Call to Order by the Chairman and Members Present

Chairman Goodwin called the Commission to order at 12:35 p.m. He welcomed the members to the meeting of the Commission to Coordinate the Study, Commemoration and Impact of Slavery’s History and LEGACY in Maryland. The following members were present:

Dr. Stefan Goodwin (Chairman), Morgan State University, Baltimore

Mr. J. Rodney Little, Director, Maryland Historical Trust

Dr. Charles M. Christian, University of Maryland, College Park

Ms. Nikki DeJesus Smith, CEO, Maryland Museum of African American History

and Culture

Attendees and Introduction of Special Guests

Dr. Goodwin recognized Ms. Evelyn Townsend, who is head of the Harriet Tubman Organization and a member of the task force which laid the foundation that led to the establishment of this Commission. He also recognized Mr. Orlando Ridout V, who is a member of the Maryland Historical Trust staff.

Dr. Goodwin then asked the other special guests to introduce themselves. The following guests were present:

Royce Sampson, Dorchester County, representing the Maryland State Conference of

the NAACP.

David Honig, General Counsel, Queen Anne's County Branch of the NAACP

David Taft Terry, Research Administrator, Maryland State Archives

Emily Oland Squires, Director of Research and Outreach, Maryland State

Archives

Deborah Hanson Greene, Kunta Kinte-Alex Haley Foundation

Leonard Blackshear, President, Kunta Kinte-Alex Haley Foundation

Tonya Hardy, Executive Director, Maryland Commission on African American

History and Culture and Director, Banneker-Douglass Museum

Jerry Hynson, Maryland Historical Society, representing Agnus Callum.

Maryland Geneological Society and volunteer at the Archives

Keith Prouty, Political Action Vice Chair, Maryland State Conference of Branches,

NAACP (joined the meeting after introductions were made)

Dr. Goodwin then asked David Terry to make a few introductory remarks, since he will be working very closely with the commission and has already been involved in preparing the Managing for Results Report. Mr. Terry stated that he was happy to receive the opportunity to work with the Commission. He described his educational and professional background and its relevance to his present position.

For the record, Dr. Goodwin reported that Commissioner Ford would not be present at the meeting due to illness. Commissioners Small and Papenfuse had conflicts that prevented them from attending the meeting. There was a possibility that the two legislative members, Honorable Emmett C. Burns, Jr., from the House of Delegates, and Honorable Nathaniel J. McFadden, from the Senate, might be attending.

Action on Minutes

The first agenda item was action on the minutes of the Commission meeting of September 25, 2001. Motion: Dr. Christian moved that the minutes of the September 25, 2001, meeting be accepted as presented. Mr. Little seconded the motion. Dr. Goodwin called for a vote, and the minutes were unanimously accepted.

Report by Historic Sites Committee (Mr. Little, Chair)

Rodney Little, chair of the Historic Sites Committee, made a few introductory remarks. This past summer the Maryland Historical Trust implemented a project to cull out from its inventory of historic sites, which the Trust has been collecting over the past 30+ years, those sites particularly related to African American history and, more specifically, those related to the broadly defined subject matter of slavery. Work on this statewide database is ongoing and will take at least another six months to complete, because the magnitude of the inventory is so great. Mr. Little projected bringing a preliminary report to the next meeting, specifically identifying historic markers that relate to slavery and African American history, as well as the historical museums identified to date. Mr. Little then turned the reporting over to Orlando Ridout V, Chief of the Office of Research, Survey & Registration of the Maryland Historical Trust.

Mr. Ridout pointed out that a memorandum from the Historic Sites Committee to Dr. Goodwin, reporting on three major issues, was included in the handout packet. The first issue presented was the creation of a searchable database for African American sites throughout Maryland, developed by Derek Gray, the Trust’s National Park Service minority intern during the summer of 2001. What makes this such a challenging task is that there are more than 80,000 individual sites and 10,000 archeological sites on the Maryland inventory of historic properties. The database is being organized by county and Baltimore City. The goal is to make the database as comprehensive as possible; in addition to identifying the sites, the plan is to provide a brief commentary on the significant aspects of each site. When completed, it will be accessible on the web. Mr. Ridout emphasized that, ultimately, in all of these efforts, the real goal is to try to identify future steps that can be taken to expand and improve the depth, breadth and geographic distribution of resources. The Committee believes the need for a workable inventory is too compelling to delay the project until next summer; therefore, beginning in mid-December, existing staff and financial resources will be shifted to continue the work on the database.

