MENU

Sections

More

September 13, 2025

Talbot Spy

Nonpartisan Education-based News for Talbot County Community

Archives

Talbot County Hosts Community Economic Review Work Sessions

by

The Talbot County Department of Economic Development and Tourism will host four Community Economic Review Work Sessions to share the economic resiliency toolkit developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The first meeting will take place in Easton on April 7 at 8 a.m. at the Avalon Theatre.

Talbot County officials were part of a group of economic and workforce development professionals led by the Mid-Shore Regional Council and the Tri-County Council of the Lower Eastern Shore who worked with Salisbury University’s Eastern Shore Regional GIS Cooperative (ESRGC) to develop the tools in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The resiliency toolkit will be discussed along with other information from the ESRGC’s Delmarva Index.

These tools are available to help stakeholders identify challenges facing the region and assist in long-term planning and the development of public policy. While the tools created for the Eastern Shore Economic Recovery Project will have many uses, they give decision makers information to understand long-term trends and anticipate challenges. The U.S. Economic Development Administration, a bureau within the Department of Commerce, funded the project.

“I am excited to share this information with the leaders in our communities,” says Cassandra Vanhooser, director of Talbot County Economic Development and Tourism. “These dashboards hold a wealth of information that can help us better understand our communities and the current economic climate.”

The sessions are free and open to the public. All of the meetings will begin at 8 a.m. The schedule of upcoming meetings is as follows: April 7, Avalon Theatre in Easton; April 21, Trappe Volunteer Fire Department; May 26, Oxford Community Center; and June 23, Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum Van Lennup Auditorium in St. Michaels.

For more information, call Cassandra Vanhooser at 410-770-8000. For a preview of the Delmarva Index, visit delmarvaindex.org.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Post Report: Growth Okayed to Save Trappe Could Destroy Talbot’s Rural Nature Instead, Some Say

by

The Lakeside/Trappe East residential and commercial project on the northeast side of Trappe was billed as a way to save the financially struggling town, The Washington Post reported Monday afternoon.

But some opponents fear the 2,501-home development, which could quintuple the town’s population, will change Talbot County’s rural character and caution that its wastewater treatment system could cause environmental problems.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Will a Last-Minute Proposal Keep Confederate Monument in Talbot County?

by

A D.C. firm with at least one statue removal among its recent projects was the sole bidder for the removal and relocation of the Confederate monument on the Talbot courthouse green.

The county council awarded the contract Nov. 23 to Stratified Inc., which offered a $67,000 bid to remove the controversial monument and relocate it to a Civil War battlefield site in Virginia. However, a majority of the council also provided additional time for another location — preferably in Talbot County or elsewhere in Maryland — to be offered.

If a closer, suitable site is offered — the council had asked for any last-minute proposals to be submitted by Monday, Dec. 6 — the county could then negotiate with Stratified Inc. to amend the contract to reflect the new location. Any proposals that were submitted by Monday will be reviewed by county staff and presented for consideration at the council’s regular meeting on Tuesday, Dec. 14.

“We have some possibilities within the county to relocate the monument,” Councilwoman Laura Price said. “Nobody’s trying to keep it here (on the courthouse green) anymore. But there are people who would like it to stay in the county. And that needs to be given an opportunity.

“So all we’re talking about here is to allow the county manager some flexibility that if a location within the county or even possibly, if it’s not in the county within the state, rather than moving it to Virginia, comes available during the process — because the RFP will take some time a little bit of time — to allow the county manager some flexibility that if a location is appropriate, and council chooses to do that, it just gives some flexibility.

“It does not stop this RFP process. It just allows it to be moved elsewhere in the county rather than to Virginia if that opportunity presents itself in the next month or so,” Price said.

Other council members noted supporters of keeping the monument on the courthouse green or in Talbot County have had ample opportunity to find and propose a suitable location elsewhere in Talbot County.

Councilman Frank Divilio said two proposals came in after the deadline for the RFP and he was disappointed in those offers. (During the Nov. 23 meeting, Price said she was getting text messages that there was another proposal that had not yet been provided to the county council.)

“I feel that it was a bit disingenuous when individuals say that there are locations and people that would take it without giving thought to their neighbors, their homeowners associations,” Divilio said. “I don’t see how extending the deadline will make anyone who has reservations of coming forward as have been expressed, come forward any faster.

