Beware of the Leopard

At the opening of The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the first installment of Douglas Adam's comic science fiction series, Arthur Dent is fighting to prevent his house in the British village of Cottington from being bulldozed for a new bypass. When told that the plans had been available in the local planning office for the last nine months, Dent responds, “Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything.” The following dialog ensues:

“But the plans were on display …”

“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”

“That’s the display department.”

“With a flashlight.”

“Ah, well the lights had probably gone.”

“So had the stairs.”

“But look, you found the notice didn’t you?”

“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard’.”

During the October 10, 2022, ZOOM meeting regarding PARD's new cemetery rules, in response to a comment noting that there are members of the public who lack computer or Internet access and therefore could not participate, Justin Schneider, PARD Community Engagement, stated that "the rules are available to review at the cemetery office and can allow folks to comment who are not able to access it on-line." Of course, as these people already lack such access, how are they supposed to know about the rules and where to go to review and comment on them, as nothing apparently has been posted other than on-line? This is akin to the fictional Cottington council asserting that the plans were on display, as long as you stumbled down in the dark to a cellar, located a disused lavatory with a sign on the door warning you to beware of the leopard, and persisted in entering the lavatory and prying open the bottom drawer of a locked file cabinet. This in fact pretty much sums up PARD's history of "Community Engagement."

The meeting, which lasted only one hour, ten minutes, and 31 seconds, was the only planned public meeting (as long as that public had computer and Internet access) regarding PARD's new cemetery rules. This meeting was not the sort of working group between PARD, the public, and stakeholders envisioned by the October 17, 2013, City Council resolution. In reality it was nothing more than a 14-minute slide show telling the public what the rules were going to be followed by a question and answer period that made three things very clear: PARD deemed the rules as a done deal with absolutely no assurance that any public comments or input would be considered in altering or amending the rules; the main purpose of the rules was to clear off gravesites so that PARD could run riding mowers and other heavy equipment over them; and that the rules would be applied retroactively to all existing gravesite gardens and memorials throughout the entire Austin cemetery system, even though many of these gardens and memorials have been in place for years, if not decades, and were created with PARD's implicit, and in come cases, explicit, permission. This is despite the fact that PARD Acting Director Kimberly McNeeley personally told me on May 10, 2018, following my testimony before the City Council regarding PARD’s failure to properly implement the perpetual care trust fund, that there was never any intention that the rules would apply to existing graves. 

The Presentation

At the “meeting” Lucas Massie introduced himself as the assistant director of PARD. He said that he had been with PARD for about 20 years on the “recreation side,” but that he now oversees “cemeteries, golf, aquatics, and special events.” A cemetery is not a place of recreation like a golf course or swimming pool or an event venue; it is the final resting place for beloved friends and family and needs to be treated with exceptional compassion and respect. Justin Schneider “facilitated and managed” the ZOOM meeting by muting all participants so we had to sit back and shut up, but we were informed that that PARD might deign to respond to participants during a subsequent question and answer. 

The slideshow was a sanitized version and revisionist history of the cemetery rules and regulations. For example, while the presentation mentioned the City Council resolution “directing the City Manager to conduct a public engagement process to evaluate the current cemetery rules,” PARD conveniently neglected to mention that the resolution was the result of angry stakeholders appearing before City Council and protesting PARD’s sudden decision to retroactively impose the 1978 cemetery rules it had failed to publicize or enforce for over three decades. The presentation also falsely declared that PARD “initiated the assignment on October 17, 2013."  PARD initiated nothing. The resolution was enacted by City Council on that date. PARD, with its typical bureaucratic delay and equivocations, did not retain Smith and Associates to provide facilitation services regarding the rule process until April 29, 2014, and the first meeting did not begin until May 20, 2014.

