<---->
MENU

Sections

More

March 21, 2023

The Talbot Spy

The nonprofit e-newspaper for the Talbot County Community

News News Homepage

Easton Historic District Commission Unanimously OKs Removal of Confederate Monument from Talbot Courthouse Grounds

by

Easton’s historic district commission voted unanimously Monday night to allow the removal of the Confederate monument from the county courthouse square.

The Easton Historic District Commission voted 7-0 in favor of a certificate of appropriateness that will allow Talbot County to remove and relocate the monument.

Commission members noted the town’s historic district guidelines have little guidance on statues, but a national historical preservation organization supports removal of Confederate monuments from public spaces.

The monument outside the entrance to the Talbot County Court House is believed to be the last Confederate monument on public property in Maryland.

Attorney Dan Saunders, representing Talbot County, said a majority of the Talbot County Council had determined it was in the best interest for public health, safety, and welfare to move the monument from the courthouse grounds

“The statue is on county land. It is controversial. It is divisive sadly,” Saunders said. “And it is hurtful to certain citizens of the county. So the county council has made this determination…. They are the elected officials charged with making that kind of public policy decision. And it would not be inappropriate for this body to give some deference to their thought process….”

“Because it’s controversial, it needs to be someplace where people can choose to go see it or choose not to go see it, not in a place where they have to go see it in order to conduct the business that is conducted at the courthouse,” he said.

Three residents spoke against removing the statue.

Lynn Mielke said statues for Talbot County’s Confederate and U.S. troops were erected in 1884 and 1888, respectively, at Culp’s Hill at the Gettysburg battlefield.

After the county’s Civil War veterans visited Gettysburg in 1913 for the 50th anniversary of the battle — and no doubt saw the two statues, Mielke said — efforts began to raise funds for Confederate and Union monuments at the courthouse.

The Confederate monument was funded and built; the Union one was not but a new fundraising effort is underway for such a monument, she said.

A rendering of a proposed monument to Talbot County residents who fought for the United States during the Civil War. The proposal also would include informational plaques about Talbot County’s role in the Civil War.

“108 years later a group, Build the Union Talbot Boys, has investigated, designed, and begun to raise money for a Union Talbot Boys companion monument to complement the Talbot Boys in gray monument, with informational plaques, to make a complete statement on the courthouse lawn about Talbot County’s unique role in the Civil War, (including) the Talbot Boys, the Union Talbot Boys, the USCT (United States Colored Troops), including the Unionville 18, and Frederick Douglass,” Mielke said.

“The Talbot Boys memorial is is not a memorial to traitors,” Mielke said. “And it is not a memorial to non-veterans.”

Clive Ewing noted that the town’s historic district booklet includes two photos of the Confederate monument.

He said the county council’s resolution removing the monument only refers to the statue and argued that language doesn’t include the monument’s base.

David Montgomery, president of Preserve Talbot History, said moving the monument 200 miles away “to a battlefield in the Shenandoah Valley” does not help tell the story of Talbot County’s divided loyalties during the Civil War.

Commissioner Grant Mayhew said the historic district commission should look at guidance from the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

The National Trust issued a statement about Confederate monuments after the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer sparked protests “in support of racial justice and equity.”

In its June 18, 2020, statement, the National Trust said:

“This nationwide call for racial justice and equity has brought renewed attention to the Confederate monuments in many of our communities. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has previously issued statements about the history and treatment of Confederate monuments, emphasizing that, although some were erected — like other monuments to war dead — for reasons of memorialization, most Confederate monuments were intended to serve as a celebration of Lost Cause mythology and to advance the ideas of white supremacy. Many of them still stand as symbols of those ideologies and sometimes serve as rallying points for bigotry and hate today. To many African Americans, they continue to serve as constant and painful reminders that racism is embedded in American society.

“We believe it is past time for us, as a nation, to acknowledge that these symbols do not reflect, and are in fact abhorrent to, our values and to our foundational obligation to continue building a more perfect union that embodies equality and justice for all. We believe that removal may be necessary to achieve the greater good of ensuring racial justice and equality.

“And their history needs not end with their removal: we support relocation of these monuments to museums or other places where they may be preserved so that their history as elements of Jim Crow and racial injustice can be recognized and interpreted.

“We recognize that not all monuments are the same, and a number of communities have carefully and methodically determined that some monuments should be removed and others retained but contextualized with educational markers or other monuments designed to counter the false narrative and racist ideology that they represent, providing a deeper understanding of their message and their purpose.

“Our view, however, is that unless these monuments can in fact be used to foster recognition of the reality of our painful past and invite reconciliation for the present and the future, they should be removed from our public spaces.”

