30Philip is I think we're conflating a

23:32couple of things here. That's what I I

23:34think I'm a little bit confused about. I

23:36don't know if anyone else on the

23:37commission is confused about this, but

23:40um

23:42uh you know, academic integrity is up to

23:44us is the way that I see it. Uh and sort

23:47of separating the whole thing of was it

23:50done properly. I didn't bring up the

23:52issue. the issue was brought up uh and

23:55and I have the notes here and I'm sure

23:57it's in the meeting minutes as well uh

24:01from others that the process was not

24:04followed and um so what I'm hearing

24:09right now is is that uh regardless of

24:15what the process was

24:17um

24:19we're going to say that that process

24:22this is okay going forward. I think

24:24that's that's one issue over here that I

24:26don't really want to get involved with.

24:29But the only question that I have is

24:32that we have people that are coming in

24:34from all over the world now uh coming to

24:38um Charleston and to to view places of

24:43the Revolutionary War and they're

24:45counting on that the facts that are

24:48putting before them are correct and

24:51accurate and can be verified by uh uh uh

24:56uh published people uh published

24:59historians

25:00uh and and and ac and good academic

25:03work, good good scholarship.

25:06And I think at a minimum that it would

25:09be our responsibility

25:13uh separate from whether or not

25:16um St. Phillips uh in my opinion did

25:21everything perfect and proper and that

25:24sort of thing. um

25:28how a logo got on there that wasn't

25:30vetted by this uh committee that states

25:33that the Revolutionary War began in

25:361775. All we're doing is asking for two

25:39uh two things. Is there professional

25:41documentation about the asserted

25:43beginning date of the Revolutionary War

25:45of 1770 appearing inside the blue logo

25:48at the top that can be furnished to the

25:50Commission on History? That's a very

25:52easy question and I think most of us in

25:55this room if um you know the College of

25:58Charleston, the South Carolina

26:00Historical Society, this is a basic

26:02fundamental question that we would ask

26:04of anyone that would come into our

26:05office and say, "Well, I think the

26:07Revolutionary War started with a Stamp

26:09Act." Oh, well that's interesting. Do

26:12you That's an interesting thesis. Do you

26:14may may we see the research on that? I

26:17think that's just simple due diligence.

26:20Number one. Number two, we should get an

26:22answer. Is there present elsewhere of a

26:24blue advert logo on the top of an

26:27official state historical marker rather

26:31than the South Carolina archive

26:33specified

26:35South Carolina flag insignia that can be

26:37furnished to the commission on history?

26:40that I'm I'm not sure if that the

26:42commission is aware, but there is a

26:46standard logo on South Carolina

26:49historical markers that is approved by

26:52the archives uh by the state archives

26:55that is I think routine. Now, I'm sure

26:58that there's exceptions and that sort of

27:00thing and maybe there was an exception

27:02for this one and all we're doing is

27:05doing our due diligence and saying,

27:07"Please furnish that to us." So when

27:10someone comes to us in the future and

27:11says, "Well, I want to put my logo on

27:13it. I want to put this date on. I want

27:15to do this. I want to do that." We can

27:17say, "Well, no, you cannot." And the

27:19reason why there was an exception for

27:21that is because of this documentation

27:24here and this documentation here. Right

27:26now, we don't have anything.

27:29>> Well, so if that is a request on the

27:33part of this committee, I'm sure we can

27:35get answers to both of them. Philip,

27:37were you able to take that down? Um,

27:40>> I have it recorded.

27:41>> Okay. So, we will get answers to both of

27:44those questions.

27:47>> Thank you, ma'am.

27:49>> I have another question also, Madam

27:51Chairman. Um, the size is not

27:54standardized either, as you well know,

27:58>> and it's in my opinion way too large.

28:01And I think if we're going to do that,

28:03how is it that that was created to be so

28:05oversized?

28:07>> And again, you know, this marker did not

28:10come before us.

28:11>> Yeah.

