This isn't the only blog post from the professor on this subject - I read his entries from before and after his Oct 2020 post, which gives an even more troubling pattern of Enrichmond's downward spiral.

"I’d argue there is a lot of context missing and assumptions made by an author trying to sell books with sensationalism while simultaneously working for an institution that has played one of the strongest hands in desecrating African trial grounds and done little to nothing to right their wrongs." 

Don't tenured-tract and/or tenured university professors have to publish (e.g., books)? In turn, isn't one of the components in publishing a book to sell the book? I attended the reading of this public history professor's book at Chop Suey a few years back, it was eye-opening (but not surprising) to learn the heavy and far-reaching impact of how racial segregation shaped laws, architecture, city planning, businesses, etc. of Richmond. Interesting juxtaposition you make about people employed by an entity that has a long history of wrongdoing and lacking empathy or willingness to correct their wrongs. I guess this can be applied elsewhere, too...

"This is misleading. Enrichmond asked the FOEE to sign waivers while working at the cemetery. A very common practice for liability issues. FOEE refused to sign the waivers and we’re not given permission to continue their work on the property."

Liability waivers are completely normal and, I would agree, necessary. However, Enrichmond's volunteer agreement and project request form were laughable. For example, (1.) they wanted unfettered usage and ownership of all photos/videos they took of onsite volunteers. After Enrichmond's atrocious and puzzling 9/11 memorial video, why would anyone give full consent without given the option to deny? (2.) Enrichmond demanded all images of burial and grave markers within the cemetery to belong to them and volunteers could not "publish any marketing or other publicity materials regarding the Cemetery without prior approval from the Organization." So, any photos taken of gravestones and other IP done by visitors, artists, academics, volunteers, reporters, etc. at the cemeteries belonged to Enrichmond. Then, permission had to be given by Enrichmond for the original creator to use. HUH?? I personally declined to sign their forms and started volunteering at Woodland Cemetery instead.

"Come on, do you really think Enrichmond has the power/influence to tell reporters what to broadcast?"

YES! A thousand times, yes! This was Enrichmond's job and responsibility, their moral and ethical duty as a "steward" and owner of the cemetery to ensure, to the best of their ability, the privacy, protection, and dignity of those buried at Evergreen and East End. Haven't these cemeteries been through enough degradation? Why Enrichmond didn't have an archaeologist, historic preservationist, or a representative from DHR participate in this broadcast to help advise and steer the conversation into a meaningful report is beyond me.

"Mishandling by Enrichmond? What is the appropriate course of action? They called DHR, the police, and set up a public meeting with descendants of the cemetery to let them know the details of the discovery."

A public meeting? What it should have been was a public discussion - John Sydnor stayed relatively silent throughout the meeting and did not answer questions. What was he even doing there then? He could have provided a cardboard cutout of himself and the meeting would have commenced the same way. Enrichmond never did follow through with DHR to reinter the remains - they are now being held indefinitely in DHR's lab.

“The gravity of the revelations?” I thought everyone was well aware of the grave robbing and desecration of cemeteries in Richmond."

Does this make it no less a gravity of revelations? An abhorrent discovery? A tragedy to hear and witness? There had been no confirmed reports of grave robbing at Evergreen and East End. Why did Enrichmond and DHR feel this was the best time to relay this news to descendants? According to the professor's blog, this was an emotional bomb. The reasons the descendants showed up to the meeting in the first place was to discuss other associated issues. Perhaps a separate, more intimate setting would have been best? This is how Enrichmond continued to fumble over themselves in very common sense situations. 

Staff and students from VCU and UR have been active at these cemeteries for several years (via a simple Google search), even forming a joint-university collaboratory to address cemeteries issues in the classrooms:

https://news.vcu.edu/article/At_community_gathering_UR_and_VCU_to_unveil_digital_map_of_East

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14649357.2022.2113557 

Fair enough. We each decide what we want to spend our free time speculating on, I guess.

How did the Enrichmond Foundation handle the discovery of human remains at the cemetery? It's outlined quiet nicely here by a VCU professor - titled: "Three minutes each at the horror show" - who, among colleagues and descendants and community members, attended Enrichmond's "community conversation" hosted by DHR. Everything Enrichmond (or perhaps Sydnor?) could have done to further deteriorate the trust of the descendant community, they did so spectacularly.

https://www.richmondcemeteries.org/2020/10/26/three-minutes-each-at-the-horror-show/

Why? Because Williams and Palmer both reported (ya know, as reporters) that Enrichmond did a shatty job at their job? If so, then the community at large has a ravenous rapport with them, too.

💯

I remember this - absolute absurdity by Enrichmond! They ended up blaming a volunteer for creating this...yet, they posted it all over their social media accounts 🤔

But are there errors in the article? 🤷