MENU

Sections

More

June 1, 2023

Talbot Spy

Nonpartisan Education-based News for Talbot County Community

News News Homepage

Talbot Seeks OK for Confederate Monument Removal; Statue Supporters Ask for Relocation to be Rescinded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

Council Votes to Move Talbot Boys, But Fight May Not Be Over

by

Although the county council voted 3-2 Tuesday night to move the Confederate statue on the courthouse grounds to a Civil War national historic district near Harrisonburg, Va., advocates for keeping the monument at its current location, or at least in Talbot County, say the fight is not over.

During public comments near the end of Tuesday night’s meeting, Preserve Talbot History’s president said the foundation that leads the preservation efforts at the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District said in a Tuesday afternoon letter that it would only accept Talbot’s monument “if it will not and cannot stay safely here.

“They’re not welcoming this statue as something ‘Oh, this is fantastic, we always wanted to have the Talbot boys statue in the corner here,'” David Montgomery said. “They’re taking it because they’ve been assured that we’re going to tear it down, melt it, or put it in a warehouse. Those are their conditions. That should have been made clear to the council when this proposal was set up to vote….”

The Sept. 14 letter from the executive director of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation says the foundation’s position is that monuments should remain in their original location whenever possible and that an attempt should be made to relocate the monument in Talbot County if it is removed from its current location. If the monument must be moved out of the county, the foundation said it remained “committed to its offer to become its permanent steward….”

According to the email headers The Spy has viewed, the letter was emailed at 3:49 p.m. Tuesday and sent to all five county council members. The Spy does not know when it was actually received by the council members, whose meeting Tuesday night began at 6 p.m. with the discussion of the administrative resolutions concerning the Confederate monument beginning at about 6:37 p.m.

The full text of the foundation’s letter is below:

Talbot Boys Monument

 

The letter refers to the foundation’s monument policy, which is posted on its website:

SVBFMonumentPolicy

 

Montgomery also challenged the process by which the relocation vote had occurred.

“(T)his was done in such a surreptitious manner, that won’t be forgotten,” he said. “A policy decision like this should not be made through a procedural maneuver that eliminates not only public comment, (but also) the time for this council to review thoroughly, to know what the battlefield … looks like, to know what the arrangements are for moving it, to know how that can be done safely, even to know whether the base is going to go along with it or not. All that’s missing…. No matter what the legal cover… this was a fundamental policy decision.”

Montgomery said sincere efforts should be made “…to find a place in Talbot County for this memorial … if this council is determined to take it out of its current place.

“I hope the move the monument will support that objective. They’ve said all along that all they want to do is move the monument and find another place in Talbot County for it,” he said.

Lynn Mielke, who has supported keeping the monument at its current location, said she has been involved in the issue since 2015.

“And I would suggest that it’s not over yet,” she said.

Mielke said her main reason to speak Tuesday night, however, was to share “… an observation that I’ve made over those years, as well as tonight. That observation is of the residents of Talbot County. And how no one’s come and torn down the monument. No one has defaced it or put paint on it. It’s been courteous and … the protests for its removal is very consistent with what the founding fathers had saw in terms of peaceful protest and sharing opinions.

“Tonight, for instance, there were the Move the Monument people and there were the Preserve Talbot County history people (outside the courthouse). And everyone was courteous to everyone else…,” she said. “The Move the Monument people were handing out snacks to everyone. And I guess it sort of reminded me of, if you read the history of Culp’s Hill, the Battle of Culps Hill, where we had Talbot Countians both on the Confederate side and on the Union side fighting each other. But when the battle was over, they helped each other.

“The battle here is not quite over but I would hope that until it is, and even when it is, that each side will respect the other and show them that grace that I observed tonight and I have observed over the last few years,” Mielke said.

The Confederate monument on the Talbot County courthouse grounds. Photo by John Griep.

Others had harsher words for Frank Divilio, Pete Lesher, and Corey Pack, the three councilmen who voted for the resolution to relocate the statue.

Michelle Ewing called Divilio “duplicitous” and said “… thanks to you and Corey (Pack) and Pete (Lesher) our county will forever be divided.”

Clive Ewing agreed.

“Obviously, I’m disappointed in how the council went about advancing the Talbot Boys resolution to a vote tonight,” he said. “Transparent government is the best government and you have left a lot to be desired.

“This action does nothing to advance understanding and unity in this county,” Ewing said.

