"

11 Process Planning

Weigh a range of resolution processes for both the symbols/public space conflict and the underlying concerns, ranging from a quick decision to a long-range collaborative process, including multiple options in between, such as a mediation, commission, and arts council. Decide on a process or a range of processes. Appoint members. Prepare those involved in the processes so that they will work constructively. Offer emotional support for those involved, should they become a focus of hate or controversy. Make clear who has ultimate decision-making power. Coordinate with other public bodies that have authority regarding these matters.

POSSIBLE STRATEGIES

A photograph of a topped Christopher Columbus statue outside the Minnesota capital building.
Even a quick decision to remove a symbol opens the possibility of creating a collaborative process to replace it. The toppled Christopher Columbus statue outside the Minnesota capitol building in St. Paul on June 10, 2020. Photo by Tony Webster.

Determine whether it would be better for public officials to decide quickly or instead institute a collaborative or consultative process involving the community broadly. (For more on selecting deliberators, see Selection and Preparation of a Planning Group).

Make explicit who will decide and the limitations on the decision-maker’s authority.

Convene a collaborative process, even if that will occur after a decision about the contested symbols and convey a realistic timetable.

Engage a mediator, both to consult on process and to help engage the community. Consider using a mediator who is skilled in collaboration and conflict resolution processes and is familiar with the issues being discussed.

In More Detail

Should public officials decide before beginning a collaborative or consultative process?

 Collaborative processes that involve relationship building, storytelling, and other processes take time. Quick decisions by public officials may make sense if:

  • leaving a symbol in place will attract violence, a particular risk for prominent physical symbols such as statues in a public square.
  • the symbol insults deeply and is in an area that people regularly encounter as they go about their lives, such as a Confederate flag flying over the state capitol, as illustrated by the Charleston flag situation (See Process Design and below).
  • delay might result in making the desired change impossible later, such as not seizing a moment when the public supports doing something or before a state legislature limits the authority of cities to move public symbols.

Absent those conditions, beginning with a consultative or collaborative dispute resolution process offers significant advantages. A collaborative process can build support, understanding, and connections within the community. The collaborative process may also be less likely to produce a backlash than a quick decision.

If there is public backlash, it can lead to bitterness and battles between localities and the state, such the illustration below from Memphis, and even violence. The delay created by a collaborative dialogue may also help those who typically resist change to listen and gradually change their view about the need for change in this situation.

To reduce the time involved in a collaborative process, it may be helpful to use an existing process, such as a city arts council or a university dialogue process. Another time-saving approach is to place the immediate conflict first on the agenda, with a broader planning effort to follow. Dealing first with one significant issue may create momentum for longer-term planning.

A quick decision could be followed by a collaborative process such as that described in Points 2-9 above. Committing to convene that process may display needed openness to involvement from those throughout the community.

Alternatively, the quick decision might be labeled as a temporary one, to be re-examined and perhaps modified as the result of what is learned in the collaborative process that engages the community more broadly.

Communicate out front the things you have no control over (laws, etc.) and explain them clearly to the community, so that they know you’re not refusing to collaborate.

 – RaShall Brackney, former Chief, Charlottesville Police Department

How do collaborative discussions differ in the midst of conflict?

Process Design above discusses collaborative processes in general, but the greater potential for anger and staking out of positions amid conflict suggest a few additional strategies:

  • Consider using a mediator who is experienced in dealing with parties in conflict. Mediators can shuttle among people if some “see no reason to talk,” as often happens after firm stands have been taken. They sometimes can be accepted even when people are angry with or don’t trust public officials. Their experienced facilitation can allow the public officials to participate in the deliberations regarding the options.
  • It may be helpful to begin with what most groups share. For example, do people tend to agree on the pertinent history? Do they agree on certain values regarding symbols and public spaces?
  • People can more successfully navigate difficult discussions if they have prior relationships. Perhaps begin by developing relationships across societal fault lines.
  • Not everyone is accustomed to having conversations with persons whose views they do not accept. Can each group develop a consensus on the norms for these conversations?
  • During a conflict, it may be especially important to include bridgebuilders across different identity groups. This can include faith leaders, and leaders of the chambers of commerce, universities, and Civil Society Organizations, like the Urban League, bar associations, and United Way, and others that reflect the diversity of the community.
  • It may be more important to delineate whether the group is advisory only. A lack of clarity about decision-making may deepen the bitterness involved in symbols contexts, especially when students are involved and may not be familiar with where that authority lies, as illustrated below by the University of Missouri event.
  • Consider how you can protect those who volunteered to serve on planning committees related to symbols and public spaces. These volunteers generally did not bargain to land in the middle of a major conflict. Crowds may come to their homes. They may be attacked through social media or on national news.
  • Plan what to do about bias-motivated or other hateful views. By focusing on the victims and heroes, you may be able to avoid giving voice and publicity to promoting hateful views. Considering using mediators to keep in touch with persons pursuing hate-based agendas, so that you know some of their plans, can help them stay safe, and can protect others from them.

