Reading news of the unanimous Senate vote to give the Congressional Medal of Honor to all Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police members who defended our Capitol on January 6 brought a modicum of solace to the tragic news of two more officers present that fateful day had taken their own lives.

It was also a reminder that on June 15, twenty-one members of Congress voted against awarding the medal to all the officers. One of those voting against the proposed bill was Congressman Andy Harris, representative of our district, using the excuse that he did not believe the armed mob breaching the Capitol was an insurrection as noted in the bill.

One may be willing to give Harris and the other twenty GOP legislators who voted against the bill some latitude if any of them introduced an amendment or other bill to honor the officers, but that did not happen. None were willing to acknowledge the bravery of those men and women. It is difficult imagining any of those representatives having the fortitude to stand in the shoes of those officers or making any real sacrifices in defense of our country. Do not forget their impertinence. Seek out better representation in the next election cycle.

Richard Marks
Easton

Given that Gen. Robert E. Lee’s statue has been removed from its pedestal in Richmond, Va., the former capital of the Confederacy, surely the Talbot Boys figure can be removed forthwith from the Easton courthouse grounds! And for the same reasons: it’s an anachronistic symbol of white supremacy and a daily affront to all who seek a fair and just society.

Grenville B. Whitman
Rock Hall

So where are we headed in Talbot County? These are challenging times; but we generally trust our Census, and 2020’s findings don’t surprise us. We might have guessed that Talbot County’s household incomes are 6th highest in Maryland.

We’ve also been ranked 1st in Maryland by SmartAsset for our small business environment. Their criteria focused upon higher business incomes and lower tax rates. The Eastern Shore generally ranked favorably.

Counties at the top nationally included Petersburg, Alaska; Sully, South Dakota; Haskell, Kansas; and Bristol Bay, Alaska. Ever heard of them? The lesson here may be “don’t get too big.” Get too many people, and before you know it you need more roads, more police, more schools, more utilities, and more taxes. So it could be a good thing that Talbot County’s population was up slightly over the past 2 years, but still down since the 2010 Census.

Talbot County also has the second lowest income tax rate of Maryland’s 24 jurisdictions. It can be more difficult to hire teachers, police, and firefighters when we pay less, but our Comprehensive Plan keeps us green and desirable – and our environmental and fiscal concerns might not be challenged, so long as we can hold onto it.

Maryland’s median age is 38.3. Talbot County’s is 50.5, up from 47.4 in 2010; and according to Maryland’s 2019 Vital Statistics Report, we could continue to head in this direction. Talbot County also has both lower death rates and lower birth rates than all but 3 other Maryland counties. Hopefully our businesses won’t need many more employees. 38 percent of our workers are already coming from outside the county, and affordable housing is in short supply.

According to Census Bureau QuickFacts, 86.1 percent of us have internet access; but most of us know someone struggling with a poor connection or no connection at all. Talbot County may be Maryland’s 6th wealthiest county, but funding infrastructure can be challenging with the state’s second lowest tax rate. Fortunately, we have federal assistance.

Many of our young people are leaving to find more affordable housing or pursue opportunities elsewhere, but more might stay with broadband access. Retirees will likely continue to be a higher percentage of our population for the foreseeable future; but developers could impact all these outcomes. We’re feeling that pressure constantly.

Approximately 70 percent of Talbot County’s land is still devoted to agriculture, but our proximity to large bodies of water may be the reason many of us come here. Talbot County is beautiful; but blessed with so much shoreline that we are also particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

Sea level rise is virtually certain, and we’re already seeing evidence of this in Dorchester County and along the shores of Tilghman Island. Elevations below 5’ cover pretty much every shore of our county, and with an average elevation of 35’ across the Delmarva Peninsula and 23’ in Easton, a three-foot higher tide could swamp considerable portions of Talbot County.

We routinely address developmental and environmental issues at state and local levels; but climate change is most effectively addressed nationally, and it could concern us that the congressman currently serving us has a 3% score from the League of Conservation Voters.

