Citizen's Report by North Texas Daily

Denton County Confederate Monument, The Citizens Report - 2017 Attention: Office of Judge Mary Horn, Denton County, Texas Commissioner’s Court, Denton County Texas Office of the Attorney General, State of Texas Denton County Historical Commission Texas Historical Commission U.S. Secretary of Interior Chris Watts, Mayor, Denton, TX City Council of Denton, Texas

A Report on Denton’s Confederate Monument: Documenting the 15 Year decline of a State of Texas Architectural Landmark as a result of negligence and oppression, via the office of Denton County Judge Mary Horn and the Denton County Historical Commission.

This report represents the concerns of Denton citizens who support the preservation and survival of the Confederate Monument which stands on the County Courthouse Square as well as its full, documented history, but who also support a diverse, open, and community approach to resolving the re-occurrent protests against the monument’s presence on public property. Denton County, under the guidance of Judge Mary Horn has shown itself to be incapable of recognizing its failures to protect and preserve the historical significance of this monument, facilitating community or city involvement to support such efforts, or working with the Texas Historical Commission in an open, honest, and satisfactory capacity. It is the request of many concerned citizens, that any government agency with jurisdiction, representative of the citizens of Denton, TX, act immediately to appoint a Citizen’s Monument Committee, responsible with ensuring the monument’s proper protection and preservation, in coordination with the Texas Historical Commission.

Denton County Confederate Monument, The Citizens Report - 2017 PART I. Clarifying History: Exhibit, Statements of Record – Fountains

Judge Horn and others under her, have suggested to citizens reporting to commissioner’s court that they were once segregated from the Confederate Monument fountains, that these claims are not possible. (March 23, 2010 session). Statements have also been made directly to individual citizens and to the press that the fountains were never connected to water lines, that they never worked, and that research supports these claims. This research has neither been offered to the public nor provided in response to official Public Information Act requests submitted to Denton County. These false claims are inexcusable, considering Denton County records and historical, citable research, proves the Confederate Monument fountains were verifiably connected to city plumbing. The following four documents prove that drinking water was made available to the (white) residents of Denton via the fountains on the Confederate Monument.

Exhibit I(a) - August 27, 1919 - “To Open Paving Bids Sept. 9; Bids Asked on Three Types Paving,” DRC

The Commission authorized Mayor Hennen to have the connection made for supplying water at the Confederate Monument on the courthouse lawn. The county is to pay half the cost of the lead pipe for the work.

Exhibit I(b) - September 8, 1919 – “Local News in Brief,” DRC

The water connections with the drinking fountains on the Confederate Monument at the court house were completed and the water turned on Monday.

Exhibit I(c) - September 23, 1919 – City Commissioner Records Show Pipes laid for Monument by City

Upon motion, the Mayor was instructed to connect the fountains on the Confederate Monument with the understanding that Denton County would bear one-half of the expense of furnishing the necessary lead pipe. Exhibit I(d) - 2000 – Denton County Historic Structure Report for THC CHPP Grant

ArchiTexas, historical preservation architect, hired by Denton county: Civil War Memorial /(CSA) Memorial, pg. 2 Description/Construction: Carved Marble statue of confederate soldier.... Existing Conditions: Fair. Stone in good condition, though dirty. The monument has been subject of local controversy. Clearly the monument is in need of restoration and conservation and a local effort is underway to do so… The nature of the conflict memorialized is further illustrated by the water fountains, which at the time, would have been reserved for “whites only”.

Denton County Confederate Monument, The Citizens Report - 2017 Exhibit II(a) - Judge Horn has been contending with the Confederate Monument since her start as

Denton County Judge. For almost 2 years prior to Horn’s appointment on June 11, 2002, with the approval of the Denton County Historical Commission, a team of concerned citizens had been preparing for a monument restoration that included returning the fountains to working order. Organized by Willie Hudspeth, a team of over 1 dozen professionals had already agreed to donate their time, resources, and skills to the project, at no cost to the county. Architectural plans were complete, drainage plans for the fountains were cleared by the city and connections for water had been identified.