Talbot Will Hold Oct. 12 Hearing on Rescinding Resolution 281

by

Over the pleas of his colleagues, Talbot County Council Vice President Pete Lesher introduced a resolution Tuesday night to rescind Resolution 281, in which the county supported the request of Trappe and a developer to amend the county’s comprehensive water and sewer plan for the Trappe East project.

The other four members of the Talbot County Council cited legal advice that the resolution, if approved, would accomplish nothing.

“My goal in this process is to give the issue a fresh public hearing for the benefit of both proponents and the skeptics,” Lesher said. “Resolution 281 came to the council at a time of a series of higher profile issues. And we’ve heard from a growing number of constituents who are concerned that their issues with this were not heard.

“And among those concerns is a provision of Resolution 281 that will allow the first 120 homes to be connected to Trappe’s existing secondary wastewater treatment plant, an outdated plant that discharges nutrients into an impaired waterway,” he said. “Trappe does eventually plan to upgrade this plant to modern ENR discharge standards, but that upgrade is still years away.”

County Attorney Patrick Thomas said the council’s approval of Resolution 281 essentially was the preliminary approval to change the water and sewer plan.

“(U)nder state law, once the council approves these comprehensive water and sewer plan amendments, they then have to go to MDE for final approval,” Thomas said. “MDE can then can deny it, they can approve it, they can amend it in part, they have … the final authority on that.”

After the council approved Resolution 281, the proposed amendment was sent to MDE, which approved it in November 2020.

“And then those amendments became part of the comprehensive water and sewer plan,” Thomas said. “So at this point, there’s nothing … for the council to rescind. (Y)ou gave your preliminary approval, it went on to MDE, they issued the final approval.”

The only way to undo Resolution 281 would be for the council to approve another amendment to the comprehensive water and sewer plan to revert it to its pre-281 status and for MDE to then approve that amendment, he said.

Councilman Frank Divilio said he had concerns about the Trappe East project, but rescinding Resolution 281 would be “a waste of time.”

Councilman Corey Pack agreed.

“I think that the county attorney has already laid out, succinctly, that 281 has already been incorporated to the comprehensive water and sewer plan and I don’t know how many times he can say that,” Pack said. “There is nothing here to rescind. This is a bridge to nowhere…. (I)t doesn’t accomplish anything.

“There is a way by which if you wanted to remove the changes of 281 from the comprehensive water and sewer plan, you would need to amend the comprehensive water and sewer plan,” he said. “This just doesn’t do it. Mr. Lesher, I’m sorry, it’s really putting the council in a bad position to put something on the agenda for a public hearing, which you very well know is not going to accomplish anything.”

Pack also noted that Resolution 281 contained some beneficial compromises between the county, town, and developer.

“There are those things built into 281 that were good. Going from a 2-foot freeboard to a three foot freeboard was a good thing. Going from 60 days of holding time to 75 days of holding time was a good thing,” he said. “So not everything in 281 to my point of view was bad.

Council President Chuck Callahan and Councilwoman Laura Price agreed that rescinding Resolution 281 would have no effect.

“I think there are some valid concerns and questions that need to be answered,” Price said. “But like my other colleagues, this is not the vehicle to do that.”

Price said the council would be able to make a more informed decision “on whether or not we … need to amend the comprehensive water and sewer plan” to address Resolution 281 after the Maryland Department of the Environment’s public hearing on the discharge permit for the Trappe East wastewater treatment plant.

That hearing had been set as a virtual hearing in early September but has been changed to an in-person hearing in late October at the Talbot County Community Center.

Asked what would happen if the council approved Lesher’s resolution, Thomas, the county attorney, said, “I don’t think it would have any effect. It’s not amending the comprehensive (water and sewer) plan.”

After additional discussion, a majority of the county council voted to schedule a public hearing for the rescission resolution at 6:30 p.m. Oct. 12.

Analysis: Could a Md. Judge Simply Order Talbot to Remove its Confederate Monument?

by

A Wednesday editorial in The Sun of Baltimore raises an interesting question: Would any Maryland judge be willing to issue an order requiring Talbot County to either move its Confederate monument from the courthouse lawn or move the court itself to another location?

The Aug. 11, 2021, editorial notes an order issued last month by a Roanoke County, Va., judge that a Confederate monument on county property near the courthouse must be removed during court operations or the court must be moved.

In his July 8, 2021, order, Judge Charles N. Dorsey said the court is charged with the administration of justice and “… the continued presence of the confederate monument, in its present location on Roanoke County property, and with its present content, obstructs the proper administration of justice in the Roanoke County Courthouse ….

“Consequently, either the Court must be removed to an appropriate location or the monument must be removed during the operation of Court …,” the judge ordered. He deferred any other formal action until Jan. 2, 2022, to give the county’s board of supervisors to take appropriate action on its own.

