ssu graves | judge's ruiling

8/17/2019 SSU Graves | Judge's Ruiling

1/9

0

STATE OF GEORGIA

In re: Abandoned Gravesites on a Certain )

Tract of Land Being in the th G.M. Land )

District, City of Savannah, Chatham County,)

Georgia Containing 0.0.72 Acres, More or )

Less; )

The Board ofRegents

of

the University

System of Georgia, for and on behalfof

Savannah State University,

Petitioner.

FINAL ORDER

Civil Action No. CV16-0255-AB

Having read and considered the Petition for a Permit to Relocate Certain Abandoned

Gravesites filed by the Board

of

Regents ofth University System of Georgia ( Board of

Regents ), for and on behalfof its member institution Savannah State University ( Savannah

State ), and upon consideration of the evidence and public comments presented at the April 11,

2016 public hearing, the entire record and the applicable law, the Court finds as follows:

The Board of Regents, represented by the Georgia Attorney General's Office, filed the

petition pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 36-72-14 for a permit to relocate what the Board ofRegents

identifies as an abandoned nineteenth century cemetery located on a tract of land on the

Savannah State campus. The Board of Regents seeks to relocate any remains that might be

located at the site as part of its plan to develop a science and technology center, which includes a

new Marine Sciences and Technology Lab building, access roads, sidewalks and utilities to

support the site. In support of the petition, the Board of Regents submitted various surveys and

reports prepared by Brockington and Associates, Inc. of Charleston, South Carolina. Those


2/9

0

documents include a history ofthe ownership and dimensions of the subject property (including

the title research and survey

of

the legal boundaries

of

the site), archaeological information about

the site, a description ofthe proposed science and technology center project, a report on the

efforts to identify any individuals who might have been laid to rest in the cemetery and any

descendants

of

such individuals, and the proposed plan for disinterring and reinterring any

remains found at the site.

The site is part of what was known as Placentia Plantation, a 700 acre rice and cotton

plantation located along the Wilmington River in the 1800's.

2

According to the Brockington and

Associates' documents, a map from 1892 referred to as the Blanford Map shows a cemetery

located at or near the project site.

3

At Savannah State's direction, United Consulting conducted a

Ground Penetrating Radar ( GPR ) survey at the site. This GPR survey revealed what the

documents describe as anomalies in the soil which are believed to be graves. The

documentary evidence as well as the testimony presented at the April 11, 2016 hearing all

support a presumption that a number of graves are located at the project site. Given the serious

and sacred nature of the possibility that human remains are located at the site, the Court proceeds

1

These documents are filed in the record as exhibits to the petition.

2

The tract of land changed ownership several times before it was conveyed to the

Trustees of the University of Georgia in the early 1900's . The specific tract that apparently

contains the cemetery was sold to the Trustees in 1918, but the deed does not mention a

cemetery. The complete history of the land ownership is provided in the Brockington and

Associates' reports filed in the record.

3

According to the Brockington and Associates' report, the Blanford Map was created by

the City Engineering department around 1892 and shows the [Placentia Canal], old rice fields,

the settlements to the east, an African American cemetery ('Cemetery

Col d ),

and the electric

trolley line that was installed around 1892. The genealogical report notes that this map is the

only historical reference to the cemetery that was found, and it is unknown whether the cemetery

was in use or abandoned when the map was created.

Page 2

of9


3/9

with its consideration of this petition based on the presumption that human remains are located

there. The Court notes, however, that the existence and condition

of

any such remains will not

be known and confirmed until the soil is excavated at the site. Thus, the best information

available at this time is that three to five graves are potentially located under the site, which now

includes a paved parking lot, and there is a possibility that individuals buried at the site were

enslaved African Americans connected to the Placentia Plantation. The Court also notes that

although the petition refers to the gravesites as abandoned there is no information to determine

what circumstances led to this cemetery becoming essentially hidden over time.

O.C.G.A. § 36-72-14 (a) provides in pertinent part when any agency, authority, or

political subdivision of the state seeks to file an application for a permit under this chapter, the

superior court having jurisdiction over the real property wherein the cemetery or burial ground is

located shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the permit application. O.C.G.A.

§

36-72-14 (a)

further provides that [t]he superior court shall conduct its investigation and determination of the

permit in accordance with Code Sections 36-72-6 through 36-72-8. O.C.G.A. § 36-72-6

provides a process for the identification and notification of descendants. In this instance, the

Board

of

Regents and its agents have been unable to identify any descendants. Brockington and

Associates, including its historian Charles F Phillips, conducted genealogical and historical

research in an effort to identify any descendants but Brockington and Associates was unable to

identify any such descendants. According to the genealogical report, no list

of

slaves,

freedmen, or tenant farmers who lived or worked on the Placentia Plantation was located.