Exhibit II(b) - July 1, 2002 – Confederate Monument Committee Meeting

In attendance: Willie Hudspeth, 2 members Denton County Historical Commission, Denton County Attorney, County Director of Administration to the Judge, various other county officials, Judge Horn. There is no record of a formal agenda for this meeting, informal meeting minutes were provided in an open records request from the county. This closed meeting is called for by a commissioner, although there are no commissioners present. All members are official County employees in oversight positions and the meeting is led by Judge Horn who receives and gives information to a third party (Willie Hudspeth). Decisions made at this meeting were executed the next day with no briefing on the minutes made as part of public record, although motions were made “in analysis” of the meeting. Based on the evidence available, it cannot be proven this was an attempt by a full quorum of the commissioners to walk a quorum and decide public affairs outside of an open meeting, although it is certain Judge Horn was invested in resolving the issue outside of court and away from public scrutiny.

Exhibit II(c) - July 2, 2002 – Commissioner’s Court

Agenda 13. Other Departments I)

Approval of any possible action regarding the confederate Monument water fountains. County Judge

Judge Horn made a motion to submit Hudspeth’s documents for application without briefing the commission on monument committee meeting the prior day. Horn did not provide meeting minutes and they were not submitted into record, although according to Horn, the motion is made, …based on analysis of the meeting… Motion carried unanimously. 4-0, Court Order 02-0379 Willie Hudspeth went on record after the vote to inform other commissioners that Horn was keeping information from them. He claimed the meeting was not a legitimate meeting, that Horn and other were only there to dissuade him and he did not believe the Committee or the Judge had any intention of working with him to complete the restoration project, even though she agreed to finally submit the permit. He could not have been more correct.

Denton County Confederate Monument, The Citizens Report - 2017 Part 2. Permits, Lies, and a War on Truth: Exhibit II(d) - July 18, 2002 – Judge Horn submits Permit Application for Monument/Fountains

Restoration Horn submits a permit application to Texas Historical Commission on behalf of Willie Hudspeth and his committee of restoration professionals, requesting to restore the monument and its fountains to full function. All documents submitted for the permits were provided by Willie Hudspeth and his committee.

Exhibit, Statements of Record – THC and ADA

Judge Mary Horn has made multiple public statements, quoting portions of communications from officials within the Texas Historical Commission and other government agencies regarding the Confederate Monument. These statements relate to the authority held by the county in relation to the monument, the THC’s stance and official decisions on restoration of the monument, and other legalities related to restoration.

Most of these have proven to be false and intentionally misleading.

Exhibit III(a) - August 20, 2002 – Judge Mary Horn receives Permit Approval from Lawrence Oaks, THC

- THC PERMIT #246 – Restoration, Confederate Monument / Fountains, APPROVED for Willie Hudspeth

Exhibit III(b) - April 14, 2003 – Judge Mary Horn uses position of Judge to deny Willie Hudspeth access

to a permit obtained from the State of Texas Historical Commission, submitted on his behalf. Judge Horn writes Hudspeth, tells him he cannot move forward with planned restorations on monument and denies him correspondence from THC that his permit was approved in August 2002. The permit is still valid and active at the time of correspondence. Instead of providing him the most recent update, Horn quotes a portion of a July 2000 correspondence from THC, received in response to the first county inquiry into restoration. Horn also misinforms Hudspeth that ADA compliance has prevented the project from moving forward. The county was already advised of two ADA compliant options to proceed on project. Similar to statements still made by Horn in 2017, she tells Hudspeth: In a letter from Bradford Patterson of THC dated July 18, 2000, he states, “we are not likely to approve of the complete disassembly because of the potential risks to the monument by the process are not outweighed by the need for the fountains to functions”. Suspected violation of Texas Penal Code: Title 8. Offences Against Public Administration. Chapter 39. Abuse of Office. Sec.39.03. Official Oppression

