September 8 Town Hall: Community Recap

On September 8, New Shore Community Bridge Alliance attended and presented at the Chestertown Town Hall regarding the August 15 incident on the 400 Block of Calvert Street.

Our goal was to provide a brief overview of where we are in the process, share what we have learned thus far, and continue creating space for community members, Town leadership, and law enforcement to have a transparent and constructive conversation.

NSCBA Presentation

NSCBA began with a brief presentation outlining our organization and our approach to addressing the concerns that have emerged from the August 15 incident.

We emphasized that our work is not simply about one night or one individual. The concerns raised by residents include broader questions about trust, policing, community investment, resources, recreation, communication, and the relationship between residents and the institutions that serve them.

We reviewed the timeline since August 15, including community meetings, conversations with Town leadership, our September 3 meeting with Chief Dixon and Town Manager Dr. Chad Rooney, and the written responses subsequently received from the Town and Police Department.

We also emphasized the importance of moving from identifying concerns toward developing solutions, accountability measures, stronger relationships, and greater investment in the community.

Questions From the Community

Following the presentation, community members were given an opportunity to speak and ask questions.

Residents raised concerns about the size and nature of the law-enforcement response, the involvement of outside agencies, the armored vehicle, the dispersal process, how decisions were made, the treatment of residents during dispersal, and whether the response was proportionate to the circumstances occurring on the ground that evening.

A significant question raised concerned reassessment.

Community members questioned why the strategy was not reassessed as conditions changed throughout the evening. The permitted and insured event was scheduled from 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. According to Chief Dixon, at approximately 9:45 p.m., he gave the order for the Maryland State Police Special Operations unit, Chestertown Police officers, and the Queen Anne’s County Sheriff’s Department—a total of over 35 law-enforcement officers—to increase their presence to disperse event attendees.

By the time dispersal was underway, the crowd had substantially decreased, with fewer than 50 people remaining, including individuals who lived in the community and were standing in front of their homes. Community members described many of those who remained as children and young people from the surrounding neighborhood.This was particularly important to residents in light of Chief Dixon's August 17 public statement, in which he described the overwhelming majority of attendees as cooperative and respectful.

Residents therefore questioned why the law-enforcement strategy continued to involve such an extensive presence as the size and circumstances of the crowd changed.

The resources observed or subsequently identified as part of the response included:

• approximately 35 law-enforcement officers present at one time from Chestertown Police Department, Maryland State Police, and the Queen Anne's County Sheriff's Office;

• the Maryland State Police Special Operations Group;

• an armored vehicle;

• two large blacked-out equipment/transport vehicles;

• additional transport vans/buses used to move officers;

• a vehicle that appeared to be a fire truck

• a large/bright portable light used in the area; and

• additional law-enforcement resources staged in or around the community.

This led to a central question from residents: As the circumstances on the ground changed, who was responsible for reassessing whether the original strategy and level of resources remained necessary and proportionate?

Chief Dixon's Response

Chief Dixon then responded at length to the questions and concerns raised.

He stated that he accepts responsibility as the Chief of Police for decisions made by the department and acknowledged that there were lessons learned from the incident and “a lot of room for improvement.”

Chief Dixon explained that planning for August 15 was influenced by both historical information and more recent information concerning violent incidents in other Eastern Shore communities. He stated that his primary motivation was concern for public and officer safety.

He also discussed the late timing of the block-party permit and acknowledged that Chestertown's permitting process could benefit from revision and greater consistency.

Regarding outside law-enforcement assistance, Chief Dixon confirmed that he requested additional help. He explained that three deputies from the Sheriff's Office were requested to assist Chestertown officers and that Maryland State Police was consulted.

According to Chief Dixon, Maryland State Police recommended deploying its Special Operations Group. He stated that he learned the group could not be requested as only five or ten individual officers but instead responded as a unit of approximately 25 officers.

The unit initially staged outside of Chestertown. Chief Dixon stated that there were very few problems during the block party itself and that, although the permit ended at 9:00 p.m., officers initially allowed time for the event to wind down.

As people remained in the area, the Maryland State Police unit was ultimately brought into the neighborhood. Chief Dixon stated that Chestertown Police took the lead during dispersal and that the decision to move everyone in one direction was made in consultation with the Maryland State Police commander.

That explanation raised an additional question concerning command and authority that remains important to the community:

Once outside law-enforcement agencies were invited into Chestertown, did Chief Dixon retain full operational authority over those officers and resources, or were some operational decisions independently controlled by Maryland State Police or other agencies?

Understanding who possessed authority over staging, deployment, dispersal, reassessment, and release of resources remains an important part of understanding what occurred.

The Armored Vehicle

One of the most significant lingering questions concerned the armored vehicle.

Chief Dixon stated that he did not know beforehand that the armored vehicle would enter the neighborhood. He explained that the vehicle made a “wrong turn” onto Calvert Street and said its presence there was “unbeknownst” to him and, according to his account, also unbeknownst to the Maryland State Police commander.

For some residents, that explanation created additional questions rather than resolving the concern.

Community members questioned how an armored law-enforcement vehicle could mistakenly enter the neighborhood and ultimately be positioned in or near the area toward which residents were simultaneously being dispersed?

This also connects to the broader question of command: Who was operating and directing that vehicle? Who had authority over its movement? And if its presence was not authorized by Chief Dixon or the MSP commander with whom he was consulting, how did it become positioned where the dispersal was occurring?

These remain questions for which the community is seeking greater clarity.

Community Response

Following Chief Dixon's remarks, many members of the audience expressed continued dissatisfaction.

A recurring concern was that, although the Chief accepted responsibility and acknowledged lessons learned and room for improvement, some residents still wanted to hear a direct apology and a clearer acknowledgment of the fear, hurt, and pain experienced by community members that evening.

Others continued to question whether sufficient explanation had been provided regarding the lack of reassessment, the scale of the response, the armored vehicle, and the division of authority between Chestertown Police and the outside agencies brought into the community.

Some were amazed at how well the community members, leaders, and the bridge that held them together were able to coexist despite difficult conversations and commended this progress.

What is the way forward?

Accountability involves understanding what happened, but rebuilding trust also requires identifying what will change.

The community is interested in hearing what Chief Dixon and the Town of Chestertown believe should happen next—including what policies, procedures, communication practices, relationships, or safeguards should be established so that residents and law enforcement can move forward together and a response of this nature does not occur again under similar circumstances. Our next community meeting, September 22 at 6pm, will be centered around determining how the community would like to move forward and the role of NSCBA in being the bridge to facilitate this process. Until then, we are waiting for official statements from Town Hall and the Chief of Police.

At the same time, another important sentiment emerged from the room.

Despite the difficulty and emotion surrounding this issue, community members, law enforcement, Town representatives, and others were able to sit together in the same room, discuss a deeply difficult subject, disagree, ask challenging questions, and do so without the conversation becoming disrespectful or uncivil.

That is something worth building upon.