The second issue discussed was the archeological search for Harriet Tubman’s home site in Bucktown, in Dorchester County. A field archeological investigation was conducted in June and July sponsored by Trust funds in partnership with Washington College. One promising occupation site was found, and the project will continue with a second phase of work in 2002.

The third item covered in the memorandum was an Over-the-CPS (in State government, a term for new initiatives) request in the budget for grant funds to expand the effort to identify, document and preserve African American resources across the state. Mr. Ridout reported that all of the Over-the-CPS requests proposed by the Maryland Historical Trust failed to survive the budget review process, mainly because of the current economic climate. Nevertheless, there is a grant fund available for this type of activity. It simply has a broader array of program requirements, etc. Mr. Ridout opined that a good African American proposal could be submitted under the existing grant program and would do well in the ranking.

Looking ahead, the Committee will work on two projects for the next meeting. The first is to canvas the inventory of approximately 750 historical markers that exist across the state to identify those with specific relevance to African American history and culture. The listing will not be confined to slavery related sites; the same is true of the database, because it is desired to identify everything related to African American history. Mr. Ridout pointed out that of the existing State historical markers, those relating to African American culture will be limited. That, in large part, is the result of the history of the program, which was initiated in the 1930’s to trace George Washington’s role in Maryland history. Thus, in a topical survey of the markers, there would be an overwhelming number from the 1930's concerning George Washington. The Maryland Historical Trust took over the program in 1986, and State funds finally were allocated to it in the late 90s, giving the markers a broader reach. Before that time, most markers were driven by who proposed them and were willing to pay for them. Mr. Ridout concluded that the purpose of the survey was more to identify needs than to identify existing resources. It is hoped that the Commission can play a role in identifying 20 or 30 sites across the State with statewide significance to African American history. The next step will be to find funding to begin working on that list and to see that markers are erected in the appropriate places. Also, by the next Commission meeting, the Committee will present a survey of African American museums in the State, both those that are well established and those that are seen as potentially emerging in the next few years.

Mr. Little added that concerning historic markers, other than the initial phase in the mid-1930's, there was no State money made available for markers, so markers were erected depending on who had the ability to fund them. That was true until the 90's, when some small amounts of State money were made available for the markers program.

Dr. Christian asked whether there was a number that could be put to historical markers that are clearly African American related. Mr. Ridout replied that the number would be available at the next meeting. Dr. Christian concluded from the discussion that there is a possibility that there may be very few African American related markers, perhaps even less than ten throughout the State. Mr. Little stated that the conclusion after the analysis will be obvious–African American history is underrepresented in the marker program. The Committee will look to the Commission for advice on what should receive the highest priority with the available resources.

Dr. Goodwin added that the Commission also may be interested in documenting things of interest in terms of African American history that may not be of "statewide significance." He suggested that the Commission look at a variety of different classifications of historic markers. Mr. Little referred to an example of the basic type of marker that is being used now, but stated that the Trust is not limited by type; the only issue is practicality. Dr. Christian raised the issue of location of the markers, indicating that the markers are not always accurate and located in the appropriate places. He asked if the location of the Harriet Tubman marker is, in fact, accurate with regard to location. Mr. Ridout's recollection was that the marker was at the end of the farm lane that is believed to be the site. Ms. Townsend confirmed that, but stated that the Harriet Tubman birthplace does not have a marker because it is private property. Dr. Christian remarked that the same is true of the Douglass marker; it is not an accurate location. He raised the issue of how to deal with this problem. Even though the markers are a part of the database, inaccurate location does not give that sense of accuracy and emotion associated with the site. Mr. Ridout explained that at the time the markers were erected, the locations were the best guess as to where the markers should be placed. There are also criteria that the State Highway Department imposes on the Trust; the marker has to be in a place where someone can stop without causing a traffic hazard. He suggested more than one might be needed at some of the locations to alert the public to the existence of a nearby marker. Perhaps driving tours should be established for some of the sites also. He said that part of the goal for the website is a digital image of the marker itself; because it is not just the location that is important, but the text as well.

