A final location for a plaque honoring slaves who lived in Hopkinton remains unknown after the Parks & Recreation Commission on Thursday deferred the issue to the Select Board.

Members of the Hopkinton Historical Society, including president John Palmer, vice president Anne Matina and Linda Connelly, were in attendance to retrieve a final sign-off from Parks & Rec on a plan to install the plaque at the Town Common. 

Connelly appeared before the commission in September to discuss the plan. At that meeting, commission members expressed concern over the precedence for putting the plaque on the common. Similar questions were raised following the Historic District Commission’s approval of a certificate of appropriateness for the plaque in January.

This question was brought to the forefront again at Thursday’s meeting, along with the information the plaque would convey. 

The current design of the 20-by-40-inch bronze plaque would feature the names of 32 enslaved persons identified as living in Hopkinton between the town’s founding in 1715 to around 1790, when the last enslaved person was listed on the town census.

“The last person on the census was 30 or 40 years before the abolitionist movement,” said Parks & Rec chair Dan Terry. “I think that context is important if we’re going to put up a sign on this.”

“Would you want to read it and understand something?” member Kyle Smith added. “Or is it just an acknowledgment?”

Terry voiced his opinion that the plaque is as much an education piece as it is an acknowledgment, and was concerned about a “lack of context” that might impact understanding. Because of this, he wanted to “get this socialized a little bit more” before the commission made its decision.

“The town would benefit from a broader discussion,” he explained.

Regarding locating the sign on the Town Common, Terry probed into the question of whether the records indicated slaves were confined to one property in town or there was a wider spread of slave owners in Hopkinton.

While records show Sir Charles Henry Frankland, who lived in town from 1751-68, owned a majority of the slaves on Connelly’s list, she and Mattina said slave ownership in Hopkinton was not limited to his estate.

“The reality is that the prominent people in town … are the people who had wealth and resources and owned people,” Connelly said. Rev. Samuel Barrett, the town’s first minister, “owned two or three people,” she claimed.

Added Connelly: “[Slave ownership] was a status symbol at the time.”

In previous meetings, Connelly argued that the Town Common is a logical place for the sign, given the nature of slave ownership in Hopkinton and the fact that the town’s first meetinghouse likely used slave labor in its construction. To her and other members of the Historical Society, the plaque has greater visibility on the common than elsewhere.

“They were invisible at the time,” Connelly added. “We would like them not to be invisible.”

Others in town believe the marker should be placed elsewhere. Historical Commission member Eric Sonnett, who was attending the Parks & Rec meeting on other business, noted that his commission had recommended it be placed at the Hughes/Colella properties on Hayden Rowe Street.

“In our opinion, it’s better placed where activity happened,” said Sonnett. “That location would get a lot of visibility.”

Research shows that Hayden Rowe Hall, a former abolitionist hall and meetinghouse, once sat on the Hughes/Colella land. The plaque honoring enslaved persons would join a number of other historical signs discussing the area’s anti-slavery history if relocated there.

Mattina pushed back on Sonnett’s suggestion. “What they’re doing on Hayden Rowe is they’re trying to contextualize the farmers and other people who were there,” she said. Mattina also noted that the abolitionist activities at Hayden Rowe Hall occurred “70 years after slavery was outlawed.”

“[This plaque] shouldn’t be confused with that time period,” she argued.

Parks & Rec member Laura Hanson was more critical of the Historical Commission’s suggestion.

“I think what’s happening here is that you want to hide it somewhere where people aren’t going to see it,” she said.

After a tense discussion, members of the commission agreed that despite the Historical Society only needing approval from the Historic District Commission and Parks & Rec, the matter needed a third party.

“We want to come to an agreement where this makes sense,” said Parks & Rec vice chair Amy O’Donnell. “Obviously this is a very controversial topic.”

“My understanding is that we want to get all perspectives, so let’s hear what the Select Board has to say,” Parks & Rec Director Jon Lewitus said.

The commission agreed to reach out to the Select Board and put the matter on its agenda for a future meeting.