Denton County Confederate Monument, The Citizens Report - 2017

Exhibit III(c) - July 18, 2000 – The Infamous Brad Patterson (Texas Historical Commission) Letter

As previously mentioned, this fax correspondence is the first document of response from THC in regards to the first inquiry made by Denton County, on the potential restoration of the Confederate Monument and its fountains. Horn has quoted very small portions of this statement in the press, as shown in the Statements of Record – THC and ADA attachment of this report. When read in full, the correspondence is an encouraging message from the THC in regards to restoration of the monument and its fountains, while providing information meant to be helpful for planning the restoration. It begins: Repairing the drinking fountain is probably an admirable goal.

The THC representative blatantly states in closing that the correspondence is: in no way, a final decision… and that the Commission would…be happy to consult with the county or its designee in an attempt to safely repair the monument.

However, over the course of the next fifteen years, Horn will use small portions of excerpt from this document, quoting partial sentences, to support her false narrative regarding the Confederate Monument. Her most frequently used lines include: ...We are not likely to approve… because of the potential risks to the monument by the process are not outweighed by the need for the fountains to function.

And: …We will be concerned that the repairs… damage or threaten the monument…

Exhibit III(d) - February 22, 2002 –Danny Brumley (D.C. Manager of Facilities) email to Judge’s Admin

Horn has stated repeatedly that restoration of the Monument’s fountains is not possible because they cannot be made ADA compliant, as shown in the Statements of Record – THC and ADA attachment of this report. While it is strange that the County’s professional restoration architect would not be aware of all options available to meet compliance when working with historical structures, she usually quotes his words from an internal fax document. But, the county obtained verification of the options available to meet compliance with the proposed project. They were presented with two feasible options: -

Seek a variance from the governing agency. Place an ADA accessible fountain within 250’ of the fountains on the square.

The THC would not likely approve such an addition to the CHOS lawn, but this would not be necessary. A measurement from the center of the Monument to the North-East corner of N. Locust & Hickory St. is well under 250’ ft. Similarly, a measurement from the center of the Monument to the North-West corner of N. Elm & Hickory St. is also well under 250’ ft. A fountain on either corner would comply with ADA regulations for ease and equal access.

Denton County Confederate Monument, The Citizens Report - 2017 Part 3. Changing History and Ignoring the Law to Benefit Personal Narratives: As Judge Horn has stated many times, the county is obligated by THC Rules and Regulations, Texas Antiquities Codes, and the Easement Agreement between THC and Denton County. Obligations include: -

Notification to Texas Historical Commission and request of permission before any alterations, additions, or subtractions are made to the Courthouse lawn. Maintain, inventory, and protect all current historical properties on the courthouse lawn.

Exhibit IV(a) –

January 23, 2001 – Easement Agreement signed between Denton County and THC

Regardless obligation, Judge Horn and the Commissioner’s Court have changed the plaque on the courthouse lawn twice since the THC approved version was installed with no notice or permits.

Exhibit IV(b) - July 2, 2002 – Commissioner’s Court – PLAQUE 1

Item 16. Addenda A) Approval of the funding agreement from the THC concerning the CHOS Grant Larry Irsik, Architexas reads the wording approved by the THC for the Confederate Monument plaque to be added to lawn, which is included in the THC Courthouse Preservation Grant: Motion passes unanimously. The first and only legal version of THREE plaques that have been placed/replaced on CHOS lawn between 2002-2010 is approved.