The presentation also falsely claimed that "many of the existing conditions in the cemeteries were found to be out of compliance with the 1978 rules." Apparently "existing conditions" does not refer to the continuing neglect and maintenance issues at Austin cemeteries such as tilted or fallen headstones or the rusted sagging fence around Austin Memorial Park (AMP). No, those "existing conditions" are long-established gravesite gardens and memorials which PARD implicitly and expressly authorized; further PARD by its acts and omission, had effectively waived the 1978 rules, rendering them null and void. Dismissing such meaningful and loving memorials as mere "existing conditions" demonstrates PARD's hypocrisy and callousness, underscoring once again just how little compassion PARD has for the people of Austin and how little respect it has for those buried in Austin's public cemeteries.

Then, without explanation, the presentation jumped to the summer of 2015, asserting that in March of 2016, the "New Cemetery Manager developed a process for updating and enforcing the cemetery rules with a focus on grave ornamentation," but admits that the "first community meeting" was not held until October 27, 2016. That was the meeting during which stakeholders were told that PARD did not need to get the approval of City Council for any proposed rules and that the new rules would be in place by January of 2017. The presentation then claims that from February 20, 2017, through April 27, 2017, "Conservation Corps led five guided discussions" focused on grave ornamentation, associated religious and cultural practices and maintenance requirements that resytrct ornamentation placement and materials. The goal was to gather input from stakeholders of different professions, ethnic, and religious communities. These "guided discussions" actually took place on April 10, 18, 25, 26, and 27, 2017, with little public notice; I attended several of those meetings and not only was no member of PARD ever present, the meetings were overseen by only a single facilitator from Conservation Corps who had no background or knowledge of the history of the cemetery rules controversy, the meetings were not recorded, there were no written transcripts, and the facilitator took minimal, if any notes.

The presentation claimed that in June of 2017 the draft rules are completed, allegedly incorporating stakeholder feedback, and underwent review by the the City of Austin Law Department. The rules were then presented to stakeholders during two public meetings on the 23 and 27, of October 2017. (I was out of town and unable to attend and even though I requested a copy of the proposed rules on both October 11 and 19, 2017, PARD failed to provide me with a copy.) 

More significantly, according to the presentation, following the community meetings, PARD added a section "outlining a process for anyone wishing to appeal decision made by the Cemetery Administrator under the Rules. With the updated rules and a continuous open line of communication, we hope to be able to better serve our community." While PARD spins out this inclusion of an appeals process as evidence of its supposed willingness to work with stakeholders, THE CURRENT PROPOSED RULES HAVE NO SUCH PROCESS! So much for PARD's alleged "open line of communication."

The presentation then states that on August 2, 2018, Acting Director Kimberly McNeeley adopted the revised rules, which are subsequently withdrawn by the City Manager "under the discretion of the City Manager's Office" after several citizens appealed. Not only does this contradict the claim in the 'The Austin Chronicle," October 14, 2022, article that draft rules were subsequently withdrawn by City Manager Spencer Cronk as the cemetery division turned all its focus to Oakwood, it also ignores the fact that McNeeley herself has stated that an incorrect version of the rules had been inadvertently posted. On August 13, 2018, a group of stakeholders meet with McNeeley, and Anthony Segura, assistant director, regarding the posted rules and regulations. During the meeting, stakeholders expressed anger and disappointment that their comments were clearly not seriously considered and not one of their recommendations was adopted. McNeeley and Segura responded that the incorrect version of the rules was adopted and posted. They asserted that they had forwarded revisions to the Legal Department but due to a communication error these revisions were not incorporated in what was intended to be the final version of the rules. McNeeley and Segura stated that while they would investigate how to withdraw the rules, they recommended that the stakeholders file appeals regarding the adoption of the rules with the City Clerk’s Office. On August 31, 2018, following numerous appeals filed by citizens, the proposed rules were withdrawn. So which version is it? The City Manager withdrew the rules under the discretion of that office? The rules were withdrawn because the cemetery division needed to focus on Oakwood? Or, as admitted by the acting director herself in front of multiple witnesses, that an incorrect version of the rules were somehow approved and posted? PARD may have a "continuous open line of communication" but it appears to be more along the lines of an open sewer pipe spewing male bovine alimentary byproducts.

