Can the New Montpelier Board Reengage Former Donors and Achieve Financial Stability?
- DEI Stands in the Way But A Remnant of Former Supporters Remains Hopeful
February 2025
The Montpelier Foundation has teetered on the edge of collapse since the National Trust for Historic Preservation, in cooperation with the Southern Poverty Law Center, pressured the then-board to share power with a group declaring they were the descendants of Montpelier Slaves. This power-sharing policy is known as “parity”. In one of the most abusive and immoral acts, this group and their backers publicly declared Montpelier board Members who opposed the adoption of “parity” as racist, despite the fact that two opposing board members were descendants of the only historically documented slave owned by James Madison, Paul Jennings.
Pressured by scathing articles in the Washington Post, the chair collapsed in a heap of shame, seeing being labeled as racist as the moral equivalent of being called a murderer. The board was thus forced to elect new board members representing the “slave descendants”. Upon this action, the majority of the board resigned leaving a staggering majority of the board being “MDC,” aka the Montpelier Descendants Committee. From that time, the board leadership has been dominated by the MDC which has overseen the collapse of community support and near financial ruin of the Foundation.
For the past four years, Montpelier supporters have withheld their financial and moral support, because their primary concern for Montpelier - the story of James Madison, Dolley Madison and the Constitution - has been lost to a board fixated on focusing on Madison’s slaves and racism during our nation’s founding. During this period, the Montpelier board learned two important lessons, 1) “never bite the hand that feeds you,” and 2) the idea that 13% of the population with only 4.7% of U.S. wealth could replace traditional donors to Montpelier is insane.
Having lost its most recent president, Montpelier board seemed to be heading in the right direction. Their first action was to install as interim president Krista Costello, the one constant lone staffer that tirelessly cleaned up the financial mess and made lemonade out of the lemons created by parity. Having her ear, supporters reengaged to let her know their expectations. They wanted the board repopulated with individuals who understood and supported the Foundation’s mission of preserving Madison’s legacy.
The board voted and accepted four new members. While partly acting on the concern of supporters, they elected two presumed conservative board members and two “woke” members. Supporters are not happy with this one foot forward, one foot backward move. While the new board members have the financial resources to extend the parity experiment, reliance on two or three heavy-weight donors is not a formula for sustainability, nor is it encouragement for former donors to resume giving.
Unbeknownst to the Montpelier Foundation, a small remnant remains that is waiting for one clear decisive move that would encourage its return - Montpelier Foundation has to remove its current chairman and executive committee and elect new officers. With this one action, supporters would finally believe the nightmare of DEI at Montpelier is over. Let’s hope Montpelier Foundation gets the message and not cause its hopeful remnant of supporters to lose hope and declare with the vast majority of old supporters “let it rot”.
- DEI Stands in the Way But A Remnant of Former Supporters Remains Hopeful
February 2025
The Montpelier Foundation has teetered on the edge of collapse since the National Trust for Historic Preservation, in cooperation with the Southern Poverty Law Center, pressured the then-board to share power with a group declaring they were the descendants of Montpelier Slaves. This power-sharing policy is known as “parity”. In one of the most abusive and immoral acts, this group and their backers publicly declared Montpelier board Members who opposed the adoption of “parity” as racist, despite the fact that two opposing board members were descendants of the only historically documented slave owned by James Madison, Paul Jennings.
Pressured by scathing articles in the Washington Post, the chair collapsed in a heap of shame, seeing being labeled as racist as the moral equivalent of being called a murderer. The board was thus forced to elect new board members representing the “slave descendants”. Upon this action, the majority of the board resigned leaving a staggering majority of the board being “MDC,” aka the Montpelier Descendants Committee. From that time, the board leadership has been dominated by the MDC which has overseen the collapse of community support and near financial ruin of the Foundation.
For the past four years, Montpelier supporters have withheld their financial and moral support, because their primary concern for Montpelier - the story of James Madison, Dolley Madison and the Constitution - has been lost to a board fixated on focusing on Madison’s slaves and racism during our nation’s founding. During this period, the Montpelier board learned two important lessons, 1) “never bite the hand that feeds you,” and 2) the idea that 13% of the population with only 4.7% of U.S. wealth could replace traditional donors to Montpelier is insane.
Having lost its most recent president, Montpelier board seemed to be heading in the right direction. Their first action was to install as interim president Krista Costello, the one constant lone staffer that tirelessly cleaned up the financial mess and made lemonade out of the lemons created by parity. Having her ear, supporters reengaged to let her know their expectations. They wanted the board repopulated with individuals who understood and supported the Foundation’s mission of preserving Madison’s legacy.
The board voted and accepted four new members. While partly acting on the concern of supporters, they elected two presumed conservative board members and two “woke” members. Supporters are not happy with this one foot forward, one foot backward move. While the new board members have the financial resources to extend the parity experiment, reliance on two or three heavy-weight donors is not a formula for sustainability, nor is it encouragement for former donors to resume giving.
Unbeknownst to the Montpelier Foundation, a small remnant remains that is waiting for one clear decisive move that would encourage its return - Montpelier Foundation has to remove its current chairman and executive committee and elect new officers. With this one action, supporters would finally believe the nightmare of DEI at Montpelier is over. Let’s hope Montpelier Foundation gets the message and not cause its hopeful remnant of supporters to lose hope and declare with the vast majority of old supporters “let it rot”.