28:12>> Nor was Nor do I I mean, when you look

28:15across the street at the other marker at

28:19in St. Phillips's cemetery, it seems to

28:22be the same size as what they already

28:24had in place. And again, you know, as

28:27far as I know, based on the conversation

28:30at the last meeting, this was created

28:33for private property first and then

28:36moved into public property.

28:39>> And the the state department, I mean,

28:40the department of whatever it is, Edwin

28:43Breeden, they have very rigid standards.

28:46I know because I had to work with them

28:47on something. And how they circumvented

28:50that is still a surprise to me.

28:53Again, I can't answer that question. I'm

28:56afraid.

28:56>> As I understand it, this did not come

28:59through the Department of Archives and

29:01History State Historic Marker,

29:04you know, program. It came through the

29:06SC250 grant.

29:08>> So, the question I assume is, are there

29:12other SC250 signs that have been put up,

29:15which I believe there have been, but I

29:18can't be sure.

29:19>> May I offer a point of information? The

29:22U SC250 is actually under the South

29:25Carolina State Archives.

29:27Uh, and

29:29>> we uh if if you look at I'm sorry, if

29:33you look

29:35if you look at the uh the partner sheet,

29:39they're they're actually more than a

29:41partner. I mean, they um

29:45everything the legislation actually goes

29:47through the Department of Archives. So,

29:48that's just a point of information.

29:52Then can we say that this is all in

29:54keeping with the archives department

29:57since they were working together or no?

29:59Well, from my notes, the the original uh

30:04questions that were brought up by

30:06members of this committee uh was that

30:10um

30:12why didn't it follow the the normal

30:15course of vetting and and right and what

30:20just occurred in the minutes a few a few

30:22minutes ago was someone raised the

30:24question, well, how did it get

30:26circumvented from the South Carolina

30:28arch? arives requirement of having their

30:32state logo up at the top. So I I was

30:36that an exception in in protocol?

30:41I I I just don't know. I And I'm just

30:45trying to do due diligence as

30:47commissioner of this commission. Excuse

30:50me. [clears throat]

30:54Again, I mean, those are questions that

30:57we could try and have answered, but I

30:59think, you know, the um

31:05I think we can probably ask that. But,

31:08you know, based on the minutes from the

31:10last meeting, it's clear that the South

31:12Carolina 250 worked very closely with

31:14the church to create this sign. If they

31:17were working closely with archives,

31:19history and archives, then

31:24Yeah.

31:36>> Yes, ma'am. If it can just for the

31:38record for us, not for me. Thank you.

31:43Um, don't you think it would be good

31:45also to discuss this with Edwin Breeden

31:48or somebody up in Colombia since they're

31:49in charge of the uniformity of the signs

31:52down here while we're asking questions?

32:04Okay.

32:40You can discuss before you make a

32:42motion.

32:42>> Yeah,

32:45>> I have some suggested edits.

32:48Is that where we're at? Okay, great. Um,

32:54it could just be the way the term his

32:57term limit was, but

33:002009 to 2026 to 17 years. I don't know

33:03if we want to get into that like whether

33:06we

33:08convert it throughout his x y and z you

33:11know number of terms he served as

33:13opposed to the actual numerical year um

33:18just because it reads like it's 16 not

33:20or excuse me 17

33:23uh towards the end of that paragraph

33:27where it says to redirect water away

33:30from the streets and homes of his city

33:31during the era of rising tides and storm

33:34water. From a historic standpoint, we've

33:37always dealt with rising tides and storm

33:39water. If we can maybe put during N era

33:43of rising tides and storm water to

33:45remain historically accurate.

33:48The very last sentence of that

33:50paragraph. Uh I write a lot of historic

33:53markers and it's best for us to stay in

33:54third person. I suggest getting rid of

33:57that you see today.

34:02And let's see.

34:03>> There was that one. I'm sorry.

34:04>> So, at the very end of the first

34:05paragraph,

34:09>> when we get into the second paragraph, I

34:11have two changes. One, blighted 50 acre.

34:14I don't know if they can make 50 acre

34:15hyphenated. I think it should be.