Regarding open lines of communication and male bovine alimentary products, the presentation goes on to assert that on September 1, 2022, McNeeley again adopted the revised rules, which are subsequently withdrawn by the City Manager "under the discretion of the City Manager's Office" after several citizens appealed. This is completely new to me. I have been involved in this process since 2013 and during August and September of 2022 was in communication not only with members of the Parks and Recreation Board but other stakeholders as well and this is the first time I have heard of it. I should note that this is the same McNeeley who on August 13, 2018, admitted to a group of stakeholders that that the rules and regulations process had been seriously flawed and failed to involve the stakeholders and the public and stated that she will reopen the process with more public involvement and input. This has yet to happen.

The presentation then sets out a timeline, ending with the proposed rules to be submitted to the City Clerk's Office in January of 2023 for a 31-day public review and comment period, with the rules being adopted in March of 2023.

The presentation then turns to the "existing conditions," but instead of showing conditions such as fallen headstones or subsiding and cracked gravesites, the presentation displays multiple pictures of neatly maintained gravesite memorials and gardens at both AMP and Evergreen Cemetery. Clearly, the presentation implies that these are the "existing conditions" that are the target of PARD's latest push for rules and that PARD intends to apply these rules retroactively, despite the fact it has neither the legal or moral right to do so. If these rules reach final approval, PARD appears ready to rip apart hundreds of gravesite gardens and memorials throughout the cemetery system. 

The next slide then abruptly jumps to the topic of benches and memorials which it alleges were "not approved by the City." For over 30 years PARD gave both implicit and explicit permission for families to create gravesite gardens and memorials. PARD, by claiming that these gardens and memorials are "not approved" once again makes clear its intention to arbitrarily desecrate gravesites throughout the public cemeteries. The presentation then states that benches, which it admits "can be a meaningful way to honor a deceased loved one while offering a restful spot for people to sit," installed prior to the adoption of the rules (note that PARD assumes that adoption of its version of the rules is pretty much a done deal, certainly indicating that it has absolutely no intention to consider or incorporate public input) may remain only if they satisfy the requirements of proposed (my language, not PARD's) Rule 14.4.9 (B) and (D)(1). The proposed rules are not set out in the presentation, but under Section (B), memorials must be entirely contained within a space and shall not encroach on an easement, public area, or another owner’s space or interfere with an interment or the setting or maintenance of another memorial. Certainly reasonable, however, Section (D) requires that memorials must be granite or marble at least 4 inches thick or cast bronze of any thickness. The picture used to illustrate shows a bench that allegedly meets these requirement, but it is not possible to tell from the slide whether the bench is indeed granite or marble; there are many concrete or cement benches scattered throughout the cemeteries that are every bit as sturdy and attractive as marble or granite, but certainly more affordable for many families. Why are these more reasonable priced benches banned? Under the proposed rule, such benches are must be in safe and stable condition as determined by Cemetery Operations in its sole discretion (remember, the proposed rules now have eliminated any appeals process). Any benches that do not meet these criteria may be removed without further notice.

The presentation is silent regarding Section (C), which provides that "One memorial may be installed at the head and one at the foot of a space; provided, however, that a monument bench may be installed only at the head of a space. So in other words, a family under these rules may have a headstone or a bench, but not both. There was no discussion regarding why a bench cannot be installed at the foot of a gravesite (other than PARD wants to plow unencumbered over gravesites with its heavy equipment). I wonder whether there is in fact any existing benches in the Austin cemeteries that can meet these strict and narrow requirements