“We gave that opportunity. We were approached and told that many individuals who are willing to accept it are afraid to come forward. And to me that doesn’t show the full commitment to the community that they would be willing to do it,” he said.

Council Vice President Pete Lesher expressed similar concerns about a location other than Cross Keys and outlined his criteria for a suitable monument site:

“(T)here are two attributes that I think the Cross Keys location has that that another location would have to provide. One is that it is owned and operated by an organization that is organized for that purpose in perpetuity. In other words, … the land will not be bought and sold…. It is owned by a preservation organization. And there is … no foreseeable prospect that that will change in in any foreseeable timeline. So there’s an element of perpetuity here.

“You know, if this was a private landowner, the land could be sold and then what. So I don’t see, I don’t see a private landowner being a responsive prospect for this destination.

“Second, is that there is an authenticity to this location. A lot of Talbot County boys fought in this location, people who are named on this monument, there’s something that is true about that location. That authenticity of location I think is something that happens (to be) a particular advantage. Now, perhaps there are other places that would meet (that authenticity).

“(A)nd most important is that this location also ensures public access for the indefinite future.”

“If there are other locations, perhaps that are closer, that could fulfill all of those requirements,” Lesher said he would be willing to support such a location. “(B)ut there … are a lot of advantages to the (Cross Keys) location and that is why I’m reticent to support this. I’m willing to explore alternatives. But right now, I’m skeptical that there’s one that will exceed the advantages of the (location) that is on the table.”

The council voted 3-2 to amend the awarding of the bid to include the possibility of another location; then voted 5-0 to award the bid as amended.

That ultimate vote prompted Lesher and Councilman Corey Pack to note that the council had voted unanimously to move the monument.

“This council just voted unanimously to award a bid to move the monument,” Lesher said. “That’s something that I did not expect and I think it is pretty extraordinary.”

Pack said he had not picked up on that point during the confusion over the votes.

“… (T)he statute will be moved. And for the first time — as Mr. Lesher pointed out — a unanimous vote to move the statue. That should be the front page story: That this council had voted unanimously to move the Confederate statue.”

Council President Chuck Callahan seemed to take some umbrage to that point.

“Laura and I voted against moving that statute. So that’s, that’s number one. I want to make sure we understand that.

“Number two, is we tried to create a situation to keep it here. Okay. So that’s the reason we voted the way we did,” Callahan said. “Okay, so you can think what you want.

“But, you know, hey, it’s over, it’s done with. The people that maybe have a place for it they have another couple of weeks to go ahead and, you know, see what that’s all about,” he said. “And all we tried to do is create a situation to try to please everybody and keep it here. That’s all we’re trying to do.”

Lesher, Pack, and Divilio had voted Sept. 14 to relocate the monument to the Cross Keys Battlefield near Harrisonburg, Va., which is part of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation.

Callahan, Price, and Lesher voted Nov. 23 to allow for additional time for proposals for an alternate location.

The costs associated with the monument’s removal and relocation will be paid by a private fund held at the Mid-Shore Community Foundation and there will be no cost to county taxpayers.

The Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation works with partners to preserve the Shenandoah Valley’s Civil War battlefields, to share its Civil War story with the nation and to encourage tourism and travel to the Shenandoah Valley’s Civil War sites.

Sealed bids in response to the RFP were due 10 a.m. Nov. 19 and considered by the council at its Nov. 23 meeting.

Stratified’s proposal calls for the firm to begin the planning process for the statue removal and relocation once the bid is awarded, with removal to begin on Jan. 17 and to be completed by Jan. 21.

As a result of the pending relocation of the monument, a federal lawsuit calling for the statue’s removal has been placed on hold. The case currently is stayed until at least Jan. 21, with attorneys telling a U.S. District Court judge that a new status report will be submitted if “any new developments affect the timing of the proposed work prior to January 21.”

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Talbot Seeks Bids for Confederate Monument Removal, Relocation

by

Talbot County has issued a request for proposals (RFP) for the removal of the Confederate monument from the courthouse grounds and its relocation to a Civil Wars battlefield in Virginia.

The RFP stems from the Talbot County Council’s 3-2 vote on Sept. 14 authorizing the relocation of the monument to the Cross Keys Battlefield near Harrisonburg, Va., which is part of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation.

The costs associated with the monument’s removal and relocation will be paid by a private fund held at the Mid-Shore Community Foundation and there will be no cost to county taxpayers.

The Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation works with partners to preserve the Shenandoah Valley’s Civil War battlefields, to share its Civil War story with the nation and to encourage tourism and travel to the Shenandoah Valley’s Civil War sites.

Sealed proposals will be accepted until 10 a.m. Friday, Nov. 19, and the council anticipates awarding the bid at its Nov. 23 meeting.

For more information, go to www.talbotcountymd.gov under Topics of Interest/Public Notice/Bid Notice or the e-Maryland Marketplace.

Bid 21-12 Request for Proposals- Removal of Confederate monument Bid 21-12, - GENERAL CONDITIONS and Photos of Statue Bid 21-12 Bid Forms and Affidavits

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Talbot Council Holds Hearing Tonight on Rescission of Resolution 281; Planning Commission Majority Reaffirmed Support for Sewer Plan Changes

by

The county council will hold a public hearing tonight on a resolution that would rescind sewer plan changes for the Lakeside/Trappe East project.

Council Vice President Pete Lesher introduced Resolution 308, which would rescind Resolution 281.

Resolution 281 was approved 4-1 by the Talbot County Council in August 2020; Lesher voted against approval. Resolution 281 included several amendments to the county’s comprehensive water and sewer plan, most notably in connection with the proposed 2,500-unit residential and mixed commercial development proposed for the northeast side of Trappe.

Those changes included a new wastewater treatment plant for the Trappe East project. The plant would treat wastewater at an enhanced nutrient removal (ENR) standard and discharge up to 540,000 gallons of wastewater per day as spray irrigation on adjacent fields.

Opponents are concerned about the environmental impact on nearby Miles Creek, which feeds into the Choptank River, and note the abysmal water quality of La Trappe Creek, another Choptank River tributary into which the existing Trappe sewer plant discharges its treated wastewater.

Environmental concerns were heightened earlier this year after problems at the town’s existing plant. Those concerns led the county planning commission this summer to seek additional information from the Maryland Department of the Environment, the town of Trappe, and the developer.

The Talbot County Planning Commission heard public comment Wednesday morning on those concerns and voted 3-2 Thursday night against a motion recommending that the county council rescind Resolution 281.

All five members had concerns about the town’s existing plant and the current condition of La Trappe Creek, but three agreed that the panel had been correct in voting last year to certify that Resolution 281 was consistent with the county’s comprehensive plan.

Those three members — Chairman Phil “Chip” Councell, Paul Spies, and Michael Strannahan — had voted to certify that Resolution 281 was consistent with the comprehensive plan. Commissioners William Boicourt and Lisa Ghezzi voted last year against certification and voted Thursday night to recommend rescission of Resolution 281.

Councell said he was trying to reach a middle ground that would result in the most timely upgrade to the existing Trappe plant and an improvement in its discharge.

Councell noted the commission had not been formally asked to review its decision on Resolution 281, but “felt we had to do something” when new information came to light.

“And that something in my opinion, was what can we do to protect La Trappe Creek?” Councell said. “(I)f we vote to rescind, it probably goes to court… (I)f this gets tied up in litigation, it goes on and on and on. The existing Trappe wastewater treatment plan continues to pump the water.

“So I’m struggling here right now, trying to figure out what is the fastest way to get that plant upgraded,” he said. “And no matter what happens today, tonight, no matter what happens next Tuesday, every citizen in this county needs to be committed to getting that plant where it needs to be, whatever it takes.

“And I think … it makes no sense to compound the problems that we know is a problem,” Councell said. “So we’re going to add one-third of the capacity to the existing plant…. But if we hold the process up for one year or two years, more than that, it’s going to go into La Trappe Creek anyway.

“I think I’m willing at this point to do everything in our power … short of rescission, because I honestly think that would be the worst thing for the Trappe wastewater treatment plant,” he said.

Attorneys for the Town of Trappe and the project’s developer noted they are looking at the possibility of using the Trappe East plant to treat the town’s existing wastewater to ENR standards and then sending the treated discharge back to the town’s discharge point. That option may be the fastest and cheapest way to upgrade the town’s wastewater treatment to ENR standards, which would significantly improve the town’s discharge into La Trappe Creek.

Ryan Showalter, an attorney for the developer, said Wednesday, “that’s an option that’s being studied, and one reason why it’s being studied as it may be the fastest way to replace or upgrade the town’s treatment process.

