A recent example is KXAN's January 19, 2023, news report entitled "Woman calls Austin cemetery condition ‘disrespectful.’ Here’s what’s being fixed". In the report, KXAN reporter Dalton Huey discussed meeting with me regarding my complaints concerning the conditions at Austin Memorial Park (AMP), including numerous graves that had been defaced and desecrated by deep ruts and tire tracks, the rusted and sagging chain-link fence that borders the cemetery, and tilted and toppled headstones.
Huey reported that PARD told KXAN "that staffing shortages and budget constraints have played a factor in its ability to make cemetery improvements and further explained that adverse weather conditions, including rain that saturated the ground, has led to damage when digging new graves, even though it used tracks meant to prevent indentations."
Austin is now in a Stage 1 drought. During 2022 there has been a total of 12.13 inches for all of Austin. The ground has not been significantly "saturated" for months. Further, the tire tracks and ruts criss-cross the entire cemetery, even in areas where there appears to have been no recent burials, and many of these tire tracks appear to be many months old. And these are not mere "indentations," but are significantly deep and damaging (see Demolition Derby and Demolition Derby Part II). To show just how long some of these tire tracks have existed, here is a picture I took of a gravesite adjacent to my family's plots in March of 2022.
Same gravesite in a picture I took December 29, 2022.
A third picture of the same gravesite taken January 21, 2023.
There is not only no evidence of any attempt to use "tracks" to protect the gravesite, the tire tracks desecrating the grave have existed for some eleven months with no action by PARD to, as it states in its response to KXAN, "work with its crew to ensure compliance with Cemetery Operations standards."
The KXAN report notes that I "and other family members have been alerting the City of Austin Parks and Recreation Department of the need to improve conditions and preserve their gardens for nearly a decade." It continues that the City of Austin is updating the 1987 cemetery rules and reports that I "expressed concerns about some of the proposed rules . . . could jeopardize the memorial garden surrounding her and other loved ones’ final resting places." The report states that the proposed rules provide "Cemetery Operations the discretionary authority to remove, without notice, any items it feels could interfere with cemetery operations or maintenance, which suggests rock-lined memorial gardens, such as Weintraub’s, could be removed." PARD's response, according to the report, was that "proper notice will be given before items are taken away."
Nothing in the proposed rules requires notice, nor does PARD indicate what is "proper notice." Considering that the proposed rules give PARD absolute authority and complete discretion over the cemetery operations, "proper" is pretty much going to be anything PARD decides. However, this misses the entire point. First, for ever three decades PARD either directly or through its agent gave families implicit, and in some cases, explicit, permission to create gravesite gardens and memorials. PARD lacks both the legal and moral authority to retroactively impose any new rules on existing gravesites.
These gardens have been in place for years, even decades, and cannot be removed without severely damaging and desecrating graves. If, as PARD admitted in this news report, "that staffing shortages and budget constraints have played a factor in its ability to make cemetery improvements," how is PARD planning on finding sufficient funding and staff to rip out hundreds of gravesite memorials throughout the Austin cemeteries, much less repair the resulting destruction? After all, PARD cannot even be bothered to repair tire tracks on a gravesite that have been visible for some eleven months. Of course this is assuming that PARD even intends to repair the gravesites after it destroys the long-established gravesite memorials. NOTHING in PARD's proposed rules requires PARD to repair or restore any gravesite after tearing out gravesite gardens or memorials.
Under proposed Rule 14.4.10 (Ornamentation and Decoration), only fresh and artificial flowers in an invertible vase or other non-breakable container, commemorative stones (not defined in the rules, so that is apparently up to PARD's sole discretion), stick flags of no more than 18 inches in length, and items made entirely of cloth are permitted at a gravesite, and these items may be placed only at the head of a space or to the immediate left, right, or on a memorial. Trees, shrubs, and other plants "are prohibited, whether within or outside a space, and may be removed without further notice." Further, under Subsection E, "Cemetery Operations in its sole discretion may, without notice, remove an item that. . . interferes with cemetery operations or maintenance. So the proposed rules give PARD the absolute authority to remove pretty much anything from a gravesite, including long-established gardens and pretty much anything PARD feels is in its way. NOTHING in the rules requires that PARD make even the slightest effort to repair or restore the gravesite after PARD is through. In fact, Subsection (F) expressly provides that, "The City is not responsible for the theft or vandalism of ornamentation, decoration, or any other personal property left in a cemetery." So PARD's own proposed rules grants PARD complete indemnity if it desecrates, destroys, or otherwise damages any gravesite.
PARD has repeatedly admitted over the past nine years that it wants to remove the gravesite memorials simply because it would be easier for it to run its heavy equipment and movers over graves (despite the fact that the 2015 City of Austin Historic Cemeteries Master Plan expressly states that heavy equipment should not be operated near gravesites because of potential damage to the graves and monuments). My sister-in-law planted the memorial garden on her daughter's grave in 2006 because she was distressed to find tire tracks cutting through it; we planted the gravesite garden on my father's grave in 2012, and later expanded it to include my mother's grave, because we did not want our loved ones' final resting places to look like the venue for a monster truck mud rally. Yet, under PARD's proposed rules, not only would it have unchecked authority to rip apart those gardens, it could once again further desecrate the graves by driving heavy equipment and mowers over them, leaving ruts and tire tracks. And nothing in the proposed rules either requires that PARD to restore any damage it inflicts on these scared grounds or allows it to be held accountable to families in any way.
Finally, the new report quotes PARD as stating, “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.” Sound familiar? This is the exactsame language was used by PARD in a slide presentation during the October 10, 2022, ZOOM meeting.
The slide in question stated that PARD had added a section in the proposed rules "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 (my emphasis)." Although PARD trumpeted this inclusion of an appeals process as evidence of its supposed willingness to work with stakeholders, THE CURRENT PROPOSED RULES CONTAIN NO SUCH PROCESS!
This same exact slide appeared in a presentation made by PARD at the November 16, 2022, meeting of the Parks and Recreation Board Finance Subcommittee. When I confronted Tonja Wall-Davis, PARD cemetery operations manager, at that meeting with the fact that the PARD presentation is claiming that the proposed rules include an appeals process that is not in the actual proposed rules, her response was that "Legal" removed the appeals process but that the slide was "accurate" regarding the timeline set out in the presentation. I pointed out that by failing to clarify that the appeals process is not in fact included in the proposed rules, the presentation is giving a false impression. I tried to explain that this is why stakeholders have a problem with believing anything PARD says. So PARD's statement to KXAN includes the exact same language it has twice used in making a misleading and false claim to both the public and the Parks and Recreation Board. As I have said elsewhere on this website, PARD's "continuous open line of communication" appears to be more along the lines of an open sewer pipe spewing male bovine alimentary byproducts.
No comments:
Post a Comment