The next slide discusses permitted ornamentation under proposed Rule 14.4.10, which permits only: fresh and artificial flowers in an invertible vase or other non-breakable container (so no scattering of marigold petals or adorning gravesites with mounds of marigolds for Día de los Muertos?); commemorative stones (not defined, although the slide does show stones resting atop of headstone in the Jewish tradition); stick flags of no more than 18 inches in length; and items made entirely of cloth (oddly, one of the earlier reasons PARD argued for new rules is that it claimed people were leaving items such as stuffed animals and tee-shirts on gravesites and that these items deteriorated over time). The permitted items may be placed only at the head of a space or to the immediate left, right, or on a memorial. However, trees, shrubs, and other plants are prohibited, whether within or outside a space, and may be removed without further notice. Again, PARD without any legal or moral authority, is planning to rip out memorial trees and gardens scattered throughout the cemeteries. Many of the memorials and gardens have been in place for years and cannot be removed without substantially destroying or desecrating much of the grave site, leaving gapping holes, trenches, and exposed soil. And throughout the cemetery system there are hundreds of such existing gardens and memorials. Nothing in the proposed rules requires that PARD to repair or restore a gravesite after PARD has torn it apart. In fact, Section (F) proves that, "The City is not responsible for the theft or vandalism of ornamentation, decoration, or any other personal property left in a cemetery." Is PARD going to provide the substantial materials, resources, and city employees to remove such memorials and to then immediately repair, fill-in, level, sod, water, and maintain these grave sites? Or are families and friends going to be forced to visit and watch the desecrated graves erode and deteriorate? Looking at the current and significant maintenance issues currently the public cemeteries, it is very clear that PARD already lacks the resources to even accomplish minimal maintenance. This proposed rule also contradicts PARD's own 2015 City of Austin Historic Cemeteries Master Plan, which recommends that PARD "Encourage the establishment of groundcovers within curbed or walled family plots, to reduce the amount of mowing and trimming required." 

The next slide in the presentation declares, "The proposed rules are less restrictive and more safety oriented than the current rules adopted in 1978. The current rules were not consistently enforced which resulted in safety hazards, constrained maintenance, and inconsistent practices. Before implementing equal enforcement, we have taken the opportunity to update the language and incorporate current needs and practices. Special considerations were made to accommodate as many of the grieving practices as possible in a safe and fair manner." Even PARD is admitting that the "current rules were not consistently enforced," but then claims that this has resulted in "safety hazards" and "constrained maintenance." For some reason, from 1978 until September of 2013, "safety hazards" and "constrained maintenance" were not an issue. In fact, my analysis of reported injuries at AMP does not show any injuries resulting directly from gravesite gardens or memorials (the single indirect injury was an employee who hurt his ankle while unloading "out of compliance iron border" from a truck). The only "constrained maintenance" appears to be PARD's desire to drive heavy mowers and other equipment over gravesites, a practice that leaves tire tracks and ruts over gravesites and damages headstones (and, which the Master Plan actually discouraged). As to incorporating "current needs and practices," these appear to be only PARD's own needs and practices. Through its nine years of lack of notice and limited public involvement, PARD has clearly made little or no attempt to "accommodate as many of the grieving practices as possible in a safe and fair manner." 

The presentation then moves on claim that 60 and 30 days prior to clean up, "large signs will be placed at the entrances of all five City of Austin cemeteries, and small signs will be posted throughout the cemeteries. All attempts will be made to contact stakeholders by media release, via email, Facebook, City of Austin website, Next Door and Twitter." There are already signs placed regularly regarding the clean-up of holiday and other decorations. Is the presentation talking about these regular clean-up days or does this apply to all existing gravesite gardens and memorials?

The presentation continues, stating that, "We understand implementing these rules pose challenges and we are more than willing to discuss individual needs with the understanding that we must preserve the rights of all customers and provide overall safety. With the updated rules and a continuous open line of communication, we hope to be able to better serve our community." Note that this language treats the rules are a given and indicates that no public input will considered. As to existing gravesite gardens and memorials, there is no need for discussion; PARD gave its implicit (and in some cases, explicit) permission and consent and cannot legally go back on its word. PARD's behavior over the past nine years clearly establishes that there has not been and will be no "continuous open line of communication" and if PARD hopes "to be able to better serve our community" maybe it could start with repairing the neglected and poor conditions already existing in Austin's cemeteries instead of planning a campaign of harassing families and desecrating graves.