Exhibit IV(c) - November 5, 2002 – Commissioner’s Court – PLAQUE 2

Item 13.B – Approval of proposed wording for the plaque that will be located near the Confederate Monument and any appropriate action. This wording is a result of commissioners using a submission from Willie Hudspeth. Verbiage approved: At one time only one race could drink from these fountains. Now let this be a testimony that God created all men equal with certain inalienable rights. We are all one citizens of Denton County. Motion passes unanimously. No notice or request for permit is made to THC. Suspected violation Texas Administrative Code, Title 13. Cultural Resources. Part 2. THC. Chapter 26. Subchapter D. SECTION 26.24(a) Failure to seek permit. Suspected Violation Title 9. Heritage. Chapter 191. Antiquities Code. Subchapter A. General Provisions Sec. 191.131(a) Failure to obtain Permit. Suspected violation of U.S. Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, Standards for Preservation. Suspected violation of Easement Agreement between THC and Denton County. 6

Denton County Confederate Monument, The Citizens Report - 2017 Exhibit IV(d) - March 23, 2010 – Commissioner’s Court – PLAQUE 3

Agenda Placement Memo Background (by Kate Lynass, Director of Administration for D.C. Office of Judge Mary Horn): In Nov. 2002, Commissioners Court approved wording for a plaque to be placed next to the Denton County Confederate Monument. The wording that was approved at that time has since proved to be historically inaccurate; and the plaque was removed. The suggested new wording will more accurately reflect the history of the statue. The plaque on the courthouse lawn as of 2017, was approved and ordered in this session. It no longer contains any reference to the fountains or monument’s role in segregation, as the body decided, based on new research, that this was historically inaccurate. Suspected violation Texas Administrative Code, Title 13. Cultural Resources. Part 2. THC. Chapter 26. Subchapter D. SECTION 26.24(a) Failure to seek permit. Suspected Violation Title 9. Heritage. Chapter 191. Antiquities Code. Subchapter A. General Provisions Sec. 191.131(a) Failure to obtain Permit. Suspected violation of U.S. Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, Standards for Preservation. Suspected Violation Texas Penal Code. Title 8. Offenses Against Public Administration. Chapter 39. Abuse of Office. Public servant commits offense, when with intent to obtain a benefit, and intentionally or knowingly, violates a law relating to the public servant's office or employment Suspected violation of Easement Agreement between THC and Denton County.

Part 4. Confederate Monuments Condition Dramatically Declines: This is perhaps a combination of two issues; growing resentment amongst members of the community, leading to increased vandalism of the monument and an apparent lack of proper care and adherence to preservation protocol on behalf of Denton County, led by Judge Mary Horn.

Exhibit V(a) - 2003 – THC Courthouse Preservation Grant, Monument Restoration Contractor

The completion report submitted to THC for the CHOS restorations in 2003, lists Bryco, aka Charlie Bryant as the Stone Restoration, Pavers, Monument Contractor. This company has no website address, nor does It have any internet history of an address online. The company and contractor are listed on the following sites for hire: Blue Book Contractors, Porch.com, Facebook, BBB (never been rated), local.com, and usbizs.com. All listings describe Bryco/Bryant as a “Caulking Contractor”, “Sealant Specialist”, and/or “Water Proofing Contractor”. Nowhere in any of the contractor’s self-published advertisements, is there any reference of any experience or expertise in monument, stone, and/or historical restorations. The only association to stone this contractor has, is spray sealant, water coating services. The permit issued to Denton County 7

Denton County Confederate Monument, The Citizens Report - 2017 and Willie Hudspeth in August of 2002, as seen in Exhibit III(a) of this report, shows there was one thing specifically not approved for use on the monument stone; sealants. The work done on the monument covered by the permit obtained in coordination with CHOS restoration, required all rules of THC rules of restoration be followed. In addition, the U.S. Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation discourages this practice. Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 26, Sec.26.4, describes the professional qualifications and requirements for personnel working on historical structures. They must be appropriately-trained specialists and must possess the professional qualifications as defined by the section. Subsection (7) defines a “Project Contractor” as an individual who has the appropriate training, certifications, and/or licenses for the type of project work specified in the permit application and at least one year of demonstrable full-time experience in applying the methods and practices of the proposed work on historic preservation projects similar to the project to be permitted. Suspected violation Texas Administrative Code, Title 13. Cultural Resources. Part 2. THC. Chapter 26. Subchapter D. SECTION 26.24(b) Noncompliance with permit. Suspected violation Title 9. Heritage. Chapter 191. Antiquities Code. Subchapter A. General Provisions Sec. 191.131(b) violation of the provisions of the permit. Suspected violation of U.S. Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, Standards for Preservation. Suspected violation of Easement Agreement between THC and Denton County.