ILLUSTRATIONS

A quick decision

There are times when a quick decision by public officials may be the optimal approach. After a hate-fueled multiple murders in a Charleston, South Carolina church in 2015, the state enacted legislation requiring the removal of the Confederate battle flag from the state Capitol, something sought by civil rights activists for decades without success. In addition to taking advantage of a politically feasible moment and removing a highly visible offensive symbol, as discussed in Process Design, that decision was a visible step toward reducing incitement to hate, perhaps indicating that the broader community showed empathy at an important moment.

Clarity regarding the decision-maker

After civil rights advocates and students demonstrated and demanded removal of a Thomas Jefferson statue on the University of Missouri-Columbia campus in 2015, 2016, and 2020, the university system’s president appointed a task force to recommend a decision. After six months of deliberations, in January 2021, the task force recommended a compromise position – non-removal of the statue but addition of a sign. The sign’s text would note both Jefferson’s contributions and that he owned slaves and supported expulsion of indigenous Americans from their land and add a QR code for more detail. In June 2021, the university’s governing board rejected the sign, leaving the statue unchanged except to add security to protect it.[1] The Associated Press reported, …“The University of Missouri Board of Curators has rejected a proposal to add information about Thomas Jefferson’s history as a slaveowner near a statue of the 3rd U.S. president on the Columbia campus, which has been roiled by racial tension for years.”[2]

Taking time for a collaborative process

In 2020, in Sanford, Florida, some argued that the city should turn down a request to paint “Black Lives Matter” outside a public safety complex on a street in the historic district that once comprised Goldsboro, an African-American-founded city. Instead of saying no, as Andrew Thomas, Sanford’s Director of Community Relations and Neighborhood Engagement, recalled, “To explore the request, a group representative of Black Lives Matter, community leaders, and Goldsboro residents were convened to discuss the viability of the messaging, cost, maintenance, and location. After several meetings, the group found common ground and reached an agreement.” The agreement included a different location for painting Black Lives Matter with accompanying artwork and quotes regarding race and equity as well as a memorial and appointment of a committee to look into other strategies and events “publicly denouncing all forms of hate, bigotry and social injustice, celebrating diversity, and promoting inclusion.”

Quick decisions – achieving a result versus backlash

In 2013, as efforts to remove Confederate memorials gained strength, Tennessee enacted a bill that prohibited city removal or modification of memorials on public lands without permission of a state board largely appointed by the governor. The City of Memphis circumvented that law in 2017 by selling two parks to a private group, and a local court approved the action. The city then relocated the statue of a slaver trader and Confederate general and of the President of the Confederacy from the now privately-owned parks. In 2018, amid state lawmakers’ angry comments about the Memphis action, the Tennessee legislature amended the statue to require state board permission before cities transferred memorials to a private owner.[3]

Deep Dive: Santa Fe, New Mexico

In Santa Fe, city leaders initiated a process not only to decide the future of a contested monument, but to create space for broader community dialogue and healing. The CHART (Culture, History, Art, Reconciliation, and Truth) initiative illustrates how a planning process can extend beyond a single symbol to engage deeper questions of identity, memory, and belonging.

For over 150 years, the center of the Santa Fe Plaza in Santa Fe, New Mexico, had an Obelisk memorializing unknown Union soldiers for their actions in both the American Civil War and in fighting Native Americans. The Obelisk was not the subject of public controversy when it was erected in 1866. However, one of the four plaques on the base of the Obelisk read, “To the heroes who have fallen in the various battles with savage Indians in the territory of New Mexico.” The word “savage” was chiseled off in 1974 by an unknown person.

