June 11 – The Santa Fe City Council has agreed to spend nearly half a million dollars on legal representation to fight a lawsuit seeking the restoration of the toppled Plaza obelisk.
Costs could continue to rise above the more than $454,000 approved so far for an outside law firm as the civil case – brought by Union Protectíva de Santa Fé against the city and mayor Alan Webber – will appear in court as planned in September.
“Ideally, we would get summary judgment, which would keep the case from going to trial,” said City Attorney Erin McSherry.
Union Protectíva President Virgil Vigil, one of Webber’s fiercest critics, said in an interview Tuesday: “The city is paying a lot of money for this.”
Known as the Soldiers’ Monument, the obelisk was built in the late 1860s to honor Civil War Union soldiers who died on the battlefields of New Mexico.
One inscription on the monument’s base also dedicated it to American soldiers who died fighting “savage Indians” — language that drew criticism for decades, even after the word “savage” was scratched out in the 1970s. The obelisk was toppled by protesters on Indigenous Peoples’ Day in 2020 amid a nationwide movement calling for racial justice.
Union Protectíva, a Spanish fraternal organization, sued the city and Webber in district court in June 2021, accusing Webber of violating state historic preservation rules by calling for the obelisk’s removal a year earlier, just months before it was overthrown.
The mayor’s call to remove the obelisk and two other controversial monuments in the city came as indigenous activists were planning a protest at the Plaza. Only one of them – a statue of Spanish conqueror Don Diego de Vargas – was removed from public property in June 2020. An attempt to dismantle the Plaza obelisk that month was halted when a crew damaged the top of the monument; an obelisk on federal land honoring Kit Carson remained standing.
While the costs of the lawsuit continue to rise, the obelisk has been preserved in pieces, and the base is approaching its fourth year, encased in a large wooden box in the center of the Plaza.
Meanwhile, the Kit Carson Monument, also encased in a wooden box to protect it, was damaged in August 2023. No one has been charged with the crime.
A trial date for the lawsuit has been set for September 9, with a pre-trial conference on July 22.
Although the city wants to avoid a lawsuit, Kenneth Stalter, an attorney representing Union Protectíva, said he believes it is “highly likely” the case will go to trial.
Both sides were initially ordered by a judge to negotiate through mediation, an attempt that was unsuccessful.
In addition to representation by the city’s attorneys, Webber and the city are represented by outside attorneys from the Modrall Sperling law firm. In December, the City Council approved an increase in the company’s contract by $40,000, bringing the total to about $324,000.
McSherry said that would be enough to get the city through the discovery phase of the civil case, an evidence-sharing process.
At its last meeting on May 29, the council approved an addition of $120,000, bringing the contract total to $454,000.
It is unclear how far that money will go. A memo asking for a contract increase said the cost of a full trial “will depend on numerous factors.”
McSherry said the increase could be enough to get through the pilot phase.
The city has filed several motions in the case, including a request to dismiss the lawsuit in the months after it was filed. A judge denied the request in January 2022.
A more recent motion seeks summary judgment and another challenges one of Union Protectíva’s expert witnesses.
Vigil declined to say how much his organization has spent on the lawsuit so far.
“It’s not a big change, I’ll say that,” he said.
However, Vigil said the organization is “financially strong” and its members have agreed to spend “whatever is necessary to protect our history, culture and traditions.”
Former Santa Fe County Treasurer Pat Varela told The New Mexican in 2020 that the organization had an estimated $14 million in real estate. Vigil said Tuesday that the organization invests most of its money in real estate and recently purchased a building for $400,000.
One of Union Protectíva’s main responsibilities is to help pay for the funerals of its members when they die. Vigil said the organization had hoped to increase the amount of funeral expenses it covers, but has put that goal on hold while the lawsuit is pending.
“If we win, we will, because the city will pay back everything and more,” he said.
During a statement in February, Webber said he turned to Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham for advice, and she recommended he do nothing to address the growing conflict over the obelisk. Lujan Grisham sharply criticized his description of her involvement after details of the statement were published in The New Mexican.
“She threw him under a bus and ran him over a few times,” Vigil said.
The city’s legal fees are in addition to the $254,000 it paid to contractor Artful Life in 2021 for a yearlong process of gathering input on how to move forward with the obelisk and other public monuments and artworks that have caused cultural conflict . The process has led to several recommendations, but few actions have been taken.
Councilman Michael Garcia said he and other council members have a resolution with the Attorney General’s Office directing staff to determine ownership of the obelisk — an issue that arose when Webber called for its removal.
Garcia said city staff told him several years ago that the city did not own the monument.
However, McSherry said the city took ownership of the obelisk in the early 20th century and she does not believe there is any confusion about its ownership.
“The territorial legislature bought it, put it on federal land, and the feds gave us the land,” she said.
There were cutouts for some other buildings, including the federal courthouse, “but there was no cutout for anything on the Plaza,” she said.
There are no documents showing the state believes he owns the property, she added.
A 2023 city council resolution calling for the obelisk to be restored in an updated form was withdrawn after much criticism.
Garcia said he was not aware of plans for new legislation regarding the obelisk, but said taking action on the monument is “the next step” for the council after deciding on two controversial statues.
The city announced plans last month to place a city sculpture depicting runners from the 1680 Pueblo Revolt, which has never before been displayed, outside the Santa Fe Community Convention Center and to restore the De Vargas statue temporarily in the New Mexico History Museum until a more permanent exhibition. location is chosen.
A resolution on the plan was submitted to the city council on May 29, when a number of people spoke out in disagreement. The resolution will be voted on Wednesday evening.
Vigil said it is likely that some members of his organization will appear at Wednesday’s meeting to speak, but the group believes the measure has enough votes to pass and does not expect that to change.
