Categories
News

Our bodies, our choice

Hours after a leaked U.S. Supreme Court draft opinion made real the likelihood that Roe v. Wade will be fully overturned by summer, reversing decades of legal protection for a woman’s right to control her own body, protesters gathered in front of the federal courthouse in downtown Charlottesville.

“This is so major, because if you read the draft…it basically says that Roe v. Wade is not legitimately based in the original decision back in 1973,” says Kobby Hoffman, founder of the Blue Ridge Abortion Fund, which provides funding to allow low-income women to access abortions. 

The immediate past president of the local chapter of the National Organization for Women, Hoffman is currently a NOW delegate representing eight states. She helped organize the courthouse protest and spoke over cars horns honking in support and her fellow protesters’ chants.

“Of course, we have no idea where it will end up,” Hoffman says of the draft opinion. “It’s very extreme. I would say, if you care about women in your household or that you know, or if you are a woman, you should definitely be on high alert and acting because your future is at stake.”

As pro-choice advocates across the country reacted with alarm to the majority opinion drafted by the George W. Bush-appointed uber-conservative Justice Samuel Alito and signed by justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, Republican elected officials who have long voiced opposition to abortion also expressed outrage, not over the content of the draft, but with the leak itself.

“I am in utter disbelief that the sacred confidentiality of the Supreme Court would be violated in this manner,” Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin said in a release the day the draft leaked, alleging it was “done in order to cause chaos and to put pressure on justices and elected officials.”

Youngkin insisted speculation on the Supreme Court’s final decision is “premature,” and wrote that he prefers to direct attention elsewhere. “While we wait for the final June decision, we will be focused on lowering taxes for Virginians, funding education and law enforcement because we need to get a budget passed,” his statement reads.

Unlike dozens of other states, Virginia has no “trigger law” that kicks into place outlawing abortion immediately if Roe is overturned, so abortion will remain legal in the commonwealth in the immediate future unless new legislation is passed.

“Virginians—please know your right to abortion is protected in state law for now,” tweeted Delegate Sally Hudson. “Holding our Senate and flipping the House is how we keep it that way.”

Students and community members gathered for a teach-in at the UVA Rotunda following a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Photo: Eze Amos.

At a town hall appearance on Wednesday, 7th District Representative Abigail Spanberger also weighed in, urging action at the federal legislative level.

“This leaked draft Supreme Court opinion is poised to erase a woman’s right to privacy and reproductive health care that has been settled law for nearly a half century. The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to codify Roe v. Wade. The U.S. Senate needs to follow suit and pass this bill.”

Local conservative elected officials stayed mum or stuck to comments on the ethical breach the leak represents. Delegate Rob Bell declined to comment on the draft opinion or any state legislative efforts that might follow such a final decision from the Supreme Court. State Senator Bryce Reeves did not respond to a reporter’s request for comment.

But activists who have fought to outlaw abortion in Virginia and beyond voiced hope that the draft ruling will represent the court’s final decision.

“We are not the ones that have a right to define who lives and who dies,” says Abe Nelson of the grassroots group Charlottesville Pro-Life, which is opposed to abortion in all cases, including rape and incest. Nelson hopes the leak won’t change the conservative justices’ support for the opinion, and he believes the right to access abortion should be determined by individual states. 

“It’s right to bring this back to a status where we as a people, as individuals and citizens, can speak into this issue more directly,” Nelson says. “Now, I would hope that our direction in that would be one that affirms the value of life from the moment of conception.”

UVA Media Studies Professor Siva Vaidhyanathan, co-creator of the Democracy in Danger podcast, says the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion is further evidence of the decline of U.S. democracy. A majority of the American public supports the right to choose, he says, and he points out that the basis for Alito’s opinion would also undercut other hard-won civil rights.

“Even though same-sex marriage is remarkably popular around the country, it is vulnerable because you can no longer rely on that basic principle that what consenting adults do in their homes is not the business of the government to restrict,” Vaidhyanathan says. “And so, you know, I see this as softening up the process for addressing…LGBTQ issues rather directly and maybe going beyond that, maybe looking at restricting certain forms of contraception.”

Hoffman says the looming reversal of Roe is more evidence of the need for the Equal Rights Amendment, which would enshrine women’s rights in the Constitution.

“Everyone needs to be aware that there’s something called ‘strict scrutiny,’” she says. “And that applies to race and to religion. And if we had the Equal Rights Amendment and it said that you could not discriminate on the basis of sex, then you would be able to go back on things like abortion and say, please look at this again, because you need to apply strict scrutiny, not something lesser, and maybe the outcome would be different.”

With the Supreme Court’s final decision in Dobbs v. Jackson due by the end of term this summer, activists on both sides of the issue are preparing for a post-Roe world.

Nelson says he doesn’t believe the statistics that show low-income women will be disproportionately affected by the end of legal abortion or that a forced pregnancy will have a negative impact on a woman’s life.

“If we were to pour…even a fraction of the resources that currently go into this battle that we’re engaged in over Roe versus Wade…into supporting life in a post-Roe world, we would be in a much better position supporting organizations that come alongside women and men affected by unplanned and crisis pregnancies,” he says. 

Hoffman says engaging voters in local, state, and national elections is critical. 

“It matters. It really matters,” she says. “And everything that we do, it adds up. And we can make a big wave that will make people realize how big this is, how important this is to all of our lives and to our future, for our future, for our country and its democracy and so many different aspects.” 

Courteney Stuart is the host of ­“Charlottesville Right Now” on WINA. You can hear interviews with Kobby Hoffman, Siva Vaidhyanathan, and Abe Nelson at wina.com.

Categories
News

Just say ‘yes’

The proposed reconfiguration of Buford Middle School was the subject of headlines and hand-wringing for much of the past year, until Charlottesville City Council arrived at a less expensive solution to allow that project to proceed. Now, another long-overdue renovation of a public facility—the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail—is on the table, and questions about the cost and speed of the planning process have led to the ouster of a long-standing jail board member.

“I was doing my job in wanting to remind the board that we need to take the time to be mindful and deliberate,” says now former jail board member, attorney Cyndra Van Clief. 

Van Clief says her removal was prompted by her vote at a March 10 meeting, when she was the only jail board member to come out against a resolution to notify the state that the jail would request reimbursement for 25 percent of a $49 million project estimate. 

