(03-22-2021 08:36 AM)Rob Wick Wrote:  David,

Your constant use of the "protect and defend the reputation of Lincoln" is silly and not a legal question. It's a matter of opinion, which is not actionable.

Best
Rob

Paul Scott, a local attorney who is also representing the petitioners, said “When the reputation of the Great Emancipator is under attack without due process of law, who better to lend a hand in his defense than the foremost constitutional scholar of our day?”

Who cares what Paul Scott or the greatest Constitutional scholar thinks? What matters is what a judge or jury thinks.

Best
Rob

Chicago Lists Lincoln Statues Among Monuments to Review
New York Times, by Maria Cramer, February 18, 2021

[How bad ideas spread.]

A Chicago committee has listed five statues of Abraham Lincoln among dozens of monuments that it said needed to be reviewed as part of a project to reconsider symbols that have become “a focal point for conversation, protest and activism,” the city said Wednesday.

The city created the committee in response to last summer’s protests, some of which centered on statues of historical figures, to review Chicago’s collection of monuments and “recommend solutions.”

The review comes as other U.S. cities have made similar efforts to re-examine historical symbols and monuments that have come under new scrutiny in the wake of protests against racism and police violence. Last year, local leaders took down statues of Christopher Columbus and Confederate leaders, among other monuments, and last month, the San Francisco school board voted to remove the names of modern and historical figures, including Lincoln and George Washington, from 44 of its public schools.

The committee in Chicago did not provide specific reasons that the statues of Lincoln, who started his political career in Illinois, should be reviewed. The list also includes statues of Ulysses S. Grant, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and several monuments to Indigenous people.

Forty-one [monuments] were chosen for “public discussion,” the committee said, for reasons that included “promoting narratives of white supremacy”; the presentation of “inaccurate or demeaning characterizations of American Indians”; and memorializing historical figures with connections to racist acts, slavery and genocide.

The project said it planned to recommend new monuments or public art that could be commissioned and create a platform for the public “to engage in a civic dialogue about Chicago’s history.”

[That’s sort of like renaming Abraham Lincoln High School in San Francisco. But instead, Lincoln statues might be removed in the name of “enlightenment.”]
Lincoln, although born in Kentucky, has become synonymous with Illinois, where he moved when he was 21 and where he lived until he became president in 1861. In 1955, the state officially designated its slogan as “Land of Lincoln” in honor of the former president, whose home in Springfield is designated a historic site by the National Park Service.

The committee’s list almost immediately drew criticism from some state leaders. “Never thought that statues of Abraham Lincoln or Ulysses S. Grant would be considered ‘controversial’ in the Land of Lincoln,” Representative Darin LaHood, a Republican who represents parts of Peoria and Springfield, wrote on Twitter. “This is detached from reason.” [I like it when other people think as I do.]

Statues of Lincoln have also been criticized for their portrayal of him as a savior of Black people, and for obscuring the role Black Americans played in ending slavery. A statue of Lincoln in Boston, showing a Black man kneeling before the president, was taken down last December.

Such statues diminish “the active role African-Americans played in emancipation and inflates white efforts,” Professor Fountain said. [Do I not hear the virtues of the "1619 Project" being sung?]

A review of monuments depicting flawed American figures is reasonable, said Mary Frances Berry, a professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania.

“If they did anything nefarious,” Professor Berry said, that history “should be told publicly and it should be reviewed and we should make sure that everyone knows.” She added, “I’m not generally in favor of washing away history so that people don’t have to think about it.”

However, it should be noted: "The committee, which is made up of 30 members that include historians, urban planners and artists, was appointed to determine which pieces of art in the city “warrant attention or action.”

As in San Francisco, those that make the appointments often control the outcome of the investigation.

I went to grade school and high school in Illinois. I had several teachers at both levels devote extra time to the study of Abraham Lincoln. I lived in the state for 50 years and visited many of the Lincoln sites. The undertaking posted by David seems limited to the city of Chicago; I simply cannot visualize it growing into a generalized movement throughout the state.

