MENU

Sections

More

October 25, 2021

The Chestertown Spy

An Educational News Source for Chestertown Maryland

News News Homepage News News Portal Highlights

Chestertown Town Council Election: Jose Medrano

by Leave a Comment

Share

Editor Note: This is the last in our series of profiles of candidates running for Town Council positions in the November 2 election. Jose Medrano is a candidate running for councilmember of the Third Ward.

Jose Medrano is a familiar face in Chestertown, both from his moving company Men on the Move, and his presence at Chestertown’s Saturday Market representing his family’s coffee business.

Wearing both business hats has given him an opportunity to listen to the concerns and hopes of the community and he has recently set his sights on being the eyes and ears of Ward 3 and representing them in the town council. Here, Jose talks about how he discovered Chestertown 17 years ago, raised a family, started his own business, and why he wants to be of service to the community 

We look forward to hearing more from Jose Medrano during the October 26 League of Women Voters Candidates Forum online on October 2, details forthcoming. The Kent County Public Library will host the Zoom meeting.  Citizens can participate by joining the meeting here:  

The Spy recently interviewed Jose at The White Swan Tavern.

This video is approximately ten minutes in length.

 

Chestertown Town Council Election: Ted Gallo

by Leave a Comment

Share

This is one in a series of profiles of candidates running for Town Council positions in the November 2 election. Ted Gallo is a candidate for Third Ward council member.

Ted Gallo and family discovered Chestertown during a visit to Downrigging Weekend and made the leap from the Western Shore to Kent County in 2009. Having finished a Master’s program at Salisbury University, Gallo is a social worker for the State of Maryland. He previously worked at the Whitsitt Center in Chestertown.

Gallo also has a strong appreciation for the history of the region and as a member of the Historic District Commission, he gained a greater understanding of some of the Town’s challenges along with desire to participate in its future.

We look forward to hearing more from Ted Gallo during the October 26 League of Women Voters Candidates Forum online on October 2, details forthcoming.

The Kent County Public Library will host the Zoom meeting. Citizens can participate by joining the meeting here

The Spy recently interviewed Ted at The White Swan Tavern.

This video is approximately ten minutes in length.

Chestertown Town Council Election: Bob Miller

by Leave a Comment

Share

This is one in a series of profiles of candidates running for Town Council positions in the November 2 election. Bob Miller is a candidate for First Ward council member.

As a CPA with several Master’s Degrees in government and law, Bob Miller wants to apply his financial expertise to the stewardship of the community. Looking through an accountant’s lens, he would like to address the tax differential issue between town and county while addressing the day-to-day issues of the First Ward.

We look forward to the October 26 League of Women Voters Candidates Forum online on October 2, details forthcoming.

The Kent County Public Library will host the Zoom meeting. Citizens can participate by joining the meeting here:

The Spy recently interviewed Bob at The White Swan Tavern.

This video is approximately ten minutes in length.

Chestertown Town Council Election: Tim O’Brien

by 4 Comments

Share

This is the first in a series of profiles of candidates running for Town Council positions in the November 2 election. Tim O’Brien is a candidate for First Ward council member.

Tim O’Brien says his background as a small business owner, government scientist, international development specialist, parent, and artist will inform his decision-making process if elected as Ward 1 councilmember.

A Chestertown resident for 12 years, O’Brien has taken a keen interest in the town council’s activity and wants to express his care for the community by participating in its future development.

The Kent County Public Library will host the Zoom meeting. Citizens can participate by joining the meeting here:

The Spy recently interviewed Tim at the White Swan Tavern.

This video is approximately ten minutes in length.

Shore Residents Say Legislative Redistricting Panel Should Boost Representation of People of Color

by Leave a Comment

Share

Eastern Shore residents urged members of the Legislative Redistricting Advisory Commission to boost representation for people of color in their legislative maps at a Monday evening public hearing.

Sonya Whited, a Wicomico County resident, said during a public hearing at the Todd Performing Arts Center in Wye Mills that the commission should look at drawing an additional single-member delegate district with a majority of people of color on the Eastern Shore in their proposed legislative maps in addition to District 37A, which is represented by House of Delegates Speaker Pro Tem Sheree Sample-Hughes (D).

“We are at the point where carving out one minority district represented by Delegate Sheree Sample-Hughes is not enough to truly address the concerns of other minority and sometimes marginalized communities,” Whited said. “I am hopeful that this critical district could be part of the fair map drawing process versus a court case.”

Patrick Firth, the chairman of the Talbot County Democratic Central Committee, said the panel could create an additional single-member district that would stretch from Salisbury University to the University of Maryland Eastern Shore, the historically Black university in Princess Anne.

“It’s time for the General Assembly to recognize the changing population and growing diversity (of) the Eastern Shore,” Firth said.

He also said Talbot County should be drawn into a single-member district with parts of Caroline Counties rather than a broader district with portions of the lower Eastern Shore.