“I had talked to several board members and they, too, were very concerned about this ballooning cost,” says Van Clief, a Republican and self-described fiscal conservative who was concerned that the cost of the proposed renovation had soared and that taxpayers hadn’t had enough opportunity to give input on the project during pandemic Zoom meetings. 

“We were moving too fast for 50-some million dollars which would set the future of our jail for the next 50 years, two generations,” says Van Clief, who raised the alarm after hearing figures like $50,000 to repaint floors. She wanted to hear more from the public about desired alternatives to incarceration including restorative justice.

“I knew the resolution would pass,” Van Clief says, describing her “no” vote as simply a suggestion to slow the process down and not an objection to improving conditions at the jail. 

She says Albemarle Board of Supervisors Chair Donna Price asked for her resignation in early April, citing Van Clief’s opposition to the resolution, and the supervisors, all Democrats, voted unanimously for her removal at a closed session on April 20. A letter to Van Clief confirming her removal cites her “failure to act in the County’s best interest as determined by the Board of Supervisors.”

Both Price and Albemarle County Supervisor Diantha McKeel, chair of the ACRJ board, declined to comment on Van Clief’s removal. McKeel, however, addressed some of the questions Van Clief raised.

In an emailed statement, McKeel denies the process has been rushed. The pace, she writes, is determined by the state’s Community Based Corrections Plan timeline and the General Assembly budget. The process must be initiated by a January deadline or the jurisdiction has to wait until the following year. 

McKeel says that the $49 million “is only an estimated cost” that’s been discussed at four jail board meetings, each with opportunity for public comment, as well as at presentations to each of the jail’s three member jurisdictions (Charlottesville, Albemarle, and Nelson) during March and April. A final cost will be presented to the board and the public this summer or fall. The proposed plan does not expand beds at the jail but instead improves conditions and adds space for classrooms and mental health treatment.

C-VILLE Weekly reached out to other ACRJ board members with questions about the renovation and Van Clief’s removal over her vote. None would comment on Van Clief, but City Councilor Sena Magill says she believes the estimated cost is reasonable.

“Having just passed $68 million for a school revamp, for one school, $50 million for a jail does not seem that far-fetched,” Magill says. “Not if we want a place that’s actually climate controlled.”

Albemarle County Sheriff Chan Bryant agreed with Van Clief that the resolution to notify the state was moved on with “lightning speed” to avoid missing the state deadline. Both she and Charlottesville Sheriff James Brown voted in favor of the resolution but want more public input on the plans before they’re finalized. 

“We want to make sure we’re using taxpayer’s dollars wisely,” says Brown.

Van Clief shares her former fellow board members’ assessment that a jail renovation is badly needed. In fact, she says she’s the one who brought deplorable conditions in the women’s quarters to the board’s attention. “It was exposed metal, sharp, that you would get tetanus [from] or be cut,” she says, describing filthy conditions and a lack of natural light or fresh air.

Her concerns, she insists, stemmed from her desire to inform the public about the project before so much money is committed.

“We don’t want to put all of our resources right into just housing people,” she says. “We were about to make some decisions that would affect the future for the next 50 years, that could affect generations of people as to what the criminal justice system and our facilities and our whole entire approach as a community would be like.”  

Jail tour reveals harsh conditions

The Albemarle Charlottesville Regional Jail was built in 1974, with an addition in the 1980s and an early 2000s renovation. The poor conditions don’t just impact people who are incarcerated there, says ACRJ Superintendent Martin Kumer; they are also a problem for staff and visitors.

[A] “This is the most shameful part,” says Kumer on a recent tour of the jail. It’s the “administrative segregation” unit on the jail’s lower level, used primarily as a last resort punishment for violent infractions. Several small cells line one side of a hall not much wider than a human body. The space is illuminated by harsh fluorescent lights, and plexiglass covers the bars on the cell doors, a response, Kumer explains, to correctional officers being grabbed as they patrolled the area. The temperature is controlled by a chiller unit, which forces moist cold air directly into the cells making the term “temperature control” a misnomer.

[B] A high-walled brick courtyard covered by a fiberglass roof is the only outdoor area available to those housed at the ACRJ. “You could be here for a year and never feel sunlight on your skin,” says Kumer. The jail renovation would add an outdoor recreation area on a rooftop.

[C] A lack of ventilation is among the biggest concerns for Kumer and jail board members. There are no fresh-air intake ducts in much of the jail, which means the indoor air is recirculated. That makes preventing the spread of illness including COVID difficult or impossible. 

[D] The 1974 wing of the jail will be demolished as part of the renovation. Kumer says new construction will be “trauma informed,” adding sound baffling and using calming colors to improve conditions for inmates and staff. There will be expanded space for classrooms and mental health treatment.—Courteney Stuart

Categories
News

Luminaries jump into the fray

Your move, Montpelier Foundation. That was the message delivered by the Montpelier Descendants Committee at an April 28 press conference announcing a slate of 20 candidates for nine spots on the Montpelier Foundation board and demanding the reinstatement of fired staff members who led the archaeological work at the fourth U.S. president’s former home. 

The MDC’s list of board nominees descended from enslaved workers at Montpelier was offered amid an escalating conflict between the MDC and the foundation board over the board’s June 2021 vote to create “structural parity” with descendants by allowing MDC to recommend at least half the foundation’s board members. 

“Throughout the Black community in the country, a lot of folks have been paying attention to the developments at Montpelier,” says MDC’s attorney Greg Werkheiser, co-founder of the Richmond-based Cultural Heritage Partners law firm. “And when we reached out to a lot of the luminaries…across public policy, politics, history, law, journalism, finance, philanthropy, and we said, are you willing to jump into the fray here and help us resolve this and return Montpelier to a reputation of respected leadership? You know, the vast majority of people said yes.”

Among the names on the MDC’s list are journalist Soledad O’Brien; Michael Blakey, National Endowment for the Humanities professor of anthropology, Africana studies and American studies at The College of William & Mary; and Reverend Cornell Brooks, former CEO of the NAACP and professor at Harvard Kennedy School. 

Their willingness to serve, Werkheiser says, is “a testament to how important they think that resolution of this situation, this crisis at Montpelier, is not just for Montpelier, but as a representative of the struggle that a lot of cultural sites are going through around the country and what the implications are nationally for solving this problem locally.” 

