Guilford Courthouse Administrative History

Over the years vandalism has been the most common form of criminal behavior encountered at Guilford Courthouse NMP. Vandalism was a continuing problem that reached its peak in the 1940s and 1950s when the community was relatively rural and the park lacked a law enforcement capability. Incidents declined dramatically in the early 1970s when gates were erected making it possible to close significant elements of the facility's road system at night. This process was completed when New Garden Road was closed and a one-way tour route was constructed, thereby eliminating nighttime traffic from park regions that had been historically susceptible to vandalism.

The post-World War II period when, with the lifting of rationing restrictions Americans took to the roads in unprecedented numbers, initiated a challenging era when park staff were hard put to protect the area's historic structures from vandals who drove into the facility under cover of darkness and used their vehicles to topple monuments, uproot signs, and plow furrows in lawns. Prior to this period damage to historic features generally had been limited to souvenir hunters prying cast bronze letters from the Nathanael Greene Monument and occasional accidents when vehicles collided with monuments that were positioned too close to New Garden Road. Local law enforcement authorities seemed unable or unwilling to intercede even in proprietary jurisdiction cases, and the park's only defense consisted of occasional night patrols by the resident superintendent. Such incidents began to decline in the early to mid-1950s, perhaps indicative of the approach of suburban development and the 1956 purchase of a second park house whose occupant was available for more regular night patrols. [1]

Other notable instances of criminal behavior included a January 1949 break-in at the visitor center that resulted in the theft of a Civil War sword and a small amount of cash. The FBI investigated but no arrests were made. During a two-month dry spell in March to May 1966 an arsonist set several fires in the park. The FBI and State foresters investigated, but no arrests were made. In fact there is no indication that any crime against park property has ever been solved. Finally, in the period 1978 to 1980 the area became a favored hangout for drug-users, inebriates and truants. This latter phase was inaugurated when the Greensboro Country Park, responding to citizen complaints that it had become "the local hangout for every teenager with a car," closed its road system to motorized vehicles on weekends. This action immediately improved the "family atmosphere" of the Country Park, but it had a negative effect on the National Military Park. One angry taxpayer complained in a letter to Sixth District Congressman L. Richardson Preyer, "The problem the City had did not disappear; it simply moved over to the battlefield...." [2]

After an initial period of uncertainty, the park's two-person law enforcement staff began a campaign of vigorous enforcement of all applicable Federal regulations. This had the desired effect, and by the mid-1980s the park had assumed a more traditional atmosphere, where the enforcement of traffic regulations became the focal point of law enforcement activities. [3]

The seriousness of traffic control problems should not be underestimated in a park whose roads carry fourteen thousand vehicles per day. A 1991 study indicated that the average speed of traffic on Old Battleground and New Garden Roads was forty-eight per cent higher than the posted limits, and serious accidents were not uncommon at their intersections with the park tour route. Park capacity to deal with this and other related problems was limited by the small size of the two-person commissioned staff, and by the fact that collateral duties reduced their time to engage in law enforcement activities. These problems have been ameliorated since the 1984 reclassification as concurrent jurisdictions of all National Park property in North Carolina, and a resulting Memorandum of Understanding that permits local police to assist the park. [4]

In the spirit of cooperation that should typify relations between cooperating governmental agencies, park management raised no objection when the 1989-90 Greater Greensboro telephone directory was issued. The cover illustration of this commercial publication was a color photograph of the Greensboro Police Department Color Guard standing in formation before the imposing equestrian figure of the Nathanael Greene Monument. Printed beneath was the caption: "Greensboro Police Department 1889-1989 100 Years of Service." This photograph was apparently made in the summer of 1988 without the knowledge of park staff. As the most recognizable image associated with the city that bears the General's name, it was not surprising that the Greensboro Police Department would choose to have this formal portrait made with the Greene Monument as its backdrop. The fact that this shot graced the cover of the telephone directory assured its widespread circulation in the community. [5]