Before it became a state, New Mexico was a territory located below the Mason Dixon Line, which provided its people the option to keep or abolish the institution of slavery. Just prior to the Civil War, in 1859, the territorial legislature passed the Slave Codes, which, among other things, prohibited emancipation.[4] Census records indicate that wealthy New Mexicans in the territory had enslaved approximately 50 people of African descent and several hundred Navajo and Apache.[5] Union soldiers routinely destroyed Navajo and Apache crops, livestock, and homes, as part of an ethnic cleansing project emanating from the Indian Removal Act.[6] The Navajo were ultimately subjected to The Long Walk, a 300+ mile journey to a concentration camp at Fort Sumner in present day New Mexico,[7] while the Apache were forced out of New Mexico onto a reservation in Arizona.[8] The Obelisk’s plaque memorializes these Union soldiers, a period of US history that caused deep and enduring harm to the indigenous communities that currently inhabit Santa Fe.

In response to the racial justice movement in the summer of 2020, Mayor Alan Weber attempted to remove the Obelisk, using a state-contracted construction team, but it was too heavy for the planned construction crew to safely deconstruct.[9] On Indigenous Peoples’ Day, October 12, 2020, after a 3-day occupation of the Plaza, Indigenous protesters, many representing the Navajo tribe, toppled the Obelisk in protest of its racist message. Local media reported that the act was decried by other members of the community who viewed the Obelisk as an important symbol of the state’s history.[10] Toppling the Obelisk required roughly 20 people equipped with chains and ropes attached to pickup trucks. Police were present, but did not intervene during the impromptu removal of the Obelisk, but two people were arrested and charged with criminal trespass and resisting arrest. After the Obelisk was toppled by the protesters, the city surrounded the area with fences and construction tape to prevent it from being an ongoing site for vandalism. On June 2, 2021, Santa Fe’s Arts Commission unanimously passed Resolution 2021-6 recognizing “an urgent call to action by residents, diverse stakeholders, and the Governing Body to discuss the City’s cultural histories and current viewpoints to seek solutions for a future of peace, tolerance, racial equity, social justice, healing, and reconciliation.”[11] A sign was placed in front of the site describing Santa Fe’s intent to decide the Obelisk’s future together, as a community.

In August 2021, Santa Fe launched a process to engage in community discussions about culture, history, art, reconciliation, and truth (the CHART project).[12] Through nearly three years of ongoing conversations, no final decision has been made regarding the Obelisk’s future. However, many community concerns have surfaced through the ongoing dialogue. Importantly, what at first seemed to be people with clearly defined views about the Obelisk, turned into a complex and dynamic community negotiation.

In November 2024, the pedestal of the Obelisk remained covered by a wooden box (which the community views as an eyesore) that serves as a reminder that this matter remains unresolved. Dialogue is not always something that happens fast, especially when it is mixed with a thorough examination of the history, truth, and reconciliation. It takes time to create inclusive communities. Expenses are involved; the city estimates it spent about $250,000 on the CHART project, something that was somewhat controversial.[13]

While litigation continued, Santa Fe has not stopped generating options in response to the Obelisk conflict. It has proposed moving the Obelisk to a museum or the Santa Fe National Cemetery, where this narrative might be properly contextualized – with community input[14] – and not replacing it with another monument. In December 2024, a judge ordered the City of Santa Fe to remove the wooden covering at the Soldiers’ Monument and either restore the obelisk to its pre-2020 condition within 180 days or initiate a formal review process under the guidelines for historic preservation. Since then, the city allocated $100,000 to assess the Obelisk’s condition, stored at the regional airport, and propose options for a permanent resolution to the conflict.[15] The city has noted that the resolution must align with the court’s order and processes for the preservation of historic monuments. The outcome remains unresolved, as Santa Fe works to balance legal obligations, structural realities, and deep community divisions over the monument’s future.