The presentation then claims that: equipment damage to mowers due to running over objects left on gravesites which can cause injury to employees or citizens and; potential buyers expressed a distaste for the unsightly look of our cemeteries and purchased more expensive lots elsewhere, resulting in the City losing potential revenue. As noted earlier, my analysis of reported employe injuries at Austin Memorial Park discredits the former. As to the latter, the City of Austin was unable to provide me with a single document regarding persons who have declined to purchase or retracted a purchase of grave plots in Austin public cemeteries because of conditions at the cemeteries. Does PARD seriously expect the public to believe that potential purchasers of plots are willing to overlook the blatant neglect and poor maintenance at AMP, such as the sagging rusted chain link fence, the tilted and fallen tombstones, and sunken graves, but balk at the mere sight of an errant rosebush or a unauthorized limestone border? 

The presentation then includes two pictures of allegedly from the "City of San Antonio Cemetery" and "City of San Marcos Cemetery," with the claim that the "City of Austin Cemeteries is seeking uniform and consistent rules and regulations similar to other City Municipalities." If PARD wants to prospectively enforce the new rules, it certainly has every legal right to do so, but this ignores the fact that this entire controversy began nine years ago when PARD arbitrarily and capriciously decided to try to retroactively enforce the 1978 rules after some 30 years of waiving them. Nor do the pictures seem to present quite the case PARD seeks to make. If you look closely at the picture of the "City of San Antonio Cemetery" there do appear to be plantings on some of the graves. I also should note that there is not a single tilted or toppled gravestone in sight, unlike in many of Austin's public cemeteries.

Nor does the "City of San Marcos Cemetery" appear to be the sterling example PARD claims. Not only is a gravesite planting clearly pictured, the gravestones are haphazardly set in no clear rows and many are tilted or sunken. This in fact looks very similar to existing neglect I see at AMP.

This ends the presentation, fourteen minutes into the meeting. Finally the public is unmuted and permitted to ask questions.

Questions and Answer Period

I want to note that I will be referring to those making questions or comments just as "participant," except for my brother, Steven Weintraub. Although the names of attendees can be found on the PARD website or in the Youtube recording of the meeting, I did not want to post any private citizen's name on my website without their consent.

The first question was whether there were any plans for an in-person meeting for Austin citizens who lack computer skills or access to a computer so that they can express their opinions. Tonja Walls-Davis, PARD cemetery operations manager, admitted that there was no plan for an in-person meeting but that this was "probably" something to consider. 

This participant also noted that in 2016 she was given permission to place bench at her daughter's gravesite and wanted to know whether the bench would be allowed to stay under the new rules. Walls-Davis simply recited the new rules, ignoring the fact that PARD had already given permission, was now admitting that its prior promises were worthless, and that the rules would be enforced retroactively. This arbitrary enforcement also suggests that, because under the rules Cemetery Operations has unbridled control over the cemeteries, that a new manager could interpret the rules as he or she sees fit and retroactively enforce them, no matter what the prior manager had agreed to to promised. Walls-Davis also "generously" offered to meet with any stakeholder and "walk them through" what they need to do to comply with PARD's rules. This again clearly indicates that PARD is going to enforce its rules no matter how it affects existing gravesites, without any compassion or compromise. Interestingly, even though the participant emphasized that she had been given permission in 2016 to place a cement bench, Walls-Davis stated PARD would work with the participant to help her properly place the bench and that the bench would be permitted if it was "made out of the proper material."  She conveniently failed to mention that under the rules for the bench to be "properly" placed, the participant would have to give up her daughter's headstone and that the rules permit only costly marble, granite, and bronze benches.   One wonders whether Walls-Davis forgot this crucial point, just mentioned minutes ago in PARD's presentation, or she was simply trying to avoid admitting in a public forum that the bench, despite PARD's expressed prior permission, would be simply be prohibited. The participant also asked about an wooden cross ornamenting the space between her daughter's gravesite and an adjoining gravesite; the participant asked whether if she moved the cross next to her daughter's monument on the space that she owned if the cross would be allowed to stay. Again, Walls-Davis dithered, suggesting that the participant make an appointment with either her or Jason Walker to determine whether the cross could remain, despite the fact that under the very rules PARD had just presented, the cross would clearly (and retroactively) be prohibited, because the rules permit only: fresh and artificial flowers in a non-breakable container; commemorative stones; stick flags of no more than 18 inches in length; and items made entirely of cloth (so I guess if the participant created a stuffed cross of fabric or plush, that would be allowed?). Either PARD is not familiar with its own rules or once again Walls-Davis was just trying to avoid coming out in a public forum and telling a stakeholder she would be forced to remove existing ornaments on her daughter's grave.