At 0705 on the morning of 5 July 1989 the park's lead law enforcement officer, Chief Ranger Charles A. Taylor, received a report at Residence #2 that several monuments had been damaged. Investigating he discovered that six monuments had been savagely vandalized. The Joseph Morehead, George Reynolds, Henry Dixon, Joseph Winston, William Hooper - John Penn, and Nathanael Greene Monuments had been struck repeatedly by an instrument later identified as a mason's hammer. This specialized tool, applied forcefully to the monuments, had efficiently lopped off granite corners and edges, and gouged divots in flat surfaces. This same instrument was used to poke thirty holes in the bronze figure of Joseph Morehead. Three monuments were marked with black, spray-painted graffiti.

Most of the attacker's wrath was devoted to the Nathanael Greene Monument. More than one thousand blows hewed off every corner and edge of its granite base. The extent of the damage is indicated by the fact that fifty-six of the structure's sixty-eight granite blocks were so severely damaged that they had to be replaced. Sixty cast-bronze letters were broken or bent. The remaining stonework was covered with graffiti that obscenely parodied the caption of that year's telephone directory cover photograph. Similar injuries were inflicted on the Hooper - Penn Monument, erected as a memorial to North Carolina's signers of the Declaration of Independence and containing the remains of William Hooper and John Penn. The Major Joseph Winston Monument was likewise defaced. The other three structures suffered damage to stonework or bronze features, but were spared the graffiti.

After securing the areas involved, Chief Ranger Taylor summoned assistance. The FBI declined to respond. The Greensboro Police Department (GPD) did respond, and ultimately the FBI joined the investigation at the GPD's request. Because of the graffiti's character, suspicion soon focused on individuals who might to feel aggrieved by the GPD. Working from this premise, with physical evidence collected at the scene and reports of a suspicious vehicle parked in the area during a portion of the 2230 to 0704 timeframe when the event was believed to have occurred, suspects were identified. Notwithstanding the efforts of local and Federal law enforcement agencies and a sizable cash reward offered by a local philanthropic organization, no indictments were returned and no arrests were made. In this sense the Greene Monument vandalism case was no different than any of the other crimes against property that had occurred in the park. [6]

As bad as this incident was, it did rally the community in support of the park. The Nathanael Greene Monument was and is this community's most recognizable symbol, its icon. It is probably no exaggeration to say that virtually anyone who had lived in Greensboro since the monument's 1915 dedication had fond memories of this imposing structure. General Greene's bronze equestrian figure had overseen uncounted picnics, weddings, concerts, historical commemorations, speeches, and impromptu athletic events. Every child born in Greensboro since 1915 seems to have been photographed on or around this monument. Generations of school classes had been bussed out to gaze upon it. Scores of area businesses incorporated its shape into their signs, trademarks, and letterheads. For years its recognizable form was the major element of the City of Greensboro's seal.

The people of Greensboro interpreted this sacrilege as both an affront and a challenge to their civic pride. The city's preeminent leader, bank president and former mayor E.S. Melvin, orchestrated a community-wide fund-raising effort to restore the monument to its former glory. With the cooperation of local media and the city's leading philanthropic institution, The Foundation Of Greater Greensboro, more than one hundred fifty thousand dollars were raised from 1,495 donors. In turn, these funds were placed at the disposal of the National Park Service for the restoration effort. [7]

Park managers, until the night of the vandals, were busily engaged in planning a reenactment of the Greene Monument's 1915 dedication that would have been performed on the seventy-fifth anniversary of that event, 3 July 1990. As of 5 July 1989, they found themselves cast as stage managers of a much more complex production. Performers would be cast from a swelling chorus of contractors who were attracted by the well-publicized success of the fund-raising effort. Direction would be supplied by the Southeast Regional Office of the National Park Service, ready to lend support and technical expertise in fields ranging from historic architecture to contract administration. The entire production would be performed before a local audience of paying customers who were plainly anxious to see the curtain rise and the damage undone.