Much of the conflict’s resolution now rests on the timing of the installation of the MDC-recommended board members. After initially blaming the MDC for the communication breakdown as national outrage mounted in early April, foundation board chair Gene Hickok and Montpelier CEO Roy Young offered a compromise. The board would select nine new MDC-recommended members from a list of 15 names. The catch? The new MDC-recommended board members would be installed in two tranches. Some would be fully installed in July, while the others would take their place on the board in October. MDC wasn’t satisfied with that offer.

“Essentially what it means is that they’re going to take these new board members and appoint them to the positions, but give them no power. And there’s a couple of reasons they’ve offered for that, none of which passes the smell test, frankly,” says Werkheiser. “If they do do that, they would essentially be preserving their voting majority, the current board’s voting majority, for months. And they would have the opportunity, once the press turns its attention away from this controversy, to simply reverse any of the commitments they appear to be making in public now. And they can also continue to fire people as they’ve been doing.”

On Monday, May 2, the foundation appeared to capitulate to the MDC’s demand. “The board agrees to vote on the MDC nominees, as proposed by the Committee, with all assuming active Board membership at the same time,” a new foundation statement reads. Werkheiser responded to the new statement with a request for confirmation that all nine new MDC-nominated candidates will be voted into service and have full voting powers effective at the close of the May 16 meeting; that the only business that will be taken up on May 16 is the vote to install the nine new members; and that the membership status of current board members will not be considered on May 16. He had not received a response from the foundation by C-VILLE Weekly press time.

The new foundation statement does not respond to the MDC’s other demand—that Montpelier staff who were fired after speaking out on behalf of descendants be reinstated.

Those firings have created a “culture of fear,” according to a statement signed by “a majority of full-time and a growing number of part-time Montpelier staff” on the new website, montpelierstaff.com. The staff statement alleges archaeological digs have been abandoned, data is at risk, and it accuses foundation board leadership of violating federal law.

The toxic atmosphere at Montpelier began under the leadership of Young, who became CEO two years ago, according to one of the longtime staff member who was fired.

“It became rapidly clear they had their own ideas,” says Matthew Reeves, who worked at Montpelier for 22 years and served as Montpelier’s director of archaeology and landscaping restoration until his firing April 18. “There wasn’t a lot of time and care spent understanding the institutional history of work we had done with the community.” 

Reeves says Young and Hickok were concerned about losing a million-dollar state grant awarded to Montpelier for memorialization of the lives of enslaved workers. That fear led to the board’s historic vote for structural parity with the MDC in June 2021, but Reeves describes it as “contentious.”

“That was a vote that they were forced into not only because of the $1 million grant, but also there were several staff, including myself and [Montpelier Vice President Elizabeth Chew], who threatened to resign if the board vote was no. And this was presented to the board…during that board meeting. And that turned the no vote…into a yes vote. And so this conflict had been simmering for a year by the time that vote happened,” Reeves says. 

In an email response, Young claims the data and archaeological sites are being protected by experts, but Reeves says the situation at Montpelier makes it unlikely the archaeological work can continue.

“At this point, it would be very difficult for this board under the current leadership to ever hire archaeologists again,” he says. “You just look at what archaeological organizations all across the nation have written, and censured what Montpelier is doing with the descendant committee. I am not going to rest until all of the…data is safely put away and protected.”

The foundation’s actions have also rattled donors, including Orange County farmer Bill Speidan, who first visited Montpelier as a child in the early 1940s. Speidan says he’s been an annual donor for many years, knows Reeves and the other staff members who were fired, and has been shocked by what has unfolded.

“It’s unconscionable to fire people that have been…with you 22 years doing their job,” he says, noting that Young is the first Montpelier Foundation CEO he’s never met. “I would certainly hesitate to donate further if they do not take advantage of what work Matt Reeves and others have done there,” he says. 

The foundation’s new statement doesn’t mention any change in leadership, but it does strike a conciliatory tone. “The path to parity requires a spirit of collaboration,” it reads. “We look forward to that collaboration and to working together for the benefit of Montpelier.” 

Montpelier. File photo.

Could the National Trust revoke Montpelier’s lease?

Dozens of national historic organizations have publicly condemned the Montpelier Foundation board’s recent actions. Among them is the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which owns Montpelier and leases it to the foundation in a cooperative agreement.

The agreement was signed October 1, 2000, and provides a lease that renews every five years. That makes the next renewal date October 1, 2025.

C-VILLE Weekly legal analyst Scott Goodman reviewed the lease and says the National Trust may have the power to take action against the foundation.

“In my opinion, nothing prevents the trust from doing anything it
wants to do in this situation, given the apparent threat to the viability
of Montpelier and arguable inability of the foundation to continue to carry out Montpelier’s mission. Carrying out that mission is the very purpose of the lease,” he explained.

But in an email, National Trust spokesperson Matt Montgomery says the agreement doesn’t allow the trust to revoke the lease.

“It places the ability to revoke with the foundation only,” Montgomery says.

While straight revocation of the lease may be in question, the agreement contains provisions for dispute resolution between the foundation and the National Trust.

In the event of a dispute, the agreement calls for the creation of a task force consisting of three members: one appointed by the foundation, one appointed by the trust, and one appointed by agreement of both. The task force has three months from formation to make a binding recommendation for resolving the dispute.

The National Trust declined to comment on whether it will activate the dispute resolution clause.—Courteney Stuart

Categories
News

Montpelier goes feud-al

A dispute between the Montpelier Foundation board and the Montpelier Descendants Committee over a power-sharing agreement reached last summer has now snowballed into what appears to be a full-on revolt by staff at the fourth U.S. president’s historic estate.

“By revoking parity with the MDC and by firing and suspending staff, TMF has attempted to co-opt the meaning of this ancestral space, and in the process has done irreparable harm to the security of and accessibility to these culturally significant resources,” reads a statement released Saturday, April 23, on a new website, montpelierstaff.com, and signed by “a majority of full-time staff and a growing number of part-time staff.”

The controversy erupted in late March when the Montpelier Foundation board voted to reverse its June 2021 decision to rewrite the bylaws granting the MDC the right to recommend at least half the members of the board. The stated goal was to create “structural parity” by giving descendants of the enslaved workers who built and ran Montpelier equal say in determining the future of the site. 