The Roanoke monument is located on the old courthouse lawn in Salem, Va., in front of a building owned by Roanoke College, but on a small parcel of land owned by the county, according to a letter Judge Dorsey sent to the county’s board of supervisors. The college wants the statue removed, has offered to pay for removal, and is willing to help research the site, the statue, and the “historical context regarding enslaved persons” in the process of developing any replacement monument.

The larger question unaddressed by the editorial is whether a Maryland judge would have the legal authority to do something similar.

An argument could be made that Talbot County’s circuit court judge could issue such an order. Judges are responsible for the administration of justice and the presence of a Confederate monument, which many view as honoring white supremacy, just outside the entrance to the circuit courthouse could be considered as damaging the proper administration of justice.

Criminal defendants and civil litigants who are African-American could make an argument that the statue’s location suggests that the Talbot County Circuit Court does not adhere to the notion of equal justice under the law. If every case involving an African-American defendant or litigant results in an argument or an appeal or a request to move the trial elsewhere, the court system would be overwhelmed by those appeals, motions, and cases moved to another venue. That would damage the proper administration of justice.

Another answer may lie in the Maryland Constitution, which states: “All Judges shall, by virtue of their offices, be Conservators of the Peace throughout the State ….”

Conservators of the peace in England were those individuals who were responsible for maintaining the king’s or queen’s peace. In America, after the Revolutionary War, the English common-law concept of the royal peace was adapted to refer to maintaining public order. However, that common law offense has been replaced in the U.S. with criminal statutes against disturbing the peace.

Furthermore, the state’s highest court has ruled that the constitutional provision gives any individual judge statewide jurisdiction for certain legal actions. The case law, however, seems to sole focus on habeas corpus, which wouldn’t be pertinent for the removal of a statue. (Habeas corpus cases are those in which a judge is asked to order a prison official to bring a person before the court to determine if that person is being unlawfully detained. In such cases, for example, an Allegany County judge could order the Worcester County warden to bring an inmate in front of the Allegany County judge for that judge to rule on whether the person was being unlawfully detained.)

Circuit court judges also may consider a petition for a writ of mandamus or a show cause order requiring a governmental official to perform a lawful duty, halt an unlawful activity, or appear before the court to show cause why the official should not have to comply.

“Writs of mandamus … are deemed necessary when the actions or inaction of government bodies or corporate officials are so inappropriate or egregious that immediate, emergency action must be taken by the legal system,” according to Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute.

A circuit court judge conceivably could rule that the inaction of the Talbot County Council concerning the monument’s removal is so egregious due to its effect on the proper administration of justice that the court must take immediate, emergency action to order its removal.

Certainly, any action by a Maryland judge ordering the statue’s removal would likely lead to an appeal and continued legal wrangling.

In the meantime, those who support the statue’s removal continue to press the county council to take action on its own. Numerous people spoke during Tuesday night’s council meeting asking the council to move the monument.

Judge Dorsey’s order, and accompanying exhibits, may be read below:

VaJudgeCSAMonumentRemoval

Groups File Lawsuit to Remove Confederate Monument at Talbot County Courthouse

by

A Confederate monument on the Talbot County courthouse lawn in Easton is racist and unconstitutional, said civil rights groups who filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday seeking to remove the Jim Crow-era statue.

The Maryland Office of the Public Defender and the Talbot County NAACP branch argue in the newly filed lawsuit that by keeping up the Confederate statue — a century-old monument to county residents who fought for the Confederacy during the American Civil War and the last Confederate monument on public land in Maryland — county officials are violating both state and federal laws.

The plaintiffs want the statue removed from the grounds of the Talbot County Courthouse.

The lawsuit represents the latest step in a years-long effort by activists to remove the statue from the courthouse grounds. After Talbot County Council members rejected a proposal to move the statue last year, rallies calling for the removal the Confederate monument continued. At a Wednesday press conference, the lawsuit’s plaintiffs said repeated rejections from county officials forced them to take legal action.

The ACLU of Maryland, alongside Crowell & Moring LLP, an international law firm based in Washington, D.C., is representing the plaintiffs in the case.

Dana Vickers Shelley, the executive director of the ACLU of Maryland, said Wednesday that both the county courthouse and the statue sit on the grounds of a former slave market.

“It is beyond time for this racist symbol of violence and oppression to be removed,” Vickers Shelley said.

“The Talbot Boys statue says just this: ‘In this building, white people are given priority over Black people;’ and ‘Justice for Black people means something different than what Justice means for white people means.’ To view it differently is to ignore objective fact,” the lawsuit reads.