Early on it was decided that the restoration would be pursued in two stages. Park management was assigned responsibility for overseeing repairs to the five smaller, less severely damaged structures. The much more complicated, more costly task of restoring the Nathanael Greene Monument would be handled at the regional level.

The park solicited proposals to repair the five monuments from contractors who had expressed interest in the project. A key element of this solicitation was the requirement that the successful bidder must have access to Mount Airy granite of the type used in the original construction. Only one such proposal was received, from Granite Industries Incorporated (GII) of Mount Airy, North Carolina. President Charles C. Blackmon of GII submitted estimates totalling $12,903 to repair the damaged stonework on the Hooper - Penn, Winston, Dixon and Reynolds monuments. Repairs to the damaged Morehead statue were contracted to van der Staak Restorations of Seagrove, North Carolina. Preexisting damages to the Winston and Hooper - Penn statuary, as well as the Greene Monument's allegorical figure, were also entrusted to van der Staak. The stonework repair and replacement was completed and accepted by the park in the summer of 1990. The Foundation Of Greater Greensboro issued a check to GII in the amount of $12,903.20. [8]

Park management was well-pleased with GII's work and delighted to have some tangible evidence that the community's donations were being put to good use. The sense of relief occasioned by the return of these structures may have inclined management to be a bit uncritical of the finished products. There was no side-by-side comparison of original and replacement granite, but reference to photographs indicated that at least one structure, the Henry Dixon Monument, did not match the original in size or detail. Another critical flaw became apparent within a few years. The sloping top of this memorial had affixed to it a bronze plaque that described the heroic exploits and tragic death of Lieutenant Colonel Dixon. Over time it became apparent that this stone was flawed as a patch immediately below the plaque began to erode, exposing a crater six inches in diameter in the granite's surface. This brought to mind another incident that had been dismissed at the time. On the day the Major Joseph Winston Monument was reassembled, the GII crew inverted its capstone, making the structure appear something like a large mushroom. By chance, park interpreters recognized this error and reported it to management in time for correction. Taken in the aggregate these incidents and developments should have raised doubts regarding GII's ability to perform exacting historic preservation work. That they did not suggests that judgments as to the acceptability of such work should be made by individuals with professional competence in historic architecture. Park staff had no such expertise and should not have rendered such judgments. The outcome also indicates that such projects should not be undertaken without explicit contractual specifications to guarantee the historical accuracy of the work.

Meanwhile on the more expansive Greene Monument front, one bit of good fortune that would advance the restoration was discovered within a few days of the vandalism. The quarry that had supplied the granite for the Nathanael Greene Monument was still in business under the name North Carolina Granite Corporation (NCG). This meant that there should be no difficulty in obtaining in-kind replacements for historic materials as needed.

Park management recommended that a single-source contract should be issued to NCG to supply the materials and perform the restoration. Discussions were held between Regional Office of Historic Architecture (OHA) and Contracting officials as to the best means of approach for this significant undertaking. There was some concern that the project be completed as expeditiously as possible so as not to disappoint the generous people of Greensboro. There was also interest in having the regional Historic Preservation Crew (OHA) involved in the process so they could acquire experience in the restoration of granite statuary. Questions were raised as to whether NCG was in fact the sole source of the type granite required to match the historic fabric. The Contractor's Technical Representative (COTR) from OHA indicated "he could not be sure that the granite could only be obtained from this one quarry." This opinion, combined with the belief that "it would delay the project to[o] long to go to Washington for a clearance for sole source," led the regional authorities to conclude that it would be best to handle this project as a supply contract open to competitive bidding. The regional Historic Preservation Crew would be charged with dismantling and reassembling the monument with materials to be supplied by the successful bidder, who in turn would be required to transport the original materials from the park to his/her place of business. There the historic fabric and its identifying markings were to be carefully preserved so the COTR could make side-by-side comparisons to insure that the replacement granite was identical to the original.

