Transcript from the October 2020 Calloway County Fiscal Court meeting

Begin - 50:06

Judge-Executive Kenny Imes: Mr. Neal did you wish to address the court?

Sherman Neal: (inaudible from audience) ... about the statue...

Imes: Pardon? You had requested to address the court; would you like to? I would ask you to observe it to five minutes if you will please.

Neal: I'll take out my phone and put it up here.

Imes: You're good.

Neal: Can you hear me? Good morning. I'm Sherman Neal II. I appreciate you giving me the five minutes. I know we're not on the agenda today. I think it's important we address some of the stuff that is going on with the statue right now. So, since the last time I personally got to address the court in July I was informed by the County Attorney that in order to move forward on the statue we had to 1) have novel evidence or new evidence of change and then 2) have, try to broker some type of deal in the negotiating with the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC). Where we are at right now with that, with new evidence. So, I think it's importantly clear by what the objectives are with the people that support the removal of (inaudible). 1) Its removal is not obstructing, it's not violating/causing harm to people or personal property 2) transparency of accountability so what I think we are talking about here, we are talking about property ownership. We are still working out some of the nuances but since July 17 when we last talked, Owensboro, KY/Daviess County just clarified ownership of their statue at this point so we understand is the court owns the property that the statue sits on and can take action regardless of what the UDC say based on the license and privilege that has been granted to them revoking that now due to what Owensboro has decided there is a potential conflict of opinion on property ownership. Even given to the fact that the statue itself has been marked as public property. (PHONE RINGING inaudible). So what we got out of that is, Calloway County puts out a document to the national parks service in 1997 that says public ownership. Daviess County put out a document submitted in 1997 to the national parks that says public ownership.

Daviess County decides to take control of their monument, vote to remove the monument and appoint a commission that does not (inaudible) resuscitate the association UDC in order to remove the monument in six months. Where we are at now is we have chosen not, I may be wrong, this is why I ask for public comment, but we have chosen to not take ownership of the property as a county as a public piece of property. Which is a conflict of law, resolution ?, conflict of ownership and the 2) Polling a vote on the merits of the morality of why it's there which is what Daviess County has spoken of, which is what Madisonville is going through right now, which we had not entertained, and I know it's an adjacent state but Cape Girardeau (inaudible) across the river. So, these are some examples of change that happened since July and others (inaudible).

And so, what we're, what I, what on behalf of an organization of people that are looking forward of getting noticed by the UDC as stakeholders 1) in the statue and 2) in the community to come forth and have discussions and hopefully can have those facilitated by the county of an appointed a board which doesn't necessarily have to be incorporated by myself and give that to the people who have been here longer than I have, and they have insight and input and can come forth and have a solution. In the same fashion that is going on in Owensboro and is going on in adjacent places. At this point in time, I don't have any reason to believe that the UDC is a hostile group or should oppose that. I just know that their an absentee party that not only since the 107 days that this has been going on but in the past three years, I can't find any record of them in occasion. Now it's costing real dollars and real time and it's not going to be going away any time soon. I think it's critical that we put them on public notice that we are moving forward regardless of your position. If you would like to assert some type of opinion, it's now or never. And should they choose not to do that, that would indicate that they have either a) have abandoned that property orb) don't find the current situation with the county important enough to come out and try to protect the community in the capacity that they say that they want to or (inaudible) social media , websites or official stance in regards to race relations.

That's all I have at this time.

Imes: Thank you Mr. Neal.

Calloway County Attorney Bryan Ernstberger: Your Honor, I would like to...

Imes: Sure...

Ernstberger: I don't have any questions but as I was quoted, I would like to speak quickly to clear that up with regard to the speaking qualifications that you mentioned at the outset. What I believe I stated was I don't make the decision, that the agenda is set by the Judge/Executive and that he had determined that novel information stated that would be worthwhile for the court to hear, will be the standard. I think you had said something about maybe making that determination, but I wanted to make sure you knew that was the court standard, to not hear from the same person again on the same position.