4

4

As detailed in the report, historical records maintained by Chatham County, the City

of

Savannah, the Georgia Historical Society, Savannah State University, the W.W. Law Foundation

and the Live Oak Public Library were researched. In addition, contact was made with nearby

churches, individuals specializing in local cemetery studies and several African American

genealogical groups. These efforts are detailed in the genealogical report filed in the record.

Page 3

of


4/9

Although the Board

of

Regents was unable to identify any descendants to provide direct notice

of

the petition, the Board of Regents ran an advertisement in the legal organ

of

Chatham County

the Savannah orning News about the proceedings. As of the date of this Order, no descendants

have been identified.

O.C.G.A.

§

36-72-7(a) provides for a public hearing at which any interested party or

citizen may appear and be given an opportunity to be heard. The Court held the public hearing

on

Aprilll

2016 at 9:30a.m. At the hearing, the Board

of

Regents presented the testimony

of

Joseph Steffen, the Director of Legal Relations at Savannah State, and Gwendolyn Moore, the

Senior Project Manager at Brockington and Associates. At the conclusion

of

the Board

of

Regents' examination

of

each witness, the Court permitted members

of

the attending public to

ask questions of the witness. In addition, members of the public were invited to provide their

own comments after the presentation

of

the witnesses.

Mr. Steffen testified that Savannah State is developing the science and technology center

in response to increasing student enrollment, particularly in the area of marine sciences. Mr.

Steffen testified that Savannah State cannot rebuild where these disciplines are currently housed

because the old buildings are sitting on a flood plain. Mr. Steffen further testified that there is no

other site on the campus that can accommodate the new center because the campus is adjacent to

a marsh and much

of

the campus is located in the flood plain. Mr. Steffen noted that it is not

possible to build around the possible gravesites because the entire area would need to be

excavated to accommodate the utilities for the project. After describing the proposed process for

the disinterment and reinterment (including the erection of a marker at the new burial site with a

ceremony to memorialize the deceased), Mr. Steffen concluded his testimony by commenting

that Savannah State feels a sense

of

stewardship as the oldest public HBCU (collectively known

Page 4 of9


5/9

as Historically Black Colleges and Universities) in Georgia and views this plan as an opportunity

to properly recognize the people who worked on Placentia Plantation.

Ms. Moore provided testimony that further explained how the geological survey of the

site was conducted to determine the location of the possible grave sites. She also described the

title search, the search for descendants, and the reburial plan. Her testimony mirrored the

findings

of

Brockington and Associates written reports filed in the record. Ms. Moore also

described how certain information obtained at disinterment (for example, the width of hip bones,

the age

of

teeth, and the types of grave relics found at a site) can be used to determine certain

clues about human remains without having to engage in any invasive techniques.

During the hearing, members of the public inquired about the efforts undertaken to

identify any descendants, including whether DNA evidence might be used in the future to assist

in that process. In addition, there were various comments from the citizens attending the hearing

about the unique intersection of the past with the future that this petition raises - some seeing it

as a positive confluence

of

circumstances (being able to honor and acknowledge those who lived

on Placentia Plantation while allowing the advancement of an HBCU) and others questioning

if

the past will suffer (and even be destroyed) due to the needs of the future. The Court has given

significant consideration to the thoughtful and earnest comments provided by those who took the

time to attend the hearing and to articulate their positions. Regardless of any citizen s stance on

the ultimate issue of whether the Board of Regents should be granted the permit, the consensus

was that the past must be respected. The Court shares that sentiment and has undertaken this

investigation as one guided by the dictates of the Georgia code but with an understanding of the

sacredness and solemnity of this matter.

In making the determination of whether to grant or deny the permit, the Court is required

Page 5

of


6/9

to consider the following: (I) [t]he presumption in favor of leaving the cemetery or burial

ground undisturbed; (2) [t]he concerns and comments of any descendants of those buried in the

burial ground or cemetery and any other interested parties;(3) [t]he economic and other costs

of

mitigation;(4) [t]he adequacy of the applicant's plans for disinterment and proper disposition of

any human remains or burial objects;(5) [t]he balancing of the applicant's interest in disinterment

with the public's and any descendant's interest in the value

ofthe

undisturbed cultural and natural

environment; and (6) [a]ny other compelling factors which the governing authority deems

relevant. O.C.G.A. § 36-72-8.

Under the code, there is a presumption in favor leaving a burial ground undisturbed. The

Court notes, however, that this current site has not been maintained and preserved as an

identifiable cemetery or burial ground. If any human remains exist from a former cemetery,

those remains are likely located under a paved parking lot. Although the circumstances of

history leaves the Court in the position of not being able to hear the concerns and comments of

any known descendants, the Court has considered the concerns and comments of the interested

citizens who shared their positions at the public hearing. In balancing the Board of Regents'

interest in disinterment with the public's interest in the value

of

undisturbed cultural and natural

environment, the Court notes that the Board of Regents' desire to advance its institutional goals

by building this new science and technology center provides an opportunity to give those who

might be buried at the site with proper recognition. The Board ofRegents has been unable to

identify any possible individuals who were previously buried at the site, but the Board

of

Regents' plan has and will provide a present day acknowledgement that people once lived, toiled

and died on this site. On the other side

of

the balancing, the undisturbed environment consists

Page 6

of


7/9

of a parking lot and what has been, until now, a forgotten legacy.