Considerable but unsuccessful efforts were made to secure original plans for the monument. Without such documentation the historic materials assumed even greater significance as templates by which the restoration's accuracy could be evaluated. The fact that such judgments would be made by an experienced representative of the regional Office of Historic Architecture suggested that the sort of errors that had plagued the restoration of the smaller Guilford structures should be avoided in the case of the Nathanael Greene Monument. On paper this was a much better arrangement to insure the accuracy of the restoration work, as well as the integrity of the original materials removed from the monument. [9]

Solicitation For Bids IFB 5000-90-13 was issued 6 December 1989. The original due date of 8 January 1990 was extended twice because of technical errors in the bid solicitation. Bids were finally opened on 30 January 1990. Two proposals had been received. As expected, NCG submitted a bid totalling $136,092.13. This sum was in excess of the Government's pre-award estimate of $118,953. A second tender in the amount of $77,816 was received from an Atlanta-based company, Historical Restoration and Preservation, Incorporated (HRPI). The disparity in these proposals was remarkable. The Contracting Officer performed an admittedly superficial pre-award survey. It was found that HRPI was essentially a new enterprise (incorporated October 1989) with no established track record and boasting a "three figure" bank balance. President John Indelicato of HRPI verified his bid. On questioning Indelicato explained that his overhead was low and that his subcontractor, Granite Industries Incorporated of Mount Airy, North Carolina, had a stockpile of suitable granite thereby reducing additional expenditures required for materials. This was the same company that was engaged in the smaller monument repairs at Guilford Courthouse. Park management reported that there had been no problems in the performance of that as yet unfinished restoration program.

The Contracting Officer concluded:

Considering the limited information available, and because we could find no reason for not awarding HRPI the contract, we felt it was in the best interest of the Government to make an award to HRPI. Award was made on 20 February 1990, in the amount of $77,816.00.

The contractually specified completion date was 15 September 1990. [10]

The Historic Preservation crew arrived in Greensboro the first week of the new year 1990 and began disassembly of the Nathanael Greene Monument. This had been projected as a two week task, but bad weather delayed completion until 26 January. [11] Soon after the date of award, representatives of subcontractor Charles C. Blackmon's Granite Industries Incorporated appeared at the park and removed five hundred ninety-six cubic feet of stone to their Mount Airy factory. Seven working days later, HRPI submitted an invoice in the amount of $12,279.00 to cover transportation of granite from Greensboro to Mount Airy, as well as purchase and fabrication of five hundred eighteen cubic feet of new, "straight edge[d]" granite. Federal Acquisitions Regulations (52.232-1) permit partial payments to the contractor upon submission of "proper invoices for the prices stipulated in the contract bid schedule for the supplies delivered and accepted." Point of delivery and acceptance was specified by the contract as Guilford Courthouse NMP. Park management objected and requested that granite deliveries to the park be forestalled until the entire five hundred ninety-six cubic feet could be shipped. This request was made in the name of security for the new materials. The Contracting Officer referred this question to the contractor who was happy to make this accommodation because it would reduce his shipping costs. No contract modification was issued to reflect this change. The COTR recommended and the Contracting Officer approved payment to HRPI in the amount of their invoice, $12,279.00. To cover this transaction The Foundation Of Greater Greensboro issued a check in the same amount to the National Park Service. [12]

Significantly, this payment was made based solely on the contractor's claim that the specified material had been purchased and was in conformity with the contract's specifications. The press of other business kept the COTR from making a prepayment inspection. In retrospect, the contracting officer in this case asserted that the Federal Acquisition Regulations (52.246-2) specifically note that Government's failure to perform such review of materials does not relieve the contractor of his/her contractual obligations. Some sort of prepayment inspection seemed called for in this case, however, given that the contractor was an unknown quantity, that his agent had custody of historic materials, and that payments to him were made with donated funds. This initial failure to inspect and approve the materials established a pattern indicative of either remarkable official naivete or negligence. Three additional payments of donated funds totalling $45,184.00 were made prior to the COTR's first material inspection. This trip was made at the behest of park management who had visited the subcontractor's shop and there discovered a number of irregularities with regard to the handling and storage of historic materials. [13]