Ms. Townsend discussed her participation in the 2000 pilgrimage that made stops at the places that it is thought made up the Underground Railroad trail. Documentation was compiled by some of the people who planned the trip; Ms. Towson said the National Park Service was involved, and she could obtain the documentation.

Dr. Goodwin stressed that in terms of content of the markers, sensitivity is an important consideration. Mr. Little responded that in addition to having authority to put up new markers, the Trust has the authority to take down, move, or revise markers. Most of the markers in Maryland are fairly accurate, he continued, but the Trust will have the ability to follow the recommendations of the Committee. Mr. Little explained further that given the checkered history of the program, during the period in which you would expect that there might have been some real significant African American sites, particularly the 1970's and 1980's, the program was virtually dead. Thus, the majority of the markers in existence were essentially erected prior to 1970; which explains how warped the representation probably is. Mr. Ridout clarified that the State has a three-tiered system, where sites that were locally significant could receive a marker provided the funds came from a private source. If the proposed marker met the next criteria, the State would split the cost of the marker 50/50. Then, if it met the statewide criteria, the State would pay the whole cost. Mr. Ridout recommended that the first priority for the Commission should be to identify sites with statewide significance, and then as more locally significant sites are identified, seek a way to fund them. Mr. Little also alerted the Commission that there would be less than 700 markers in the listing to be provided at the next meeting, because a number of the markers have been destroyed.

Dr. Goodwin offered that the Commission might want to contact organizations in various counties that might be aware of sites, as a way of data collection, in addition to the information from the Maryland Historical Trust. Ms. Smith agreed that the Commission could be a good resource in identifying sites with African American relevance. Ms. Hardy expressed her view that, as Dr. Goodwin had suggested, partnering with other organizations would prove very beneficial. Dr. Goodwin closed the discussion by stating that the crucial element is time, because the more time that elapses, the more risk that history will be forgotten. He thanked the Committee for the report.

Managing for Results Report

Dr. Goodwin introduced the next item on the agenda, the Managing for Results Report, and indicated that the Commissioners should have received a copy. He then presented background information concerning the report. He stated that this Commission came into being without a budget and without staff, and the Commission realizes that it cannot carry out its mission without a plan, without budget, and without staff. In the State of Maryland all agencies of government operate under the Managing for Results approach, Dr. Goodwin continued. Accordingly, over the last two or so months, the Commissioners, communicating largely by e-mail, and with staff support, have been actively involved in preparing a Managing for Results Report. The report speaks to the mission, goals and vision of the Commission, predicated on receiving some essential staff and some essential operating budget. Dr. Goodwin's closing thoughts were that this is a political process, and since September 11, the process has become immensely more complicated. The Commission does have a mission.

Dr. Goodwin emphasized that once action is taken, it is very important that the Managing for Results Report be transmitted to the Governor. The Commission is in the process of making a special request to the Governor for some essential needs, and unless the Governor puts those items in the budget, the legislature cannot address them. This report is the crux of what the Commission plans to do for the next three or four years. What the Commission is able to accomplish may change if it doesn't get the resources requested.

MOTION: Ms. Smith moved that the Commission adopt the Managing for Results Report as presented. Dr. Christian seconded the motion. Dr. Goodwin called for a vote, and the Managing for Results Report was unanimously approved.

Dr. Goodwin stated that he did want the report to be transmitted to the Governor and to the Secretary of Budget and Management, as well as to be made available more generally. He requested any political assistance with the legislature, assuming that the Governor includes the items in his budget. Ms. Smith asked if this would be a separate line item in the budget, or is it still going to be part of the Archives budget. Dr. Goodwin replied that it would not be a part of Archives budget, but would be separate.

Dr. Christian asked if there was a bottom line number. Dr. Goodwin answered that definite figures are attached to the Commission's request and can be made available to Dr. Christian.

Dr. Christian requested that the records reflect that Dr. Stefan Goodwin did a wonderful job in pulling all this together, and he should definitely be commended.

