Dorchester County burial‑site board to review Chapter 63, expand outreach and finalize appointments

The Dorchester County Burial Site Preservation Board met for about an hour and agreed to begin a line‑by‑line review of County Code Chapter 63 (burial site preservation), expand public outreach and education, and finalize a plan for communications and board appointments.

Board members said the review of Chapter 63 is intended to update contact procedures, incorporate state references where required and clarify the board’s role. “We need to review it with a very fine eye,” said Dorothy Samaniske, board member, urging members to note outdated language and sections that should be updated or removed. Members said the chapter appears to have been adopted in 2015 and last revised in 2017, and asked staff to confirm the official revision history.

The board agreed to use the county’s main web and social channels rather than create an independent page. Kelly, the county administrative liaison assigned to support the board, said she monitors the county cemetery inbox during weekdays and can coordinate posts: “I monitor it all day every day, Monday through Friday. I check it multiple times a day,” Kelly said. Members asked Kelly to work with county communications and legal staff (Jerry) to prepare an approved social‑media post that lists meeting dates, contact information and how to report damaged sites.

Members approved the minutes from the previous meeting; the minutes and a signature sheet will be circulated and scanned for the public record. The board also set recurring meeting dates through October and said it will skip a July meeting to accommodate vacations.

On communications and intake, members confirmed an intake form already exists but was never formally approved by the board. The form will be incorporated into the Chapter 63 review and presented for the board’s approval. Board members discussed how reports should be handled: the public can submit the form directly, staff will record submissions, and volunteers will be used to document reported damage before referrals to police or the state’s attorney when appropriate. Kelly said she can set up an Outlook auto‑forward for the monitored county account if the board requests it, but a proposed separate Gmail account for the board was deemed unnecessary and the board recommended eliminating the duplicate address.

The board discussed outreach and education as a priority. Members asked the county liaison to invite the regional coalition led by Eileen McGuckin to present best practices and training; the coalition has offered to provide guidance and to attend a June, August or September meeting. The coalition’s site and the Trader Foundation (traderfoundationmt.org) were noted as resources; the foundation appears to provide small grants or funding opportunities for individual burial‑site repair projects, according to the coalition’s website.

Members also discussed incorporating burial‑site records into county planning and zoning processes so sites are captured during surveys, resubdivisions or land transfers. Eric (board member) and others noted that surveyors and county planning staff may be the first to notice a previously recorded site and that having the location in public records will aid long‑term preservation.

Board business included continuing outreach to recruit three open seats and a request that the board chair be copied on future appointment letters or notifications so the board is aware of new appointees. Members asked Kelly to check county practices with Jerry about whether letters of appointment and letters of interest can be shared with the board before council action.

Members proposed fall field trips and public demonstrations on basic care and documentation of historic stones, and discussed producing a short informational video and photographs for the county website and social channels pending county approval. The board asked volunteers to draft a field‑trip plan for September–November and to coordinate logistics with county staff.

The meeting concluded with directions to staff to (1) confirm Chapter 63’s revision history and circulate the code, (2) incorporate and circulate the existing intake form for review, (3) coordinate an outreach post via the county’s main social channels after legal review, (4) invite the coalition to attend a summer meeting, and (5) continue recruitment for three open seats. The minutes were approved and the meeting was adjourned.