As his voting record confirms, he has voted against bills for cleaning up sewage and septic systems, clean energy research, regulation of several chemicals harmful to the environment, Environmental Protection Agency programs, a carbon tax, remaining in the Paris Climate Agreement, the implementation of ozone standards, reduced emissions for energy companies, a rule protecting streams, minimum energy-efficiency standards for appliances, requirements that power plants emit less pollution, and even designating PFAS leaking into the Bay from military installations as hazardous chemicals.

A healthy environment is fundamental to a community’s well-being, and it’s becoming clearer every day that the threats posed by climate change are real. Competing interests must be weighed and balanced, of course; but it seems that Andy Harris has lost this ability when it comes to planning for a sustainable future.

Having suggested that he would serve no more than 12 years and introduced a bill mandating this time limit, by his own reckoning his time is up. Ours isn’t yet, though; and in this case, change would seem to be in our best interests.

Carol Voyles
Talbot County

I am writing to all of you as a taxpayer and citizen of Talbot County in connection with the development known as Lakeside in Trappe. Like many, I have been following the activities of the Talbot County Council and the Planning Commission with concern. My issue is quite simple. I am not altogether certain that all of you and your advisors comprehend the nature of the authority that you already have under the so-called Boomer case.

Perhaps you do, but I have heard no public reference to it and for the avoidance of doubt, I am attaching a copy of the March 2, 2017 decision of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals in Boomer v. Waterman Family Ltd. P’Ship, 232 Md. App. 1*; 155 A.3d901**; 2017 Md. App.
LEXIS 221***; 2017 WL 823712.

The case is a mere four (4) pages and the facts of the case seem closely analogous to the facts at hand. This Council’s Resolution 281 closely resembles Queen Anne’s Resolution 14-31, which had approved certain Queenstown zoning classifications for an annexed parcel that allowed substantially different land uses.

When, shortly thereafter, the Queen Anne’s County Council rescinded the Resolution, the Circuit court held the rescission to be improper. The Court of Special Appeals reversed the circuit court and held the rescission to be wholly proper.

In plain language, the appellate court held unequivocally that the County authorities had and have the power to rescind a prior Resolution where it is a public law adopted under Md. Const. art. XI-F, §6. It seems plain from the Court’s opinion that the holding described likely applies here and hence this County Council seems to have right now the authority to rescind Resolution 281, and the Planning Commission too, as to their related findings.

One might surmise that if the Planning Commission had independent, competent, and knowledgeable counsel, the Commissioners surely would have been briefed earlier about this seemingly important case and its implications here.

I suggest to you that it is in the interest of the County, its taxpayers, its citizens, its residents, and others for the County Council to exercise forthwith its authority to rescind Resolution 281, its prior approval of the Lakeside project, and to reconsider the entire project based on updated, accurate information about the impact of the project on public health, wastewater runoff into the local rivers and streams tributaries, and indeed the Chesapeake Bay itself. Should the County

Council fail to exercise this authority, it seems plausible that the developers will use any further delay to try to take steps to “move dirt” or otherwise claim that their rights have in some fashion “vested” in good faith reliance upon the County Council’s ago approval of Resolution 281.

While the superficial short-term impact might be localized to the Trappe area, any medium and longer-term impact would not just be local but likely countywide.

John DeQ. Briggs
Easton

The Move the Monument Coalition (MtM) is continuing its fustian efforts to remove the Talbot Boys statute from the Talbot County courthouse grounds. It, along with some Talbot County small business owners and members of the faith community, have joined the ACLU/NAACP federal lawsuit against Talbot County for removal of the Talbot Boys statute as amici. Two national organizations also filed an amici brief: Public Justice Center and Caucus of African-American Leaders (“CAAL”). These latter organizations are represented by Covington and Burling in Washington, D.C. We wonder whether the firm knows its namesake (Covington) has a history here in Easton, Maryland, and a connection to the county political Democratic elites, including the chair of the committee to erect the Talbot Boys monument in 1913; but we digress.  

