The College’s authority over its project does not replace the City’s role in a burial-removal decision. The College’s own FAQ describes removal as dependent on City approval.
If removal is pursued under South Carolina’s abandoned-cemetery law, Section 27-43-10 requires the local governing body to consider objections before approving removal and to determine that removal is necessary and expedient. The law also sets notice requirements. Calling this burial ground abandoned is not a position this campaign concedes.
Preservation is a public option. Section 6-1-35 authorizes counties and municipalities to preserve and protect cemeteries they determine are abandoned or unmaintained, including through public expenditure. This is authority to protect, rather than an automatic requirement to fund a particular proposal.
Our request to the Mayor and City Council: Preserve the burial ground in place and oppose grave removal. Evaluate objections and preservation alternatives on their merits. CEC participation and College announcements should not be treated as community consent or a substitute for the City’s own decision process.
City transparency: Publish the status of any removal request, the responsible decision-making body, relevant public records, agendas, notice and submission procedures, and reasons supporting any decision. Provide an accessible way to submit objections and explain how they were considered.
Keep County duties visible too: Section 27-43-30 assigns supervision of removal work to the county governing body, with a state-licensed funeral director and costs borne by the party seeking removal. This is separate from the City’s approval role.
Read Sections 27-43-10 through 27-43-30 · Read Section 6-1-35 · College FAQ. Sources checked October 18, 2026.
The March 26, 2025 Joint Bond Review Committee agenda records a $75 million purchase financed by revenue bonds. Its acquisition budget also lists $20,000 in FY23 Capital Reserve funds and requests another $317,172 from that state source for closing and legal costs, bringing the proposed acquisition budget to $75,337,172.
This agenda documents a request; it does not by itself establish final approval or disbursement. A new, current request for state appropriations specifically for Coming Street has not been verified here. College-wide budget requests should not be described as project funding without a clear connection.
Read the official March 2025 agenda, printed pages 116–117.
Our campaign asks for transparent accounting of public funds and financing, preservation alternatives, and meaningful public participation.
The College created the Community Engagement Council (CEC) to give advice about the burial ground, archaeology, reburial, and remembrance. The College’s Board of Trustees and administration keep the final say over the project, subject to the law and required approvals.
The College says the CEC does not speak for everyone connected to this ground and does not replace wider community engagement or consultation with Tribes.
Our position: Joining the CEC, attending a meeting, or taking part in a discussion does not mean agreeing to excavation, removal, study, or construction. Objections and differing views should be recorded accurately.
Read the College’s description of the CEC · Read how the College says decisions are made. Sources checked October 18, 2026.
The College asks the community for input, but keeps the final say. People deserve to know whether their concerns can change the plans. The College should explain what it changed after listening, what it declined to change, and why. Attending a meeting does not mean someone agrees to disturb the burial ground.
Our campaign asks for:
Time to read and respond. Share agendas, work plans, reports, proposed changes, and deadlines early enough for people to respond before work moves ahead.
Accurate meeting records. Show who attended, what members proposed, what they objected to, and what was decided. Clearly label draft and approved records and show corrections. Do not suggest everyone agreed when they did not.
Answers to recommendations. List which suggestions were accepted, changed, rejected, or still await an answer. Explain why and name who made the decision.
A record of changes. Date website and document updates, keep earlier versions, and explain important changes to plans or community participation.
Clear responsibility and spending. Identify who decides each issue, which approvals are needed, who is doing the work, and how project money is used.
Reasons for withheld information. Explain redactions and access limits. Share a public version or useful summary where possible while protecting sensitive burial locations, images of remains, and private personal information.
These are the improvements our campaign asks for. This list does not claim that every item is required by law or that a legal violation has been established.
Our preservation position is supported by careful reading of the public record. These links lead to the institutions’ own publications so you can read their statements in context.
Process, work plans, reports, and correspondence
Read the College of Charleston’s description of the project stages and its linked document library. Check document dates and versions when comparing materials.
Frequently asked questions
Read the College’s responses about property acquisition, archaeology, consultation, and possible reinterment. These are the College’s statements, rather than campaign findings.
South Carolina DES: College of Charleston Project 205
Find the state agency’s project page and publicly released records. Read the complete agency document when assessing a condition or approval.
We distinguish documented facts, institutional statements, campaign positions, and questions that remain unanswered. A requirement in a document does not, by itself, establish whether it has been met.
Please share public source documents with protect106coming@gmail.com. Do not send confidential legal material or sensitive burial-location information for public posting.
Links checked October 18, 2026. External sources can change. This independent campaign is not an official College or government website.
What the letter says: The Board of Trustees says the Community Engagement Council (CEC) is advisory only. Its role is set by the President and Board, and the Council cannot enlarge that role through its own mission statement. Final decisions about the College’s property, construction, budget, and project approvals remain with College leadership.
Why this matters: Taking part in the CEC does not give the public a vote or veto over the project. The letter focuses the Council on commemoration and respectful reinterment. Our campaign believes meaningful public input must also include whether the burial ground should be disturbed at all, and whether preservation in place is possible.
The letter does not say that every public suggestion will be rejected. It does show that the College controls the Council’s scope and retains final authority within its own institution. That does not replace the separate responsibilities of the City or state agencies.
Text transcription of the response supplied for September 3, 2026, signed by Renee Romberger, Chair of the College of Charleston Board of Trustees. Paragraphs and bullet points are reformatted for reading; wording is retained. Source document: 26.09.03_BOT.response.9.3.26.pdf.
Dear Members of the Community Engagement Council:
The Board of Trustees (“Board”) received the motion and accompanying Formal Response from your August 20, 2026, meeting. I appreciate your desire for clarification of your role.
By its nature and generally understood function, an advisory body derives its existence and scope strictly from the convening authority – in this case, the College of Charleston’s president. An advisory body cannot self-expand its given mission, nor can internal operational aids (such as meeting facilitation documents) or council-authored mission statements amend, enlarge or supersede President Hsu’s charge.
The Board and the College acknowledge the time and dedicated participation of the Community Engagement Council (CEC) to date. To ensure a shared understanding as project milestones progress, the following clarification regarding the CEC’s role and advisory function is provided:
Purpose & Scope: The CEC’s purpose and scope are defined exclusively by the President’s original charge and the subsequent directives of the Board of Trustees. The CEC serves in an advisory capacity only and is specifically tasked with providing insight on historical site commemoration and recommendations on the respectful reinterment of remains.
Advisory Capacity vs. Executive Authority: As an advisory body, the CEC provides vital perspectives to inform institutional decisions. Ultimate decision-making authority regarding university property, construction management, site development, budget and project approvals rests solely with the College’s administration and the Board of Trustees. The CEC does not possess regulatory, veto or operational authority over the archaeology or construction project.
Other Documents: The charge from the President serves as the sole declaration of the CEC’s purpose. Internal facilitation tools, meeting organization charts and CEC-authored mission statements assist in structuring meeting dialogue, but they do not alter, expand or supersede the advisory role as stated by the College’s executive leadership.
The College of Charleston appreciates the Council’s focus on the work of commemoration, archaeology and respectful reinterment of remains.
Sincerely,
Renee Romberger
Chair, College of Charleston Board of Trustees