Shari Wilcoxon said “… this is a very sad day for Talbot County to be swept up in the same horrific Marxist idealism that’s going on throughout our country…. It’s really a frightening step, it’s frightening what’s going on in our country, and it’s a sad day that’s going on here in Talbot County….”

Speakers who supported efforts to move the statue from the courthouse grounds said it took courage to make that decision.

“I saw an awful lot of courage here tonight, tremendous courage, because it takes a great deal of courage to have a change of heart,” Keith Watts said.

“You talked about respect, and being respectful. And I think it’s so important for the community, whatever the outcome was tonight, to continue to respect each other. Because we all live together,” he said. “There are certainly individual acts of courage on each and every single person’s part that’s here tonight, both in the audience and on that dais…. I think that you can take some solace in the fact that you did what you felt was in your hearts.

“Whether I agree with that, or not, it doesn’t matter so much as to continue to look at each other, listen to each other, and respect each other because we all live together,” Watts said. “And I think we all, in our own ways, have Talbot County’s best interests at heart. Always…. So thank you for your candor. Thank you for your courage. Thank you for bringing us to this point. And thank you for leading us from here because now it’s the way forward.”

Richard Potter, president of the Talbot County NAACP, thanked Divilio.

“Thank you for your courage tonight. I appreciate that. I appreciate you and your diligence in trying to find a peaceful solution to this issue,” he said. “I know tonight was difficult. And I’m pretty sure the days ahead will be difficult. But that’s leadership.

“One of the quotes that I leave this council with is one from Winston Churchill: ‘Mountaintops inspire leaders, but valleys mature them.'”

The NAACP and others had filed a federal lawsuit to require the county to move the Confederate monument from its position on the lawn just outside the Talbot County Court House.

Divilio said he submitted the resolution to relocate the statue to the Cross Keys battlefield to put an end to the divisive debate and to ensure the monument is preserved.

“If the Talbot boys make this move, they will help tell the story of the Civil War and how communities and families were divided, unfortunately, much as we are today,” he said. “Cross Keys battlefield is an appropriate new home for the Talbot boys where the monument will be cared for with respect, and be part of the teaching history for generations to come.

“Throughout this process, it has been very important to me that the Talbot Boys be treated with respect,” Divilio said. “And if the decision was made to move it, there needed to be a new location identified that would be able to keep it and maintain it for the long term. Unfortunately, no such option existed locally and I feared the situation would evolve much like it has in other parts of this country and the courthouse grounds would be vandalized and the Talbot Boys would be destroyed.

He said the simple answer to questions about why the statue is being moved out of the county is that “no one wanted it. No one wanted to subject themselves, their business, their organization, or their government to the backlash from agreeing to accept the Talbot Boys on their property.

“The Talbot Boys issue has divided our community for too long and has sidelined many other important things the county council and county government needs to address,” Divilio said. “I believe that moving the Talbot Boys to a historically appropriate place of respect, and allowing our community to move forward is the best for Talbot County. It is time to bring this resolution to a close so we can shift our focus to rebuilding our relationships and coming together to build a 21st century Talbot County.”

Council Vice President Pete Lesher commended Divilio, who has previously voted to leave the monument at its current location, for his “diligence in identifying and securing an honorable and appropriate destination for the statute.

“For generations, the voices of Talbot County’s African-Americans were unheard and ignored too often,” Lesher said. “Now that they have allies across racial, ethnic and economic divides, we are beginning to hear them and give them new respect. It is clear that the presence of this statute on the courthouse square would continue to rankle. Tonight’s move is simply overdue.

“The monument is a misrepresentation of history, suggesting an inflated number of Talbot County residents fought against Maryland and against the United States in America’s new birth of freedom,” he said. “In fact, Talbot County voted overwhelmingly for pro-Union candidates to a potential secession convention that never met. This monument is simply not good history.

“And this statue shows a young Confederate soldier, not in surrender, but going off to war in his fresh uniform to fight a lost cause,” Lesher said. “In this Excelsior portrayal from Longfellow’s poem, he is ennobled, heroically prepared to give his life to preserve a way of life that was economically sustained through enslaved black labor.

Councilman Corey Pack agreed and noted the primary goal of the Confederacy was to maintain slavery.

“(W)e may not know individually why those men went to fight, perhaps because their friend down the street was going off to fight, perhaps because they were bored, perhaps because they truly believed in what the Confederacy stood far, we don’t know. But what we do know is the overarching umbrella that the Confederacy stood for,” he said. “And that was most notably the enslavement of black people. And no matter how you cut it, had the Confederacy won, that would have continued on. Written within the documents of their articles of confederacy is for the continuation of slavery….