Representatives of park management had occasionally made the seventy-mile journey to Mount Airy to visit the subcontractor's shop. Early on they reported that "it looked as if the project was progressing." When it became clear that they were the only NPS officials who were inclined to make this trip, they actually questioned whether they were expected to make measurements of the granite supplied. They were assured that they were not expected to do so. Approval of the materials supplied was solely within the purview of the COTR and Contracting Officer. [14]

Among the key contractual obligations imposed upon HRPI was the necessity of protecting the original materials removed from the Nathanael Greene Monument, and preserving the identifying markings applied to each piece by the regional preservation crew. Each new piece of granite was to be approved only after side-by-side comparison with the original it would replace. Park managers began to note on their occasional visits that pieces of original granite were being cut into smaller sizes, some for use in the restoration and others for uses that had no apparent connection with the project. These concerns were relayed to the COTR by telephone with no apparent effect. It was only when these observations were buttressed by a videotape made at the subcontractor's facility that regional authorities responded.

On 18 October 1990 the COTR conducted an initial "inventory and inspection of original and replacement stones for the Greene Monument." The disheartening results of this appraisal were contained in a 23 October 1990 trip report. The contractor was found to have "misplaced and cut original stones of the monument." Forty per cent of the five hundred ninety-six cubic feet of original granite removed to the site could not be located. Two per cent of the remaining original material had been recut to smaller sizes. Although the contractor had submitted invoices and been paid for the purchase of the entire five hundred ninety-six cubic feet of stone, only one hundred sixteen cubic feet were actually on hand. Of this total only sixty-seven cubic feet matched the dimensions of the original stone to be replaced. In order to fulfill his obligations, the contractor would have to account for all of the original materials entrusted to him, purchase or otherwise obtain five hundred twenty-nine cubic feet of new matching stone, carve all required "Greek frets, wreaths and reliefs in stones to match the originals," and provide brass clamps and dowels to match the monument's original hardware. [15]

There was little likelihood the contractor could fulfill his obligations. The earlier regional determination that the North Carolina Granite Corporation could not be classified a sole source was, as a matter of practicality, in error. The contractor was unable to locate alternative sources that could supply stone of the color or quality required by the contract. This need not have been an insuperable obstacle to the project's successful completion, except for the fact that NCG refused to deal with the parties to the contract. NCG had been an unsuccessful bidder and was not inclined to advance the fortunes of the winner. Further complicating the issue was the fact that the subcontractor, a minor local competitor of the established quarry, had a bad credit rating with NCG stemming from previous failures to pay for granite received. Although NCG later relented (in response to unfavorable media attention) to the extent that they would sell granite to the contractor on a strict cash and carry basis, they consistently refused to deal with the subcontractor. [16]

Regional officials made every effort to assist the delinquent contractor in meeting his commitments. After gaining NCG's assent to sell stone to HRPI, a sixty-day contract extension was granted for the period 13 May to 11 July 1991. Although the originally specified completion date was 15 September 1990, this was the only modification issued. [17] Incredibly, two additional payments totalling $10,343 were made to the contractor in response to unsupported claims that these sums were required to complete the project. These payments were made without the endorsement of the COTR. [18] In spite of these extraordinary efforts, little progress was made toward the project's completion. An inspection, only the second performed in consequence of this contract, was made on 9 April 1991. It concluded that in several critical areas "the contract has actually regressed." Specifically, more of the original stone had been "reused, misplaced or stolen." Only half of the historic granite remained, a third of that had been broken or cut, and almost three-quarters had lost identifying marks. Of the newly purchased stone, only half was on hand. Three quarters of this material was not cut to required sizes and shapes. None had the required finish and none of the relief carving had been executed. A third and final inspection to evaluate "mandatory performance" as defined by the contract extension was performed on 28 June 1991. As of this date only seventy per cent of the required new materials were on hand, forty-five per cent was cut to appropriate sizes, thirteen per cent of the relief carving had been executed, and just nine per cent of the stones had the required finish. [19] The contract was finally terminated for default on 24 July 1991. [20]

Not surprisingly, regional media and contributors to the preservation effort were not amused. Former Greensboro mayor and point man in the fund raising effort, E.S. Melvin, spoke for the community.