The plaintiffs argue that the presence of the monument on the courthouse grounds violates the U.S. Constitution’s 14th amendment, which guarantees due process and equal protection of laws. The Talbot Boys statue’s location is “facially discriminatory,” the lawsuit reads.

“In short, the statue says symbolically no less clearly than were it emblazoned on the front entrance to the courthouse that Black people do not enjoy the ‘equal protection of the laws,’” the lawsuit reads.

The lawsuit notes that roughly 12.8% of Talbot County’s more than 37,000 residents are Black.

“That any government in the United States would continue to maintain the symbolism of white supremacy and promote a legacy of racial subjugation should shock the conscience,” the complaint reads. “That Talbot County does so on a courthouse lawn — a place of prominence that holds itself out as the seat of justice in the county; a place that county citizens pay for and maintain with tax dollars, including the tax dollars of its Black citizens who are overtly denigrated and humiliated by the statue — only compounds the unconscionability of the statue and illuminates its illegality.”

Kisha Petticolas, an assistant public defender in Talbot County and one of the plaintiffs in the case, said she has to walk past the statue on a daily basis for her work. Petticolas, who is Black, said the monument is a painful reminder of “hate, oppression and white supremacy” to both herself and her clients.

“My clients who are walking into the courthouse, hoping to be given a fair shot at justice, are walking onto a courthouse lawn that still celebrates the Confederacy,” Petticolas said. “It is beyond time for this statue to be removed from the courthouse grounds.”

In addition to violating the 14th Amendment, plaintiffs argue that county officials are violating other federal laws and Maryland’s own constitution by keeping the statue in place in front of the courthouse.

Richard Potter, the president of the Talbot County NAACP and a plaintiff, said his organization has been asking county council members to remove the statue since after the 2015 murder of nine Black people during Bible study by a white supremacist in Charleston, South Carolina.

That effort was rebuffed by council members, who have also rejected subsequent efforts. Potter noted that calls to remove the statue were revived after the murder of George Floyd last year, but even amid a wave of Confederate monument removals across the country, county council members voted 3-2 against removing the Talbot Boys statue.

“The council left us with no other choice but to take this action,” Potter said Wednesday. “We have waited long enough.”

In voting to keep the monument up last year, the council majority said the fate of the Talbot Boys statue should be decided by community members instead of the county government.

“This should be in the hands of the community, and not our hands,” Council Vice President Charles F. Callahan III (R), who voted to keep the statue in place, said at the time.

Council President Corey W. Pack (R) and Councilman Peter Lesher (D) voted to remove the monument, while the other Republicans on the council, Laura E. Price and Frank Divilio, voted to keep the statue.

Callahan did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday.

Confederate monuments were removed from public grounds in Maryland and across the United States last year amid widespread protests against systemic racism and police brutality. In one of his final acts as Wicomico County executive before his death last year, Bob Culver (R) removed a Confederate marker in Salisbury.

During their 2021 legislative session, Maryland lawmakers voted to repeal “Maryland, My Maryland,” with its pro-Confederate lyrics, as the official state song.

Read the full complaint here:

1-main

By Bennett Leckrone

Talbot Officials Pleased, Thankful for Passage of Tax Cap Changes

by

Talbot voters are willing to pay slightly higher property taxes in order to better fund public safety and county officials are thankful for the support.

“I am very pleased with the results, and thankful that the citizens of Talbot County have decided to invest in their future,” Talbot County Council President Corey W. Pack said Wednesday in a statement.

“The additional revenue will allow for Talbot County to stay competitive in attracting and maintaining public safety professionals as well as providing for related capital needs,” Pack said. “Again thank you citizens of Talbot!”

Councilman Pete Lesher said he was surprised and relieved by the results but noted the county council will continue be cautious with spending.

“I am quite surprised by the election results on these questions, particularly by the solid majorities that each received,” Lesher said in a statement. “But most particularly, I am relieved, because without the passage of these reforms, Talbot County government was facing the distasteful choice about which essential services to cut.

“My priorities, as promised to the voters, will be to focus additional revenues on public safety, including emergency services and a compensation package that will attract and retain deputies in the sheriff’s office,” Lesher said. “The charter changes still constitute restrictive property tax revenue cap, and county government will still need to be cautious and strategic with expenditures.”

No matter when they voted, Talbot citizens responded favorably to the campaign led by the county council, Emergency Medical Services Director Clay Stamp, Sheriff Joe Gamble, and first responders.

Talbot Citizens for Public Safety urged support for Questions B, C, and D.

Also lending support was the Talbot Citizens for Public Safety group and the local FOP lodge.

Those urging passage of Questions B, C, and D said additional funding was needed to support deputies, EMS crews, and other first responders.