“So we know what the Confederacy stood for. And these statues that came about at the turn of the 20th century was basically to glamorize that lost cause movement of the Confederacy, that although they fought and lost, they fought for a noble cause.

“I believe this is the right thing for Talbot County, I really do, I really do,” Pack said. “I believe that this is not erasing history, it’s just relocating a statue to another location where it can live out its days and if persons want to go travel and see it at that location, they’re free to do so. But to have the statute out front, that glamorizes a time and a period with not everybody who’s free, to have a statue out front, which still has the the draped flag of the Confederacy, to have that CSA on the buckle of that young man. And knowing what that stood for is not appropriate for this date and time.”

Councilwoman Laura Price had a competing resolution drafted calling for a Union statue and the names of Union soldiers to be added to the existing Confederate monument. But she said Tuesday night that she would not be offering that administrative resolution because she felt the public should be allowed to comment at a public hearing.

“Moving it out of the county is one thing, moving it out of the state is quite another,” she said. “And as I stated, the reason that I’m delaying my resolution is because it does deserve public feedback. And there are some people out there who maybe are supportive of moving the monument, but don’t support moving it to Virginia.

“I would ask you to have a proper public hearing and let people talk about (it). You’re the only one who looked and you alone are deciding to move to Virginia,” Price said. “And I think there’s a lot of people who would be supportive of moving the monument that don’t want it to go to Virginia. So I do have a problem with that….

“I’d much rather have compromise and try to … figure out if we can do another solution. But if this is going to be the solution that passes here, the people, all of the people deserve a proper public hearing…,” she said. “I believe that this is wrong. And it’s not anything to do with my opinion, whether it should stay as is, become a unity, or go, has nothing to do with that, it has everything to do with process.”

Council President Chuck Callahan noted Divilio had had a change of heart on the issue but “I can tell you I’m not there.

“I feel it’s a mistake. I think it’s a mistake, moving it from here,” he said. “I’ve always been very open minded. And I’ve told everybody I’ve been open-minded through the years, you know, could we find a place, could we find a place? I’ve always really been open minded to listen to everybody….

“You know, if we were going to move it, I would love to have the opportunity for the public to have input on where we’re going to put it,” Callahan said. “I really do, I think it’s important…. So I really feel like … if we were to make that decision that this is gonna move, it would have been really great if the public had the opinion on where it was going to be moved at.”

Pack took some issue with Callahan’s remarks about giving the public an opportunity to speak.

“I just want to say for clarification, you know, we’ve had opportunities to engage the public….,” Pack said, referring to requests from the Talbot NAACP and religious leaders to meet with the council to discuss the issue. “We’ve had opportunities to engage the public. We’ve turned down invitations to engage the public.

“Our attorneys from Baltimore City, high-powered attorneys that come consult this council, (said we should) engage the public, and we chose not to,” he said. “So you can’t say to this man now you’re (not) going about (it) the right way because you didn’t include the public. We had opportunities to do so. And the majority chose not to. That’s not fair to now say to him, he hasn’t engaged in the public. When you had opportunity to do it, we did not.

“That’s your opinion,” Callahan replied.

“That’s a fact,” Pack said.

It was unclear whether the approved resolution only provides for the relocation of the statue of the young Confederate soldier atop the base or to the entirety of the monument including statue and base. The resolution as drafted and approved Tuesday night solely refers to the Talbot boys “statue,” and never mentions the word “monument,” but council members spoke about the “monument” when discussing the resolution. The dedication “To the Talbot Boys” appears on the base.

In a Wednesday afternoon email, Divilio indicated his intention with the resolution was to relocate “all of it.”

The draft administrative resolution may be read in its entirety below.

DRAFT_Administrative_Resolution_-_Relocation_of_Talbot_Boys_Statue_-_September_2021

 

Key moments from Tuesday night’s discussion may be seen in the below video, which is about eight minutes long. A full video of the county council meeting may be viewed and/or downloaded at https://talbotcountymd.gov/About-Us/County_Council/council-meeting-video.

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

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.

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

Plaintiffs Seeking Confederate Monument Removal Say Talbot’s Response is ‘Shameful’

by

Talbot County’s arguments that Black people do not have “standing” to pursue a court challenge to a monument to white supremacy on the county courthouse lawn are “outrageous,” “shameful,” and “willfully blind,” plaintiffs suing for the monument’s removal argued Friday in court papers.