“The Lakeside plant is modular, so adding two additional modules could create 200,000 gallons of capacity in the existing Lakeside plant,” he said. “Nobody’s proposing changes in the discharge at this point.

“So the concept would be whatever comes from the the existing town’s collection system would be treated at Lakeside and would be discharged at ENR levels to La Trappe Creek,” Showalter said. “If one day there’s 150,000 gallons coming from the town collection system, that 150,000 gallons would be discharged under the town’s existing point discharge at ENR levels.”

Showalter also noted that nearly all of the Lakeside property has been designated as a future growth area for Trappe since 1973.  The entire property has been in the town’s planned growth area since at least 2002 and in the county’s growth area plan for Trappe since at least 2005.

Bruce Armistead, an attorney for a neighboring property owner, said his clients — Dr. and Mrs. Steve Harris — were primarily concerned about the location of the spray irrigation fields.

“The Harrises are an adjacent landowner to the proposed Lakeside project and potentially the most affected by the entire project,” he said Wednesday. “That doesn’t mean that they’re unconcerned about the information you’re receiving about the existing Trappe plant, but their principal concern is the location of the spray fields that are proposed for the Lakeside project.”

Armistead said it appeared the planning commission may have received incomplete or inadequate information during its 2020 review of Resolution 281.

“And it really doesn’t matter whether that was inadvertent, intentional, sloppy, or whatever,” he said. “The fact is, if you agree that there was incomplete or incorrect information that was used to make your decision previously on 281, then you have an obligation to the county to support taking another look.

“Real people and property rights are going to be seriously affected by this proposal,” Armistead said. “We’ve only got one chance to get this right. And frankly, Dr. Harris does not want to be the canary in the mineshaft.”

The Talbot County Council meeting begins at 6 p.m., with public hearings scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m. The council meets in the Bradley Meeting Room in the south wing of the courthouse, but seating is limited and is available on a first-come basis.

The meeting may be viewed online by going to the county’s website at https://talbotcountymd.gov, then scrolling down and clicking on the photo of the county council under the heading “Meeting Videos.” On the meeting videos page, click on video or live/in progress next to the listing for the council’s Oct. 12 meeting.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

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.”

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

New Hearings Set on Trappe East Development

by

Maryland residents concerned about the water-quality impacts of a large housing and commercial development on the Eastern Shore have three new opportunities in October to share their opinions with decision makers.

The Maryland Department of the Environment has scheduled a public hearing Oct. 28 on its plan to permit treated wastewater from a planned development in Trappe, called Trappe East, to be sprayed on nearby farm fields. It will be held in person at the Talbot County Community Center​​ and Curling Rink, at 10028 Ocean Gateway in Easton.

Talbot County’s council and planning commission, meanwhile, plan to hold hearings of their own before the MDE session to revisit their 2020 votes in support of the project.

The MDE had issued a groundwater discharge permit in December 2020 for the proposed community of 2,501 homes and apartments plus a shopping center, to be built on an 860-acre tract annexed nearly two decades ago by the town of Trappe. Earlier this year, though, a Talbot County judge ordered the department to give the public another opportunity to comment on the permit because of changes made in it before being issued.

The MDE’s newly proposed permit — unchanged since its original issuance — would allow the developer to eventually spray an average of 540,000 gallons of wastewater daily on grassy fields. It must be treated using enhanced nutrient removal to lower the levels of nitrogen and phosphorus. A lagoon is also required to store wastewater for up to 75 days during winter and when it’s raining or too windy to spray.

Neighboring residents and environmental groups have questioned the MDE’s assurances that the nutrients and other contaminants in the wastewater would be soaked up by the grass in the fields. They fear it could seep into groundwater or run off into nearby Miles Creek, a tributary of the Choptank River.

In addition to in-person comments at the hearing, the MDE will consider written comments submitted by Nov. 5. Those should be emailed to [email protected] or mailed to Mary De​la Onyemaechi, Chief, Groundwater Discharge Permits Division, Maryland Department of the Environment, Water and Science Administration, 1800 Washington Blvd., Baltimore, Maryland 21230-1708.

Project opponents have gathered about 200 signatures on a petition calling on the Talbot County Council to rescind its 2020 resolution in support of the development. The resolution amended the county’s water and sewer plan to include the Trappe East development, which effectively cleared the way for the MDE to issue its permit.