Exhibit VI(a) - Using dated webpages, press and citizen photos posted to the internet, we can track at

least on a yearly basis, the degradation of the Confederate monument over the last decade.

2008 – Texas Sons of Confederate Veterans document monument in decent condition The granite and marble stone look relatively clean, both globes are in place on the top of the monument, both fountains have their faucets attached and seams of the arch blocks look clean and smooth.

2011 - Fountain Faucets go missing on both sides of Monument Suspected violation of Texas Local Government Code. Title 10. Cultural Resources. Subtitle B. Chapter 318. County Historical Commission. Sec. 318.006(c) Failure to establish a system for periodic review and assessment of the condition of designated properties in the county. Suspected violation of U.S. Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, Standards for Preservation. Suspected violation of Easement Agreement between Denton County and Texas Historical Commission.

Denton County Confederate Monument, The Citizens Report - 2017 2013 - Globe on west side of Monument goes missing The stone begins to show serious discoloration, a lack of regular maintenance is apparent The solider on top of the arch begins to show expanding decay and typical signs of the use of harsh chemical sealants Suspected violation of Texas Local Government Code. Title 10. Cultural Resources. Subtitle B. Chapter 318. County Historical Commission. Sec. 318.006(c) Failure to establish a system for periodic review and assessment of the condition of designated properties in the county. Suspected violation of U.S. Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, Standards for Preservation. Suspected violation of Easement Agreement between Denton County and Texas Historical Commission.

Exhibit VI(b) - 2015 – “This is Racist” - Spray painted on Monument Arch

Followed by slow, unreported, unpermitted, and unprofessional clean up Suspected violation Texas Administrative Code: Title 13. Cultural Resources. Part 2. THC. Chapter 26. Subchapter D. SECTION 26.24(a) Failure to seek permit; and Title 9. Heritage. Chapter 191. Antiquities Code. Subchapter A. General Provisions Sec. 191.131(a) Failure to obtain Permit. Suspected violation of U.S. Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, Standards for Preservation. Suspected violation of Easement Agreement between Denton County and Texas Historical Commission.

2017 – Commissioner’s Court Public Comments, Man claims to clean graffiti off of confederate monument daily This same man repeated the “N-Word” during public comment, Judge Horn allowed this in court (Aug. 29, 2017 session, 10 minutes in, video posted on commissioner’s court meetings webpage)

Exhibit VI(c) - 2017 – Current Condition Summary, Rapid decline over last decade

The two bases which support each side of the arched monument are surrounded by layers of caulking where they meet their foundation. The caulking fills gaps where the feet are separating from the base and has obviously been re-applied multiple times. The caulking can be seen in phots as early as 2008 and may have been applied during the 2003 renovations. It is hard to be certain as the County did not document the monument restoration with photographs in its master report on the courthouse grant project. This documentation is required by the THC funding agreement and was provided for all other

Denton County Confederate Monument, The Citizens Report - 2017 restorations on the property. The caulking now extends out onto the sidewalk around the feet of the monument as proof of this regular reapplication The stone of the monument, top to bottom is dirty and discolored. The soldier on top of the monument shows drastic decolorization that was not present to its current degree in pictures just a decade ago. Daily, the monument is covered with a new stain or piece of graffiti. The images provided show a large stain at the top of the monument which appears to be the result of a liquid thrown at the monument. This most recent stain has been present for at least 3 months. The monument is still missing one of its globes on the west side of its arch and both fountain faucets (replaced in 2003 with grant money) are missing from the monument. The monument has, on occasion, been surround by bird seed, with the fountains filled with it as well. This results in a large number of birds on and around the monument, which in turn results in stone damaging and distracting deposits left on the monument.