Question B corrects inaccurate language in the tax cap; Question C eliminates a reference to CPI-U; and Question D allows the county council to temporarily increase the property tax rate above the revenue cap by up to one cent per $100 of assessed value for five years only.

A 2018 effort that included all three measures passed Tuesday in a single ballot question failed on a vote of 53.9% against and 46.1% for the charter amendment. One major difference in 2018 was an attempt to raise the allowed annual increase in revenue from 2% to 2.5%.

Following that failure, county officials created a committee to look at Talbot’s property tax revenue cap and make suggestions for changes.

Those suggestions included separating the three provisions into separate charter amendments over concerns that the 2018 ballot question had been too complicated.

Talbot Council Discusses Work Session with NAACP, Community on Confederate Statue

by

In an unusual move, an organization’s request to have a work session with the Talbot County Council was read into the record at Tuesday night’s meeting, drawing questions from two council members.

In an Oct. 7 email to Council President Corey Pack copied to the other four council members, Richard Potter, president of the Talbot County Branch of the NAACP, asked the council for a work session on the Confederate monument on the courthouse lawn.

Potter wrote:

“I along with other community leaders of Talbot County are requesting a meeting with you to discuss next steps as well as how to appropriately move forward that embraces the spirit of inclusion and equity as it relates to the matter of the Confederate Monument known as The Talbot Boys that sits on the Circuit Courthouse Lawn.”

He concluded:

“It is my desire along with other community leaders that we take a proactive approach to this issue and matter, therefore we are requesting a meeting with the full council on October 20, 2020 to have authentic, transparent dialogue on how we can work together as one community to move forward in an effort in achieving a more inclusive, equitable and welcoming county that we all desire to see.”

The full text of the email may be viewed below:

Meeting Request from Richard Potter

Councilmembers Frank Divilio and Laura Price questioned the procedure, with Price saying a work session request had never been handled in this manner in her 10 years on the council.

Divilio asked if the other community leaders mentioned in the letter had been identified.

“What are we doing here?” Divilio asked.

“If we’re going to do it, we’re going to do it right,” he said. “If we’re going to schedule a work session, then we schedule a work session. But let’s have some council input on how we’re going to do that.”

This video is about seven minutes long.

 

Question A: Voters Will Decide Whether Council May Waive Residency Requirements for Appointees

by

Talbot County voters will decide on four proposed amendments to the county charter during the November general election.

Three of those ballot questions concern Talbot’s tax cap; the first would allow the Talbot County Council to waive a residency requirement for certain appointed officials.

Question A asks Talbot voters to vote for or against a charter amendment that would allow a supermajority of the county council (4 members out of 5) to waive a requirement that the county attorney, engineer, and planning officer live in the county.

The charter currently requires those three officials — and the county manager — to live in Talbot County. Under existing charter provisions, the county manager, engineer, and planning officer must become a county resident “promptly” upon appointment; the county attorney also must be a county resident at least two years before appointment.

The measure would not allow the county council to waive the residency requirement for the county manager.

During a July 21 vote on putting the question on the ballot, members said the council should be allowed to hire the best person for the job — regardless of residency — and noted family situations, such as medical issues or a spouse’s employment, could mean an official would need to live outside the county.

County council members also noted that Talbot’s tax cap results in Talbot paying its officials less than surrounding counties, which are not constrained by revenue caps.

In the current budget, the annual salaries for the four positions are: county manager, $147,400; county engineer, $110,162; county attorney, $115,000; and county planning officer, $94,856.

The county council voted unanimously July 21 to put Question A on the general election ballot.

As explained on vote411.org, a voter information website from the League of Women Voters Education Fund: “The proposed change would add a new Section to the Charter, Section 407, Residency Waiver, as follows: ‘The requirement that the County Attorney, County Planning Officer and County Engineer be residents of Talbot County may be waived by the County Council by an affirmative vote of four-fifths of the full Council.'”

The need for the proposed charter amendment arose after officials realized two appointees did not meet the residency requirements when hired.

Mary Kay Verdery was appointed as planning officer on Oct. 29, 2014. She had a Caroline County address at the time of appointment until Aug. 30, 2018, when she listed a Talbot County address.

Anthony Kupersmith was appointed as county attorney on Jan. 1, 2018, after being named acting county attorney on May 1, 2017.

Kupersmith began working for the county on Aug. 30, 2013, and lived in Talbot County until June 2016. He also was a resident of Talbot County from January 2018 through the end of 2018; he currently does not live in Talbot County.

At the direction of outside legal counsel, Verdery and Kupersmith are now listed as acting planning officer and acting county attorney, respectively.

R. Andrew Hollis was county manager from 1999-2010 and appointed to the post a second time on Dec. 15, 2014. During the gap in his service as manager, Hollis was elected and served on the county council.