Opponents say the council should withdraw its backing, particularly because of changes the developer has made since then in how development’s wastewater will be handled. The first 89 homes in the development, already under construction, are to have their sewage piped to Trappe’s wastewater treatment plant. That plant discharges into LaTrappe Creek, a Choptank River tributary already impaired by excessive nutrient pollution.

When the Talbot County Planning Commission meets at 9 a.m. on Oct. 6, it will discuss whether to rescind its 3 to 2 vote in 2020 recommending that the council support the Lakeside project. The county council hearing takes place at 6:30 p.m. Oct. 12.

By Timothy B. Wheeler

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Talbot Council Rejects Petition Seeking Repeal of Confederate Statue Removal

by

The county council voted 3-2 Tuesday night to deny a petition asking the council to change its mind on moving the Confederate monument off the courthouse lawn.

The petition for rescission called on the Talbot County Council to introduce a resolution to rescind its Sept. 14 decision to relocate the monument to a Civil War battlefield in Virginia.

Shortly after the petition was read, Councilman Corey Pack made a motion to deny the petition, which was seconded by Councilman Frank Divilio.

Councilwoman Laura Price took issue with the rapid pace of the process.

“I thought we were just having discussion because now the first person to get to make a motion … nobody else has an opportunity to make a motion,” she said. “I thought we were just discussing and asking questions at the moment. But like the game show, we have to press the button fast enough.”

Price and Council President Chuck Callahan reiterated concerns from the Sept. 14 meeting at which a council majority voted to approve the administrative resolution to relocate the monument on the same night it was introduced and without first having a public hearing. Callahan and Price had voted Sept. 14 against relocation; Council Vice President Pete Lesher joined Divilio and Pack in voting for moving the statue.

Council members split along the same lines over the motion to deny the petition.

“I think public process was important, is still important. And I certainly would have liked to have seen this resolution go through a public process, especially with information that has that has come to light,” Price said. “Again, I guess I didn’t hit the buzzer fast enough, because I know the way this motion to deny is going to go down. It’s been motioned, it’s been seconded, it’s going to go the same way as the vote did two weeks ago. And once again, the public is going to get shut out of this process. And I wholeheartedly disagree with that.”

Callahan agreed.

“So it’s kind of a shame that the public didn’t get the opportunity to do this. And it’s not the right way to go, in my opinion,” he said. “And I guess we’re just gonna keep moving forward.”

Pack, as he did Sept. 14, said the county council had opportunities to hold public work sessions on the Confederate monument “(a)nd it was not, it was not, was not done. So I think it’s not fair, it’s not appropriate, to now say that the public has been shut out. So that I just take issue with that characterization.”

But Price argued there was a difference between a public work session and a public hearing on a bill or resolution.

“We’ve heard about the entirety of the subject for the last year and a half when people come,” she said. “And I appreciate them coming and speaking at the end of you know, at the end of our meetings, absolutely. We’ve heard from it. And we know that nobody’s opinion was going to change.

“But when there is a bill or a resolution on the floor, I believe in transparency and a public process to come and have your three minutes to speak to the council in this setting, as opposed to just a work session,” Price said.

The three residents who filed the petition for rescission were among several people who spoke during the public comment period of the Sept. 28 meeting.

Lynn Mielke, David Montgomery, and Clive Ewing questioned the process and asked at least one council member to ask the county attorney to draft a resolution to rescind the monument’s relocation.

Mielke said a May 28 legal opinion from the county attorney outlined the process, “which is that a council member … can introduce a resolution or ask the attorney to write a resolution consistent with the request of the petitioner, which is what we thought we would get a vote on today, not to be railroaded by an out-of-order motion to not consider the petition.

“It was wrong. It was the wrong process,” she said. “I think it was out of order under Robert’s Rules of Order.

“And I can only think of the saying that democracy dies in darkness. Well the sun’s setting on Talbot County,” Mielke said.

Ewing said he was “exceptionally concerned regarding the lack of transparency to adopt the administrative resolution to relocate the Talbot Boys statue out of state.

“The manner of how this action was accomplished brings into doubt the legitimacy of the process, which is why I and others have petitioned this council to rescind this administrative resolution,” he said. “I’m baffled why the majority of the council continues to disregard the input of and the questions from so many in the community in this matter. I am baffled why there was even a vote tonight on that, when all that was requested was that a single council person instruct the attorney to draft a resolution.