The plaintiffs are seeking a court order to remove the Confederate monument and in a strongly worded legal filing outlined the cruelty, pain, and anguish actually inflicted by the monument and the county’s dismissiveness toward Black people’s concerns, according to a press release from the ACLU of Maryland.

“It is unfortunate,” the plaintiffs’ filing begins, “but all too predictable” … “that in responding to the complaint in this case about the unlawful Confederate statue on its courthouse grounds, defendant Talbot County presents the viewpoint of a majority white legislative body as though it were fact, while avoiding any serious effort to confront the cruelty and illegality of its conduct toward Black people. …

“In characterizing the response of Black residents to the Talbot Boys statue as merely offensive, the County ignores the unique place of Black citizens in the eyes of the law, and reveals how little it knows (or cares) about the impact that racism and the legacy of slavery in this country and in its own backyard have on its Black residents.”

The filing includes sworn statements from the plaintiffs detailing the actual injuries they suffer from their forced encounters with the statue.

Plaintiff Kisha Petticolas, a Black attorney who has spent her entire legal career in Talbot County, first as a judicial clerk, then as the county’s first Black assistant state’s attorney, and since 2011 as the only Black public defender at Office of the Public Defender’s Easton office, says the county is flatly wrong it its claims that the statue is merely offensive to her. In fact, she says, the personal anguish she experiences on account of the statue is like a “knife lodged in her soul.”

“To say that the statue pains me every time I walk by it is an understatement — it is a trauma I have had to endure many times weekly throughout my 15 years of practicing law in Talbot County. The statue causes a pain that cuts deeply; one that I have learned to swallow every time I walk into the courthouse. The statue has created a wound that never truly gets the chance to heal.”

Talbot County NAACP Branch President and individual plaintiff Richard Potter strongly agrees:

“Seeing the statue over and over throughout my life has not dulled the pain of what the statue represents. In fact, it has amplified the pain I feel, the longer that the statue remains on the courthouse grounds while the world and society’s views on Confederate statues begin to change around it. It is a thorn in my side that becomes more imbedded, more painful, and more infected with the passage of time.”

Speaking on behalf of the plaintiff NAACP, organizational and community elder Walter Weldon Black, Jr., a former president of both the Talbot NAACP Branch and the Maryland State NAACP, said:

“[T]he presence of the Talbot Boys monument is outrageous and reprehensible, as discrimination stifles people’s ambitions while it closes the doors of opportunity. When Black people are made to feel as a second-class citizen by white society, they believe they are unable to achieve, as white society will not accept them.

“This symbol of white supremacy at the courthouse — maintained by County edict as the highest monument at the courthouse — combines with the fact the staff at the Talbot County courthouse is almost completely white to send a clear message to those looking for fair opportunities at the courthouse, whether be in employment, public services, or for justice through the court system, that they are unlikely to find fairness or equality of treatment there.”

The lawsuit contends that Talbot County’s homage to white supremacists and traitors to the United States and to the State of Maryland cannot remain on government property because it is not consistent with the core promise of the Fourteenth Amendment: Equality to all Americans under the law.

The Maryland Office of the Public Defender, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Petticolas, and Potter are represented by attorneys Daniel W. Wolff, David Ervin, Kelly H. Hibbert, Suzanne Trivette, Tiffanie McDowell, Alexandra Barbee-Garrett, and Ashley McMahon of Crowell & Moring LLP, and Deborah A. Jeon and Tierney Peprah of the ACLU of Maryland.

Go to the ACLU’s website to view the response brief, other legal documents, and additional information at https://www.aclu-md.org/en/cases/opd-et-al-v-talbot-county.

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

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

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

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

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

Talbot Voters Will Decide on Proposed Changes to Tax Cap

by

This video is about 17 minutes long.

Talbot voters will decide on two substantive changes to the county’s property tax revenue cap and a third measure that would correct faulty language in the current tax cap, which was approved by voters in 1996.

Talbot County Sheriff Joe Gamble and Emergency Services Director Clay Stamp have been leading the charge in seeking voter approval for the ballot questions.

The public safety officials say the existing cap has limited the county’s ability to attract and retain deputies, paramedics, and other first responders.

Salaries and benefits for first responders are lower than in surrounding counties, the two have said, making it difficult to find new hires for open positions and leading to trained staffers leaving for better compensation packages elsewhere.

The county also needs to build a new office for the sheriff’s office and the county health department, as well as provide an additional substation for paramedics, officials have noted.