Guest Speaker - Mr. Leonard A. Blackshear

Dr. Goodwin introduced Leonard A. Blackshear, President of The Kunta Kinte-Alex Haley Foundation, with headquarters in Annapolis, Maryland. Mr. Blackshear stated that it was a distinct pleasure to be at the meeting of the Commission, which is definitely in keeping with the times, which would be reflected in the course of his presentation. Mr. Blackshear introduced Debbie Hanson Greene of The Kunta Kinte-Alex Haley Foundation staff and then referred the Commissioners to the handout material. Mr. Blackshear reviewed for the group the mission of the Foundation, which is as follows:

The Foundation is a 501(c)(3), nonprofit, tax-exempt organization whose mission includes the construction and support of the Kunta Kinte-Alex Haley Memorial. The mission also includes the creation of educational materials and programs to bring alive the message of Roots. The Foundation encourages greater study and awareness of African-American culture, history and archeology. The Foundation, following Alex Haley's LEGACY, also encourages the search for ethnic "roots" among Americans of all ethnic origins.

Mr. Blackshear stated that the Foundation has focused on slavery, which has been a very tender subject in America and has not yet really come to the surface. He said one of the goals of the Foundation is to get slavery on the table, get it off the table into the history books, and move on.

Mr. Blackshear stated that economic interests make it easier to raise the slavery issue. He referred the members of the Commission to The Washington Post article, dated October 9, 2001, announcing the selection of Fredericksburg, Virginia, as the site for The National Slavery Museum. According to the article, the Museum "is envisioned as the centerpiece of the 2,100-acre Celebrate Virginia, a commercial, recreational and tourism-based project in Fredericksburg and adjacent Stafford County."

Mr. Blackshear stressed that the Commission and the Foundation should move forward in terms of their agenda. Especially helpful to the promotion of the agenda is the fact that the most well-known slave, Kunta Kinte, is a part of Maryland's history. He went on to describe the work of the Foundation and its accomplishments. There are two organizations, which are easily confused. One is Kunta Kinte Celebrations, which puts on the Kunta Kinte Festival in Annapolis. The other organization is the Kinte-Haley Foundation, which was created to focus on the capital project–the building of the memorial to Kunta Kinte at the City Dock in Annapolis. Mr. Blackshear stated that they were very pleased with the support for this project–the first memorial in the City of Annapolis on Annapolis public land in 75 years. Mr. Blackshear reported that most people are thrilled with the interactive nature of the sculpture of Alex Haley that is already completed at the memorial on the City Dock. He also showed the Commission various State of Maryland brochures and advertisements featuring the Alex Haley Memorial. The memorial project is coming to a conclusion, so the Foundation is looking at other research activity that relates to the mission, dealing with culture, history, and archeology.

The Kunta Kinte-Alex Haley Foundation is also working in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture to create a database concerning the role of the bound agricultural worker in United States history. Data is being collected on the contributions made by African Americans to the economic development of America.

Another project of the Foundation is the work with the Local Frontiers International Group, encouraging them to purchase 150 CDs of historical material from the Archives, which they in turn contributed to the school system in Anne Arundel County.

Mr. Blackshear emphasized that the Commission could help the Foundation by raising the Foundation's statewide visibility. One suggested activity was a statewide roundtable on slavery, in conjunction with the Commission. Other means to raise visibility could be 1) assisting with letters of support, 2) helping to identify grant opportunities, 3) turning Annapolis into a model living history city, integrating the slavery and African American story into the story of the region, and taking that model to other regions, and 4) providing a link from the Commission website to the Foundation website.

As to what the Foundation could do to help the Commission, Mr. Blackshear offered that the Foundation can work in partnership with the Commission on grant opportunities where the missions overlap. Because of the Foundation's 501(c)(3) status, it can pursue some opportunities that the Commission cannot and, by that means, help augment the Commission's efforts. The Foundation invited the Commission to participate in the June dedication of the memorial in a way that could be mutually beneficial. Also, a link could be provided from the Foundation website to the Commission's website. In summary, Mr. Blackshear stated that the Foundation wants to work with the Commission and hopes that the Commission will work with the Foundation. The Foundation is eager to help the Commission in any way it can.

Dr. Goodwin thanked Mr. Blackshear for his presentation and invited questions and comments. Dr. Goodwin stated that the Commission must see this as a real charge–the Commission and the Foundation must reach out to each other and go forward. The Commission will never have the personnel to do it all and must work with other organizations, such as The Kunta Kinte-Alex Haley Foundation, and other Commissions, such as that which Ms. Hardy represents. He expressed enthusiasm about what had been presented and agreed to communicate with concrete ways to follow up.