The mission of the Preserve Talbot History coalition (PTH) is to do just what its name states: to ensure that the history of Talbot County is told completely, without ideological bias, by publishing objective, fact based, historically documented, research and intervening where needed to keep historically significant monuments in place. It is our belief that history is to be learned from both comfortable and uncomfortable records and symbols, and that erasing any of them, just makes it easier to rewrite that history to replace pursuit of truth with narratives that justify current political positions. Many of our members have written guest commentaries and letters to the editor regarding the Talbot Boys over the last six years. We write to highlight those points and to reveal the factual inaccuracies, rhetorical excesses and legal weaknesses of MtM’s, and the original Plaintiffs’, claims. 

The campaign against the Talbot Boys started in 2015, after the Emanuel AME church slaying in Charleston.  There was a national campaign to remove confederate monuments and symbols, instigated by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which published a community action guide, including form letters to local government officials and petitions prepared by moveon.org. 

The SPLC even published a “hate” map identifying the confederate monuments throughout the country (mercifully the Talbot Boys were not on the map – at least not in 2015, but it is now). The SPLC had an agenda for publicity and profit making purposes. Potter and the local NAACP branch bought into it. The Talbot County Council after public hearings voted unanimously on June 7, 2016 not to remove the statute. The Black member of the Council, Corey Pack, did not support removing the monument and gave a lengthy speech in support of the Talbot Boys remaining. The Council noted that the original civil war memorial plan, back in 1913, was for two separate monuments one for the citizens who fought for the confederacy and one for those who fought for the union (more about that later). The County Council stated it would entertain a plan for a union monument to be erected. No efforts were made in that regard. 

However, the crusade did not end there. In 2019, Richard Potter and the local chapter of the NAACP capitalized on the killing of George Floyd and the national movement which swept the nation, and revived the issue of the Talbot Boys. The MtM joined the crusade. MtM is a predominately white group. Many of its more prominent “movers” do not reside in Talbot County or are relative newcomers to Talbot County. They promoted the removal of the Talbot Boys statute (again following the SPLC orchestrated campaign). Richard Potter and the NAACP tweaked their plan. Potter stated on the MtM Facebook page in January, 2020, “[t]he present monument does nothing to depict the accuracy of the civil war. What about the Union soldiers? It’s the Move the monument coalition and the NAACP who is working to get the complete history preserved.”  

When public sentiment began to favor the concept of depicting the complete history by erecting either a unity monument or adding a Union monument (to include the USCT from Talbot County), Richard Potter and the NAACP backtracked on their proposal and pursued a campaign to just  “move” the Talbot Boys statute off the court house green. In the years since neither the NAACP nor MtM provided the county with a plan of where and how it would be moved. We’ve just heard two years of bloviating on the issue. On August 11, 2020, the County Council once again voted to keep the Talbot Boys statute (although Councilman Pack reversed his position and voted for its removal). Having lost a second battle to have the Talbot Boys “removed”, Richard Potter, the NAACP and others filed a meritless lawsuit in federal court for removal of the statue.

PTH refutes Potter/ACLU and the amici revisionist history set forth in their pleadings. 

First, the history of the Talbot Boys statute. Fortunately for Talbot countians, the truth is readily available to defeat the revisionist history movement espoused by Potter and the NAACP, and the Move the Monument (MtM) supporters and CAAL which they obviously influenced:

Lie #1: MtM supporters allege the Talbot Boys monument was erected to reinforce Jim Crow laws.  FALSE.  The Talbot Boys statue was not erected to exalt the “lost cause” of the Confederacy, Jim Crow laws, or white supremacy. See: Maryland and Talbot County history, including but not limited to: “T-934 Easton Confederate Monument”, Maryland Historical Trust: “[a]t the Battle of Gettysburg, the Union’s First Eastern Shore Regiment included men of Trappe’s Company H, who were sent to Culp’s Hill on July 3, 1863. There they fought troops of the First Maryland Confederate Regiment, which also included men from the Trappe area. The color sergeants for each side were cousins, both from Trappe: Robert W. Ross for the Union and P. M. Moore, fatally wounded, for the Confederates. The monument was sponsored by a committee formed in 1913 [the 50th anniversary of that Battle], chaired by Gen. Joseph B. Stein [sic Seth]. After consideration of a statue of local Adm. Franklin Buchanan, it was agreed to honor ‘all the boys in gray.’ The base was erected in July 1914; the statue was dedicated in June, 1916. Efforts in 1914 to raise funds for a Union monument were unsuccessful.”  It should be noted that a member of the committee formed to raise funds for the Union memorial was the wife of one of the Talbot Boys. It is not a generic statute of a Confederate leader, nor was it erected and financed by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. It is a totally local monument to local veterans who fought to preserve their constitutional rights and who were particularly incensed and motivated by an event on May 27, 1862 when 125 federal troops surrounded the Talbot County courthouse, entered the courtroom, bloodily beat Judge Carmichael senseless, dragged him off the bench and imprisoned him without charge or trial. By joining the CSA, these men resisted by the only means they had at their disposal.  To these men they were fighting against the government that abused their democracy and their citizens, against the tyranny they witnessed for themselves personally. 

Lie #2:  MtM supporters allege the Talbot Boys inspired lynchings at the Talbot County Courthouse.  FALSE.  According to the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI), there were no lynchings at the Courthouse or anywhere else in Talbot County for that matter. See here. It should be noted that the 1919 Isaac Fountain incident cited by CAAL is a misrepresentation of the case. While a mob did gather, the white Talbot County Sheriff and his deputies rescued him. He subsequently escaped. A large reward was offered, but only if he was brought back alive. He was recaptured, tried in Talbot County, and convicted, the conviction was reversed on appeal and he was retried in Baltimore County where he was convicted. Dickson Preston: Talbot County: A History. Casey Sep wrote an article about a hanging tree in Miles River Neck. Her contention was debunked. Thus when MtM and its cohorts cite her as some sort of local historian, their reliance on her allegations is misplaced and her credibility questioned.

Lie #3: MtM supporters allege the Talbot Boys fought to keep the institution slavery.  FALSE.  Slavery was a legal institution.  It was on the decline in Maryland. Repeatedly before and during the early part of the war, Lincoln made clear his goal was to preserve the Union and not interfere with slavery where it already existed.  

But Lincoln did send federal troops to occupy Maryland and suppress the unalienable rights of her citizens.  The Talbot Boys resisted this federal oppression.

Lie #4. The Talbot Boys were traitors. FALSE.  All confederate soldiers were granted a presidential pardon by President Andrew Jackson on December 25, 1868. 

For a brief but critical moment in Talbot history, some were faced with the choice between defending their homes, families and God-given rights versus subjugating themselves to the illegal acts of the federal government.  It is better to Preserve Talbot History: 1) to remember the tyranny that our own federal government can bring to bear against us, if we allow it; and 2) to support a Talbot Union Boys monument to remember those who fought to preserve the Union and, for some, to gain their freedom.  

Thus, the suggestion then that the Talbot Boys personified racism and white supremacy in Talbot County, were traitors, and the Talbot Boys statue is a monument to such and must be removed, is just wrong. The assertion that the statue is an exemplification of the segregationist Jim Crow period is a fallacious, baseless, assertion. 

Second, the most infuriating and malicious assertion made by the Plaintiffs Potter/NAACP, et. al., and their amici, is the claim that the statue sends a message to people of color that they cannot get justice in Talbot County; that “for Black employees and litigants entering the courthouse, the statue is, in its least damaging capacity, intimidating and demoralizing.” They don’t cite any complaints or statistics in that regard; just self-serving, uncorroborated, statements by two of the Plaintiffs (Potter and Petticolas).  This is a pure and unmitigated baseless allegation. 

