New Haven Register (New Haven, CT)
Columbus statue prompts continuing legal battle
NEW HAVEN — Though the statue of Christopher Columbus has been taken from Wooster Square Park, many questions remain.
Who has the right to decide the future of the statue?
Did the city pay to remove it?
Should anyone crack open part of it —
with care, of course — and dig around inside?
These questions were asked in a series of court filings and measures this week, as some local Italian-American residents seek to determine whether the city followed appropriate procedure in removing the statue from Wooster Square Park.
In a motion filed this week, the group requested to excavate part of the stone base that once held the depiction of Christopher Columbus, arguing the documents it may contain could affect their ongoing suit over the legality of the decision to remove the statue of the explorer.
Attorney Patricia Cofrancesco, representing the Italian-American Heritage Group of New Haven, filed the motion Wednesday to require that “access to the pedestal’s metal box/leather pouch be undertaken by a professional contractor/engineer, experienced in dealing with historical monuments, with the utmost degree of surgical precision for the statue’s base,” among other efforts designed to preserve the documents reportedly put into place in 1892.
The documents may speak to conditions potentially imposed on the city when it accepted the gift of the statue more than a century ago, Cofrancesco argued.
But New Haven Assistant Corporation Counsel Roderick Williams said, in a letter to Cofrancesco filed as an exhibit in the case, that the city has “no reason to believe that the removal of the statue and the plaque make the contents of the pedestal any more accessible than they were prior to their removal.”
“The City is also not currently willing to break open the pedestal in to attempt to extract whatever may be inside one of the cornerstones ... (as) breaking into the pedestal, which is comprised of brownstone and concrete, would require much more effort and would attract much more attention than simply throwing paint or otherwise defacing its surface,” Williams wrote, referencing recent vandalism at the site.
“Please be assured that the City has every intention of protecting the statue, plaque and pedestal, as it protects all its property,” he wrote.
Cofrancesco also filed a Freedom of Information request with the city Thursday, seeking any documentation “reflective of the identity of the donor” or “reflective of the source of the funds” used to pay for the removal of the statute.
In a letter to New Haven Corporation Counsel Patricia King, Cofrancesco stated that she and the group believed the funding was provided by a “private donor,” asking that the city verify the accuracy of this information and provide the person’s identity “as the same may be violative of the City of New Haven charter.”
A request for comment about both the motion and Cofrancesco’s Freedom of Information request was sent to city officials.
In the original suit, filed June 24, the group represented by Cofrancesco asked for an injunction to prevent removal of the statue, which has yet to be heard. The figure of Columbus was removed that day, although the base remains in the park.
Cofrancesco said in the original complaint that roughly 200 ancestors of current members of the heritage group “financially contributed to the erection of a statue of the Explorer, Christopher Columbus in New Haven, Wooster Square Park in 1892, which was gifted to the city.”
The documents believed to be in the base “may be of assistance to the Court in resolving the issues before it — in particular, ownership of the statue, whether it was gifted to the defendant (city) absolutely or with conditions,” according to Cofranceso’s contention in court documents.
Cofrancesco also sought a requirement that the city be required to provide protection for the base of the statue and that the base not be disturbed while the lawsuit continues. These requests were also included in a June 30 motion filed in the case.
Between the June 30 motion and now, Cofrancesco said, the city formally rejected a request to provide a 24-hour police guard or break open the base of the statute to obtain the documents with professional assistance, which would safeguard them from vandals.
Cofrancesco further argues steps to preserve and or obtain the documents are required: as their existence was reported in local media; the statue was vandalized with red paint in late June and July; and they may shed light on the ownership history of the statue , which would be relevant to the group’s original claim that the city’s decision to remove it was unlawful.
The group alleges the city failed to properly consult the Board of Alders, which has oversight of city property, before the decision to remove the statute was made.
The group also contends that the Parks Commission voted illegally to remove the statue because the item did not appear on an agenda and minutes were not posted within 48 hours — both alleged violations of open meeting laws.