The reversal prompted immediate backlash from the MDC, Montpelier staff, and historic preservation groups including the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which owns Montpelier and leases it to the foundation. 

Foundation Board Chair Gene Hickok insisted the board would still create structural parity by appointing descendants itself; he blamed the situation on the MDC for refusing to recognize two descendants put forth by the board as contributing to structural parity.

“That’s not partnership. It’s not collegiality. And that’s not what the original understanding of our relationship would be,” he said in an interview earlier this month. Neither Hickok nor Montpelier CEO Roy Young responded to a request for comment for this article.

The situation further deteriorated last week when Young fired multiple high-level staff members including Executive Vice President and Chief Curator Elizabeth Chew and Director of Archaeology and Landscape Restoration Matt Reeves. 

According to the statement from remaining Montpelier staff, those firings came in retaliation for public statements in support of the MDC and have created a “culture of fear” for those staff members who remain.

Hickok initially released a statement defending the board’s actions and placing the blame on MDC. After last week’s firings, the foundation board released a new statement with an offered compromise. MDC could put forth a list of 15 people from which nine would be chosen to serve on the board. Half would begin serving July 1 and the other half would be installed on October 1.

MDC attorney Greg Werkheiser said that was a move in the right direction, but he said the delay in installing some of the MDC-recommended board members was a deal-breaker.

“The reason they would do that is because by splitting up these new board members, they maintain their two-thirds majority,” Werkheiser says. “And in those four months, they will not rehire the fired staff. They will fire additional staff. They will take actions against the current serving MDC board members, and they have the power with a two-thirds majority to actually expand the board and dilute any new MDC members they put on.”

The Montpelier staff also reject the foundation’s compromise, and do so using charged language.

“In short, the Board is offering a type of ‘three fifths compromise’ which will allow TMF to retain full control and sideline the MDC as an equal steward of the site,” staff write, referring to the agreement in the U.S. Constitution that said three-fifths of the enslaved population would be counted when determining taxation and representation. 

The staff statement describes the devastation wrought by the foundation’s actions.

“TMF has defiled archaeological ethics and museum best practices by endangering the data and research of the site,” it reads. “At present, there are open excavation units that are abandoned mid-excavation. Artifacts and other archaeological samples remain unprocessed.”

The foundation’s actions are not just “unethical and immoral,” the staffers claim, they also violate federal law.

“Archaeology is an inherently destructive science which rests entirely on proper recording and protection of data and the direct involvement of a site’s cultural descendants,” the statement reads. “By leaving this site abandoned and removing staff with institutional knowledge, Montpelier’s ‘leadership’ has put the property’s cultural heritage at risk, the stories at risk, and the ability for this information to be shared at risk.”

The MDC has previously called for Young and Hickok to resign; the National Trust released a statement condemning the firings and suggesting the foundation change leadership.

The National Trust did not respond to a request for comment on whether the Montpelier lease could be revoked.

The Montpelier staff statement repeats the call for foundation leadership to resign and says there is only one acceptable path forward.

“There is no justifiable reason to trust any proposal that does not begin with immediate parity with the MDC and the reinstatement of fired staff who steward Montpelier’s historic resources,” it reads.

Courteney Stuart is the host of ­“Charlottesville Right Now” on WINA. You can hear interviews with Greg Werkheiser and Gene Hickok at wina.com.

Categories
News

Bridging divides

Political polarization in the U.S. is extreme. People watch cable news networks that confirm their existing biases; Facebook offers an “unfriend” option, which encourages ideological homogeneity on feeds. A program at UVA, open to the entire Charlottesville community, aims to break down those barriers, one conversation at a time.

“We’re really trying to get out there and provide a space for people to do something that is challenging and that asks them to be vulnerable and brave,” says Samyuktha Mahadevan, program manager for One Small Step, a national nonprofit that launched at UVA’s Democracy Initiative in October. The program pairs two people from different political, racial, and socioeconomic backgrounds in a 45-minute mediated conversation. Six months after it began, more than 50 conversations have taken place, and the experience gets high marks from previous participants.

“What I learned from the conversation is don’t be afraid to have the conversations that we thought were tough. They can actually be very easy if we’re open-minded to the experience and understand the story that is presented to you instead of being closed off and judgmental,” says Marquis Rice, a self-identified conservative Army veteran who is now earning his undergraduate degree at UVA.

He was partnered in a One Small Step conversation with another UVA student who identifies as progressive.

She told me how her family were immigrants….Their American dream is you can literally come over to America and create any kind of future you want as long as you work hard enough. I had to agree with her on that.”

Albemarle County resident Lisa Medders says she signed up for One Small Step after feeling dismayed by attacks on democracy, including the January 6 insurrection. The program seemed “like a good way to channel my need to do something in a way that I could feasibly do right now.”

Medders, who is pro-democracy, progressive, and liberal, says her priority is protecting voting rights. She was matched with a conservative woman who grew up in a rural, tight-knit family.

“We shared a love of family and community,” Medders says. “The big thing we shared was wanting to help others. She now works for an organization that helps people in crisis, so we have service in common.”

Medders says the two disagreed over the meaning of the word “constitutionalist” and the process of amending the country’s founding document.

“She was very worried about how easy it was to amend and didn’t like judges legislating from the bench,” Medders says, noting the woman used phrases Medders has often heard on Fox News. “I think the constitution is an amazing document, and it’s difficult to amend,” she adds. She emphasized the good that has come from constitutional amendments, including an end to slavery and the expansion of voting rights. She says her conversation partner agreed to consider a different viewpoint.

“I didn’t change my belief,” Medders says, “but I once again was pleasantly proven wrong by what my past assumptions have been. She was lovely. Where we could have gone into an argument, we didn’t. That’s not why either of us were there.”

Mahadevan says One Small Step is based on something called “contact theory,” and the idea is that a connection created through an authentic conversation can plant seeds of positivity on a larger scale.

“It’s the idea that, you know, given multiple interactions between people from different groups, so to speak, it can lead to more positive feelings and an ability to work together better,” she says.

A One Small Step workshop takes place April 21 at Common House as part of the Tom Tom Festival. For more information on upcoming events, or to sign up for a conversation, visit onesmallstep.virginia.edu.

