Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor

MUSC appointees

Susan Pearlstine's May 11 op-ed caught my eye, and not in a positive way. As a former academic administrator in a state university system, I pay attention to these things. Apparently some very strange thinking is going on in our General Assembly.

They rejected the candidacies of two courageous and very well qualified women: Pearlstine, who has demonstrated her devotion to MUSC for over 40 years, and Marva Smalls, an African-American woman of national prominence.

Instead the wise heads in Columbia chose to appoint to the MUSC board a sitting state representative's brother, who has little or no previous connection to MUSC, and a former state legislator. To what can these flawed decisions be attributed? Your guess is as good as mine but I'm guessing the Good Old Boy Network is alive and well in our state capital.

While you are mulling this over, let me share another little-known fact about the stranglehold state government has over our splendid academic medical center: Despite the fact that tax-based appropriations to MUSC currently account for only about 8 percent of the support required for operations, the governor and the Legislature appoint 100 percent of the trustees.

Putting aside the illegal — yes, illegal — fact that 100 percent of the current MUSC trustees are white males while the demographics of the state are 51.3 percent female and 36.9 percent non-white (U.S. Census, 2011), I question whether the appointment process is in the best interest of our public colleges and universities, including our own premier medical teaching and research institution. Do you?

If so, tell your legislators that you expect them to follow the law and cast their votes for the improvement of our institutions, not for their fellow politicians and family members.

Kay K. Chitty, R.N., EdD
W. Shipyard Road
Mount Pleasant

Making a point

South Carolina is in need of good jobs, reliable energy and clean air and water. These are some of the basic cornerstones that support our high quality of life here in the Lowcountry. Offshore energy production brings us unique threats and opportunities to that can serve to harm us or help us in these areas.

While offshore drilling has been touted as a job-creating scheme for South Carolina, its intrinsic risk must be examined. There has never before been commercial offshore drilling off the East Coast. Opening our coast to drilling would jeopardize our tourism and fishing industries — and 86,000 South Carolinians' jobs.

All it takes is one accident for the tourism and seafood markets to crash, as we so tragically witnessed in the Gulf in 2010.

The good news is we do have the opportunity to create good jobs, reliable energy, and preserve clean air and water, with offshore wind energy. South Carolina has the second greatest offshore wind resource on the East Coast and stands to gain thousands of jobs in the industry if we were to seriously pursue it. Wind energy never runs out, and it doesn't create pollution.

We invite you to come help fellow Charlestonians make the point that we want an energy future that is forward-looking and innovative, not looking backward to the past.

Come to the Folly Beach pier May 18 at 11:30 a.m. for Hands Across the Sand, where we will join hands to say "no" to offshore drilling and "yes" to clean energy. Find out more at www.HandsAcrossTheSand.org.

Chris Carnevale
Southern Alliance
for Clean Energy
Swift Avenue
Charleston

This letter was also signed by: Marty Morganello, Charleston Surfrider; Steve Moore, S.C. Wildlife Federation; Hamilton Davis, Coastal Conservation League; and Richard Williams, Lowcountry Plugin Drivers.

Unwelcome calls

I, like many, have registered on the "Do Not Call" list. It seems that this action is worthless. Many calls still come through at all hours of the day. When I inquire about the company calling, they usually hang up.

When the caller stays on the line, I demand to be taken off the call and mailing list so no other calls or worthless mail continues to come to me.

The intrusions are especially bothersome for people caring for an ill person or recovering from health issues. Getting to the phone and then listening to a stupid deal or telemarketing offer makes for much frustration.

In this age of technology, isn't there a way to totally remove phone numbers and addresses to prevent telemarketers?

Many letters have been sent to stop mailings, and to register on the "Do Not Call" site, but many times to no avail.

Even trying to screen calls does not help.

They just hang up and call later.

Janet Rein