I was the next participant called on, but even through my computer was unmuted, I could not be heard in the Zoom meeting (I have an older laptop and apparently the microphone does not work with Zoom, although it has worked fine in other applications). I was given a phone number to call in, but this was the number to the Cemetery Operations' office, so all I got was a message that the office was closed. Only after several exchanges in Chat,  I was sent the number I needed to call in to the ZOOM meeting. This episode demonstrates just why a ZOOM meeting does not qualify as a legitimate public forum. 

There was discussion regarding how a person could make an appointment regarding the review of a cemetery plot. The next participant had a question regarding the placement of headstones and foot stones.

The next question concerned what benches would be permitted and what was the protocol for notification and removal. Walls-Davis stated that the 1978 rules did not permit benches, conveniently failing to mention that for over three decades PARD never publicized or enforced these rules, permitting the placement of benches throughout the cemeteries, some of which have been in place for many years. She then stated that under the new rules, a bench would be allowed only as monument at the head of the space and must be made out of "approved material" (but again never explains just what material is approved). Walls-Davis then asserted that once the rules go into enforcement, PARD will be contacting families that it has "information on" and informing them that their bench is now "out of compliance." Existing benches are not "out of compliance," because PARD has no legal or moral authority to retroactively enforce the new rules on existing gravesites. Further, this demonstrates the because of its own admitted poor record keeping. PARD lacks "information on" many gravesites. This further makes it clear that: McNeeley's personal assurance to me (and other stakeholders) that there was no intention to apply any new rules to existing gravesites was a lie; and that PARD is ready to send resources and time that could be better used to address the current poor conditions and maintenance in Austin cemeteries to rip up possibly hundreds of existing gravesite gardens and monuments through the cemetery system. Walls-Davis said that PARD would deign to give those families to option of removing the benches or PARD would simly take it upon itself to do and store those benches for 90 days (after which I guess PARD will dump or destroy them).

I finally get through by telephone. I assert that PARD needs to tell the truth, that it never publicized or enforced the 1978 rules and that PARD and its agent Intercare implicitly, and in some cases expressly, gave families permission to create gravesite gardens and memorials. I pointed out that it was not until September of 2013 that PARD first attempted to enforce these rules. I questioned how PARD planned to tear out hundreds of gravesite gardens and memorials and whether it had the resources to repair and maintain those the graves. I also questioned whether PARD had the legal authority to retroactively impose these new rules. I noted that my sister-in-law planted the memorial garden on her daughter's grave because she was distressed to find tire tracks cutting over it and that this is a continuing issue. Schneider stated that there was not time during the meeting to respond to all my questions, but that he would be happy to continue the conversation, to which I replied I have been trying to have this conversation for over NINE years. When Schneider stated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the rules, I emphasized that I was talking about the rules and the issue regarding retroactive enforcement; I noted that many of these gravesite gardens could not be removed without severely damaging the graves and questioned where PARD was going to find the resources and staff to restore those gravesites. Walls-Davis stated that every grave was going to be different and that PARD did not intend to "rip up any graves," despite the fact that all evening PARD had treated the rules as a given and made it very clear that the rules would be retroactively and unconditionally enforced. However, she then said that if PARD removes anything from a gravesite it plans to restore the gravesite. I pointed out that there is nothing in PARD's rules that requires PARD to restore a grave after removing ornamentation. and that a subsequent subsection states that PARD is not responsible for any damage or vandalism to gravesites. Walls-Davis responded that it would be PARD's responsibility to restore the graves. I responded that if this was true, why did AMP have so many tilted and toppled headstones, graves with gaping holes from subsidence, and graves with ruts and tire tracks from PARD's heavy equipment. Schneider then broke in to say that PARD was "grateful" to have someone to continue to hold it accountable, but that he wanted to have time for other questions.