One of our members is a member of the Talbot County Bar and has practiced law in Talbot County and the Mid-Shore since 1979. In the 80’s she served as Assistant Public Defender for Talbot County. When the Maryland Office of the Public Defender (a co-Plaintiff with the ACLU/NAACP) insinuates in the lawsuit that our judicial system is racist and Blacks cannot obtain a fair trial because the Talbot Boys statute sends that message, it is untrue- a libelous allegation against the county judicial system: the Office of States Attorney, all the 5 Circuit Court Judges still living (on occasion the 4 retired judges are called to serve), our Magistrate, not to mention the Public Defender’s Office, and the County Clerk’s Office.  Interesting, Potter and the NAACP do not mention that when the State created the judicial position of Master for the Mid-Shore in 1998, the first appointment to the position, serving in Talbot County, was one of the members of the local chapter of the NAACP, who is Black.  She continues to serve, albeit, primarily in Caroline County now, because now each county has a Master/magistrate. She is part of the system which they now impugn. Talbot County is a small county of approximately 37,000 and the justice received spreads by word of mouth not by the presence of a statute on the courthouse green.  Again they have adopted SPLC or BLM talking points which are irrelevant to our County. The Talbot County judicial system is not racist. Our citizens know that.

The MtM and others argue that the placement of the Talbot Boys was purposeful to intimidate those walking into the courthouse. What they do not realize is that it is only recently (when the metal detector was installed in the Courthouse after 9/11) that there has been only one entrance to the courthouse. Prior to that there were four entrances, two of which did not involve having to view the Talbot Boys.

Third, the most hypocritical and unsubstantiated argument asserted by MtM in its brief is that the Talbot Boys statute will have a detrimental effect on Talbot County economic development and small businesses. The skyrocketing real estate prices, the influx of new residents (about 60% of home purchases are by out of county residents); the development of the downtown by Prager, the Easton Point project, and the continuous opening of chain stores (Kohls, Big Lots, Target, etc. – soon Home Depot) all belie their allegations (in fact, chain/big box stores are probably more of a threat to the viability of small businesses than the Talbot Boys). It should be noted that one of the amici small businesses is The Race Thing, Inc. (“a media company whose objective is to discuss race and race relations”) formed by Councilman Corey Pack’s daughter in 2020. 

Fourth, Talbot and Dorchester counties have sought, for years, to make this a tourist destination for civil war history.  Our Mid Shore is a model for contextual history. We have the Talbot Boys statute and feet away the larger and more prominent statue of Frederick Douglass. More recently is the opening of the Frederick Douglass Park on the Tuckahoe, Operation Frederick Douglass on the Hill project, and, of course, The Hill itself. A few miles away are the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad Visitor Center and the Harriet Tubman Museum & Educational Center Museum. The underground railway trail can be followed through 2 Mid Shore counties. In summary on this point, one has to be oblivious to the history depicted on the courthouse lawn – the history of the Talbot Boys statue, and the history of the Frederick Douglass statue – to conclude anything other than that the tableau presented on the courthouse lawn is one of Confederate defeat, and freedom from slavery, attributable in part to the influence of a notable person of color, Frederick Douglass.

Finally to our faith leaders, do you not believe in forgiveness? Forgiveness and letting go can lead you down the path of healing and peace… Frederick Douglass did when he came to Talbot County in the 1870s and visited the families who had enslaved him, realizing the enslavers were as much victims of the system as he was. See: Dickson J. Preston: Young Frederick Douglass, The Maryland Years. The veterans of the Union and Confederate armies who returned home forgave each other and held joint reunions. President Andrew Johnson with his pardon started a process of national reconciliation. 