34:18>> And work, learn, live, play community. I

34:22think should be mixeduse community. I

34:24don't think we need to list out. I think

34:26work, learn, live, play is what a

34:28mixeduse community is.

34:31So use mixed as opposed to work

34:34>> to get work, learn, live, and play. We

34:38could use the term mixed use community.

34:41Again, that's just from an academic

34:44history standpoint. We use that term a

34:46lot.

34:49Uh I always want to make sure that these

34:53we kind of put context, I guess, into

34:56these markers. the third paragraph if if

34:58we if we agree that it should say which

35:01now serves thousands of patients

35:03annually or something I don't know in

35:07>> well never mind because now probably

35:09>> yeah would tell

35:11>> scratch that um and then the last

35:14paragraph I don't know if we can just

35:16get a few more details about how he let

35:18out or what he did but I mean that's

35:21it's not integral to the rest of the

35:22changes I just was like okay well how

35:24did he help the patients if I mean if he

35:26did something extraordinary. I'd love to

35:27maybe if we can put a few words that say

35:29how he did that.

35:30>> If I can interrupt real quick, would you

35:32mind just speaking directly into the

35:34microphone going forward? I'm sorry

35:36y'all and um Angela, you as well. I

35:38think sometimes when you speak, you lean

35:40back into your chair. So, I've gotten

35:41some.

35:45So, to recap, oh, that is much better.

35:47Sorry, Philip. I can hear that now. Um

35:51I suggest changing 16 to 17 unless there

35:54was a reason. Maybe his terms fell.

35:58>> Well, and I think what we need to do is

36:00probably check the dates of his term.

36:02>> Yeah.

36:02>> Just to make sure that when it's

36:04referred to in years, we have the

36:06correct number because it could have

36:08been a some years and a few months,

36:10>> right?

36:10>> Or lack a few months.

36:12>> And maybe it's easier to write the

36:14number of terms he served as opposed to

36:16the number of years,

36:17>> but those they don't go in.

36:20>> Yeah, that's true.

36:23And then an era of rising tide. Get rid

36:26of the last

36:28verbiage in the first paragraph that you

36:30see today.

36:3250acre hyphenated and work, learn, live,

36:36play to mixed use.

36:38>> And then does anyone have any problem

36:41with the third paragraph only using he

36:44as opposed to his name again since it's

36:47been repeated twice before?

36:49>> That's fine. Okay.

37:01Does anyone else have any comments,

37:03edits?

37:08It seemed to me that um in the first

37:11paragraph

37:14with regard to the question of the

37:16number of years and terms that could be

37:19the language could be lang linguistic

37:22problem could be resolved by simply

37:24saying throughout six 16 years as a

37:27council.

37:29um

37:30and

37:32delete

37:34the word term.

37:39I'm I'm trying to to make this as

37:44concise as possible.

37:46The references to his um

37:50years of service with the housing and

37:52urban development

37:54and um

37:59The third paragraph also refers to that.

38:03So I'm I'm wonder as is yours in of

38:06service with housing and urban

38:09development. I was wondering whether

38:13you could in some way or another.

38:20Well, let's see. in your term as a

38:23councilman,

38:25Gregory would mean I would I would

38:27almost delete the um and relying the the

38:33words and relying upon his prior 32

38:35years of experience at the Department of

38:38Housing and Urban Development.

38:40>> Dr. Fraser, do you mind speaking into

38:42your microphone and moving it down

38:43towards you?

38:45I would

38:47probably delete

38:50the and the in the first paragraph

38:53>> the language and relying upon upon his

38:57prior 32 years of experience at the

39:00department of housing and urban

39:01development.

39:03So that it would read simply,

39:10who served the city of Charleston

39:11faithfully from 2009 to 2026 throughout

39:15his to 2026. Throughout his 16 years as

39:20a councilman, Gregory remained constant

39:23a constant advocate for his community,

39:25focusing on the critical need to

39:28redirect water away from the streets and

39:30homes of his city.

39:33during the era of rising tides and storm

39:36water. To that end, he played a

39:39significant role in the planning,

39:41design, and implementation of this $200

39:44million multi-year project

39:47uh that you see today is not

39:53useful language either.