Courteney Stuart is host of Charlottesville Right Now on WINA. You can hear her interview with Samyuktha Mahadevan at wina.com 

Categories
News

Complicated legacy

Timing is everything, and that can certainly be said of Montpelier Foundation co-founder William Lewis’ new book, which traces the history and extensive renovation of the fourth U.S. president’s former home. Montpelier Transformed: A Monument to James Madison and Its Enslaved Community was published Monday, April 11, amid an ongoing controversy over a power-sharing agreement between the foundation and the Montpelier Descendants Committee.

“My hope is that as people read this, they’ll be aware that Montpelier has always been a foundation that was very interested in having descendants be key members of the board,” Lewis says. 

Lewis, a retired environmental attorney, began volunteering at Montpelier in the late 1990s after he and his wife bought a nearby property in Gordonsville. His book covers Dolley Madison’s sale of the property in 1844, the Dupont era from 1901-1983, and a legal battle with Dupont heirs that ended with the sale of the property to the National Trust for Historic Preservation in 1987. A decade later, Lewis helped form the new Montpelier Foundation and negotiate the foundation’s lease of the property from the National Trust.

He describes the foundation’s work at Montpelier over the next 20 years as an “impossible dream realized.”

With millions of dollars from philanthropists, the foundation completed a $25 million renovation of the home, built a $9 million visitors center and gallery, as well as The Center for the Constitution in the first decade. It also created a new entryway to the property and renovated a former slave cabin.

The foundation’s original mission, Lewis says, was to present for historic education the life and legacy of James Madison, who is primarily known as the father of the Constitution and the architect of the Bill of Rights.

Lewis says the foundation also wanted to illuminate the less-publicized aspect of Madison’s legacy. 

“He owned hundreds of slaves,” Lewis says. “Those slaves were never freed by Madison, even at his death. So the focus of the foundation has been to tell the story and educate the public on the Constitution and Bill of Rights and also present the tragedy of slavery and recreate the slave community.”

To that end, Lewis says, “the second decade was focused on educating about the tragedy of slavery and recreating the slave community that was adjacent to Madison’s home.”

For years, Montpelier has won praise for its unflinching depictions of the lives of enslaved workers who built and operated the presidential estate. That reputation has been marred in recent weeks after the foundation board reversed a decision to achieve “structural parity” with the Montpelier Descendants Committee. The foundation’s late-March vote revoking the MDC’s sole right to recommend descendants to the board sparked national news coverage and criticism from the National Trust and other organizations.

Lewis says he has not been involved with the foundation board’s recent decisions, and has been pained to see the conflict.

“I’d worked for a long time to try to build a relationship with descendants,” he says. “The idea there would be additional descendants [on the board] seemed a wonderful thing.”

Lewis believes any descendant should be eligible to serve on the board. He hopes his book will contribute to the conversations about Montpelier’s place in history and that the foundation and the MDC will resolve their dispute.

“I hope it will result in more representation for descendants on the board,” he says, “and there’s no reason why that won’t be true.”

Courteney Stuart is the host of “Charlottesville Right Now” on WINA.

Categories
News

Power struggle

Nearly two weeks after the Montpelier Foundation Board voted to reverse an agreement to share power with the Montpelier Descendants Committee, the force of the backlash has dismayed the board’s leadership. The dispute between the board and the committee has also exposed division among some descendants about the future of the fourth U.S. president’s former home.

“I guess I was disappointed because I don’t think it’s been accurately reported,” says Montpelier Foundation Board Chair Gene Hickok. He insists that despite the recent vote, the foundation board remains committed to restructuring to achieve “structural parity” with descendants of enslaved people at Montpelier and is simply broadening its approach to arrive at that goal. 

“And all of a sudden they’re ascribing nefarious motives to the board,” he says, calling it “very disappointing.” 

The stage for conflict was set last June when the Foundation board voted to rewrite its bylaws and announced an “unprecedented board restructuring” that would  “establish equality with the Montpelier Descendants Committee in the governance of James Madison’s Montpelier.”  A foundation press release at the time described the lofty ambition of providing “a national model for resolving historic imbalances in decision-making, power, and authority.” 

At the end of March, however, the board voted to reverse course. An attorney representing the MDC says things began to fall apart soon after the June vote. 

“What happened after that is that the new CEO and the chairman began the process of actually engaging in the power-sharing, and the descendants asked these reasonable questions like, ‘What kind of changes are we going to make here?’ And that just was met with a real hard line,” says Greg Werkheiser of the Richmond-based law firm Cultural Heritage Partners.

Montpelier Foundation Board Chair Gene Hickok.
File photo.

The board’s reversal has been excoriated in the press by Montpelier employees, some of whom allege a toxic work environment created by foundation board leadership. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, which leases James Madison’s Montpelier to the Montpelier Foundation, and the American Association for State and Local History have also criticized the board’s reversal.

“The news of recent board action by the site can be seen as taking a big step backward in the fight for inclusion instead of pushing our field forward in a way that makes a difference at the core of this historic property,” says a statement on the association’s website.

Werkheiser alleges that the board wanted to benefit from the appearance of structural parity with the descendants, but wasn’t committed to the reality of shared power.

“That’s something that is a known pattern to the Black community,” he says. “Which is, we want you to be seen so that we can fundraise off of your presence. But we don’t want to really hear what you have to say.”

“It’s just not true,” says Hickok. He says that tensions came to a head at the board’s November meeting when the MDC leadership refused to recognize one of four descendants, this one selected by the board rather than the MDC. Hickok says as a result of the MDC’s position that the person would not count toward structural parity, she turned down the board nomination.

“So this, as you can imagine, set off this sort of feud between the board of Montpelier and the MDC going forward.” 

From there, Hickok says, communication between the two organizations deteriorated further, and he alleges MDC became oppositional and ordered its members not to work with Montpelier staff.

“We received from the MDC a proposal which, in essence, said, ‘We are willing to not litigate.’” He says the MDC then issued an ultimatum that any board members counting toward structural parity would come only from a list of names the MDC provided.

“That’s not partnership. It’s not collegiality. And that’s not what the original understanding of our relationship would be,” Hickok says, noting that even after the recent reversal, the MDC can still recommend board members.

“This is not a case of going back on our word,” he says. “It is a case of trying to find a way to achieve parity when we had two organizations that can’t agree on how best to get there.” 

