|
|
Caroline prevails in suit over courthouse marker
Caroline County can go ahead with plans to erect a multicultural monument on the courthouse lawn, a judge ruled yesterday.
Walter J. Ford, a retired Hampton circuit judge, said the Caroline branch of the NAACP failed to convince him that supervisors acted arbitrarily in deciding to exclude mention of a 1800 slave rebellion from the monument.
The Caroline chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People sued the county last November, asking that it be prohibited from erecting the monument on the lawn. Lydell Fortune, attorney for the group, said he would have to consult with his client before deciding whether to appeal.
The county's attorney, C. Michael DeCamps, said the ruling frees the county to approve bids and authorize construction of the monument, which is expected to cost nearly $38,000. Three previous attempts to authorize construction of the monument have been stalled because supervisors were reluctant to approve the project while litigation was pending.
"I'm sure the county will be happy with the resolution of this matter," DeCamps said after the hearing in Caroline Circuit Court. "The majority of the board felt like the allegations that were made weren't correct."
In court yesterday, Fortune charged that the Board of Supervisors acted arbitrarily and with racist motives when it rejected a proposal for an African-American monument and decided to build a multicultural monument instead.
The issue has stirred racial tensions in Caroline since the board first rejected the proposed text for an African-American monument in November 2000.
Fortune said the decision went against the wishes of several hundred Caroline residents and a county-appointed tourism committee. He also said the decision to keep mention of the slave rebellion and a key court case on segregation off the monument, yet commemorate them elsewhere in the county, was arbitrary.
A highway marker recognizes Gabriel's Rebellion, the 1800 slave uprising that supervisors voted to strike from the monument.
And the arrest and trial of Mildred and Charles Loving--a black woman and white man whose marriage eventually led to the U.S. Supreme Court overturning laws against interracial marriage--is recognized on a plaque in the courtroom where yesterday's hearing was held, just a few hundred feet from where the monument will be erected.
"To sit here and hear the Board of Supervisors state that Gabriel's Rebellion was too violent to be commemorated on a monument outside of this courthouse and then to have a highway marker, placed by the same Board of Supervisors, commemorating the same thing, doesn't sit well with the NAACP," Fortune said. "There is something else there. The whole story has yet to be told."
DeCamps acknowledged in court yesterday that there was widespread support for the African-American monument. But that doesn't mean the issue wasn't fairly debatable, he said.
He also said that just because the decision didn't turn out the way the NAACP would have liked doesn't mean the decision was arbitrary or racist. State law says that as long as an issue is considered fair subject for debate, a board's decision is presumed valid.
"The board clearly articulated reasons for why they had trouble with the African-American monument," DeCamps said. "This all comes through loud and clear when you read the minutes."
DeCamps said supervisors thought a multicultural monument would be more appropriate because there's not enough space on the courthouse lawn or money in the tourism budget to recognize every race or culture with separate monuments.
"There is simply no proof of racial motivation when making this decision," he said.