 


  1. See Rogers McKinney, University of Missouri System Curators May Vote to Abandon Idea of Contextualizing Thomas Jefferson Statue, Columbia Daily Tribune (Jun. 23, 2021), https://www.columbiatribune.com/story/news/education/campus/2021/06/23/university-missorui-mizzou-um-system-curators-may-abandon-plan-contextualize-jefferson-statue/5319227001/; Mark Slavit, UM Curators Reject Educational Sign for Thomas Jefferson Statue, KRCG 13 (June 24, 2021), https://krcgtv.com/news/local/um-curators-reject-educational-sign-for-thomas-jefferson-statue.
  2. University of Missouri Curators Reject Interpretive Thomas Jefferson Sign, Associated Press (June 25, 2021), https://apnews.com/article/mo-state-wire-michael-brown-race-and-ethnicity-education-95e50f0400055d331ffa3d84d5e43a14.
  3. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-1-412; David Lohr, This Is Why Another Confederate Statue Won’t Come Down In Tennessee, Huffington Post (May 31, 2018), https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tennessee-confederate-statues_n_5b0f1b77e4b05ef4c2 2a7796 (“The move angered many of the state’s lawmakers, the majority of whom are white, including Republican state Rep. Steve McDaniel, who made it clear the majority-black and Democratic city of Memphis had to be punished.”); Adrian Sainz, Workers Begin Removing Forrest Remains from Tennessee Park, Associated Press (June 1, 2021), https://apnews.com/article/tennessee-race-and-ethnicity-8ec48e4881368beb45a84dffb3b7d5be.
  4. Mark J. Stegmaier, “A Law that Would Make Caligula Blush?: New Mexico’s Unique Slave Code, 1859-1861,” New Mexico Historical Review 87, no. 2 (2012): 209-242, at 214, https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmhr/vol87/iss2/3.
  5. Id. at 210.
  6. “Civil War Years,” in Immigration and Relocation in U.S. History, (Library of Congress), https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/immigration/native-american/civil-war-years.
  7. Id.; see also Megan Kate Nelson, “The Civil War Wasn’t Just About the Union and the Confederacy. Native Americans Played a Role Too,” Time Magazine, February 11, 2020, https://time.com/5781480/three-cornered-war-excerpt/.
  8. Orrin Grey, “The Brutal and Bloody History of the Apache Wars,” The Archive, September 28, 2023, https://explorethearchive.com/apache-wars.
  9. Ivan Pereira, “Santa Fe Obelisk Toppled During Indigenous People’s Day Protest,” ABC News, October 13, 2020, https://abcnews.go.com/US/santa-fe-obelisk-toppled-indigenous-peoples-day-protest/story?id=73589990.
  10. Brady Wakayama, “2 Arrests Made in Toppling of Santa Fe Obelisk,” KRQE, October 13, 2020, https://www.krqe.com/news/protests/controversial-obelisk-in-santa-fe-plaza-torn-down/.
  11. City of Santa Fe, Resolution No. 2021-6, adopted June 2, 2021.
  12. Valerie Martinez, Jenice Gharib, and Alexis Kaminsky, “Culture, History, Art, Reconciliation, and Truth, Final Report,” Artful Life, 2022, https://santafenm.gov/CHART_Final_Report-compressed.pdf.
  13. Carina Julig, “New Council Cites Desire to Tackle ‘Scarlet Letter’ of Obelisk,” Santa Fe New Mexican, August 14, 2024, https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/new-council-cites-desire-to-tackle-scarlet-letter-of-obelisk/article_eb6326b2-ac31-11ee-aa47-2f13db845e40.html.
  14. Gabe Chavez, “Santa Fe Obelisk’s Future to be Addressed by New City Council,” KRQE, January 16, 2024, https://www.krqe.com/news/new-mexico/santa-fe-obelisks-future-to-be-addressed-by-new-city-council/.
  15. Carina Julig, “First Look at Obelisk Rubble: Santa Fe Group Shares Photos of Soldiers’ Monument Fragments,” Santa Fe New Mexican, May 17, 2025, https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/first-look-at-obelisk-rubble-santa-fe-group-shares-photos-of-soldiers-monument-fragments/article_c8a1b103-3c0c-4831-ad69-4e7106d3666b.html.

License

Icon for the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Symbols and Public Spaces Amid Division Copyright © 2025 by Divided Community Project is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.