April 3, 2024
We write to bring attention to several matters related to the pending application of Washington College to demolish the historic Chestertown Armory. We ask that this memorandum be made part of the public record.
- The HDC’s visit to the Armory on March 21, 2024, violated both the Maryland Open Meetings Act and the HDC’s own Historic District Guidelines.
The HDC’s Historic District Design Guidelines state “Site visits are made outside of the normal meeting time, at a time determined during the public meeting.” No such discussion took place during any public meeting of the HDC. See Guidelines at II.4.2 (emphasis added).
The Maryland Open Meeting Act has several specific requirements. These were not followed. First, the notice of the meeting was not timely made. According to the notice on the Town website, it was posted by Town Clerk Lynda Thomas on March 20, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. On the following day, which was the day of the site visit, the same notice was repeated through the Town’s [email protected] email chain at 10:03 a.m. So, at best, the notice appeared on the website 25.5 hours before the site visit, and at worst, a scant 3.5 hours before the site visit. Clearly, this was not an emergency meeting which might have necessitated such short notice.
Second, neither notice included any provision whatsoever for public or media attendance. This is another violation. Town Manager Larry DiRe later claimed in an email that “public access was not restricted during the posted time.” If this claim is true, then why didn’t the notices include this information and how were the public and media made aware of this alleged access? According to Town Clerk Lynda Thomas, no one attended but five commissioners and a Washington College representative. This is especially troublesome given that we had earlier asked the attorney representing both the Town and the HDC for access for Tom Kocubinski, who had toured the Armory in January 2023 and who could provide valuable insight into any changes in the Armory since then. We know Town management and at least the HDC chair were aware of this request, but our request was ignored.
Third, there was no agenda provided. The untimely notice stated “There will be no discussions, decisions and/or actions taken by the HDC.” This statement ignores the plain fact that the purpose of the meeting was to provide the HDC members with a personal view of the condition of the Armory, a view which would be used by them in their ultimate determination of whether to grant the College’s request. What they saw–and what they heard–is part of the official record of this application, a record required to be created in public.
Fourth, this meeting included participation by one of the HDC members who is recused from any matter pertaining to the College. Nonetheless, this member was permitted to be part of this site visit when this member should have been excluded as provided by the Town’s Ethics Guidelines and Robert’s Rules of Order, both of which apply to the HDC.
Please be advised that a formal complaint of your violation of the Maryland Open Meetings Act is being prepared.
- The postponement to May 1 raises crucial procedural questions which must be resolved in advance of that meeting.
We raised these same questions by letter to the Town Attorney some six weeks ago. They remain unanswered. The issues for resolution are:
a. We assume that if the College seeks to file additional information before the May 1 meeting, it must do so not less than 25 days prior to that meeting—i.e., by Friday, April 5. Please confirm that the record for new information from the College is now closed.
b. Please provide the names and affiliations of those who will be presenting on behalf of the College and the amount of time to be allocated to the College for its presentations. Also, please advise when the public will be informed of these presenters to allow for adequate preparation for cross examination by the public. (Posting the HDC agenda the Thursday before the next Wednesday meeting is neither adequate nor reasonable under Maryland’s Open Meetings Act.)
c. Please advise whether those who oppose the demolition of the historic Armory will be provided equal time for their presentations. We believe this request to be fair and reasonable, especially in light of the fact that no time limits have been imposed on the College at any previous meeting.
d. Please advise how cross-examination of the College’s presenters will be handled and the amount of time provided for this cross-examination. Depending on the College’s presenters, we reserve the right to have more than one person cross examine the College’s witnesses.
e. Please advise whether the Chair will entertain a motion to bring a vote on the College’s application at the May 1 meeting as provided in Robert’s Rules.
We appreciate your consideration of these issues and look forward to a timely and public reply.
Respectfully Submitted,
Barbara Jorgenson, Esq.
Thomas Kocubinski, AIA
Steven Mitchell, PE
David A Turner says
For goodness sakes, Ms. Smith, get your own lawyer for the HDC.
Kathryn A. Lee says
Do the authors of this letter not know that the Town Attorney, Christopher Drummond, sadly passed away on March 16? I would have thought they might have showed a bit more compassion.
David A Turner says
Kathryn,
The strong recommendation that HDC demand its own lawyer, not share the Town Attorney, RIP, has been urged on Chairwoman Smith for months and months. Not a tweet in response. So, you are incorrect on two counts. Withhold your self righteous ire. There are real legal problems mounting on the legal side of this debate, how long should they wait? Ours is a small town with said sensibilities. Do you have a suggested date for finally taking action on the independent lawyer question? The point was originally raised three months ago by attorney and historic preservationist Phil Huhn, and urged forward by me and several others. Do you have an opinion about the HDC getting its very own attorney assigned by the Town Council?
Karen Mack says
Is this a trial by letter to the editor? Isn’t it time to just buy the Armory yourselves instead of continuing to block progress by your legal machinations? Why aren’t one of you on the HDC, so it can be run the way you want it to be run? Why can’t members of the HDC inform themselves on the issue without harassment?
Just like a certain former government official, if you continue to protest you can put off a decision and keep the eyesore festering.
What is your personal interest in continuing this crusade?
David A Turner says
Karen, hiring a separate lawyer for HDC helps both sides of the debate equally. It just forestalls all the “foul” delays we’ve already faced, and the probable lawsuit delays that will follow HDC’s decision. Thanks for jumping into the trial by letter, by the way, I suspected you couldn’t resist. Welcome as always.
HDC “informs themselves on the issue” with the essential help of an unbiased (EXCEPT TO THEM) attorney. Several serious errors have been made in this process, and the lack of proper lawyerly guidance has been at the heart of most. Many, by the way, were setbacks for your Team Pro-demolition. Personally, I’m in the middle and favor a compromise. But at the top of my compromise list, and Phil Hoon’s stronger recommendation on the demolition debate (sorry about the misspelling Phil) was get HCD its own attorney. I chaired such a high-flying commission for eight years, and from the start realized we were subject to town hall politics, and required our own attorney. Not one lawsuit in all that time. Enough of amateur hour.
Beryl Smith says
For heaven’s sakes give up already. Are you who doth protest ready to financially take on the responsibility of an ugly unsafe building? You seem to think the College has unlimited resources to make the building usable even though it has been demonstrated through expert opinion that it likely would never be safe since the incursion of mold throughout. Give it up! Can you not find another crusade to move on to?