Controversial Monument Preservation Bill is Now the (Questionable) Law

By Nelda Holder –

It was a simple bill when first filed on February 3, 2015 in the North Carolina General Assembly.

But Senate Bill 22, ratified on July 22 and made law with the governor’s signature on July 23, became embroiled in two statewide controversies. One has to do with the usurpation of local government authority by the Legislature, and the other is tied to a tragedy in neighboring South Carolina.

The bill, first called the Historic Artifact Management and Patriotism Act, began as a simple outline for the “respectful treatment” of the North Carolina and American flags by state agencies and political subdivisions. It named the Division of Veterans Affairs as the clearinghouse for worn and damaged flags, and it tacked on a provision for the transfer of certain historic documents to the Department of Cultural Resources.

But on April 21, an amendment to the bill added the mission of protecting monuments and memorials “commemorating events, persons, and military service in North Carolina history.” Renamed the Cultural History Artifact Management and Patriotism Act, the new version took away the power of municipalities or county governments to permanently remove “objects of remembrance” located on public property within their domains.

That power was placed in the hands of the North Carolina Historical Commission – a piece of history itself, originating in 1903 for the purpose of collecting documents valuable to the history of the state (with a $500 annual appropriation for doing so). Over a century later, the name applies to the policymakers who advise the Secretary of Cultural Resources and who establish the rules and regulations for acquisition, disposition, and preservation of artifacts and other property of cultural value. The commission members are appointed by the governor.

Much was made of this amended bill’s July 21 passage because of an unusual number of new laws diminishing the authority of local governments during this legislative term. But the passage also came during a time of national trauma following the murders of nine church members at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, on June 17. In that state, the controversial “historic” Confederate battle flag that flew at the State House grounds was removed on July 10. The action took place in the wake of the arrest of the alleged gunman from the church slayings and the subsequent posts of him posing with a Confederate battle flag and delivering a racist manifesto prior to the massacre.

The NC legislation was seen by many as a mandate that would potentially favor the retention of locally unpopular “objects of remembrance,” leaving local communities no option for self-determination in that respect.

Rep. Michael Special (R) of New Bern was quoted in Raleigh’s News & Observer at the time as saying, “The whole purpose of the bill is to keep the flames of passion from overriding common sense,” and that state legislators are “supposed to be the reasonable body up here that overcomes that and makes the right decisions.”

He was supported by Rep. George Cleveland (R) of Jacksonville, whose opinion was “Municipalities and cites are subdivisions of the state, and the state can play with their property if they feel like it.”

Two Western North Carolina senators, Sen. Jim Davis (R) of Franklin and Sen. Dan Soucek (R) of Boone, were joined by Sen. Tommy Tucker (R) of Waxhaw (near Charlotte) as primary sponsors of the original bill, and there were six co-sponsors, all Republican.

Outside the arguments over the bill’s intent and its potential repercussions, the two particular clauses were added to outline a method of approval of memorials before their acceptance (by purchase, gift or otherwise) as property of the state; and to proclaim that monuments, memorials, and works of art “owned by the State” may not be removed or relocated without approval of the North Carolina Historical Commission mentioned above.

It remains to be seen, and probably legally argued, whether that second stipulation will affect monuments or memorials that are specifically the property of local government. Just that point was made at the time of final passage, and all clarifying amendments were defeated.

Rep. Rick Glazier (D) of Fayetteville was quoted at the time of the bill’s passage as recognizing that inherent ambiguity. “We’re wrong to pass this bill without knowing what we’re passing.” He added, “I think only lawyers are going to enjoy this bill, because they’re going to get some employment out of it.”

Gov. Pat McCrory’s take on the bill, as expressed on his website, was an acknowledgement of the its two faces. “I remain committed to ensuring that our past, present and future state monuments tell the complete story of North Carolina,” he said, adding that he disagreed with the process created in the bill and “the overreach into local decision making.”

Read Nelda Holder’s blog, www.politicallypurplenc.com