The second thing was in regard to and this was also at the outset we said, I think you said or quoted me saying the only way forward was going to be with the UDC but I think I was quoting the Judge as saying that perhaps that would be the best and easiest way forward and then 3) with regard to you mentioning ownership of the statue, that's been a highly contested issue both on the street and online and you and I had a conversation I believe it was last Thursday, with regard to ownership of the statue. I don't believe the court has ever said and I feel confident that would be, would dictate what would happen with the statue. At least my position to the court, my opinion I believe the UDC does own the statue. Obviously, the court of Calloway County still owns the land that it sits on. And so, the court has the ability, and I don't believe it's ever said otherwise that it can if it wishes, it can move the statue. There may be some additional legal complications there, maybe some additional costs. In addition to just moving it, there may be some damages to the owner. But that. Doesn’t mean that it's out of the court's power. So, I think that at least some online have focused on the wrong issue. The statement that UDC owns the statue itself does not mean that the court does not have authority if it so wished to move the statue. So, I'd just like to clear up that common misconception.

Neal: I can't, certainly cannot speak for online comments. I can speak for myself so when it comes to what (inaudible) that's why I think it's critical that we appoint a commission to, look at these hundreds of pieces of paper, I think it's critical that we figure this out because I'm certainly not an expert as you, You are acting in the capacity as an attorney, and doing that as being forthright which I appreciate that you are acting in the capacity as an administrator for the county and I think there is, we have variety of minds that can come to a resolution on some of these key issues. And give the public information rather than go another hundred days, while, before people reach their own conclusions. And then end up getting frustrated. I think what we are asking for now from the court is them, specifically once we, in steps of, we know that the court has the power and we know that in the resolution that was put forth in July the court, you know, said that should the UDC, you know, want to move the statue, that seems to conflict with how we are delegating power to a group that supports, sympathizes with and upholds the confederacy. We are delegating power to a group that supports the Confederacy and allowing a neo-Confederate group that power over what we put on public land. We should retain that power. We choose, as the people, to put that on there, that is something we can discuss in a public forum and that's fine. There's other ways to address that if that's what we uphold and want to keep. But we certainly cannot delegate that power to a non-stakeholder. And so, I think that a lot of the questions that we addressed today, we certainly won't be able to fix unless we stay here all night but I'd rather do that than talk about in another hundred days myself. But we have the minds and (inaudible) and I know that just for the record I know the people that have reached out to me and I'm sure people have reached out to you in fears of violence and conflict and (inaudible) want no harm. We've gone a hundred days and nothing (knocks on wood) that bad has happened. We still are an example of how this can work. Nothing's been graffitied. There's been minor there's been physical (inaudible), I shouldn't pass it by, either minor or major but nothing (inaudible) like what's going on in other places. We still have a window of opportunity to get this done. And these other counties, these other places adjacent to us, we could really work in coalition with, when you talk about the Jackson Purchase area. When you talk about what McCracken's going through and you talk about what Daviess is going through and you're talking about Hopkins is going through. Why are we different and how do we help them and show them the way we can connect and all come together and do something in a reasonable period of time.

Imes: Mr. Neal, thank you.

Ernstberger: Judge, can I retort one issue? Quickly.

Imes: Sure.

Ernstberger: Mr. Neal, So, I don't want to get into a debate. We're not. But you said the court had delegated through the resolution the authority to the UDC and as the drafter of the resolution I don't see a reasonable way to interpret it that way. It does say that the UDC, should they choose to move it, contact the court, the court would assist. It also says, and again, I thought this was important language, that the statue, that the will of the court , was that the statue would stay as long as the UDC and the people of Calloway County willed it to be. Meaning, that if one of those no longer willed it to be then at that time perhaps it would not continue to stand. It doesn't mean that if the UDC, and I don't think that is any way a proper interpretation of that resolution that, if the UDC doesn't want it moved, that it could then never be moved through any force whatsoever. But at some point, either, because it was written as 'and', if the UDC or the people of Calloway County no longer wish for it to stand, I believe the court expressed its will then at that point that it would not. So, again, I didn't want to get into a debate. I just wanted to make sure that something wasn't misinterpreted publicly.

Imes: Thank you, thank you Mr. Neal.

End - 1:04

The foregoing is part of a collection of correspondence to various Calloway County government officials as well as remarks made before the Calloway County Fiscal Court in 2020, which the Sentinel obtained from County Judge-Executive Kenny Imes' office.