Dr. Christian echoed Dr. Goodwin's remarks and thanked Mr. Blackshear. He stated that he was intrigued by the potential for projects. The Commission has a committee that is structured to do outreach, and Dr. Christian expressed hope that the committee will be effective in ensuring that the Commission reaches out to various organizations and commissions throughout the State to maximize the Commission's role.

Mr. Blackshear referred to the handout packet and recommended that the Commission pay particular attention to the Phase I Final Report covering the Department of Agriculture project. He also encouraged the members to read the letters contained in the dedication booklet for the Kunta Kinte-Alex Haley Memorial sculpture, because he believed the letters to be very thoughtful concerning the participants' feelings about an African American oriented project.

Dr. Goodwin closed the discussion by expressing his desire that Maryland emerge as the best networked state in the Union, first, around slavery, and more globally, around African American history and culture. All must learn to work together more effectively and more harmoniously; Dr. Goodwin expressed optimism that this goal can be accomplished.

Guest Speaker - Mr. David Honig

Mr. David Honig, General Counsel, Queen Anne's County Branch of the NAACP, thanked the Commission for the invitation to attend the meeting. He acknowledged the presence of Evelyn Townsend, president of the Harriet Tubman organization that operates the Harriet Tubman Museum and Cultural Center in Cambridge, Maryland. He credited Ms. Townsend with being the institutional memory of much of what will be addressed in the presentation today. He also introduced Mr. Royce Sampson, State NAACP coordinator for the Maryland Eastern Shore, who also has in his memory much of the history of struggle and overcoming the events of segregation and serfdom. Mr. Honig stated that it was a privilege to make his presentation after Mr. Blackshear and added that the Commission was hearing two proposals that aspire to present a concept that would convey dignity to the subject of slavery. Representing the Queen Anne's County Branch of the NAACP, Mr. Honig introduced the concept of the proposed Harriet Tubman State Park for the Commission's commendation to the legislature.

Mr. Honig referred the members to the furnished documents: 1) proposal letters, 2) Concept Paper: The Harriet Tubman State Park, 3) article from Preservation magazine, and 4) material from the Harriet Tubman Organization. He called the members' attention to a schematic drawing of the proposed State Park, which, he stated, probably allowed in minimal time a description of the proposal being presented. The Park would be the nation's first full-scale tourist site to focus on African American history. He described in detail the physical facilities planned for the proposed park, including outdoor recreational activities, meeting, conference and retreat facilities, and overnight accommodations. The stated rationale for the park is that there is no site in the United States that focuses on any aspect of the African American experience from slavery to now, where a family can go and spend a day or more. Mr. Honig stated that the reason the project is so ambitious–possibly costing as much as $20 million–is mainly because Harriet Tubman deserves this kind of recognition. She is the most famous Marylander, with the possible exception of Kunta Kinte, overcoming slavery and showing the nation and the world the way.

Mr. Honig then reviewed the history of slavery in Maryland and stated that the Eastern Shore suffers still from the effects of slavery. By backing the Harriet Tubman State Park, the State of Maryland could create an economic engine to overcome that economic depletion caused by slavery and its consequences. While originally conceived of as a historic preservation project, the State Park is primarily an economic development project to take advantage of the history which Maryland has created; it could break through the irony of that history by developing the institution which can remedy those consequences. Mr. Honig pointed out that the project is state-of-the-art and educational; it speaks to all the aspects of the mission statement of the Commission.

In summary, Mr. Honig discussed five steps that would be needed to build interest in the park and prepare it for final consideration. First, and of highest priority, the Harriet Tubman Organization's museum and cultural center needs to be fully funded. Second, coordination is needed with the National Park Service to examine how the park could serve as the origination point for the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom. Third, State funds are required for development of a full-scale plan for the State Park. Fourth, the State should acquire and put in the name of the people of Maryland the birthplace of Harriet Tubman in Bucktown. Fifth, to offset much of the cost of the State Park planning process, one proposal is the designation of a license plate captioned "Birthplace of the Underground Railroad."

Mrs. Townsend thanked Mr. Honig for making the presentation and offered support for a development on the Eastern Shore that would indicate to those who are interested in history that the birthplace of Harriet Tubman is in Dorchester County. She stated that her dream, along with others in her organization, is to try to develop some sort of resource to show through different means that throughout the world, we can overcome obstacles, because we have a good example. Mrs. Townsend added that the proposed Harriet Tubman State Park is for the good of the State of Maryland, and for the rest of the world, because people would come to visit from all over the world, admiring and in awe of what came out of the backwoods of Dorchester County. She requested the members of the Commission to please give the plan their consideration.