39:59project at, you know, at at

40:02flood control

40:06project to control or to control

40:08flooding.

40:12That you see today is is is obvious.

40:23>> Are there any other comments? the the

40:28Greg also played a

40:46>> If you wanted to keep the language

40:49>> in the upper,

40:50>> delete it from the first paragraph, put

40:52it in,

40:52>> it could be could could be removed to

40:54the third paragraph. That might be a

40:57better way to handle that

41:00>> since they're both relying upon his 30

41:04years of experience

41:10at the US Department of Housing and

41:12Urban Development. M

41:14um

41:18Gregory uh

41:23and as South Carolina HUD director.

41:33So end end with um

41:39>> faithfully from 2009 to 226.

41:43Then take the following sentence and

41:45move it to um

41:52or no um take the second half of the

41:55second sentence and move it down towards

41:58or in front of the the second paragraph.

42:02So

42:02>> yeah, I share the the information and

42:04I'm just trying to

42:06>> see how it

42:08>> would read.

42:10>> Are you seeing that?

42:13Can you describe exactly again which

42:16>> uh Greg relying upon relying on his

42:19prior 32 years of experience at the US

42:23Department of Housing and Urban

42:24Development

42:27and as

42:30South Carolina HUD director,

42:36he shephered a $400 million HUD

42:42FHA a mortgage for construction of

42:45MUSC's Ashi River, which serves

42:48thousands of patients annually

42:57>> is what I'm proposing.

43:00>> All right. So, give us a second to

43:02>> write it out. Okay.

43:04So that the language that was removed in

43:07the first paragraph

43:10beginning with the word relying

43:12ending with the word

43:14>> development

43:16would be removed to the third paragraph

43:28if I may Angela real quick. I think the

43:31reason I can't say for certain I think

43:33the reason they have these separated out

43:36is because in the first paragraph he's

43:38acting as a councilman here and then in

43:41the paragraph we're talking about later

43:43he's acting as SC South Carolina HUD

43:45director and so those aren't directly

43:47related at the time of what he was doing

43:49either one

43:50>> but in that first paragraph it refers to

43:52the fact that he was he's you know it

43:55refers to the department of housing and

43:57urban

43:57>> urban government it's it's his service

43:59in the housing of urban development

44:01acts,

44:03you know, not properly placed in the

44:05first paragraph.

44:07Um, since you also since it's also

44:10referred to in the third paragraph.

44:13>> So, is there a department of housing

44:15development with the city?

44:17>> We have a department of housing.

44:20>> Well, okay. So, that would be different

44:22than what is discussed in paragraph

44:25three.

44:26>> I let me see. No, he served at the US

44:29Department of and then in paragraph

44:30three is the South Carolina South.

44:33>> So that's those are so US and South

44:35Carolina are two different things here.

44:37>> Yeah.

44:46So that you see the connection between

44:48his service

44:49>> did and the the

44:53>> So you wanted to bring relying on his

44:55prior 32 years etc. development. The

44:58paragraph, the third paragraph would

45:00begin relying on his prior 32 years of

45:04experience at the US Department of

45:06Housing and Urban Development and as

45:10South Carolina

45:12HUD director,

45:16he shephered, if they if a comma is

45:19necessary, he shephered a $400 million

45:24mortgage. I don't know whether you need

45:25to have HUD FHA mortgage um

45:30for for but that's that's important

45:32since you show the relationship with his

45:35prior um employment

45:39or service

45:41>> but I yeah

45:42>> I think he's it's referring then to the

45:44flooding issue

45:46>> correct

45:46>> so but then the third paragraph is

45:49referring to the Ashley Tower so I don't

45:52know if they are can

45:54I think it's I think the point is to

45:59first and foremost have the information

46:02related to the project itself

46:05um and then to add more based on what he

46:09had accomplished before or during. So,

46:12I'm not sure because I'm not sure it

46:15makes sense to move that section down to

46:19section three since it refers to the

46:21project that for which this plaque is

46:24being put up.