“I’ll humbly submit that that vote was taken out of order. Alright, I’d ask y’all to revisit that. And I think after this meeting, you certainly can direct the attorney to do just that,” Ewing said. “There’s no doubt there’s powerful forces most if not all, from outside the borders of Talbot County that have found their way to influence this council. Of course, local councils like this one, are intended to represent the interests of the actual local citizens, not third parties, not Annapolis, politicians, certainly not the well-connected individuals who have chosen Easton and Talbot County to fulfill their own vision and interpretation of history.

“I thank the members of this council who have acted in good faith and resisted the meddling of those who have targeted this county for their latest political or social cause,” he said. “For the remainder of the council, I certainly hope you will reconsider if it is truly in the best interest of the community at large to send this monument out of state. I submit to you that the vast majority of Talbot countians believe this monument dedicated to Talbot County men must remain in Talbot County.”

Montgomery said the petitioners “will submit the petition again, a new petition for a new number and ask the same thing and hope it’s dealt with properly procedurally, but maybe we could just move forward.

“All it takes is for one county council member in an open session or in writing to ask the county attorney to draft a resolution in form and substance like the petition requested,” he said. “So I would just like to ask one member of the county council to make that request between now and the next meeting.”

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Talbot Seeks OK for Confederate Monument Removal; Statue Supporters Ask for Relocation to be Rescinded

by

Talbot County has filed its application seeking approval from the Easton Historic District Commission to relocate the Confederate monument from the county courthouse grounds.

The county’s application for a certificate of appropriateness was filed Monday, Sept. 27, the deadline for applications to be on the historic district commission’s Oct. 11 meeting agenda.

In its application, the county said a council majority had adopted an administrative resolution to relocate the statue to the Cross Keys Battlefield in Harrisonburg, Va.

The town’s historic district guidelines allow the historic district commission to “approve the moving of historic resources if it finds ‘that it is not in the best interests of the Town or a majority of its citizens to withhold approval,'” according to the county’s narrative in support of removal.

“For profound reasons, it is not in the best interests of the Town of Easton (the ‘Town]) or a presumed majority of its citizens to withhold approval of the County’s’ removal of the Statue from the County Courthouse grounds,” Talbot County said in its narrative. “The Statue, dedicated in 1916, is a Confederate monument on the County Courthouse grounds that commemorates individuals from Talbot County who served in the Confederacy during the Civil War.

“As is well known and highly publicized, the Statue’s presence on the County Courthouse grounds has generated significant controversy and division among many citizens of the County, including citizens of the Town,” according to the narrative. “By way of example, the County is currently defending litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland filed by certain individuals, governmental agencies, and entities who seek to have the Statue removed. Thus, the County Council seeks to relocate the Statue from the County Courthouse grounds.”

The county said its intent is for the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation “to take possession of the Statue where it can be displayed on the Cross Keys Battlefield on the ridge where Maryland troops fought, including troops from Talbot County.

“The Statue can then be repurposed as a monument to all Maryland troops engaged at the battle of Cross Keys with additional interpretation added,” according to the narrative. “The Cross Keys Battlefield is private property; however, it is open to the public year round. Thus, the Statue can be preserved and viewed in a better historical context along with other monuments commemorating the Civil War.”

The county also said moving the statue “to another location outside the Town’s Historic District will not change the general character of the County Courthouse or the Town’s Historic District as a whole. The historic character of the County Courthouse will remain intact, and the Statue’s relocation does not affect any other historic sites, buildings, or other structures in the Town’s Historic District.”

Historic District Application Packet (relocation of Talbot Boys Statue)

While the county is working through the administrative process to relocate the Confederate monument from the courthouse lawn, opponents of its removal are asking the county council to change its mind or accept a Talbot County site for the monument.

Lynn Mielke, David Montgomery, and Clive Ewing, longtime advocates for keeping the statue at its current location, have petitioned the council to rescind the administrative resolution calling for the statue’s relocation to Virginia. The petition for rescission is on the council’s agenda for tonight’s meeting.

Members of Preserve Talbot History, meanwhile, are looking for a suitable site for the monument in Talbot County and have asked the county council for greater transparency on the matter.