Mr. Sampson added his strong support for the project. Dr. Goodwin mentioned that Ms. Townsend first put the Commission in touch with Dr. Small, a member who serves as the Commission's linkage to the Eastern Shore. He then asked for questions from the members.

Mr. Little responded with his thoughts on the proposal. He stated that his agency deals with historic preservation in Maryland and would like very much for something to happen with the Harriet Tubman site on the Eastern Shore. There are some realities to consider, however, he added. State parks are operated by the Department of Natural Resources, and the Department is substantially over-committed. Thus, the State is trying to divest itself of state parks, rather than acquire more parks.

Mr. Little continued that since the project presented could also be classed, in part, as a museum, he would address that issue. In Maryland there are over 200 history museums, and of that number the vast majority are operated by private nonprofit organizations. Less than five percent are operated by local governments; there are only four history museums operated by the State. Two of those are African American, and two deal with other subject matter. Therefore, getting the State to commit to a new museum would be a difficult task and would require strong political backing. Mr. Little strongly suggested that the model of a private nonprofit be used. Mr. Little then discussed experience in Maryland with on-site revenues. He stated that, in general, historical museums in Maryland generally raise only about 20 percent of their operating expenses from on-site revenues. Ms. Smith added that on-site revenues usually provide less than that. Thus, floating revenue bonds to fund the project is not an option.

Mr. Little concluded that the idea presented is absolutely needed, because African American history is not well interpreted on the Eastern Shore; however, political realities must be faced. In answer to Dr. Goodwin's question, Mr. Little stated that most of the parks in Maryland were not established related to any person, community, etc., but to preserve natural areas. Dr. Goodwin concluded that there would be a possibility to have an existing state park dedicated to the Tubman LEGACY. Mr. Little agreed that it would be easier to accomplish a dedication.

Mr. Honig thanked Mr. Little for the education. He stated that it was intended to market the park more like a resort than a museum and asked if the project was more appropriately a federal or a state project. Mr. Little responded that normally it would be a state project, but that at this time he would recommend it as a federal project within the U.S. Department of the Interior. He reported that Paul Sarbanes had been successful in promoting the Network to Freedom Trail and would very likely be enthusiastic about at least some component of the concept. Mr. Little emphasized that he was not discouraging pursuing State funds, but State operation of the park is highly unlikely.

Mr. Ridout offered suggestions on the project. He stated that Senator Sarbanes has been a lead promoter of a program called "Gateways to the Chesapeake," which is an attempt in some way to address the lack of a national park. Since Harriet Tubman is a national figure, it should be possible to build support not only in the State, but also to make an argument for a national picture. He did not think renaming another park would meet the stated goal, namely, to enrich the experience of the Harriet Tubman site. He restated that it was easy for the Department of Natural Resources to acquire land; what is extremely difficult is to provide operating expenses for parks. His suggested first step would be to sell the State on protecting the land (the birthplace) that is important to the site. He stated that since the site is right next to the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge, it might be easy to cash in on the Gateways program and Senator Sarbanes' interest. Mr. Ridout emphasized the need to make sure there is a way to protect the land over the long-term.

Dr. Goodwin summarized that everyone was sold on the idea, and he asked Mr. Honig if there were any fiscal feasibility studies. Mr. Honig replied that they came to the Commission first. Dr. Goodwin stated that it seemed like the proposal should be looked at in a different way, preserving the main idea of honoring Harriet Tubman and also contributing to tourism. He stated that he thought good information had resulted from the exchange and that dialogue should continue.

Mr. Honig commented that they should possibly recast the park as a primarily federal project, present the concept to Senator Sarbanes, and ask him to introduce it and generate support as a national monument or national park. He repeated the NAACP's goals for the State, which would provide the backbone: 1) fully fund the Harriet Tubman organization, 2) acquire birthplace land, and 3) generate interest by some means, such as a State license plate. He asked if those were achievable.

Mr. Little spoke to several of the items. In terms of full funding for the Harriet Tubman operation, other than the four museums that are State agencies or quasi-State agencies, the State is not providing anywhere close to full operating costs for any of the private nonprofit museums in existence. The Trust has a General Operating Support program that will fund up to 6% of the budget, and Mr. Little did not know if the Tubman organization had applied.