Exhibit VI(d) - Denton County Historical Commission fails to meet preservation monitoring

requirements of THC Open records requests made to Denton County reveal the Denton County Historical Commission never placed the Confederate Monument on any meeting agendas for discussion after significant dates of incidence, damage or disrepair, nor mentioned said instances in annual reports to the Texas Historical Commission. Neither Denton County nor the local Historical Commission have sent any reports or permit requests to the THC regarding the Confederate Monument since 2003, excluding brief mention in its courthouse restoration summary report in 2004. The county has potentially been in violation of Texas Antiquities Code since its 2003 restorations performed by insufficient contractor. County subject to possible Criminal Penalty under Texas Administrative Code: Title 9. Heritage. Chapter 191. Antiquities Code. Subchapter F. Enforcement. Sec. 191.174 Criminal Penalty. Violation of any provision is a misdemeanor offense, punishable by fine $50-$1000, by confinement in jail for up to 30 days or both. Each day of continued violation of any provision constitutes a separate offense.

Part 5. City of Dentonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s elected leaders have been largely silent regarding the Confederate Monument, relying on the fact that the courthouse lawn is considered county property. This has been relatively easy to do, considering the county has been so aggressive at spreading its narrative that THC is solely responsible for all that happens to the historical structure and the lawn it sits on, leading citizens to believe city officials are powerless to intervene in any way. On the contrary, the city, if aware that Antiquities Codes are not being adhered to, is obligated to involvement in the issue and should be, considering the information available. The city of Denton is required to act by Texas Administrative Code: Title 9. Heritage. Chapter 191. Antiquities Code. Subchapter F. Enforcement. Sec. 191.174 which requires all political subdivisions to cooperate and assist the Historical Commission and Attorney General in carrying out criminal penalties for violations of Antiquities Codes.

Denton County Confederate Monument, The Citizens Report - 2017 Current efforts to distance City Government from the Confederate Monument, are incongruent with the historical relationship between the city of Denton and the structure. As shown in Exhibit I(a), at the start of this report, the plumbing infrastructure that allowed segregated water to flow from the Monument’s fountains, was paid for in part and completely installed by the city of Denton. It would have also been city of Denton law enforcement that was in charge of implementing Jim Crow segregation laws that applied to the monument’s fountains. The city of Denton and its governing agents cannot be separated from the Monument’s history, nor should they be from the monument’s future. On June 4, 1918, the city accepted the Monument from Denton’s United Daughters of Confederacy alongside the county, thus the city shares responsibility for its presence on Denton’s town square.

Exhibit VII(a) - June 4, 1918 – “Commemoration of Confederate Deeds,” Denton Record Chronicle

Monument Presented in Ceremony on Square. Acceptance for the city was made by City Attorney H.R. Wilson, who said that Confederate Soldiers did not fight for what they believed was right, but for what they knew was right.

Exhibit VII(b) - Meanwhile, citizens of the city of Denton, continue to pay the highest price, for the

silence and inaction of our governing institutions. The confederate Monument is not being cared for, yet it sits at the center of ongoing controversy, under the guises of conservation and preservation of history. While the city and county governments remain silent and complacent on the issues at hand, community organizers continue to struggle with minimal resources or support. Citizens have been left with no choice but to defend a monument they struggle to respect themselves, to prevent non-local white supremacists from celebrating in its shadows.

July 21, 2015 – “…Man with Ar-15 Under Defaced Memorial,” Houston Chronicle August 29, 2017 – Alt Right Protestors travel from Out of State to Rally at Confederate Monument September 13, 2017 – “Pops Carter Monument in Quakertown Park Vandalized,” DRC [Artist Christi] Wood suspects the sculpture was targeted because it honors a celebrated black Denton musician, she said. On a Facebook post, Wood mentioned the racially charged debates over the Confederate soldiers' memorial on the downtown Denton Square.