Work of the Committee That Identified 41 Public Monuments for Possible Removal Remains Opaque.

Better Government Association (Illinois’ Non-Partisan Full-Service Watchdog)
By David Jackson, March 2, 2021

Despite being considered one of the 19th century’s greatest masterpieces of public art, Lincoln Park’s “Standing Lincoln” is on a list of 41 monuments identified as potentially problematic by the Chicago Monuments Project.

Amid protests this summer over police brutality and civil rights, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot in the middle of the night removed statues of Christopher Columbus that had become a focal point of the demonstrations.

Lightfoot also formed a committee to conduct a thorough review to assess if other public art should be removed or changed and promised the newly formed Monuments Project Advisory Committee would begin “an inclusive and democratic public dialogue” about the future of Chicago’s internationally known public art collection.

But during its first six months of work, the committee’s deliberations were kept secret. In fact, the mayor’s monuments committee was designed that way.
“What’s said here, stays here,” is a message city officials delivered to the committee members at their Oct. 14 meeting, according to a slim, 24-page packet of committee agendas and minutes records City Hall released recently to the Better Government Association.

The committee is tasked with identifying any public monuments linked to white supremacy and injustice that “warrant attention” and could be removed. It ultimately flagged 41 problematic artworks, including statues of Columbus as well as Presidents Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant and William McKinley.

But despite Lightfoot’s transparency pledge, there was no public notice of the committee’s six meetings, no record which 30 committee members attended or any details about what they recommended during roughly 12 hours of online deliberations.

The public had no opportunity to observe or offer any input at the private meetings — none of which were recorded in audio or video form, Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs and Special Events Communications Director Christine Carrino said.

“The Chicago Monuments Project advisory committee is not a ‘public body’ and therefore the [Open Meetings] Act’s requirements do not apply to it,” Carrino told the BGA in a statement, explaining the city’s refusal to release committee recommendations and reports, attendance rosters and any recordings of its first six meetings.

Records provided by the city in response to the BGA’s request suggest the list of 41 problematic monuments was provided by Lightfoot administration officials — and not generated by the artists and cultural figures on the advisory committee. “From a basic list of approximately 500 outdoor objects, we’ve identified over 40,” city administrators told committee members at their second Zoom meeting on Oct. 1.

The staff assessment then went to the three committee co-chairs: cultural affairs commissioner Mark Kelly, Landmarks Illinois CEO Bonnie McDonald and museum curator Jennifer Scott.

After that, the list of problematic monuments went to the entire advisory committee, which was asked “to workshop” the examples, Carrino said.

From there, “adjustments were made and additional artworks were added based on staff and committee input before the information was made available to the public,” Carrino said.

A Lightfoot press release and the committee minutes state the committee members would make recommendations and produce a “Final Report” with “documentation of the process and [their] recommendations.”

But in its FOIA response to the BGA, City Hall said there was no such final report or documentation of recommendations.

Lightfoot formed her public monuments advisory committee as she was coming under fire for separate alleged violations of Illinois’ Open Meetings Act.

Lightfoot announced the Monuments Project Advisory Committee as “a formal process to assess the monuments, memorials, and murals across Chicago’s communities, and develop a framework for a public dialogue to determine how we elevate our city’s history and diversity.”

Illinois’ Open Meetings Act guarantees citizen access to “all meetings at which any business of public body is discussed or acted upon in any way,” except under limited and specific circumstances.

Under the act, a “meeting” can include “any gathering, whether in person or by video or audio conference, telephone call, electronic means (such as, without limitation, electronic mail, electronic chat, and instant messaging), or other means of contemporaneous interactive communication.”

A 1997 Illinois Appellate Court opinion known as Board of Regents v. Reynard ruled that committees created to advise a government body are considered a public body for purposes of the Open Meetings Act.

I covered several boards in Illinois during my 14 years as a reporter and editor. I know the Open Meetings Act forward and backward. What happened here sounds to me like a definite violation of the act, but I can tell you from experience that most boards violate the act with impunity, because most news organizations don't want to commit the resources to fighting it in court. Even with the help of the Illinois Press Association, it's not cheap.