46:26>> Do you see what I'm saying?

46:28What I'm saying is that the first

46:32project, the first paragraph refers to

46:35his years of service in as a city

46:38councilman

46:40and his advocacy

46:43for the need to control flooding.

46:49So I don't see the relationship

46:52um

46:56of his employment

46:59at the

47:02term,

47:05the 32 years of experience outside of

47:08city council,

47:12the direct relationship between that and

47:15you know controlling flooding in the

47:17city. Whereas there is a direct

47:20relationship between his 32 years of

47:24experience at HUD

47:27and the um the Ash River Towers.

47:33But I think the first paragraph might be

47:35saying that there is a relationship

47:37between his city council term and his 32

47:41years at HUD with also with the flooding

47:44project

47:45>> with this specific project. Yeah,

47:50>> he remained an advocate. It's his

47:52advocacy that's

47:55that's discussed in the first paragraph.

47:57I think that's emphasized in the first

47:59paragraph. And as I said that at the end

48:02of that paragraph, the words that you

48:05see today should be deleted and to

48:08control flooding should be um added.

48:16>> But the 32 years are why the advocate or

48:19what's influencing becoming the

48:21advocate. So that's why it has to stay

48:23together.

48:25As I said, I I I don't see the direct

48:27relationship between the 32-year

48:29experience and the flood and and the

48:32advocacy against flooding. Yeah. That

48:35that's not directly related, but it is

48:39directly but the 32 years at HUD is

48:42directly related to the management of

48:44the $400 million grant to build the the

48:48hospital.

48:52Not grant, but $4 million mortgage to

48:54build to build the hospital.

49:10>> We don't have enough information to

49:12really move that section of the sentence

49:14to the third paragraph. I think I would

49:17I think I would like to have some

49:19clarity as to whether or not his service

49:22at HUD

49:24really directed what the project was all

49:27about.

49:28>> So

49:29>> yeah, whether or not as I said this is

49:32this is wording that they that it

49:35>> right

49:35>> the city has suggested.

49:37>> Correct.

49:38>> So um

49:39>> so we just need to confirm.

49:42>> Yeah. You know to confirm it. I'm just

49:44trying to rearrange it. So it makes

49:46sense and you understand

49:48>> what the importance of the 32 years at

49:51HUD.

49:52>> Um yeah,

49:53>> I couldn't I agree.

49:55>> So we can look into that and um

50:00and determine if the sequence

50:03is appropriate for the project, the

50:07drainage project.

50:10So we'll need to look at it again. But

50:12the other corrections are there that

50:15have been suggested I think um

50:17>> as I said at the end of the first

50:19paragraph I would delete that you see

50:22today and

50:23>> correct and that's already

50:24>> to control flooding

50:26>> right

50:28>> are there any other comments

50:34>> my eyes are good but they're not as good

50:37as they should be to read this and may I

50:39recommend when it comes back for review

50:42that is in slightly larger print so we

50:45can read it more intelligently.

50:47>> We will certainly make that request.

50:49>> Thank you.

50:51>> Um shall we adopt any of the corrections

50:53that have already been suggested

50:57or wait for the next version?

51:01>> Wait. Okay.

51:02>> Wait to

51:05to the next meeting. You say

51:08>> can we get a motion to defer

51:11until you get more information.

51:13>> Correct.

51:16>> So moved.

51:18>> And and also to determine his exact

51:22period of service as um a city council

51:25member so that we can reconcile the

51:28dates with the number.

51:32>> Is there a second?

51:35>> Second.

51:35>> All in favor to defer. Hi.

51:39>> Thank you.

51:42Okay.

51:45What do I do with this?

51:48>> Okay. The next one is the next item of

51:51business is the approval of the language

51:53for Winchester neighborhood marker.

52:02If everyone would like to take a moment

52:04to read

52:14And then we can open for discussion.

52:57Okay. Shall we open for discussion? And

53:01do we have someone to speak on this

53:03marker?

53:05>> No.