Someone owes us some straight talk. The public trust is very much at stake. We gave the Park Service the money in good faith and we want execution. We could have had the statue back in place in six months. It's probably a good thing the National Park Service wasn't fighting the battle of Guilford Courthouse. [21]

Local editorialists sounded a similar theme. "If this isn't bureaucratic bungling at its worst, we don't know what is." NPS spokesmen could do little more than express institutional discomfiture. "The project is dead in the water. It's very embarrassing." Pressed to defend the Service's original decision to award the contract to an unknown low-bidder, a public affairs officer concluded: "Hindsight tells us we did the wrong thing. It's an embarrassing mess." [22]

NPS officials were determined to get it right the second time around. The contract was re-advertised. Applicable regulations mandated that in such cases bids could be accepted only from individuals or entities that had made unsuccessful submissions for the original contract. Only NCG met this definition. Accordingly NCG received the new contract in the amount of $130,548.59, for "Supply and Fabrication of Stone for Repair of the Greene Monument," effective 30 August 1991. NCG was allowed one hundred work days from the official starting date of 10 September 1991 to present all the specified materials at Guilford Courthouse NMP for inspection and acceptance. The only significant divergence from the original contract was the requirement that NCG post a one hundred per cent performance bond. [23]

Responding to local concerns regarding expenditures on the terminated contract, park management conveyed Southeast Region's assurances that any "funds which may be needed to complete restoration of the General Nathanael Greene Monument . . . in excess of the $77,816.00 already obligated through donated funds, will be the responsibility of the National Park Service." [24] This was not literally the case. The Service did finance the new granite supply contract, but an additional $55,216.57 in donated funds were expended directly for Greene Monument repair costs, including replacement of damaged bronze letters, mounting letters, and landscaping repairs for lawns damaged by heavy equipment. An additional $29,658.57 was applied to ancillary expenses, including an alarm system, lights, repairs to brick walkways, and hazardous tree removal. [25]

Superintendent Willard W. Danielson retired in October 1990 after forty-two years of Government service, including twenty-three years at Guilford Courthouse NMP. His retirement preceded by a few weeks the discovery of the irregularities that ultimately led to the first supply contract's termination. Chief Ranger Charles A. Taylor served as Acting Superintendent for a critical five-month period while first efforts were made to bring the original contractor into compliance with his obligations. New Superintendent Mark H. Woods entered on duty 10 March 1991. Woods's reputation as a "problem solver" was put to the test in mediating between the claims of the concerned local parties and an "embarrassed" regional directorate. [26] Woods quickly concluded that the initial failure was rooted in a lack of oversight of the contractor and determined that this error would not be repeated. During the course of the second contract weekly trips were made by park staff, periodically accompanied by the COTR, to NCG's shop to evaluate progress. NCG made short work of its task. The contract was completed, the materials were transported to the park, and the regional Historic Preservation Crew reconstructed the monument in time for a 19 April 1992 unveiling.

The final accounting for the restoration of the six vandalized Guilford Courthouse monuments showed total expenditures of $251,786.01. $220,707.81 of this total, almost $90,000 more than the original high bid, was consumed by the Nathanael Greene Monument repairs. Donations amounted to $150,296.62, while the NPS covered the balance of $101,489.39. As this history is written, the Government is bringing a civil action against Historic Restoration and Preservation, Inc., for recovery of $53,075 in reprocurement and overpayment costs. [27]

Anxious to avoid similar disasters in the future, key players at the park, and regional Contracting and Historic Architecture offices wrote critiques of the Greene Monument restoration process. Superintendent Woods attributed the "problem" to "lack of communication between personnel, divisions, and the park." He concluded that the weak link in this communications chain was the park.