Ray Clarke was appointed as county engineer on Aug. 7, 2000.

Talbot Boys to Stay; Protesters Call for Statue Removal and Council Members to be Voted Out

by

The county council voted 3-2 Tuesday night against removing the statue atop the rebel monument on the courthouse lawn.

The vote on Resolution 290 came after a majority of the members of the Talbot County Council voted against, or abstained from, amendments that called for removing the entire monument, not just the statue.

Protesters affixed signs to the statue calling for the monument’s removal and for council members who voted against removal to be voted out. Photo by John Griep

Council President Corey Pack and Councilman Pete Lesher voted for removal; members Frank Divilio, Chuck Callahan, and Laura Price voted against.

The vote, held in council chambers closed to the public due to the COVID-19 pandemic, drew a quick response from local residents fighting to have the statue removed.

Signs reading “Take it down” and “Vote them Out” were affixed to the statue and a growing crowd gathered on Dover Street outside the courthouse to shout “take it down,” “no justice, no peace,” “black lives matter,” and other chants that could be heard inside the council chambers.

A banner reading “No hate in our state” later was unfurled as the demonstration continued.

After a brief recess near the end of the meeting, the council decided to suspend the remainder of the session.

“We understand that citizens are quite upset over the earlier vote taken today so council is going to go ahead and suspend the balance of this meeting,” Pack announced. “Basically we’re at the end of the meeting.”

“I know there has been a number of people online (teleconference) for public comment. We certainly will take any comment in writing that persons will have,” he said.

Pack, who proposed Resolution 290, had previously voted against the monument’s removal.

“Where I was five years ago is not where I am today,” he said before the final vote. “People change, times change. And I’ve said repeatedly that a man who fails to change his mind will never change the world that’s around him….

“I do not support the Talbot Boys statue remaining on the courthouse lawn. I don’t think it’s appropriate. I know what I’ve said in the past and I’m very much aware of what I’ve said in the past, but it is not appropriate to keep that symbol on the courthouse lawn,” he said.

“I’ve made my apologies to myself, I’ve made my apologies to … persons previously because of my vote in the past. It’s not one of my better votes and I’m ashamed to have voted that way.

“But that’s done, that’s in the past,” Pack said. “We can only look to the future and only make those changes today which will impact our future. I think that not removing that statue will certainly say a lot about this county, a lot about this council as we move forward through the rest of this term and into the next.”

Lesher, in comments before the vote, said the decision would speak to what the county believes in and its failure to change and said he was worried about the effect on the county’s tourism and hospitality industries.

“The removal of this monument … would not change the history of this county and it may not directly improve anyone’s economic or physical well-being, but the number who’ve expressed their feelings in this matter have made it clear that this, this is indeed a powerful symbol and our actions on it tonight, I’m afraid, sadly speak to who we are now as a county and the extent to which we have not yet changed.

“I hope, I aspire, to be better than this.

“Our failure to act to remove this monument from the courthouse square, in our failure to do so, Talbot County increasingly puts its tourism economy at risk along with our legendary reputation for hospitality,” Lesher said. “Whatever it may have meant in the past, the Talbot Boys today is not viewed as a welcoming symbol, that we accommodate all people here with equity and with justice.

“Now, more than ever, if Talbot County’s economy is to recover from the devastating impacts of COVID-19 pandemic, I fear that we further imperil it by allowing us to remain the last holdout of a Confederate monument on public property outside of a battlefield or a cemetery in the state of Maryland.”

Saying it applied to the situation in Talbot County, Lesher also read an excerpt from the speech New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu made in May 2017 after that city removed its Confederate monuments:

“To literally put the Confederacy on a pedestal in our most prominent places of honor is an inaccurate recitation of our full past, it is an affront to our present, and it is a bad prescription for our future.

“History cannot be changed. It cannot be moved like a statue. What is done is done. Surely we are far enough removed from that dark time to acknowledge that the cause of the Confederacy was wrong. And in the second decade of the 21st century, asking African-Americans or anyone else to drive by this property that they as members of the public own occupied by reverential statues and names of men who fought to destroy the country and deny that person’s humanity seems perverse and absurd.

“Centuries old wounds are still raw because they never healed right in the first place. We are better together than we are apart.”

Before the vote, Divilio, Callahan, and Price pushed for delay, arguing the council’s decision to close its meetings to the public due to the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing technical issues with the audio for the live video and teleconference of meetings had restricted public input.

Divilio and Callahan also called for the public to decide the issue by putting the statue’s removal on the ballot in 2022, while Price argued that the resolution was improperly introduced because the council only was meeting during the pandemic to deal with critical operations and the budget.