53:07>> I have a few edits. Are you okay with

53:08that? Okay.

53:10uh federal housing administration

53:14or is it

53:15>> line

53:16>> sorry line 10 and 11 federal housing

53:19authority but I think it might need to

53:21be administration

53:25>> we

53:30yeah [gasps]

53:32in line 13 I believe conference needs to

53:36be capitalized I think that was a uh

53:38>> yes

53:39>> formal event

53:40>> that one

53:45is it authority I I

53:48we'll have to double check on that one

53:50uh

53:53I there's in line four and five on the

53:57next slide on the next slide excuse me I

54:00think it should say by 1973 the

54:03neighborhood grew to more than 90 acres

54:05because it did grow as far as I believe

54:09>> grew to or grew more than

54:12>> grew to more than 90 acres

54:14>> to

54:15>> and then the last change which I think

54:17will make it more concise at the very

54:19end is lines I guess it's 11 through 18

54:23but I suggest saying in 1987 the

54:26association and the city of Charleston

54:28opened the Westchester community

54:30playground

54:32which was which was renamed for

54:35Westchester civic leader Thomas Johnson

54:37in 2012

54:40or comma renamed for

54:49>> yeah comma renamed for may be more

54:51concise

54:52>> and let me check on that

54:58>> in 2012 would be the last two words in

55:00that sentence. Yes.

55:08>> Any other edits?

55:12Do we happen to know where this marker

55:14is going to be placed

55:17in the neighborhood?

55:18>> Let me check the email. We might have

55:20it.

55:27Um, the Martha I'm Donna Jackson and I'm

55:29president for the Westchester Civic

55:31Association. The marker would be placed

55:34right in front of the park house almost

55:37like

55:39near cone up the um building to the

55:42right and the basketball court.

55:47>> Do we have an image or anything that

55:50help us?

55:53No.

55:54>> Okay.

55:58Thank you.

55:59>> It is the administration, Federal

56:01Housing Administration,

56:03>> not authority, unless that's a

56:06completely different body that I don't

56:07know about. But

56:09>> are there any other edits,

56:13suggestions, recommendations?

56:20Are we ready to approve?

56:23May I have a motion?

56:26So moved

56:28>> with the edits.

56:29>> Second with the edits. Correct.

56:32Second. All in favor.

56:40All right. Um, thank you. If I can real

56:44quick, I don't want to labor any of you

56:48all. Um the I got some information back

56:52on the Gregory marker just now. They're

56:54going to do the ribbon cutting this

56:56month. So, they'd like to have this

56:58finished and approved as soon as

57:01possible. We have some information. Um

57:03he served from February 2009 until

57:06January 13th of this year. Um, and so we

57:11can change the 16 to 17 years.

57:14>> It should be 17. Okay.

57:16>> And we think that the um

57:19the HUD information, let me see, let me

57:22go back up. The 32 years is referring to

57:24him being a community advocate. So his

57:27experience there is as a community

57:30advocate and then he used that

57:32experience experience to help him as a

57:35council member is how that's is how

57:37that's being written. if that helps

57:49that when he is relying on his prior 32

57:52years of experience at the US Department

57:54of Housing and Urban Development, he's

57:57relying on that not in relation to it

57:59being about the um

58:02uh he's relying as as as um a constant

58:06advocate for his community.

58:10So, it's it's saying that he's using his

58:12experience in service as a council

58:14member

58:29as a city council. And therefore

58:34the third paragraph that's what I

58:37suggest

58:39the third paragraph.

58:53>> If there if there is no second then the

58:55motion would fail.

59:00Is there a second?

59:01>> I want to make a um clarification with

59:03Philip. So, you're saying that the

59:04authors

59:06intend for the 32-year experience at HUD

59:10>> to go with the

59:14city council

59:15>> service

59:16>> service.

59:26I'm saying

59:34Dr. Frasier, if you could please use

59:35your microphone.

59:40>> We're talking about experience

59:42relying upon his 32-year

59:45experience at the Department of Housing

59:47and Urban Development.