The PTH Coalition seeks to promote Talbot County and the Mid Shore as a model of integrated and reconciled civil war history. Accordingly we seek and support adding a Union monument: build up rather than tear down. Fulfill the original plan approved by the County Council in 1913 – a union and confederate statue – with a 21st century view: including a memorial to the USCT, especially the Unionville 18. Why should recognition of them be segregated to only Unionville?

Preserve Talbot History
Lynn Leonhardt Mielke, Secretary 

Legislation to rescind the adoption of Resolution 281 and amend the water and sewer plan associated with the Lakeside development in Trappe was introduced at the August 24 Talbot County Council meeting. This development has become a contentious issue. At least 281 of our citizens are concerned, and environmental organizations have also taken an active interest.

Council members were advised that Resolution 281 had already been incorporated into Maryland’s Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan, and that only an amendment to that plan could make a difference now. A public hearing with the Maryland Department of the Environment has been scheduled for October 28; but considering our level of concern, a Council majority agreed to a hearing on October 12.

The meeting room was filled, and the Council likely expected that most were there for the Lakeside wastewater treatment issue. The concerns they would present could not be addressed by the Council, though.

The first speaker was against requiring masks in schools and suggested that students might be told, “Be sure you’re wearing your mask when the mask police come.” (This may have also been directed toward Pete Lesher and Cory Packer. Few others wore masks.) But this is a Board of Education issue.

A second presenter was justifiably concerned that as many as 570 hospital employees could be let go if they refused to be vaccinated. They may be ready now that millions have had “the shot,” and it’s working. She simply wanted to share her concern.

Yet another presenter reiterated that masking is “bad policy” and suggested that Superintendent Kelly Griffith is “missing a few things: mainly data, evidence, science, and basic human decency.” But then she suggested, “COVID is almost no risk to children,” and “more have died of the flu.” We’ll share some data and evidence in a moment.

Then our attention was directed to Critical Race Theory, another issue the Council is unable to address, but they listened attentively as the presenter told us his family has been negatively impacted by CRT and teachers are afraid to speak up. He then shared a list of grievances and summarized with these requests: ”Get CRT out of schools now, and never teach any aspect of it in the future. Allow individual choice when it comes to vaccines. Get digital vaccine passports out of our county. Never require proof of vaccination for goods or services, or to attend in-person school; and use common sense when appointing a police accountability board.” And the rest of the time?

Next up: “Masking children should be based upon science, not opinion,” and “going back to mandates treats people like they’re not smart enough to make these decisions for themselves.” Those statements seemed to have some merit. Then we were politely directed to a magazine article referencing a study of masking.

“The Science of Masking Kids at School Remains Uncertain,” by David Zweig, describes a study of COVID-19 transmission in schools. It summarizes that “masking then unvaccinated teachers and improving ventilation with more fresh air were associated with a lower incidence of the virus in schools, but distancing, classroom barriers, HEPA filters, and required masking were not found to have a statistically significant benefit.”

This could be persuasive, as long as we don’t recall that children were not particularly susceptible to COVID-19 until the variant arrived. The CDC and American Academy of Pediatricians had indeed found in November that “the masking requirement failed to have a statistical impact” in schools at that time, but that study took place from November 16 – December 11, 2020. The variant was not reported in the U.S. until January, 2021.

In Florida, Pediatrician Evelyn Obregon recently described, “A 2-yr.-old gripped with fever and dehydration. I’ve never seen this before.” Florida has the highest numbers of young children hospitalized.

In Arkansas, Linda Young, a respiratory therapist, is warning, “This COVID surge. I’ve never seen anything like it. It’s the sickest I’ve ever seen children.”

By the last week of July, 20 percent of all known COVID-19 cases were occurring in children. Children may not be masked in the United Kingdom or France; but those nations and the Scandinavian nations also have higher levels of immunization.

We do also know for a fact that masks worn properly do help by preventing the spread of respiratory droplets. Health Affairs, a healthcare journal, studied COVID-19 growth before and after masking in 15 states and found that masking resulted in a significant slowdown in the COVID-19 growth rate. After 5 days the daily growth rate was -0.9 percent. After 3 weeks, it was -2.0  percentage points.

