Fruits and Nuts Victory Challenged

Fruits and nuts decision being challenged based on open meetings laws . . . but when similar issues are raised elsewhere, there are no violations that they are concerned about . . . I’m tired of double standards in this fair city. I’m really glad they put this in writing, because there are many actions throughout the city that can and should be similarly challenged! And I hope all the violations are treated equally seriously.

Also, note the challenge of the Memorandum of Understanding, seems as tho they could have mentioned this earlier when they recommended it in the first place.

From: Madison Fruits & Nuts
Subject: Will you sign on to a Fruits and Nuts letter? Park Commission decision is being contested
To: Lisa_Wiese@charter.net
Date: Thursday, August 12, 2010, 11:10 PM

Hi friends who wrote letters or attended the Park Commission meeting in May,

Sorry to ask for your time again on this issue. Unfortunately the July parks commission decision is being challenged. Memos from the parks superintendent and city attorney are attached. Please let us know if you’d like to sign on to the public letter below. And we welcome your input on simple resolutions we can pursue with city staff, or through other avenues.

– Janet for MFN

The volunteers of Madison Fruits and Nuts applaud the common sense and responsiveness of the Park Commission. They have taken a stand for sustainability by reducing barriers for volunteers who want to plant and care for edible landscaping in their public parks.

We in Madison and urban edible landscaping advocates around the country will be watching what the parks staff does to respond to the clear direction that they have gotten from the Park Commission, their citizen oversight body.

The Park Commission went on record on July 14 to support a welcoming fruits and nuts policy, one that is similar to existing Parks Division policy for other volunteers. A room full of citizens, media, alders and city staff were there that night to hear extensive public testimony, thoughtful conversation between the commissioners, and their vote, 5 to 1 approving the Memorandum of Understanding proposed by Madison Fruits and Nuts. This vote affirmed the position of the Park Commission that they would like the fruits and nuts volunteers to be treated the same way as volunteers in the successful Parks Division flower garden program, not like the community garden lessees. From the draft July minutes:

A motion was made by Chewning/Scarbrough, that in keeping with the Assistant City Attorney’s (ACA Zellhoefer) recommendation that a formal agreement be entered into between the city/Parks and volunteers which would include all of the ACA’s points with the exception of the recommendation for insurance and indemnification, approving the Memorandum of Understanding presented by the Madison Fruits and Nuts group. MOTION CARRIED with Skidmore voting no.

On a technicality, this decision is being contested. The item was listed on the agenda under the heading of “general discussion.” This was in spite of the directions from the commission at their May 12 meeting. From the May minutes:

A motion was made by Skidmore/Scarbrough to refer this issue to the July Park Commission meeting to allow staff to meet with the volunteers to create a Memorandum of Understanding that benefits citizens and to consider how to handle the insurance issue. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ald. Skidmore stated that as stewards of the park system it is the Park Commission’s responsibility to develop policy and not hand it off to the Common Council. Members support this project but need to develop and agree on the details.

At that same May Park Commission meeting, the Warner Park goose management topic was listed on the agenda under the heading “general discussion.” That night the Park Commission voted to stop killing geese, and their decision has not been challenged.

Madison Fruits and Nuts volunteers contacted parks staff in July to work together on a Memorandum of Understanding, as directed by the commission. We were not granted a meeting, so to respond to the Park Commission’s direction, we drafted an MoU based on successful edible landscaping projects in other cities. (See the overview of edible landscaping in other cities on our website.) The city attorney has given an opinion that the MoU approved by the Park Commission is not legal. This obviously does not change the fact that the Park Commission voiced their near-unanimous support for the content of the MoU that was in front of them. From the City of Madison website, this is the mission of the Park Commission:

Governs, manages, controls, improves and cares for all public parks, parkways, greenways, planning and construction, ice arenas, golf courses, conservation, cemetery, mausoleum, Mall/ Concourse, boat landing and concessions, Warner Park Community Recreation Center, the Irwin and Robert Goodman Municipal Pool, Mall/Concourse special events, beaches, general recreation (summer and winter activities), Botanical Gardens, forestry, shorelines, boulevards and pleasure drives located within the city limits, and secures the quiet, orderly and suitable use and enjoyment thereof; adopts rules and regulations to promote those purposes [emphasis added].

Madison Fruits and Nuts volunteers proposed an MoU because we were directed to by the Park Commission. We prefer a simple application for edible landscaping volunteers, that we also drafted and presented to the Commission. The application is closely modeled on the Parks Division’s own flower garden volunteer application. It is on our website, along with its template, the flower garden volunteer application.

Last winter, parks staff proposed an annual application process, starting this November, for neighborhood groups to apply to create new edible landscaping sites in their parks next spring. We are hopeful that this plan will go forward in the coming weeks. We will be glad to help parks staff with details and publicity.

So Madison Fruits and Nuts suggests that interested residents commend the park commissioners on their common sense decision, talk with neighbors about edible landscaping, look for park space that could be appropriate, and stay tuned!

Contact info:
Park Commissioners:
William Barker barker@geology.wisc.edu
Betty Chewning bachewning@pharmacy.wisc.edu
Madelyn Leopold mleopold@boardmanlawfirm.com
Alder Joe Clausius district17@cityofmadison.com
David Wallner annedave@chorus.net
Emanuel Scarbrough emanuel_scarbrough@excite.com
Alder Paul Skidmore district9@cityofmadison.com

4 COMMENTS

  1. Do you agree that failure to properly list an item on agenda is “a technicality”? Funny – I’ve always thought you had a higher opinion of the Open Meetings Law than that. Also, it seems the reason this has been challenged and not the geese kill motion is that this is the issue that Ald. Skidmore asked about; if someone challenges the geese motion, based on the agenda and the opinion, conclusion should be the same.

  2. Stuart, I’m tired of the double standards, all open meetings laws should be enforced equally at all committees. I just wish the city attorney took all the open meetings violations equally seriously. In fact, lets start with the CDA . . . your constant “updates” on the same projects are really ridiculous, especially since you all are claiming there are no written documents to go with them. They are some of the worst agendas in the city, but not as bad as the Police and Fire Commission. And they certainly didn’t take the EDC violations this seriously. I think all staff and chairs need training on a good agenda.

  3. Well, as a member of Madison Fruits and Nuts, I can tell you that I feel totally yanked by the city. This could have been a slam-dunk policy, but the city has opposed us at every step. So much for encouraging citizen involvement.

  4. The point that is being missed is that the action item of voting on a MOU was SUPPOSED to be on the agenda. The Parks Commission asked for it to be on the July agenda, the Fruits and Nuts People were preparing for it and then Parks staff simply didn’t put it on the agenda Why? Well, you tell me. But the Superintendent was on vacation and not at the meeting. Maybe, just maybe, he didn’t want it on the agenda? After all he was the one who refused to meet to discuss a MOU, against the direction of the Commission.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.