That justification doesn’t satisfy Bettye Kearse, a retired physician and author of The Other Madisons: The Lost History of a President’s Black Family. Kearse is a descendant of enslaved workers at Montpelier who has studied the history of Montpelier and worked on projects with staff since the early 1990s. One of three foundation board members who were recommended by the MDC and appointed in November, she agrees that the committee wants to choose its own candidates for the board, but ascribes different motives to the board’s reversal. 

“I don’t think they were really ready to share power with another organization, particularly an organization of African Americans,” she says. “I think they wanted to revise the bylaws in ways that they would have a stronger control over the stories that Montpelier would tell to the American public. So they didn’t abolish parity, but they did cripple the concept.”

The MDC was formed in 2019 and comprises descendants of enslaved laborers from a variety of Virginia sites including Monticello and Highland in addition to Montpelier.

That is one reason Mary Alexander, a direct descendant of Madison’s enslaved manservant Paul Jennings, doesn’t believe MDC should be the sole voice of descendants.

“We have blood ties to Montpelier, and our approach to Montpelier and what we want from that period is very, very different from the other people who are members of the MDC and don’t necessarily have any kind of blood ties to Montpelier at all,” she says of herself and her family. They only want to focus on preserving Montpelier as a place for future generations. 

Alexander claims MDC is a political organization, and says she doesn’t share its interest in broader topics including mandating school curriculum, land conservation or “demanding or asking for reparations, or discussions on it.” She says the board’s recent reversal was fair.

“So now the board is acknowledging that the descendants are not one homogeneous group,” she says.

Kearse says she also has a direct claim to Montpelier.

“I have enslaved ancestors and I’m also a Madison descendant, so I have ancestors buried in the family cemetery and in the slave cemetery,” she says. “And so it’s a place that’s very, very important to me. And, you know, to have this battle over who can tell the whole story is just extremely heartbreaking and disappointing, and I see it harming the image, it’s a very positive image, that Montpelier has been able to develop over at least the last two decades.”

Courteney Stuart is the host of “Charlottesville Right Now” on WINA. You can hear her interviews with Gene Hickok, Bettye Kearse, Mary Alexander, and Greg Werkheiser at wina.com.

Categories
News

FOIA showdown

Less than a year after a new Freedom of Information Act law expanded public access to police investigative files in Virginia, Delegate Rob Bell has sponsored a bill that would reverse the reform, citing concern for victims’ privacy.  

“There were immediate efforts to access what I would call very private information,” Bell says. He described a TV producer requesting access to a case file from the parents of murdered UVA student Hannah Graham, soon after the new law went into effect in July 2021. When the Grahams refused, Bell says the producer sought the complete investigative file in Graham’s murder through a FOIA request.

Bell’s bill passed through the House General Laws Committee last week on a party-line vote,  helped by support from the parents of Graham and Morgan Harrington. It has alarmed family members of another woman, Molly Meghan Miller, whose 2017 death was investigated in Charlottesville and ruled a suicide. 

“For over three years, this grim experience, from start to finish, has left our family with countless unanswered questions and unresolved concerns,” write Miller’s aunts, Tina Hicks and Lori Goodbody, in an affidavit attached to a FOIA lawsuit. The pair hopes to use the more expansive FOIA laws to learn more about the investigation into Miller’s death. The suit was sent to the city as formal notification of their intent to take legal action, and was received on February 3.

Miller was reported missing in December 2017. After a three-day search, Charlottesville police located her remains inside her own home. Miller’s death divided her family, with her mother publicly expressing support for police and requesting privacy, while other family members and friends expressed doubts about the investigation and what really happened to Miller.

“We lost our daughter, Molly Meghan Miller, to suicide on January 1, 2018,” reads a statement from Miller’s mother, Marian McConnell. “The case was closed in 2018. Tina Hicks and Lori Goodbody have no right and no need to any of Molly’s police investigative records…For 4 years we have asked them to accept the truth, honor Molly’s memory and respect our loss. We have been forced to disavow them due to their continued reprehensible behavior.  If they file suit, we will respond accordingly.”

Hicks and Goodbody’s suit claims that they filed a FOIA request with Charlottesville police for records in Miller’s case in July, soon after the new law took effect. Police initially provided a time and cost estimate for fulfillment, then, after multiple delays, reversed course. In October, the department denied the request for any records in the case. The suit alleges that complete denial violates the new FOIA law.

The Miller family’s situation offers another case study for Bell’s bill. If it becomes law, the bill would prevent access to closed police case files by anyone other than immediate family, defined as a spouse, parent, child, sibling, grandparent or grandchild. In Miller’s case, that would mean only her mother. 

“This bill [says] that victims should certainly still be allowed to have access to those records,” Bell says. His bill also calls for victims’ family members to be able to file an injunction against anyone seeking information in a case through FOIA.  

Hicks and Goodbody’s attorney, Matthew Hardin, the former Greene County commonwealth’s attorney, spoke against the bill at a subcommittee hearing on February 8.

“The problem is when records can be released on a discretionary basis, which is how it used to be, the police could decide unilaterally when they wanted to give up records and when they wanted to keep them secret,” Hardin tells C-VILLE. “Of course, they release the records that make them look good, and they don’t release the records that make them look bad.” 

Hardin, a Republican, says the current FOIA law already grants an exemption to police allowing them to withhold crime scene photos and other personal information about victims and witnesses. He points out that Bell’s bill’s reference to immediate family doesn’t fit with a lot of Virginia families, which may include same-sex parents or step-parents. 

“It’s not just a problem under FOIA,” Hardin says. “This is actually an attempt to take the definition of family back to the 1950s.”

While Bell claims his bill would protect victims’ and witnesses’ privacy, Hardin believes greater transparency helps build trust between police departments and the communities they serve. 

The Virginia Coalition for Open Government also opposes Bell’s bill, according to Executive Director Megan Rhyne.

“We believe that like any other governmental entity, there needs to be some sort of oversight over how police and prosecutors do their jobs,” Rhyne says. “We don’t want to interfere in the ability to conduct an investigation, but once it’s completed and there’s no harm to come from disclosure, they should be releasing records the way other public bodies do.”

She also points out that not all victims have the same reaction in these situations—victims of the 2019 mass shooting at Virginia Beach supported expanded access to police case files. 