While this contract was awarded by the contracting office, and technical support was provided by the historic architect division, it was imperative that the park play a pivotal role in assuring that the contractor's performance was at an acceptable level.

He recommended that in future such collaborative efforts should involve "a minimum of bi-weekly contacts" between the principles, with the superintendent taking "lead responsibility in assuring that all facets of the job meet established standards, and that the aforementioned contacts are maintained." [28]

The Contracting Officer attributed the original primary contractor's failure to his inability to obtain granite. The likelihood of such impending difficulties might have been foreseen had the Government performed an "in depth pre-award survey." Other debits on the Government's ledger included insufficient site visits by contracting representatives, and poor "administration in telephone calls and dates." Not included among the conclusions but frequently cited as contributing factors were high turnover and excessive workload in the Contracting Division, as well as a certain erroneous expectation that "supply contracts do not require that much administration." [29]

The Chief of the Historic Architecture Division drew up a list of eight "important lessons we learned in the course of this effort." Half related to the necessity of providing adequate oversight, particularly in cases involving donated funds. One-quarter were contracting concerns, including the requirement that payment be made only after receipt of supplies, and the advisibility of thoroughly investigating the credentials of low bidders. The remainder were essentially motivational aphorisms. [30]

It is difficult to take exception to the consensus view that the array of problems encountered in the Greene Monument restoration were attributable to a general lack of oversight. What occurred here was a virtual worst case scenario in which NPS management at every level failed to exercise appropriate accountability for a historic object. Aside from the fact that this process involved apparent violations of a number of statutes by contractor, subcontractor, and regional functionaries, this case should suggest to all small park managers the absolute necessity of serving as aggressive advocates for their areas. Although the national parks collectively are known as "America's crown jewels," in real life the largest gems invariably attract greatest attention. Larger, better known parks will naturally attract greater funding, as well as a perhaps disproportionate share of management attention. This can be dangerous for a small site like Guilford Courthouse. Even an unparalleled vandalism incident may be quickly forgotten by a regional staff with responsibilities overspreading fifty or more areas. Park managers can not allow this to happen. Guilford Courthouse management either allowed this to happen, or were unable to prevent its occurrence.

The suggestion has been made previously (in consideration of the Lawndale Drive widening proposal) that local management did not enjoy the confidence of Southeast Region's directorate, thereby rendering them ineffective as park advocates. Nothing found in the foregoing evidence contradicts that judgment. In fact it appears that park management's influence may have declined still further over the torturous course of the restoration. Early in April 1990, Superintendent Danielson was hospitalized for major surgery. The effects of this illness precipitated his retirement on 31 October 1990. Chief Ranger Charles A. Taylor essentially functioned as superintendent until Superintendent Woods entered on duty 24 March 1991. Long Distance Telephone Logs for this period indicate that in the period early April to late August 1990, Taylor made regular calls at three-week intervals to the Historic Architecture Division's office. Taylor characterizes these calls as inquiries regarding the status of the restoration effort. At the same time, the logs bear out the assertion that planning was proceeding for a 4 October 1990 rededication of the restored monument. This ceremony's scheduling was predicated upon the successful completion of the contract by the specified 15 September 1990 date. As time grew short Taylor traveled to Mount Airy to inspect the work for himself. Finding the project seriously disarrayed he placed a total of of twenty-six calls to the regional Contracting and Historic Architecture divisions in the following seven weeks before the COTR arrived to perform his initial inspection. [31]

The implication is clear that park management was trying to alert the responsible regional authorities. That these warnings were not acted upon certainly suggests that no one was listening. This being the case park managers should have referred their concerns to higher authorities, such as the chiefs of the involved divisions. That they did not is indicative of the same passivity that characterized the park's response to the area's rapid urbanization. Such inertia, when combined with the indifference displayed by regional officials during the Greene Monument restoration, can spell disaster for this small park.