5

The Court finds that Savannah State has proposed a respectful and well-considered plan

for the relocation

of

the gravesites. On the issue

of

financial considerations, Savannah State

would assume all costs for the proposed disinterment and reburial. In addition, Savannah State

has retained the professional services of Brockington and Associates to facilitate these plans.

Savannah State has presented a disinterment and reinterment plan which will be overseen by

experienced archaeologists and will consist of excavations by hand once a grave shaft is exposed

by mechanical means, the placement of any human remains and associated grave items in

wooden coffins, and the reinterment

of

the human remains in a grassy area to the north

of

the

project tract. The reburial site is within the area of the cemetery shown on the Blanford Map.

Savannah State plans to erect a marker at the new burial site and to recognize the reburial with a

memorial ceremony that will be planned by a committee that includes members of Savannah

State's esteemed faculty and staff.

6

Finally, the Court notes that the record shows that the State of Georgia has approved $2.5

million for the development of the new science and technology facilities, and Savannah State has

5

See e.g. Hughes v. Cobb Cty. 264 Ga. 128, 130, 441 S.E.2d 406, 409 (1994)

(affirming the trial court's ruling that it was appropriate to relocate a cemetery where there was

evidence in the record which supports the trial court's conclusion of fact that, due to lack of

maintenance and inappropriate surroundings, relocation would preserve rather than destroy the

'cultural heritage of this county and this

cemetery' ).

6

Savannah State's President Dr. Cheryl Dozier has appointed a Memorial Committee

comprised of Dr. Peggy Blood, tenured Professor of Art History and Director

ofthe

Confucius

Center, Dr. Carla Sue Marriott, Assistant Professor of Biology and Forensic Science, Dr.

Deborah Johnson-Simon, Lecturer

of

Anthropology, Mr. Irvin Ogden, Director

of

the Physical

Plant, Ms. Sheena Simmons, liaison to Dr. Dozier, and Dr. Cornelius St. Mark, tenured Associate

Professor of Africana Studies and History and founding Director of the International Education

Center. Dr. Kwesi J DeGraf-Hanson, a landscape architect and preservationist, is a consultant to

the Committee.

Page 7 of9


8/9

secured $15.6 million in additional funding for the 2016 fiscal year for construction. Savannah

State has grand plans for the new facilities, including the construction of a new boat dock to

provide access to the local waterways for research purposes for students and faculty in the

marine sciences program. Savannah State has a compelling reason to develop this site, and

Savannah State has coextensively developed a compelling plan to give acknowledgment and a

final, identifiable resting place to those who are possibly buried at the site.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Board

of

Regents

ofthe

University System

of

Georgia, for and on behalf of its member institution Savannah State University, has met the

requirements set forth in O.C.G.A. 36-72-11, et seq. The Court hereby GRANTS Petitioner's

Application for a Permit to Relocate the Placentia Plantation Colored Cemetery.

The Court

further ORDERS that Petitioner's Application is ADOPTED IN WHOLE.

Because no one has standing to appeal this decision other than the Board

of

Regents

(which has prevailed), the thirty day time period for appeal does not apply in this case. Hence,

the judgment is final for all purposes.

It should not go without reiterating that the responsibility of determining how best to

balance these interests --- those

of

the persons possibly interred and those ofthe students who

7

At the public hearing, discussions arose regarding the possibility and feasibility

of

utilizing DNA testing to identify possible descendants. The Court requested the Attorney

General's office to solicit comment about this matter from the State Archaeologist for the

Department ofNatural Resources' Historic Preservation Division ( HPD ). Rachel Black the

Deputy State Archaeologist opines that due to the sensitive circumstances

of

human excavation

and reburial the HPD does not usually recommend DNA testing because it is a destructive

technique. Ms. Black 's comments are restated in a letter from Senior Assistant Attorney General

Mary Jo Volkert dated April 20, 2016. As noted by Ms. Volkert in the letter, there is a plan to

make preliminary determinations about the remains based on any skeletal remains and grave

artifacts found at the site. The Court notes that regardless

of

the feasibility

of

DNA testing, there

are no known descendants who could possibly provide consent for the destruction

of

such

remains. Moreover, such DNA testing falls outside

of

the scope

of

the statutory scheme that

governs the instant application.

Page 8

of


9/9

will

go on to great futures --- has been challenging and compelling.

'

SO

ORDERED this :J f day of April 2016.

cc: Mary Jo Volkert Esq.

~ n M A . _

sa Abbot Judge

Chatham County Superior Court

EJC State of Georgia

In re Abandoned Gravesites CV 16-0255-AB Final Order

Page 9 of

ssu graves | judge's ruiling

Documents