Another participant followed up by stating that she was all concerned about monuments laying on the ground at AMP. She noted that some of these graves are decades old and there may be no family for PARD to contact. She asked in such cases who is responsible for resetting the headstones. Walls-Davis replied that PARD was responsible and that she was working with Massie to try to "figure out a way we can financially be able to address" these "health and safety issues." First, these are not "healthy and safety issues," they are monuments to loved ones and under state law (Section 713.011, Texas Health and Safety Code), PARD has the legal duty to properly maintain the city cemeteries, including leveling or straightening markers or memorial. Second, PARD apparently admitted it lacks funds to even perform its duties under state law; if this is correct, where is PARD going to find the funds and resources to restore the hundreds of gravesites after it "bring them  into compliance" (meaning tearing out established memorials and gardens)?

This participant emphasized that in 2016 she was expressly given permission by PARD to put a bench at the foot of her daughter's grave. She said that she has placed one bench there already and, at PARD's suggestion, chained it to a tree, and, relying on PARD's promise, she had ordered a cement bench which  cost her $1,000 to place at the gravesite. In fact, she said that technically PARD gave her permission for two benches and now she is concerned that she is being told that neither bench complies. Walls-Davis replied that this situation was "unique" and that PARD still has her monument approval form and was waiting to hear back from her. The participant said that she had not contacted PARD because she at first thought the rules were not going to change and just wanted to make sure that her grandchildren had a bench to it on when they visited their mother's gravesite.

In response to a question from the Chat, Walls-Davis stated that PARD is responsible for maintaining the graves, but not the headstones unless they present a health and safety hazard. In response to a question about state law, Walls-Davis responded that under state law, PARD is required to "upkeep, restore graves back from after interments, and address all health and safety issues." State law clearly places the duty of leveling and resetting monuments on the municipality operating the cemetery; it doesn't contain any language limiting this duty only to monuments that present "health and safety issues." In fact, the state statute does not even contain the phrase "health and safety."

There was then discussion about whether the new rules are currently being enforced. PARD responded that it was still under the 1978 rules and discussed the procedure for enacting the new rules.

The next question concerned the rules allowing only one monument per space. The participant stated that a number of gravesites have a family headstone and then individual plaques are placed in front of the headstone for family members. She wanted to know whether under the new rules these plaques would be removed. Walls-Davis responded that the 1978 rules permitted only one monument per space (although clearly these rules were never enforced and such family headstones and individual plaques were permitted for decades) and that under the new rules, as regards cremations, more than one interment will be permitted per space, and a flush monument will be permitted at the foot of a gravesite. However, Walls-Davis stated that PARD would not be removing existing plaques (so clearly PARD is willing to grandfather in some memorials, but not others; however, there is no explanation regarding how PARD reaches such capricious and arbitrary decisions). Walls-Davis admitted that the new rules are to allow PARD to run heavy mowers over gravesites.

Steven Weintraub asked how PARD could revoke permission for the garden over his daughter's grave, after previously granting it. Walls-Davis responded that she never gave any such permission and that the permission must have been granted by PARD's contractor (which means, as the contractor was PARD's agent and PARD subsequently ratified the agent's permission through its acts and omissions, PARD legally gave permission for the garden).

In response to another question, Walls-Davis stated that a plot could have either a bench or headstone at the head and a single foot stone.