And the CDC has also advised, ”We had 188 pediatric deaths under age 18 due to flu in 2018-2019, 136 in 2018-2019, and 349 have died of COVID-19 over the last 18 months.”

It’s a good thing that that we all appreciate facts. And our rights? We all know that those don’t extend to harming others.

Carol Voyles
Easton

Query: Has the Talbot County Council, Citizens, Residents and Taxpayers been made aware of the following?  To wit, if the County loses the lawsuit over the relocation of the Confederate Monument currently gracing the entrance to our Hall of Justice — the Court may order the County to pay not only the attorneys the County has retained — but Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs as well.

In others words, the County will pay for two and perhaps more sets of attorneys, paralegals, secretaries, filing fees, copies, etc.  Perhaps the County Council, County Counsel and/or Counsel retained by the County can advise as to the tab to date?

Our meter is running.

Keith Watts
Tilghman Island

Yes, that’s right, if you are going to enter the town office you will have to put on a mask according to commissioner Bibb’s announcement during this week’s town meeting.  This new mask mandate comes on the heels of the recently lifted mandate and may just be in response to a question on new mask mandates asked by town resident Paulette Florio two weeks ago.

The new mandate applies to all town buildings and to all visitors to those buildings.  Well, it applies to everyone but one small group that is.  According to Bibb, the four town commissioners don’t have to wear masks.  This reminds me of that old Yogi Berra quote…”It’s like déjà vu all over again.”  I can clearly state that I believe that the least safest place I have been in the past year is in an indoor meeting room with a maskless Michael Bibb.  Late last year Bibb stepped away from the commission presidency after he totally flubbed his reaction to testing positive for Covid-19. His failure to properly take precautions and to notify others he had been in contact with cause some to have to quarantine themselves and to seek testing.  One of those impacted by his foolishness was the town manager he just fired.  (Is it possible that we uncovered on commissioners reasoning for firing her?)

The rationale Bibb uses for this action is that all the commissioners have been vaccinated but what assurances do we have that this is actually the case?  Additionally, the latest CDC guidelines call for indoor mask wearing and do not eliminate town commissioners from full participation. (**see Latest CDC Guidelines and delta info below) As far as Covid-19 goes, Bibb seems to have shown that he can’t be trusted.  As far as being truthful, at least two other commissioners, Breimhurst and duPont, seem to have been caught during their April 16th meeting by former Town Commissioner Jamie Windon in misleading us (that’s lying in my book) about conversations they said they had with business owners.  They too don’t seem to be worthy of our trust. One thing that can be said for this group, leading by example doesn’t seem to be their strong suit!

** Latest CDC Guidelines…”If you are fully vaccinated, to maximize protection from the Delta variant and prevent possibly spreading it to others, wear a mask indoors in public”.

** Latest delta information from the CDC: “Fully vaccinated can spread the Delta variant; infectious disease experts point to variant’s characteristics.”

Michael Estrella
St. Michaels

What initially seemed ludicrous has lots of merit.

Judge Charles Dorsey, Roanoke, Virginia, provides an alternative to moving their confederate monument.  He states; if the courthouse is to represent justice for all either move the monument or move the courthouse.

Judge Dorsey states:

1. The Court is charged with the administration of justice
2. The continued presence of the Confederate monument obstructs the proper administration of justice
3. Consequently either the court must be removed to a appropriate location or the monument must be removed

His conclusion:  “The lesser hardship of these two options” is the removal of the Confederate monument.   “Any inconvenience in accomplishing this goal is small compared to the rights involved in the administration of justice.”

This judge understands the incompatibility of a confederate monument on the property of a courthouse.

As long as the Talbot Boys Confederate Monument remains on courthouse property OR as long as the courthouse remains on the property of the monument, our County does not stand for fair and equitable administration of justice.

Robin Stricoff
Easton