“I’d like to push it down the road a little bit,” Callahan said, noting the two amendments introduced Tuesday night.

He said it is difficult to hold meetings without the public in attendance.

“This is a big deal for a lot of people and it’s a big deal for us to make such a historical decision on something that is 150 years old. We’re changing the way we’re looking at history,” Callahan said. “I think we better really take a couple steps back and make sure we’re doing the right thing and at this time I don’t think we’re doing the right thing.”

Price also opposed taking action Tuesday night and suggested Resolution 290 had been improperly introduced.

“Because we have had no public input on amendments 2 or 3, I believe that that is inappropriate for us to take any votes on the amendments this evening and additionally the entire resolution should not have been introduced under our emergency order,” Price said. “We were only supposed to deal with critical legislation and the budget at this time. As an example, we let several pieces of legislation expire including short-term rentals that’s also supposed to be voted on this evening.

“Certainly this is a worthy issue to be given its proper attention but it is not appropriate to vote on tonight when we still lack sufficient public comment, knowledge of the cost of any removal, approval of the historic district commission … and knowledge of where and how the statue will be stored,” she said. “Because we have not had that feedback from the public and I believe this resolution was introduced at a time that was deemed only critical to county operations and the budget, I believe that we should not vote on anything this evening, but especially the amendments which have had no public input at all.”

Pack noted amendments are often introduced by members and voted on without additional public hearing and the proposed amendments were not deemed as substantive changes to the overall bill.

And, unless Resolution 290 is passed, there is nothing to take before the Easton Historic District Commission, he said.

Pack and Lesher also noted the first amendment, which would have changed Resolution 290 to include the removal of the entire monument, had been publicly available before the July 28 hearing on the resolution.

“If the statue is simply removed, there will never be a statue that represents a very complex period in the county’s history,” Price said. “If people haven’t come together with any effort over the past five years, it surely isn’t going to happen once it’s gone.”

Divilio said he had offered an idea for a unity statue, suggesting a group be formed to develop a design and raise funds for a new monument.

“I’m committed to move forward with a plan, a committee, and a ballot question so that we can put this issue to rest with full public input at the nearest possible election,” he said.

“Now it’s time for us to put it back to the community, if they’ve asked three different councils to change their opinion and we’ve tried, we’re putting it back to the community to put it on a ballot question would be my plan so that everybody has an opportunity to voice their opinion.”

With the pandemic and a budget freeze, Callahan said it was the wrong time for the council to vote on the issue. He also called for the public to decide the fate of the statue.

“I think that this should be in the hands of the community and not our hands. This is something that should be voted on from the community. People have asked me many, many times can you put it on the ballot? We all know we can’t do that this go-round. We’d have to do it in ’22.

“It’s only fair that the community make that decision, not us. I feel very uncomfortable with something that’s happened 155 years ago and I’m making a decision on whether this thing should go or not. I don’t think that’s fair. I don’t think that should be my decision, I don’t think it should be the council decision, I think it’s the community that should be making that.”

Callahan also noted a prior council had rejected the statue’s removal in recent years and had said it would consider a Union statue if a group proposed one.

Pack noted Callahan had frequently said in the past that county voters had elected him to make decisions.

“So you can’t go back and forth and say one day they hired you to do a job … and now say you’re going to throw it back on the people,” Pack said.

Divilio interjected, arguing that Pack was twisting his and Callahan’s comments, but Callahan said to let Pack finish.

Pack noted he had not mentioned Divilio’s comments and was simply highlighting Callahan’s prior statements contradicting his stance on the statue removal.

“Let’s go back five years ago,” Callahan responded. “We’re dealing with your change right now; you’ve done flip flopped 180 degrees. We’re dealing with that as a council. So if I feel like it’s the wrong time and we need the public to vote on this, that’s what I think. So don’t tell me I’m this and I’m that ….”

After a somewhat heated discussion between the two men, Callahan said, “We’re talking history here…. And nobody’s here that’s on that statue — there’s 84 names on that statue — and they can’t stand in front of us and tell us what their thoughts are. And that’s something you need to think about too.”

This is the third time the county council has rejected calls to remove the monument, which has a statue of a young flag bearer holding the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia atop a base listing the names of 84 men from Talbot County who fought against the United States.

As the nation continues to grapple with the wounds of its history of slavery, white supremacy, and racism, and amid cries for equal justice for all races, former rebel states have seen fit to remove the battle flag of Gen. Robert E. Lee’s army and to remove statues to rebel leaders from public spaces.

Mississippi voted this summer to remove the battle flag from its state flag. Richmond, Va., capital of the Confederacy, removed all Confederate monuments from Monument Avenue.

In Talbot County, more than 400 patriots fought for the Union, significantly higher than the 84 rebels who fought against their state and country.