Whited also said she wants the commission to largely keep multi-member delegate districts in their legislative maps. Maryland’s delegate maps currently contain a mix of single- and multi-member districts, with multi-member districts generally used in more densely populated areas and some rural areas including on the Eastern Shore. Whited and other proponents of multi-member districts say having multiple delegates gives voters access to legislators with different areas of expertise and broader representation.

Single-member districts are generally used in geographically larger and more rural districts or when required by the Voting Rights Act to ensure representation of people of color. They are also sometimes used when a portion of a senatorial district crosses county lines. Proponents of single-member delegate districts say they make it easier for political newcomers to challenge incumbents and also give voters a single point of contact in the House of Delegates.

Diana Waterman, a Queen Anne’s County resident and former state Republican Party chair, testified in favor of single-member districts at the public hearing, and argued that using single-member districts statewide “would ensure that all citizens receive the same level of service from their delegate.”

Waterman said the LRAC should consider supporting maps drawn up by the Maryland Citizens Redistricting Commission, a multi-partisan panel created by Gov. Lawrence J. Hogan Jr. (R) and tasked with drawing up congressional and legislative maps that he will propose to the General Assembly. That panel recently released draft delegate maps with both single- and multi-member districts based largely on population density, and will hold a virtual public hearing Wednesday at 6 p.m.

The General Assembly, where Democrats hold a veto-proof majority in both the House of Delegates and the Senate, will have the final say over the state’s next set of maps, and legislative leaders created the bipartisan LRAC to draw up their own set of maps.

Sen. Adelaide C. Eckardt (R-Lower Shore) said she supports single-member districts to ensure that individual counties have a shot at electing local delegates.

“Most of the counties want to make sure that they have somebody that lives in their district representing them,” Eckardt said.

Kathleen Bangert, speaking on behalf of several Eastern Shore chapters of the League of Women Voters, said her organization supports maintaining a mix of single- and multi-member districts in legislative maps.

“It is our position that the right mix of the two helps to promote full minority representation, preserve political and community boundaries, and encourage a more diverse candidate pool,” Bangert said.

Some Eastern Shore residents who testified at the public hearing also said the commission should look at crossing the Chesapeake Bay to include portions of Anne Arundel County with the Eastern Shore in congressional maps. The 1st Congressional District currently stretches into Harford, Carroll and Baltimore counties — but some who testified said Eastern Shore residents have more in common with Anne Arundel County because of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge.

“There is clearly a strong association between the Eastern Shore and Anne Arundel-related business and workforce development interests that impact our shared regional economy,” Chestertown resident Rebecca Flora said.

Tara Newman-Bell, a Talbot County resident, said in addition to ensuring that people of color’s voting power isn’t diluted and that maps aren’t drawn to favor any particular political party, commission members should provide clear rationale behind their eventual congressional and legislative maps.

By Bennett Leckrone

Kent County High School Principal Resigns

by 3 Comments

Share

A letter from Kent County School Superintendent Karen Couch posted on the KCHS School Board website on October 14 announced the resignation of the resignation of KCHS Principal Joe Graf.

Rock Hall Elementary Principal Mrs. Kris Hemstetter has been reassigned to KCHA as principal. Mrs. Gillian Spero will be reassigned as principal of Rock Hall Elementary for the remainder of the school year.

This is a developing story.

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

by Leave a Comment

Share

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.

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

by Leave a Comment

Share

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.”

Chestertown Mayor David Foster to Run for Another Term

by 2 Comments

Share

Chestertown Mayor David Foster has announced he will run for a full term in the upcoming November town council and mayoral election.

Foster, formerly Ward 1 councilman, was elected mayor by the town council after former Mayor Chris Cerino resigned in April. 

Rather than seek nominations from outside the Council, a motion to select from standing members of the Council was passed. Councilmembers were allowed to nominate themselves as well as other councilmembers.

Foster says that having experienced both council membership and the mayoral office has given him a unique perspective of serving the community.

“As a council member, I had the luxury of focusing on specific issues, but I appreciate that as major, you really do have to follow everything, and that has been a new role for me,” he says.

And one that he enjoys. 

Foster’s sense of finding “common ground” in a controversial issue has been the hallmark of his service in both roles and notable on the ongoing issue with the heating oil remediation on the hospital grounds. A long-time proponent of governmental transparency and staunch advocate of earning the public trust, Foster continues to push for accountability and resolution of the problem.

Foster’s range of job experience has offered the Town a unique skill set: the US Agency for International Development; US Environmental Protection Agency as an engineer and urban planner; USAID as a Senior Urban Environmental Advisor for Asia; and as Riverkeeper on the Chester River.

The November election will also offer two open seats on the Council. Ward 1 Councilmember Sam Shoge and Ward 3 Councilmember Ellsworth Tolliver are not seeking reelection. Filing deadline is Thursday, October 30 at the town hall.

This video is approximately six minutes in length.

 

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

by

Share

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?