A message from Dr. Tom Butler, President of Victoria College: On November 9th the Victoria Advocate printed a story, “Points of Contention,” that described litigation between Victoria College and Mr. Joe Cesta over the rightful ownership of two ancient artifacts (stone projectile “points”). Unfortunately, the story gave the false impression that Victoria College had attempted to take the points from the person who found them, when in fact the college went to great lengths to follow Texas law and make sure the points were returned to their rightful owner. You may have seen the story and been concerned by it, or perhaps someone has mentioned the story to you. For those reasons I wanted to let you know what transpired. The story also generated a number of online comments, some of which appeared in the November 11th print edition of the paper. From the comments it is clear that some in our community have a misunderstanding of what actually occurred. I believe this misunderstanding is the result of misstatements by Mr. Cesta, and by some important facts not being reported in the story. It is important to me that our community knows that VC always attempts to do the right thing, and that we always follow the law. Here are the relevant facts in this case: Mr. Cesta approached staff at VC’s Museum of the Coastal Bend and asked us to analyze the two points for him. This is something we routinely do for our community, although we do not place a monetary value on the item, only describe the age and type of the artifact. It was determined that one of the points in question was quite rare and in exceptional condition. VC has for some time conducted archeological digs on property throughout the Crossroads, so we asked for the location of the find and if Mr. Cesta could take us there. He agreed to do so, and was accompanied by two archaeological stewards who volunteer at the museum. A GPS location was recorded at the site that he identified. Once the volunteers returned to the museum with information about the site and the GPS location was mapped, VC employees realized that the location of the find was on private property, in a non-navigable, dry creek bed in Goliad County. Mr. Cesta confirmed that he did not own the property on which the points were found, but stated his belief that the fact that the points were discovered in a creek bed meant that it was not on private property. This is true in some states, but not in Texas. Under Texas law the rightful owner of the points is the landowner, not the person who discovers them on private property. In Texas, ancient archeological finds are protected by the Texas Antiquities Act, and Victoria College and the Museum of the Coastal Bend have a special duty to follow the provisions of that law. Under Texas law we cannot return the points to Mr. Cesta if we believe he is not the rightful owner. We advised Mr. Cesta of this, we placed the artifacts in a college vault, we sought legal advice and we began the process of locating the property owner who does not reside in the area. The landowner was located and informed of what had happened. It was the landowner’s wish that the Museum of the Coastal Bend continue to hold the artifacts for them. At no time has VC or the Museum sought to own the artifacts or do anything other than ensure that we followed the law and that the rightful owner had control over them. Mr. Cesta sued VC for the return of the artifacts, and we were prepared to go to court. Victoria College has an insurance policy that, under certain conditions, covers suits brought against us. We filed a claim with our insurance company who agreed to cover the cost of litigation. After reviewing the case the insurance company elected to settle the suit, as a business decision. Victoria College was advised of this, but had no part in the actual decision. The decision to settle was made by the insurance company, as allowed in our policy with them. It is unfortunate that this misunderstanding about VC’s actions has occurred. But for Victoria College I am proud that we took the steps we did, that we attempted to do the right thing, that we followed the law and that ultimately the private property rights of the landowner were protected.
Posted on: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 23:23:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015