Question B on the ballot for Talbot County voters is a charter amendment that would clarify how the county computes the property tax rate.

The current language, in Section 614 of the Talbot County Charter, identifies the properties included in the calculation as those “existing on the County real property tax rolls at the commencement of the County fiscal year.”

But that wording does not accurately reflect how the information is determined.

The county finance department actually uses the constant yield tax rate certification supplied by the state to determine the tax rate needed to comply with the tax cap.

Question B would amend the language to change it to those properties “included in the Constant Yield Tax Rate Certification prepared by the Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation.”

According to the League of Women Voters (LWV) analysis in the voters’ guide at vote411.org:

“A vote FOR the Charter amendment means the Talbot County Charter would be amended to clarify that the County would use the Constant Yield Tax Rate Certification supplied by the State when determining the property tax rate to be used in the new fiscal year.

“A vote AGAINST the Charter amendment means that the inaccurate wording would remain in the Charter.”

This video is about 20 minutes long.

Question C would amend the tax cap by eliminating a reference to the Consumer Price Index-Urban (CPI-U). The existing property tax revenue cap limits the annual increase in property tax revenues to 2% or CPI-U, whichever is less.

Question C would eliminate CPI-U, which in some years has been less than 2%, further restricting the county’s ability to increase revenues to fund needed services and capital projects.

Since the current tax cap took effect in 1997, the increase in property tax revenues has been limited below 2% during nine fiscal years (with an average increase of 1%) and has been limited to 2% during 15 fiscal years (when CPI-U increased an average 2.78%), according to the LWV voters guide.

“This means that nine times the revenue cap has kept pace with the yearly national rate of inflation, but it has also been less than the national rate of inflation 15 times,” according to the League of Women Voters. “This resulting constriction of tax revenue leaves the County with insufficient revenue to fund all of the budget requests from County departments. While County services have continued to be funded, funding has not addressed all of the needs of the County and has left County departments with unfunded needs. Eliminating the CPI-U alternative would help County services over the long term keep pace with fixed costs and growing needs.

“County salaries and benefits, especially for public safety and emergency services employees, are not competitive with surrounding counties causing Talbot County the loss of valuable, trained personnel to those jurisdictions. For example, Talbot County loses several deputies every year, and it costs the County $97,482 for the first year of a newly trained deputy.”

“A vote FOR the Charter amendment means the Talbot County Charter would be amended to eliminate the use of the CPI-U as an alternate to the 2% cap on tax revenue, leaving the cap on tax revenue at 2% going forward.

“A vote AGAINST the Charter amendment means that the CPI-U would continue as an alternate to the 2% cap on tax revenue.”

Question D would allow 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 one cent increase in the property tax rate would cost the owner of a home assessed at $250,000 an additional $25 annually; an additional $50 annually for the owner of a home assessed at $500,000.

Officials have pitched the one cent increase as a way for the county to catch up on lost revenue from the years when CPI-U limited the increase in revenue below 2% and as a way to help fund much-needed capital projects.

“Talbot County’s revenue cap is one of the most restrictive in the State of Maryland, making it extremely difficult for the County to raise sufficient revenue to fund certain initiatives, including key public safety projects, such as a new facility for the Talbot County Sheriff; additional equipment and personnel for the Talbot County Department of Emergency Services; and, a new facility to house the Talbot County Health Department,” according to the League of Women Voters.

In its voter guide, the LWV notes:

“The County Council is, therefore, asking the voters to give the Council authority to increase revenues above the revenue cap, but only temporarily and with a limit of up to one cent (1¢) per one hundred dollars of assessed value. The Charter Amendment would authorize the County Council to raise revenues above the revenue cap by up to one cent (1¢) per one hundred dollars of assessed value for five years only.

“Arguments in Favor: County tax revenues have not kept pace with the rise in County costs to fund the full functioning of all County departmental needs, nor to remain competitive with other counties in our region in attracting and retaining employees,” according to the League of Women Voters. “This means there are fewer dollars available to fund capital projects that this ballot question is meant to address.

“The ability to increase revenues temporarily above the revenue cap would allow the County Council to fund costs anticipated for near-future capital expenses, including the new Sheriff and Health Department buildings and equipment for emergency services. Any temporary rise in tax revenue above the cap would go toward these projects. Increasing revenue now would reduce the cost of borrowing money to fund these needs.

“Arguments Against: This measure is almost sure to be used by the County Council over the next five fiscal years resulting in property taxes that are higher than 2% over the previous year.