Denton County Confederate Monument, The Citizens Report - 2017 Texas Administrative Code Title 13. Cultural Resources Part 2. Texas Historical Commission Chapter 26. Practice and Procedure Subchapter D. Historical Buildings and Structures. SECTION 26.24. Compliance with Rules for Historic Buildings and Structures Permits (a) Failure to seek a permit. Public owners, project sponsors, project architects, and professional firms shall not perform work on a historic building or structure that is designated as a landmark or nominated for designation as a landmark without applying for and having been issued a Historic Buildings and Structures Permit by the commission, or without having been officially authorized by the commission to proceed prior to issuance of an emergency permit. Work proceeding without a properly issued permit, with the knowledge of the public owner or project sponsor, constitutes a violation of the Antiquities Code of Texas and this chapter. The commission may require that remedial work be performed under a properly issued permit to address any damage to the landmark or may deny issuance of a permit for the work and prevent authorization for a development project to proceed relative to jurisdiction under the Antiquities Code of Texas. The commission may also censure a project architect or professional firm for performing unauthorized work, in accordance with subsection (c) of this section. (b) Noncompliance with permit terms. If the permittee, project sponsor, project architect, professional firm, contractor, or craftsperson fails to comply with the terms of a permit, the commission may take action to bring the permit into compliance or censure the responsible firm or individual in accordance with subsection (c) of this section. Noncompliance includes failure to comply with any of the rules of the commission, any of the terms of the specific permit involved, or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; failure to properly conduct or complete the project, to complete any required reports, or to meet the terms and conditions of defaulted permits; or failure to act in the best interest of the state.

Denton County Confederate Monument, The Citizens Report - 2017 Code Violation Reference:

NATURAL RESOURCES CODE TITLE 9. HERITAGE CHAPTER 191. ANTIQUITIES CODE SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 191.054. PERMIT FOR SURVEY AND DISCOVERY, EXCAVATION, RESTORATION, DEMOLITION, OR STUDY. (a) The committee may issue a permit to other state agencies or political subdivisions or to qualified private institutions, companies, or individuals for the survey and discovery, excavation, demolition, or restoration of, or the conduct of scientific or educational studies at, in, or on landmarks, or for the discovery of eligible landmarks on public land if it is the opinion of the committee that the permit is in the best interest of the State of Texas. (b) Restoration shall be defined as any rehabilitation of a landmark excepting normal maintenance or alterations to nonpublic interior spaces. (c) The permit shall: (1) be on a form approved by the attorney general; (2) specify the location, nature of the activity, and the time period covered by the permit; and (3) provide for the termination of any right in the investigator or permittee under the permit on the violation of any of the terms of the permit. Sec. 191.131. CONTRACT OR PERMIT REQUIREMENT. (a) No person, firm, or corporation may conduct a salvage or recovery operation without first obtaining a contract. (b) No person, firm, or corporation may conduct an operation on any landmark without first obtaining a permit and having the permit in his or its possession at the site of the operation, or conduct the operation in violation of the provisions of the permit. SUBCHAPTER F. ENFORCEMENT Sec. 191.171. CRIMINAL PENALTY. (a) A person violating any of the provisions of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction shall be punished by a fine of not less than $50 and not more than $1,000, by confinement in jail for not more than 30 days, or by both. (b) Each day of continued violation of any provision of this chapter constitutes a separate offense for which the offender may be punished.

Denton County Confederate Monument, The Citizens Report - 2017 Sec. 191.172. CIVIL ACTION BY ATTORNEY GENERAL. (a) In addition to, and without limiting the other powers of the attorney general, and without altering or waiving any criminal penalty provided in this chapter, the attorney general may bring an action in the name of the State of Texas in any court of competent jurisdiction for restraining orders and injunctive relief to restrain and enjoin violations or threatened violations of this chapter, and for the return of items taken in violation of the provisions of this chapter. (b) Venue for an action instituted by the attorney general lies either in Travis County or in the county in which the activity sought to be restrained is alleged to be taking place or from which the items were taken. Sec. 191.173. CIVIL ACTION BY CITIZEN. (a) A citizen of the State of Texas may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction for restraining orders and injunctive relief to restrain and enjoin violations or threatened violations of this chapter, and for the return of items taken in violation of the provisions of this chapter. (b) Venue of an action by a citizen lies in the county in which the activity sought to be restrained is alleged to be taking place or from which the items were taken. Sec. 191.174. ASSISTANCE FROM STATE AGENCIES, POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS, AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. (a) The chief administrative officers of all state agencies and political subdivisions are directed to cooperate and assist the committee and the attorney general in carrying out the intent of this chapter. (b) All state and local law enforcement agencies and officers are directed to assist in enforcing the provisions and carrying out the intent of this chapter.