59:50And as South Carolina her director, he

59:55shephered a $300 million

59:58mortgage.

1:00:00That's that's where that language should

1:00:02go. The first paragraph should read,

1:00:06"Throughout his 16 years as a

1:00:09councilman, Gregory remained a constant

1:00:12advocate for his community,

1:00:16etc." So I just got the information the

1:00:20um 32 years of experience is not related

1:00:23to the SC HUD stuff in the third

1:00:26paragraph

1:00:27>> just it just defers the issue of

1:00:30>> and it's related to his experience being

1:00:34a community advocate.

1:00:35>> It relates to matter in information in

1:00:37the third paragraph not to the matter in

1:00:40in the first paragraph. That's what

1:00:42Philip is saying.

1:00:43>> Philip is saying that he he is speaking

1:00:45with right now the authors of this

1:00:47marker and they're saying that the 32

1:00:50years does relate to flooding

1:00:53>> to flooding.

1:00:54>> Flooding. Yeah.

1:00:55>> Yes. Right. You were talking

1:00:56>> I'm not speaking to the author. I'm

1:00:58speaking um with members of city staff

1:01:01at the at the moment. Um but it's not

1:01:03necessarily related to the flooding.

1:01:05It's related to relying on on his prior

1:01:0732 years of experience at the US

1:01:09Department of Housing and Urban

1:01:10Development. Gregory remained a constant

1:01:12advocate for his community. So, he's

1:01:15being an advocate for his community and

1:01:17he's doing that by relying on his

1:01:19experience at the uh Department of

1:01:22Housing and Urban Development.

1:01:31If if you want if they want to keep it

1:01:33the way it is, it's I think it's I don't

1:01:35think it reads well and I don't think

1:01:37it's it's very informative.

1:01:39um if you don't relate

1:01:43his years of experience to his ability

1:01:45to influence the um the mortgage,

1:01:50but that's up to you all.

1:01:54>> Do we have a second to the motion?

1:01:59There's no second. So, the motion fails.

1:02:02So shall we go back through it and see

1:02:05if we have all of the corrections that

1:02:07we have been suggested so far? Uh

1:02:11currently we have corrected the 2009 to

1:02:152017 by having 16 years change to 17

1:02:19years.

1:02:21Um

1:02:23the remainder stays the same. Then we

1:02:27have I wish these were numbered but one

1:02:30two three four five six seven eight in

1:02:33the eighth line at the end of the line

1:02:35we have the turn to an

1:02:40and we have the removal at the end of

1:02:43that paragraph of that you see today.

1:02:48Then in paragraph two

1:02:52um we have a hyphen in the second line

1:02:56between 50 and acre. So it's 50-acre.

1:03:02In the third line we have learned

1:03:08learned live play to mixed use mixed

1:03:12hyphen use.

1:03:14>> Yeah work learn live play.

1:03:16>> Work learn live play. Thank you for the

1:03:19correction.

1:03:23And that is the end of the edits.

1:03:27Correct. Okay. So, do we have a motion

1:03:31for

1:03:32>> keeping modern mixed use? Is that how

1:03:34it's going to be? Are we getting out rid

1:03:36of modern as well?

1:03:38>> Did we talk about

1:03:41>> I suppose just

1:03:44the modern?

1:03:46>> Yeah.

1:03:46>> Yeah. I modern and mixed use don't

1:03:49relate to one another. I mean modern is

1:03:51that it's a new it's a new area. Yeah.

1:03:56Is there a comma there? No.

1:04:00No. Correct.

1:04:03All right. So those are the edits that

1:04:05have been put forth in. May we have a

1:04:08motion?

1:04:10So moved. Is there a second?

1:04:15Thank you.

1:04:17All those in favor

1:04:21>> stayain.

1:04:24>> The motion passes.

1:04:28>> Is there anything else to be brought

1:04:30before this committee before we adjourn?

1:04:39>> I would like to thank Philillip for what

1:04:41he contributes to the meeting.

1:04:45May we have a motion to adjourn.

1:04:50>> Thank you all. Appreciate it.

```*