“A vote FOR the Charter amendment means the Talbot County Charter would be amended to allow the Council the option of generating revenues above the revenue cap by up to one cent (1¢) per $100 of assessed valuation for the next five fiscal years.

“A vote AGAINST the Charter amendment means that the Charter would not be amended to allow an exception to the cap on tax revenue beyond the limit specified in the Charter.

The Talbot County Democratic Central Committee supports passage of all three tax cap measures, noting on its website:

“Question B will have no impact on property tax rate. This is a technical fix to reflect the way the assessable tax base is determined in the original charter.

“Question C is a permanent change to the way revenue is calculated. We currently use the Urban CPI or 2% whichever is lower. The Urban CPI does not accurately reflect the needs of a rural county.

“Question D is urgent for 2021 Fiscal Year for the County. Based on our population growth, we need more ambulance crews. Currently we cannot guarantee the twenty-minute minimum response time for an ambulance will be met, especially in the north part of the County without a fourth ambulance. This provision would also allow for more competitive pay for first responders.

“This amendment would allow a temporary increase of one penny per hundred dollars of assessed property value. It will provide the funds we need to meet the public safety needs of our citizens. The cost would amount to an annual increase of $25 for a property valued at $250,000 or $50 for a property valued at $500,000.

“The increase ends in five years.”

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

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.

 

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

Griffith: Talbot School Opening Plans Consistent with State Push for In-Person Learning

by

While Talbot schools will open the year virtually, the school system’s plan for instruction calls for small groups of students to attend in-person learning beginning the second week of school, according to the county’s school superintendent.

Responding to a Thursday afternoon press conference in which Gov. Larry Hogan pushed Maryland schools to provide in-school instruction, Kelly Griffith said the school system had worked with workgroups and a stakeholder committee to create its recovery plan.

“I am very proud of the collaborative efforts of the TCPS Recovery workgroups and the work of the stakeholder committee in the creation of our recovery plan, as it aligns with expectations and provides measures to be in place to ensure a safe work/learning environment for all,” Griffith said in a press release.  “We will proceed with beginning the school year virtually, but as our plan outlines, we will bring small groups of students in special populations into school buildings starting the second week of school.”

Talbot’s school superintendent also said she appreciated the statewide health metrics for schools that the Maryland health department issued on Thursday.

School will start virtually for all Talbot County public school students on Tuesday, Sept. 8. Teachers reported for work on Monday, Aug. 24.

The Talbot County Board of Education approved the recovery plan for the 2020-21 school year during its Aug. 12 meeting.

Recovery 8-14-2020-F

 

Dr. Jinlene Chan, Maryland’s acting deputy secretary of public health services, announced new metrics Thursday for school systems to use to evaluate whether it is safe to reopen for at least some face-to-face instruction.

If a school jurisdiction has below 5% test positivity, or five cases per 100,000 people over a seven-day period, it should have the ability to hold in-person instruction, as long as students, teachers and staff follow physical distancing and mask-wearing guidance, Chan said.

Even schools with positivity rates above 5% should still be able to open for at least some in-person learning in a hybrid model, she continued.

Hogan, in Thursday’s press conference, said every school system in the state is allowed to begin safely reopening schools for in-person learning.

“Nearly everyone agrees that there is no substitute for in-person instruction,” Hogan said.

All 24 Maryland school districts are beginning the year virtually, with some planning to bring in small groups of students for face-to-face learning as early as Sept. 8. However, eight school districts, including the two biggest, Prince George’s and Montgomery counties, have indicated that they are remaining virtual for most of the first semester.

It is “simply not acceptable” that some school boards have “not even attempted to develop any safe reopening plans” that would bring students back into school buildings, Hogan said.

“It’s easier to say we are not going to bring any kids back for the rest of the year, as opposed to sitting down and doing the hard work of trying to figure out how could we get kids back for safe instruction,” Hogan said.

The authority to change reopening plans lies with each county board of education, but their decisions must be based on new statewide benchmarks, Hogan said. “We are going to put pressure on them.”

Dr. Karen Salmon, the state school superintendent, also said she is “strongly encouraging” local schools to reevaluate their mode of instruction by the end of the first quarter of the school year, which is in November.

At least 3 1/2 hours a day should be dedicated to live learning to ensure that all Maryland children are receiving an equal education, Salmon, a former Talbot school superintendent, said. The state board will decide whether that should be a new requirement for all school systems early next week.

Maryland Matters contributed to this article.

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