However, the only sanction that means anything in the act is that if a judge determines the act was violated, any action taken while in violation is null and void. In other words, all that would be required would be to call a meeting in accord with the act, allow public comment (there is no set amount of public comment that has to be allowed. Five minutes would be legal), and then vote to go ahead.

Most boards decide it's worth it, given how many newspapers won't fight it. Being that it's Chicago, I imagine this might have legs.

Best
Rob

The wolves turn upon themselves.

SF school board member Alison Collins sues district, colleagues over response to her tweets

The latest tweet from Paul Scott, the attorney suing the San Francisco School Board:

The Lowell Alumni Association, Mission High School Alumni Association and Balboa Alumni Association are joining us as petitioners in our action challenging the SF School Board renaming resolution. Alums from all SF high schools on the renaming list have now joined our case!

Both suits are eventually going to be tossed out of court. I would bet the school board member's suit will go first.

Best
Rob

(04-03-2021 08:01 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Both suits are eventually going to be tossed out of court. I would bet the school board member's suit will go first.

Best
Rob

Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe statement from my post #129:

Tribe said [Judge] Schulman’s ruling doesn’t mean the case is over, “but the judge indicated that he understands and is persuaded by the points we made. I’d treat that as handwriting on the wall if I were the respondents.”

Let's see who is right.

I could care less what Laurence Tribe or any other lawyer has to say. They will never prove any damage that should result in legal relief. Circuit judges are often overturned on appeal, and they will be in this case.

Best
Rob

Accidentally posted on the wrong thread.

Best
Rob

The following is the attorney Paul Scott announcement tweet and the proposed settlement Resolution by the San Francisco School Board members:

"SF School Board has finally capitulated and will repeal its resolution renaming 44 SF public schools. Like a bully confronted in the school yard, they call our case frivolous while walking away. Huge thanks to Professor Tribe for standing beside us." (Paul D. Scott tweet @PaulScott415)

Subject: Resolution No. 214-6A1 Second Amended Resolution, In Support of a Formal Process in the Renaming of San Francisco Unified School District Schools

WHEREAS: On February 21, 2021, Board of Education President Gabriela Lopez
announced that no further work on renaming schools would occur before SFUSD schools had
been successfully reopened; and

WHEREAS: On February 21, 2021, the Panel suspended its work to suggest alternative
names for the above-identified schools to the Board of Education in order to permit the Board of
Education to focus its efforts on reopening schools for in-person instruction; and

WHEREAS: On March 17, Petitioners Abraham Lincoln High School of SFUSD
Alumni Association, et al. filed suit against SFUSD seeking to void the Board’s action on
January 26, 2021 (“the lawsuit”) asserting, among other things, that President Lopez’ public
statement was not enough assurance that the Board would not be taking additional imminent
action to consider alternative names for the above-identified schools; and

WHEREAS: Petitioners’ lawsuit is nothing more than a transparent attempt to thwart a
lawful and duly-noticed action with which it disagrees; and

WHEREAS: The Board is deeply grateful for the work of the Panel, but wishes to avoid
the distraction and wasteful expenditure of public funds in frivolous litigation.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Board rescinds Resolution 211-12A1
adopted on January 26, 2021; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Board shall revisit the matter of renaming
SFUSD schools, including reauthorizing the Panel, or similar Advisory Committee, consistent
with its Rules and Procedures, only after all students have returned to in-person learning for 5
full days each week.

This isn't an unexpected move on the board's part. I'm sure the district's lawyer, along with the mayor and other public officials working behind the scenes, told board members that they are only embarrassing themselves and the district by continuing this during the pandemic. On that point I completely agree.

However, this is only a tactical retreat David. The board is likely to revisit the plan once students are back in school and the pandemic is a distant memory. Will it succeed? Who knows. What's more, who cares?

Best
Rob

(04-04-2021 02:08 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  who cares?

Best
Rob

I do.

No kidding.

But other than you, and a few people here, I don't see a groundswell of people just clamoring to tilt this windmill with you.

Best
Rob