As Bell’s bill wends through the General Assembly, Hardin says he is waiting for a response from the city before filing the FOIA lawsuit in Miller’s case. City Attorney Lisa Robertson did not return a call requesting comment.

Hardin says he’ll continue to speak out against Bell’s bill, and he hopes other victims of crimes who prefer greater police transparency will also speak up.

“I think that all we’re saying is, once [an] investigation’s over, let the public take a look at it and see what went right and what went wrong,” Hardin says.

Updated 2/16 to add a statement from Marian McConnell.

Categories
News

Sines v. Kessler, day 19

Each day, we’ll have the latest news from the courtroom in the Sines v. Kessler Unite the Right trial. For coverage from previous days, check the list of links at the bottom of this page.

Baby goats led to slaughter, Jesus, and the conspiracy to kill JFK were among the wild topics covered by Sines v. Kessler defendants in their closing arguments on Thursday. The defendants faced an uphill battle as they followed the plaintiffs’ presentation that laid out in exacting, damning detail the racist and antisemitic tweets, text messages, online posts, and recordings in which defendants discuss and appear to celebrate violence at the August 2017 Unite the Right rally. 

The most recognizable defendant in the case, alt-right leader Richard Spencer, was among the key players in planning the rally, plaintiffs’ attorney Karen Dunn said in her closing comments. She cautioned the jury that Spencer’s elevated vocabulary, including the use of such phrases as “occupying space” in social media posts, masks the violent ideals he shares with his less erudite co-defendants. 

“Richard Spencer has a more lofty way of saying exactly the same thing,” she said, reminding the jury about Spencer’s racist, antisemitic rant that was recorded and leaked after the rally. 

“Occupying space means physically, by force,” Dunn said. “This is about the use of force, this is about occupying space physically. A common, unlawful purpose at the heart of this conspiracy.”

In his closing, Spencer, who represented himself, appeared indignant at the accusations against him and, echoing the warning Dunn gave the jury about his speech and demeanor, he drew upon philosophy, science, and history to explain his predicament.

“You may have heard the phrase scapegoating,” Spencer said in a professorial tone. “That is exactly what people in the ancient world did. A poor little innocent goat, the crowd would shove him out into the wilderness to die. This is entirely irrational, but I think it was psychologically effective…”

Spencer told the jury he thought the rally would elevate his public speaking profile, and he showed a tweet he sent after the state of emergency was declared on Saturday instructing his thousands of Twitter followers to leave the city. 

He even went so far as to compare himself to another radical thinker who was punished for his ideas: Jesus Christ. And he instructed the jury to apply “Newtonian justice…the fair, rational and precise application of law.” 

Spencer was interrupted repeatedly by presiding Judge Norman K. Moon, including when he attempted to bring former President Donald Trump into his presentation. 

“We can’t go back to law school,” Moon scolded after an objection from the plaintiffs. “There’s no evidence of what Mr. Trump said, and you may not refer to it.”

Edward Rebrook, representing the National Socialist Movement and its former leader Jeff Schoep, began his closing argument with a meandering story about his one-time belief that the assassination of JFK was a conspiracy. “We stood on the grassy knoll,” Rebrook recalled of a visit to Dallas with his late father when Rebrook was finally convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. “Any person with marginal shooting ability could have done what Oswald did. But I wanted to spread the blame around.”

He told jurors that in this case, James Fields alone is responsible for the injuries to plaintiffs. He pointed out that his clients did not attend the torch rally on Friday night and were not present when Fields plowed into a crowd of counterprotesters Saturday afternoon, killing Heather Heyer and injuring many others. 

He also offered an explanation for why Schoep dropped his phone into a toilet three months after the lawsuit was filed, making it impossible to turn it over for discovery in the case.

“Maybe he’s not that bright. Maybe he’s not the criminal mastermind. To believe in this conspiracy theory, you’re asked to ignore key facts and invent others.”

The creative defense arguments followed more than 90 minutes of a systematic closing by Dunn and another hour by lead counsel Roberta Kaplan, who covered multiple topics, including evidence of the defendants’ racial animus and the injuries suffered by each plaintiff. 

Tweet by tweet, Discord post by Discord post, Dunn made the case that every one of the more than two dozen defendants is liable for the physical and emotional harm inflicted on the nine plaintiffs.

“The evidence has been overwhelming,” said Dunn, who started her presentation with a Discord post by rally organizer Jason Kessler from the spring of 2017. She then linked him to defendant Elliott Kline, aka Eli Mosley, a former leader of the Neo-Nazi group Identity Evropa.

“We need to have a battle of Berkeley situation in Charlottesville,” Kessler wrote. “Fight this shit out.” He was referring to a white nationalist rally in Berkeley, California, in April 2017 in which violence erupted between white nationalists and counterprotesters.

Showing messages the two exchanged, Dunn told the jury that Kline and Kessler “agreed to plan the battle of Charlottesville together.” 

Dunn showed multiple posts from various defendants in which they discussed “triggering” counterprotesters into throwing the first punch, using seemingly innocuous tools like shields and flagpoles as weapons, and even driving a car into a crowd, something Dunn said defendant Christopher Cantwell posted about before the rally.

”Blocking traffic is not peaceful protest and every person who reminds you of that without using his car is giving you more slack than you fucking deserve,” Cantwell wrote.

“An important theme emerged,” Dunn said. “If counterprotesters were in your way, you were entitled to plow them over.”

In his closing argument, Cantwell, who also represented himself, vehemently denied he’d wanted violence. He insisted that his rhetoric online and on his former radio show were for entertainment and that he had repeatedly instructed his listeners to obey the law at the rally, unlike some of the others on trial.

“Me and my co-defendants were different people who did not share the same motives,” he told the jury. “I did not want to fight with the antifa legally or otherwise. I have better things to do with my life. I had a carry permit in 2017 and I would not have risked it for punching some commie degenerate.”

To prove a conspiracy, plaintiffs need to show a shared objective to cause racially motivated violence and one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Several defendants, including Kline and Robert “Azzmador” Ray, have been sanctioned in the case, and the jury has been instructed to consider as fact that both Ray and Kline conspired to commit racially motivated violence. Dunn told the jury the other defendants also conspired.

“We have proved that in exponents,” she said.

Jury deliberations on verdict and damages begin Friday morning.