Marjorie Opalski, right, and daughter Jessica listen to the county council Tuesday night outside the courthouse lawn. Photo by John Griep

As the council met Tuesday night, Marjorie Opalski and daughter Jessica stood at the main Washington Street entrance to the courthouse lawn. Marjorie Opalski held her cell phone, listening to the council discussion on speaker, as Jessica held a sign that read: “No Confederate statues.”

While mother and daughter were the only two demonstrating earlier Tuesday night, a crowd began gathering on the lawn after the vote, moving to the entrance to the courthouse’s south wing, where the county council meets, before moving to the sidewalk along Dover Street where they chanted for justice and the statue’s removal outside the windows to the council chamber.

Among the crowd were Easton Council President Megan Cook and Talbot NAACP President Richard Potter. A marked Easton Police Department SUV drove down Dover Street several times, but didn’t stop.

Talbot County Sheriff Joe Gamble and a deputy arrived about 8:30 p.m. and went inside the building for a period of time before Gamble left less than 30 minutes later.

At about 9 p.m., the demonstrators split into several groups to ensure all exits from the south wing of the courthouse were covered and council members would have to face citizens upset about the vote.

This video is approximately 39 minutes in length 

Talbot County Council Votes to Keep Talbot Boys in Place; Protesters Chant for Justice

by

The Talbot County Council voted 3-2 tonight to keep the controversial Talbot Boys statue on the county’s courthouse lawn. With Council President Corey Pack and Councilman Pete Lesher voting to remove the Confederate memorial, the balance of the council, including Council Members Chuck Callahan, Frank Divilio, and Laura Price, voted in the majority to keep the Talbot Boys in place.

Shortly after the decision, some one hundred protesters spontaneously arrived in downtown Easton to voice their opposition to the decision.

The Spy will have a full report on the vote on Wednesday.

Removal of ‘Talbot Boys’ Statue Topic of Tuesday Night Public Hearing

by

UPDATE: At the advice of the county health officer, the Talbot County Council has closed its meetings to the public. Members of the public will not be allowed to attend in person. Information on how to view the meeting virtually or listen by phone is at the end of this story.

A proposal to remove the statue of a rebel flagbearer from a monument on the courthouse green will be up for public comment Tuesday night.

The public hearing on Resolution 290 — set for 6:30 p.m. July 28 in the Talbot County Council chambers — largely will be virtual. The council chamber is limited to 10 audience members to ensure social distancing as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Concerns about the coronavirus — with cases dramatically increasing in Talbot County in the past three weeks — scuttled the original plan to hold the public hearing in the Talbot County Auditorium at Easton High School.

Resolution 290 — introduced by Council President Corey Pack and Councilman Pete Lesher — calls for the removal of the statue of a young man carrying a rebel battle flag atop the monument base listing the names of Talbot County men who went to war against the United States.

The resolution also would prohibit “new statues depicting persons, signs, or symbols associated with military action … on County-owned property” and calls for new monuments  to focus on “the names of those American servicemen and women who served in the conflict.”

It also makes it clear that the prohibition “does not apply to the statue of Frederick Douglass, who is remembered for his contributions to civil society. ”

Resolution 290

The resolution was proposed by Pack; Lesher joined him in its introduction but said he would seek to amend it to remove the entire Talbot Boys monument.

Pack, who previously has voted against the removal of the monument, changed his mind after the May 25 death of George Floyd and ensuing protests against racism in the U.S. Floyd, a Black man accused of passing a counterfeit $20, died after a Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes.

In addition to Pack, two other council members, Laura Price and Chuck Callahan, previously have voted against removing the Confederate monument. Lesher and Councilman Frank Divilio are both in their first terms on the county council and have not voted on the issue.

Divilio, during the council’s June 23 meeting, suggested a unity statue that would list the names of Union and rebel soldiers from Talbot County, with a statue depicting soldiers from each side.

His proposal is modeled after the Civil War monument in Chestertown, which lists the names of soldiers from both sides, and the state of Maryland monument at Gettysburg, which shows a wounded Union soldier and a wounded rebel soldier helping each other on the battlefield.

Tuesday’s council meeting begins at 6 p.m. in the Bradley Meeting Room in the south wing of the Talbot County Courthouse. The 10 available seats will be available on a first-come basis and face masks must be worn at all times inside the council chambers unless addressing the council.

To view the meeting virtually:

To provide public comment:

  • Submit written public comments to the Talbot County Council via email to publiccomment@talbotcountymd.gov or via mail to County Council, Courthouse, South Wing, 11 N. Washington St., Easton, MD 21601.
  • To provide public comments verbally during the County Council meeting, call 833-491-0327