In a Sept. 23 press release, the group said the county council needs to answer these questions:

1. Has the cost of moving the memorial been estimated, and on what basis?

2. Is there a written commitment from some individual or organization to pay that cost?

3. What is the basis for claim that no one in Talbot County would accept the memorial?

4. Was any request for proposals to take the memorial ever posted?

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Talbot Begins Process for Confederate Monument’s Removal; Easton Panel OK Will Be First Step

by

Following the Sept. 14 vote for its relocation, Talbot County officials are beginning initial steps to remove the Confederate monument from the courthouse green.

The administrative process includes seeking approval from the town’s historic district commission for the monument’s removal and likely will require a bid process for its removal and relocation.

As that process continues, those who have been working to keep the monument at its current location are seeking out possible Talbot County sites for its relocation.

The county currently is preparing an application to Easton’s Historic District Commission, Talbot County Council Vice President Pete Lesher said he was told by staffers.

An application would need to be submitted by Monday for the monument’s removal to make the commission’s Oct. 11 agenda, Lesher said Wednesday in an email. If the application is heard Oct. 11, the commission could take action at its Oct. 25 meeting.

“The HDC application is the appropriate first action ,” Lesher wrote. “No steps have been taken on the physical removal until we get through this initial action.”

Lesher said he wasn’t yet aware of a bid process for the monument’s removal, but said “the county has rules for the disbursement of funds, and I am sure this project falls within them.”

Asked about the possibility an appropriate site for the monument could be located in Talbot County, he said “No one has proposed to me an alternative site.

“It seems that a publicly accessible site that is associated with the Talbot Boys named on the monument — such as the Cross Keys battlefield — would be hard to equal,” Lesher wrote.

“Others searched for over a year to find a site, without success,” he said. “I give (Councilman Frank) Divilio great credit for finding and securing such a suitable and appropriate site.”

Since the Sept. 14 vote, David Montgomery, president of Preserve Talbot History, has said several Talbot County sites have been offered for the statue’s new location.

In a Wednesday afternoon email, Montgomery said the group has not had any “formal discussions with Council members about possible sites.

“We are still doing our homework and hope to have something solid to discuss soon,” he wrote.

Montgomery added that several site characteristics have been discussed. Those are:

• Physical feasibility, that the site be accessible to moving equipment and provide a stable base.

• Public access, now or in the future, so that the educational purpose can continue.

• Security, so that random or political vandalism can be discouraged.

Divilio, who previously had joined a 3-2 council majority in voting against the monument’s removal, introduced an administrative resolution during the Sept. 14 council meeting to move it to the Cross Keys Battlefield in Harrisonburg, Va., “a private park, under the custody, care, and control of Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation….”

The resolution requires the monument’s removal and relocation to be paid by private funds.

Although the foundation had agreed to take the monument, its executive director sent a letter shortly before the Sept. 14 meeting noting the foundation’s monuments policy supports keeping a monument at its original location, with relocation within the county the next best option.

However, the letter also reiterated the foundation’s willingness to accept the monument and become its permanent steward “if and when it is evident that the monument will not and can not remain safely” in Talbot County.

Divilio was joined by Lesher and Councilman Corey Pack in voting Sept. 14 for the resolution. Pack had sought the monument’s removal from the courthouse grounds last year, but his measure was only supported by Lesher.

As a result of the Sept. 14 vote, the federal lawsuit seeking the monument’s removal from the courthouse green is on hold.

After years of debate, protests, letters, emails, public comment, several votes against removal, and the lawsuit, a majority of the Talbot County Council voted Sept. 14 to relocate the monument to a battlefield site in Virginia.

Three days later, a federal judge granted a motion for a limited stay, putting the case on hold for 30 days and requiring a joint status report by the end of that period.

An attorney for Talbot County sought the stay in a Sept. 16 consent motion, noting “Removal of the statue is the central issue in this litigation.

“Because the statue is a historic structure within the meaning of local preservation laws, some additional administrative steps are required before removal is effected, including a public hearing before the local commission charged with certifying that removal is appropriate under the related local regulations,” Kevin Karpinski, the county’s attorney in the case, wrote in the motion.

Karpinski said the attorneys for the organizations and individuals who had filed the lawsuit had “graciously consented to this request for a stay.

“The County respectfully submits a temporary stay is in order to: 1) permit the parties to determine whether a compromised solution is a possibility in light of this recent development and pending developments in the administrative process; and, 2) to avoid unnecessary consumption of the Court resources,” he wrote.

 

 

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.