Another participant asked when the water system would be turned back on at AMP. He was told that the water is back on. The participant stated that there was a sign at the entry indicating that the system was broken and, as a follow-up, asked why parts of the cemetery have brown or dying grass and shrubs. PARD responded that it tries to maintain a watering schedule, but that the system is from the 1960s and there are breaks in the watering system a regular basis, resulting in having to shut down the system to the entire cemetery. The participant stated that the shrubs his family paid for and PARD planted are now all dead. PARD offered contact information to discuss this issue. 

Schneider noted that there were numerous comments and questions in the Chat which would require "additional conversations," but gave no indication whether PARD intended to contact those persons or how those "additional conversations" would take place.

A participant thanked PARD for permitting her to place marigolds on her daughter's grave in honor of Día de los Muertos. She also asked about keeping the cemetery open late on that special day so that families could carry out traditional celebrations. Walls-Davis responded that this was a special request and people should contact PARD regarding such requests.

Steven Weintraub stated that the permission to plant a garden on his daughter's grave was grant prior to Walls-Davis assuming her office and asked whether she was now rescinding that permission. Walls-Davis responded that she was not rescinding the permission, but that it would take a visit to the gravesite and a conversation to come to a "happy meeting" as to how to "work around this and still be able to implement the rules." Steven responded that the garden has been in place for over a decade and that he was one of the first people when PARD first proposed tearing out gravesite gardens to go to the City Council and ask for a public process which "we really haven't gotten." He reiterated that PARD gave permission for the garden and is now trying to revise that permission. Walls-Davis responded that the issue might not be the actual garden, but there may need to be compromise on the borders. Steven replied that he was given permission to place those borders. Walls-Davis stated that the borders may be the issue and that PARD would be willing to work with him to the best of its abilities. She said she would try to see if they could reach a compromise that would at least allow him to retain the garden. However, PARD has made it clear that it wants to be able to drive its heavy mowing equipment over graves (despite the damage it causes to gravesites and headstones and in contradiction of the recommendations in PARD's own 2015 Master Plan). Without the border, mowers would just plow right over the garden, and that Steven and wife, would be in the same position they were in 2006, looking at tire tracks running over their daughter's grave. PARD is trying to pretend that it is not rescinding prior permission and that it is willing to "compromise" with stakeholders, but the underlying threat is that PARD is going to ram through these rules and retroactively enforce them to the letter regardless of the damage and pain it causes.

There was then some discussion regarding when the restrooms at AMP will be renovated and opened to the public.

Schneider ended by stating that there were still many questions and urged people to continue to comment on-line, but then noted that the comments section on PARD's website would be closed October 11, 2022. He further urged participants to notify and stakeholders without computer access to contact PARD (because public notice and outreach is apparently not part of either PARD's duties or Schneider's "Community Engagement"), which is now rather pointless, as PARD was closing the comments the following day. Schneider stated that the comments will be compiled and reviewed, but was silent regarding whether any of this public input would be considered in making any possible modifications to the the rules. He said that the proposed rules will be posted in January 2023, with a 31-day public review and comment period. This would be followed by a rule adoption notice, anticipated in March of 2023, with a 30-day public appeal period.

In response to a question regarding how families would be notified if they had been given prior permission to ornament a gravesite and that ornamentation would not be in compliance with the new rules, which would be enforced retroactively, Walls-Davis said that PARD did not have records of who received such approval, but that PARD would try to contact everyone it had information for regarding larger items, such as benches. She recommended that everyone provide contact information to PARD and subscribe to PARD's newsletter (email only, so again people lacking computer or Internet access are cut off). Walls-Davis stated that PARD would place notices at cemeteries as well as through social media, so that people could "pick up their items," again indicating PARD is prepared to illegally retroactively enforce the rules and engage in wholesale destruction of existing gravesite gardens and memorials.

There was discussion of tall grass in the cemeteries. Walls-Davis said that this was an unusual condition as a result of drought followed by sudden rain. In response to another question, Walls-Davis stated that there is no security at the cemetery.