Denton County Confederate Monument, The Citizens Report - 2017 US SECRETARY OF THE INTERIORâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S STANDARDS FOR TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are common sense historic preservation principles in non-technical language. Standards for Preservation 1. A property will be used as it was historically, or be given a new use that maximizes the retention of distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships. Where a treatment and use have not been identified, a property will be protected and, if necessary, stabilized until additional work may be undertaken. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The replacement of intact or repairable historic materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate and conserve existing historic materials and features will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection and properly documented for future research. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 6. The existing condition of historic features will be evaluated to determine the appropriate level of intervention needed. Where the severity of deterioration requires repair or limited replacement of a distinctive feature, the new material will match the old in composition, design, color and texture. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. Standards for Restoration 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that interprets the property and its restoration period. 2. Materials and features from the restoration period will be retained and preserved. The removal of materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize the period will not be undertaken. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate and conserve materials and features from the restoration period will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection and properly documented for future research. 4. Materials, features, spaces and finishes that characterize other historical periods will be documented prior to their alteration or removal.

Denton County Confederate Monument, The Citizens Report - 2017 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the restoration period will be preserved. 6. Deteriorated features from the restoration period will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. 7. Replacement of missing features from the restoration period will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. A false sense of history will not be created by adding conjectural features, features from other properties, or by combining features that never existed together historically. 8. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 9. Archeological resources affected by a project will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 10. Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed.

Denton County Confederate Monument, The Citizens Report - 2017 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE TITLE 10. PARKS AND OTHER RECREATIONAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES SUBTITLE B. COUNTY PARKS AND OTHER RECREATIONAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES CHAPTER 318. HISTORIC PRESERVATION BY COUNTIES SUBCHAPTER A. COUNTY HISTORICAL COMMISSION Sec. 318.002. ESTABLISHMENT. The commissioners court of a county may appoint a county historical commission for the purpose of initiating and conducting programs suggested by the commissioners court and the Texas Historical Commission for the preservation of the county's historic cultural resources. Programs suggested by the Texas Historical Commission must be consistent with the statewide preservation plan. In suggesting programs, the Texas Historical Commission shall consider the fiscal and human resources the county has to conduct the programs. Sec. 318.006. RESOURCE IDENTIFICATION. (a) The commission should institute and carry out a continuing survey of the county to determine the existence of historic buildings and other historical and archeological sites, private archeological collections, important endangered properties, or other historical features within the county, and should report the data collected to the commissioners court and the Texas Historical Commission. (b) The commission should develop and maintain its inventory of surveyed individual properties and districts in accordance with standards established by the Texas Historical Commission. (c) The commission should establish a system for the periodic review and assessment of the condition of designated properties in the county, including Recorded Texas Historic Landmarks, State Archeological Landmarks, and individual historic properties or districts listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The commission should report the results of the review and assessment to the Texas Historical Commission.

Denton County Confederate Monument, The Citizens Report - 2017 TEXAS PENAL CODE TITLE 8. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER 39. ABUSE OF OFFICE Sec. 39.02. ABUSE OF OFFICIAL CAPACITY. (a) A public servant commits an offense if, with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another, he intentionally or knowingly: (1) violates a law relating to the public servant's office or employment Sec. 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION. (a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he: (2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; (b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity. (d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;