Previous Sines v. Kessler coverage

Pre-trial: Their day in court: Major lawsuit against Unite the Right neo-Nazis heads to trial

Day one, 10/25: Trial kicks off with jury selection

Day two, 10/26: Desperately seeking jury

Day three, 10/27: Jury selection wraps up

Day four, 10/28: Plaintiffs and defendants make their opening arguments

Day five, 10/29: “I hear it in my nightmares,” says plaintiff Romero

Day six, 11/1: “I stopped being an outgoing, sociable person,” says plaintiff Willis

Day seven, 11/2: “Strike that”

Day eight, 11/3: Defendants fawn over Hitler

Day nine, 11/4: Quibbling about hate

Day 10, 11/5: League of the South takes the stand

Day 11, 11/8: “It gave me Nazi vibes”

Day 12, 11/9: False flags and missing evidence

Day 13, 11/10: “It was awful”

Day 14, 11/11: White supremacy 101

Day 15, 11/12: Sines speaks, defendant dances

Day 16, 11/15: Kessler vs. Spencer

Day 17, 11/16: Every man for himself

Day 18, 11/17: The defense rests

Categories
News

Sines v. Kessler, day 18

Each day, we’ll have the latest news from the courtroom in the Sines v. Kessler Unite the Right trial. For coverage from previous days, check the list of links at the bottom of this page.

The end of the Sines v. Kessler trial is now in sight, as the defense rested its case on Wednesday morning. In the afternoon, the jury received lengthy instructions laying out the requirements to prove the lawsuit’s claim that defendants conspired to commit racially motivated violence at the Unite the Right rally in August 2017.

Attorney Bryan Jones, who represents League of the South, Michael Hill, and Michael Tubbs, called two witnesses to the stand on Wednesday morning. The first was Richard Hamblen, former leader of the Tennessee chapter of League of the South. Hamblen is not a defendant in the case and was involved in a scuffle on Market Street that immediately preceded the infamous attack on DeAndre Harris. Multiple white nationalists were convicted in that assault, and Harris was acquitted of charges that he assaulted Hamblen. 

That didn’t stop Jones from pursuing a line of questions and presenting evidence that appeared aimed at creating a self-defense claim for his clients. He showed a video of a black-clad counterprotester who was wearing a helmet and punching Hamblen. 

On cross-examination, an attorney for the plaintiffs challenged that narrative, citing a previous recorded statement by Hamblen to defendant Michael Hill.

“Don’t you say to Mr. Hill, ‘The sequence is, she came up behind me, grabbed at the flag, tearing the lower attachment loose. I lowered the staff, caught her in the ear hole of her helmet, and she spun around and attacked me,’” the attorney asked.

Jones’ second witness was Charlottesville Police Captain Tony Newberry, who testified only that he had contact with League of the South as the department prepared for the rally.

Pro se defendant Christopher Cantwell again created tension in the courtroom when he presented his case. Cantwell re-called two witnesses, plaintiffs Natalie Romero and Devin Willis. Both had previously testified about their trauma from the torchlight rally and their injuries on August 12. Romero suffered a fractured skull in James Fields’ car attack.

Cantwell appeared intent on undermining their testimony, and while showing Romero a slow-motion video of the melee around the Thomas Jefferson statue, he prompted an astonishing exchange. 

With the video rolling, Romero appeared to realize it may have been Cantwell himself who struck her.

“Wait, did you punch me?” she exclaimed.

“You’re telling me that I punched you? Are you telling the jury I punched you?” Cantwell replied.

Romero responded, “I cannot confirm that, but if you play that again in slow motion…”

“Let’s try to figure out if I hit you, sound good?” Cantwell later said after pressing Romero on her use of the word “punch.”

His subsequent questions of Romero focused on whether she was carrying a green whistle that may have signified her affiliation with a counterprotesting group. Romero said she couldn’t recall after Cantwell showed a video still of her with a green whistle.

He also played video of the counterprotesters marching on Water Street before the car attack chanting “anti-fascista.” 

While questioning Willis, Cantwell focused on Willis’ previous claim that the counterprotesters at the statue were UVA students. Circling counterprotesters on video stills, Cantwell asked Willis to identify several counterprotesters. Willis said he did not recognize them. 

Cantwell asked Willis about his claim he’d seen people carrying handguns, and showed him an image of a counterprotester at the statue apparently wearing a holstered handgun on her hip. 

Cantwell also appeared to unwittingly elicit new evidence that might not work in his favor.

“Do you remember seeing students torn down off the statue one by one and being beaten systematically?” Cantwell asked Willis.

“I remember one woman in a wheelchair being grabbed and pepper sprayed,” Willis responded.

“Do you know if there’s any video of the woman in the wheelchair being grabbed and pepper sprayed?” Cantwell responded.

The remainder of the day was spent finalizing jury instructions, including Judge Norman K. Moon reading 64 pages of instructions aloud to the jurors.

In order to find the defendants liable, the jury must prove that two or more individuals, motivated by animus against Black or Jewish people, conspired to deprive people to be free from the racially motivated violence. 

Sanctions against two of the defendants, Elliott Kline and Robert “Azzmador” Ray, have already established they were engaged in such a conspiracy. The jury was instructed to apply that as fact only to the sanctioned defendants.

Closing arguments are scheduled for Thursday.

Previous Sines v. Kessler coverage

Pre-trial: Their day in court: Major lawsuit against Unite the Right neo-Nazis heads to trial

Day one, 10/25: Trial kicks off with jury selection

Day two, 10/26: Desperately seeking jury

Day three, 10/27: Jury selection wraps up

Day four, 10/28: Plaintiffs and defendants make their opening arguments

Day five, 10/29: “I hear it in my nightmares,” says plaintiff Romero

Day six, 11/1: “I stopped being an outgoing, sociable person,” says plaintiff Willis

Day seven, 11/2: “Strike that”

Day eight, 11/3: Defendants fawn over Hitler

Day nine, 11/4: Quibbling about hate

Day 10, 11/5: League of the South takes the stand

Day 11, 11/8: “It gave me Nazi vibes”

Day 12, 11/9: False flags and missing evidence

Day 13, 11/10: “It was awful”

Day 14, 11/11: White supremacy 101

Day 15, 11/12: Sines speaks, defendant dances

Day 16, 11/15: Kessler vs. Spencer

Day 17, 11/16: Every man for himself