Challenging a Talbot County Council decision that they felt was made behind closed doors to retain a Confederate monument on the County Courthouse lawn, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Maryland and the Talbot County Branch of the NAACP filed a Complaint today with the Open Meetings Compliance Board, asking the Board to rule that the County’s actions violated the Maryland Open Meetings Act.
The “Talbot Boys” monument, erected in 1916, celebrates soldiers from Talbot County who fought for the Confederacy against the United States during the Civil War. Although many more Talbot men fought for the Union, the complaint suggests that Talbot County leaders refused to memorialize Union soldiers from the community. The statue depicts a Rebel soldier with a Confederate battle flag draped across his back, and bears the caption “To the Talbot Boys, 1861-1865, C.S.A.”
Many African Americans consider the statue an affront to their humanity – a symbol of racism and injustice at the one place in the community meant to be dedicated to serving justice for all, the County Courthouse. On this basis, the Talbot NAACP last July asked the County to move the statue to an alternative location dedicated to historic preservation rather than justice.
While the process undertaken by the County began in an open fashion, with the Council meeting the NAACP to hear its proposal and inviting community residents to attend public forums to air their opinions, “it shifted dramatically when it came the Council’s turn to debate and vote upon removal or retention of the Talbot Boys statue,” the Complaint alleges. “When Council members themselves were called upon to discuss the matter and vote, they flouted all principles of openness, deciding in secret to retain the monument, and subsequently providing no minutes of these closed discussions.”
“We understand that government officials might prefer to dodge public discussion of our country’s history of slavery, racial injustice, and their continuing legacy,” said ACLU Legal Director Deborah Jeon. “But the law does not allow that. At the heart of our democratic tradition is the right of citizens to know how their elected officials make decisions that affect them, especially in a case like this where critical racial justice issues are at stake.”
Questioned about the process they followed in reaching decision to retain the monument, County officials have given different explanations for deciding the matter in secret. First, County Council President Corey Pack claimed the Council was entitled to discuss the NAACP request for removal of the statue in private because it is a “real estate matter.” An alternative explanation offered most recently by the County Attorney is that the NAACP request raises only a “routine administrative matter,” insufficiently important to be debated by the Council in public.
“That’s offensive,” said Talbot NAACP President Richard Potter. “The government’s continued endorsement of a monument to slavery at the County Courthouse – of all places — is an issue of extraordinary significance to African Americans, here and throughout Maryland. For the County to just dismiss our concerns, saying they are not even important enough for the Council to discuss and vote upon in public, tells us all we need to know about the enduring effects of Jim Crow in Talbot County.”
..
Glenn Baker says
What exactly does the Talbot NAACP want? Your story is an opinion/editorial and not a news article. I don’t think the great man MLK or even Douglas would be wasting time and effort on a hundred year old statue with all the horrible issues facing the black communities today. When will the Talbot NAACP make a positive contribution to the Talbot Black community?
Willard Tod Engelskirchen says
It would seem that our current County Council does not wish to be encumbered by such pesky things as the laws of the State of Maryland. These folks are elected by the registered voters of Talbot County. It is my fervent hope that, the next time candidates are selected, the citizens of Talbot County can find people who are willing to follow the law. The current situation is consistent with the Council’s position on Smart Growth. They are in charge. The citizens are out of the loop – and they will be kept there. Those pesky citizens who thought they had elected public servants to represent them.
Carol Voyles says
At the very least we could expect lawful decisions of our lawmakers. Council President Pack announced that their decision was made “primarily because Confederate veterans have all the rights and honors of US veterans.”
All of those rights and honors have never been granted by our lawmakers, and while the Amnesty Proclamation granted amnesty to most, but not all, Confederate veterans, that amnesty was granted on the condition that an oath was taken to honor our Constitution and our laws, “so help me God.”
We do happen to have constitutional guidelines and legal precedent prohibiting the display of divisive symbols on government property, and whether to put such a contentious debate into the category of a routine administrative decision can only be perceived by the public as a Hail Mary pass.