The Chestertown Historic District Commission could possibly vote to reconsider the Garfield Center’s application to place an LED sign above the entrance to the Prince Theatre — because the Center’s paid consultant, Cherylin Widell, is alleged to have parlayed the personal opinion of an employee at the National Park Service into an official finding of the agency’s Office of Technical Services — when she made persuasive arguments to the commission on Dec 7 to approve the sign.
“The NPS team of professionals, including two who live and have worked in Maryland, and are familiar with Chestertown, reviewed the submittal,” Widell told the Historic Commission on Dec 7. “The NPS stated, the programmable sign does not violate the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards in anyway…the proposed programmable sign meets the Secretary of the Interiors Standards.”
After inquiries to the agency’s Office of Technical Services, where Widell claimed the proposal for the sign was officially endorsed, the employee contacted the Garfield Center’s architect, Peter Newlin, to correct the record and denied Widell’s claims of an official finding by the agency. The employee is also writing a letter to the town to correct the record.
In his communication with Newlin, the employee said he had indicated to Widell that his “personal and private opinion” could not be represented as an official conclusion of National Park Service.
Soon after the revelation, Philip Dutton, executive director of the Garfield Center, contacted Michael Lane, chair of the Historic Commission, and apologized for “any misunderstanding” and asked if a correction of Widell’s statements would change the original outcome of the favorable 4-1 vote on Dec 7. Dutton has asked for a new hearing if the commission believes the original vote was compromised by Widell’s misstatements.
Dutton’s letter states that Widell will present again to the commission but only to offer her personal opinion as an expert in historic preservation.
Below is part of Widell’s original presentation to the Historic Commission on Dec 7.
Jay Yerkes of Yerkes Construction, the contractor for the Garfield Center, said that the staff at the Garfield Center was disappointed, as they too believed Widell had received an official finding from NPS.
“…The National Park Service has reviewed the proposed programmable screen and determined that placing it on the Garfield Center for the Arts meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation,” Widell wrote in a letter to the Garfield Center two days before the Dec 7 hearing.
“This is not a position we wanted to be in.” Yerkes said, “and is why the Garfield Center contacted the Historic Commission.”
“We felt it was the right thing to notify the town and ask for a new hearing,” Yerkes said.
The Historic Commission will take up the matter on Jan 2 to determine if Widell’s comments on the National Park Service may have impacted the final vote. The commission could then vote to reconsider the application for the LED sign.
In a letter to Town Manager Bill Ingersoll dated Dec 18, the town’s attorney, Stewart Barroll recommended a de-nova hearing to reconsider the sign application and “remove any possible taint from the Commission’s ultimate decision.”
Fletcher R. Hall says
This situation is perplexing and a bit confusig. If indeed the consultant misrepresented matters, why is that consultant going to be involved in a second, perhaps unnecessary hearing? Facts are facts. This, in many ways appears to be much termoil about a rather small matter which had already been decided by the appropriate officials.The vote by the Historical Commission and the town council were legitimate. There were many components involved in the issue and the appropriate officials heard all the facts and acted accordingly. One question that may be unanswered is what, if any, political motives are being interjected in this matter.
Who said what to whom,remeins me of the absurd, waste of time hearings conduced constantly in Washington, D.C.
It appears that Chestertown and its officials and numerous commissions are more interested in things of small significance to the town as a whole and its citizens. It is time to face reality as it is, not as it was or wish it to be.
Lets get on with improving the town, attracting businesses, projecting a positive image, and stop the bickering and blustering.
Kevin Shertz says
Fletcher, these Historic District Commission meetings are legal proceedings. If something that was presented as a finding of fact is untrue, that’s like false evidence being presented in a trial.
I’m sure this was just a misunderstanding, but the fact that Mr. Sprinkle felt compelled to contact the Garfield Center to correct the record is significant, and the Commission should be given the opportunity to consider the implications of that if the finding of fact influenced their decision.
As a long-time supporter and long-time advertiser of the Theatre, I find this entire situation to be a bit of an embarrassment for the organization.
Joe Diamond says
Merry Christmas Fletcher,
I agree with every word you have posted…………..no tricks……..wouldn’t change a word!
Joe
Allen says
its bad… you should look out led signs first before taking action…. rest i wish you good luck..
Alice Jones says
The consultant is obviously deceitful and manipulative and should not be involved in further work with the Garfield. How much “nonprofit” money was spent on her consulting fees. This will not help Garfield in their fundraising initiatives
Mike Hunt says
It’s too bad the theater had to spend so much money and time on this ridiculous affair. They could have been spending their time and money on starving artists and bringing joy to the community.
Jack Offett says
There are still such things in the world as misunderstandings. It’s hardly rare to contact a government agency and get an advisory opinion, even from agency lawyers, without it being a certified official opinion. This whole sign-gate has been blown totally out of proportion from Day 1; the sign isn’t the problem–it’s the constant whining and complaining from people with too little to do in their lives.