Concerning the license plate proposal, it is very political. It would have to compete with the license plate program in existence, whose funds go to the Chesapeake Bay Trust. There is a lot of pressure not to create other commemorative tags, because it would take money away from that one effort. Other license plates have been proposed by various organizations, but the Chesapeake Bay Trust is the only one that has been approved.

Ms. Smith referred to her experience with the African American Museum and stated that when dealing with a serious subject, it is sensitive for many people. The entertainment aspect of the proposed park might not be as appealing as projected, since there is very serious subject matter to present.

Ms. Hardy suggested that a 501(c)(3) might be established. As a source of funding, she referred to the National Endowment for the Humanities, which has a capital grant campaign and will give you $500,000, if you match it with $1,500,000. The contact at the National Endowment is Dr. Fred Winters. She also suggested that the NAACP talk with someone at the Maryland Humanities Council, which might be able to provide some programmatic dollars. By looking at avenues where organizations or government agencies will provide some of the capital money, the NAACP will have some capital leverage to seek money from other organizations.

Dr. Christian added that he is excited about the project. He commented that slavery is the hottest topic going today throughout universities, colleges, or, if not there, on-line. Therefore, Dr. Christian concluded, the timing for this project is good, although what everyone else has said cannot be ignored. He suggested that the project be put within the context of smart growth and the appropriate political support sought at all levels. He then turned to the notion of tourism. The State of Maryland is dependent more and more on tourism and has to develop ways to increase that tourism dollar. Thus, he recommended that the tourism aspect of the project should be well documented, as well as the whole emphasis on business development. He advised placing the project within the political framework of smart growth as the best chance for winning.

Dr. Goodwin asked if there had been any dialog with the legislators from the Eastern Shore. Mr. Honig stated they went first to Dr. Burns, who suggested that they should come to the Commission before approaching the local politicians without having the benefit of guidance. Mr. Little added that in addition to Senator Sarbanes on the political front, to the extent that federal help is needed, Wayne Gilchrist should be included for assistance on the House side. Mr. Ridout mentioned that Senator Sarbanes' staff has been to the Harriet Tubman site and is already conscious of the issues. Mr. Hynson identified two local politicians, and as to research, he cited a model schoolhouse, the first black schoolhouse in Kent County.

Dr. Goodwin observed that he saw something very positive happening–people addressing the proposal from many directions, communicating and supporting each other–and he thought this could be ongoing. He stated that the Commission would like to make all projects happen right now, but as long as the organizations supported each other, they would be further along than they are at present. He summarized that the Commission is supportive, and dialogue should continue.

Dr. Goodwin turned to updates and new business. He expressed thanks to the Maryland Historical Trust for the lunch and hospitality.

Dr. Christian brought up a new business item, his disagreement with the use of the term, "guest speaker." He stated that what occurred at the meeting today was more of a hearing, and asked if the Commission would like to change the terminology and put the meeting in a more formal context whereby it would hold hearings. The information provided could be used in ways that could be more formal, too. Dr. Goodwin asked if he would be comfortable with the term, "dialogue," and Dr. Christian replied that he would not be and would prefer the term, "hearing." Ms. Smith asked if "hearing" would suggest that some action needed to be taken. Dr. Christian replied that it would, and hoped that the Commission would accept the responsibility to respond to some extent by letter, by contacts, etc. He would like to see a formal engagement, he continued. Dr. Goodwin stated that once the Commission members have the minutes, they would have to refer specific items to specific committees, come back to the Commission, and respond to the presenters. He stated that Dr. Christian's recommendation was a very good addition.

Dr. Goodwin opened the floor to discussion concerning the date for the next meeting. He mentioned the transmittal of the Managing for Results Report to the Governor. If the Governor includes the requests in his budget, then the Commission is looking at a political season ahead. Dr. Goodwin did not believe it necessary to meet in person to strategize that activity. Mr. Little strongly suggested that the next meeting be held prior to January 9 or after April 10, 2002, because during the General Assembly Session, it will be difficult for some members of the Commission to be present at the meeting. Dr. Goodwin suggested meeting after the session. Ms. Smith agreed. Dr. Goodwin will canvas the Commission and perhaps look at late April for the next meeting date.

There being no further business to come before the Commission, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 2:50 p.m.