Village, residents at odds over Greenfield Cemetery

Voices were raised, tears were shed and more than a few insults were hurled when nearly 20 area residents turned out to express their disappointment in the Greenfield Village Council's and administration's handling of the enforcement of the village ordinance regulating plot decorations at the Greenfield Cemetery. 

Several people were listed on council's agenda for their regular meeting Wednesday evening, while others addressed council from the audience, asking questions and sharing what had happened to their loved ones' graves. 

Many people - including council member Chris Borreson - had issues with a press release that was issued by Greenfield City Manager Betty Bishop on May 10, stating that, "On or after May 20, 2012, cemetery personnel and volunteers will remove all items that are unsightly and/or do not comply with the cemetery rules. Those items will be put in an area close to the work building for 10 (ten) days and if are not claimed will be disposed of on or after May 30, 2012."

Borreson asked Bishop why she chose May 20 as the date to remove the items from the cemetery, saying that the village's actions were in violation of its own law, in according to Greenfield Ordinance 941.03 Section K. 

That ordinance states, "For the period of 10 days prior to Memorial Day and 10 days thereafter, there shall be no restrictions on decorations. Upon the completion of such period unsightly decorations may be removed at the discretion of the city manager or his/her designee."  

Bishop said that she had issued the press release - which also included a listing of cemetery rules - to try to clear up confusion on what decorations were permitted and what were not. Outside of the rules listed in the release [see sidebar], it had previously been stated at council meetings that solar lights would be limited, decorations would be restricted and benches would be carefully regulated. 

The restrictions, Bishop said, were being enforced when items on and around became a safety hazard to city employees. For example, she said a plastic solar light could be run over with a lawn mower and cause injury. 

Borreson said that items were removed from his own family members' graves, and he wanted to know why village employees did that. Bishop said that it wasn't necessarily employees, and that there had been ongoing problems with theft at the cemetery. Borreson said that he believed stone "pavers" were removed from his grandfather's grave, he believed, by village employees. 

"This has happened to hundreds of people," Borreson said to Bishop. "This cemetery is a public service. I didn't think the village would make such a spectacle of of cemetery." 

Bishop said, "If you had an issue with the news release, as a council member and as a professional, at that point you should have come to me (to discuss it)."

"I didn't expect the village of Greenfield to go and tear out everyone's stuff a week before Memorial Day, when this has been brought up several times over the last several months," Borreson said. "The news release isn't the law." 

Council members Betty Jackman, Brenda Losey and Bob Bergstrom said the news release was to state the village's enforcement of the law, which is to maintain the aesthetics and safety of the cemetery. If it was a matter of how the cemetery looked, Borreson asked why a tree hadn't been removed from the roof of the mausoleum, broken windows replaced and large stones removed from the area. 

Council member Bill Redenbaugh was not in attendance Wednesday evening. 

Bergstrom told Borreson that if he had an issue, he needed to set up a meeting with Bishop to discuss it at a later date. 

Several Greenfield residents voiced that they were in agreement with Borreson and that they just wanted to know what the rules were. 

Greenfield resident Tracy Miller said that "unsightly" was subjective and could vary from person to person. Borreson said that according to law, it was Bishop's opinion on what was "unsightly" that mattered. 

Miller and another woman shared that their sons were scared of the dark, so they wanted to make sure their graves were always bathed in light.

"The city manager has the final say," Borreson said. 

Greenfield resident Brian Piatt suggested that council's ordinance committee meet to discuss the matter with residents, so that perhaps a compromise could be reached. 

"I believe rights and freedoms are being violated," Piatt said. "Freedoms I fought for and defended while I was serving our country in Iraq."

When Greenfield began enforcing regulations of the benches at the cemetery, "My 74-year-old grandmother didn't have a place to sit to talk to her husband," who had been a veteran before his death. 

"I defended that right. He defended that right," Piatt said. "I do not believe it is too much to ask for council to have a meeting with the public." 

The meeting was loud at times, with individuals talking over one another and interrupting fellow citizens who were on the agenda to speak. However, when one resident made his way to the microphone, the room was silent as he spoke. 

Larry Maynard said that he was not a resident of Greenfield, but he lived in Highland County and owned plots in the cemetery where family members and friends were buried. 

"I am here as a lot owner and a pastor," Maynard said. "In 1968, the Vietnam Memorial was established in Washington D.C. That was my generation's war. In '71, I made a trip for two reasons: to see the memorial, and to find the name of a very dear friend who lost his life in Vietnam."

Maynard said that recently, he made the trip to the memorial again, and he was struck by the reactions of visitors to the monument. He said there were widows lying down next to the names of lost spouses, older Americans explaining to children the events that happened and many, many people leaving relics, totems and memorial items beside the wall listing 59,169 names. 

"I cried. I stepped back for a while with my grandchildren and tried to explain," Maynard said. 

Curious, Maynard said he asked a guard what happened to the items that were left. He was told that every evening at sundown, the items are collected, catalogued and stored. When he asked them why they didn't throw them away, Maynard said he was told that was something that just wasn't done. 

"These are special things we're talking about here," Maynard said. "It was part of someone's life. They're a way of honoring and paying respect to the dead. 

Maynard paused a few times to collect himself, and his voice was raspy with emotion. As he spoke, some audience members and city officials were openly crying and wiping their eyes. 

Two nights ago, Maynard said, he spoke with a friend who had confided in him that since he was no longer able to decorate his wife's grave the way he wanted, "he had begun slipping into depression."

"We all grieve differently," Maynard said. "There are certain privileges and rights that need not be violated when it comes to honoring our dead. I would hope that when I'm gone and my grandchildren and my sons put me in the ground with my wife, they will be able to sit on a bench. Plant a flower. Just sit and remember. We're on holy ground here. On holy ground." 

As he moved to take his seat, the room broke into applause. 

Clapping, Borreson said, "Well said."

Council also heard from Jenny Good and Jennifer Nichols, who both expressed agreement with those who had spoken before them and asked that the city treat the citizens of Greenfield, and the cemetery, with respect.

The city manager has the authority to approve individual items on graves, but some residents say their plants or lights were removed despite seeking approval. It was asked if the city could develop a documentation plan to improve communication between the administration and the maintenance people at the cemetery and give residents a tangible document that showed the administration's approval. Council said they would ask Greenfield Law Director Brian Zets about it. 

Several people spoke about how they did not have a problem with the village workers at the cemetery, stating they have often been very helpful and understanding. 

At the conclusion of the meeting, under new business, Borreson made a motion that the village create documentation system and seek approval from Zets as soon as possible. No one seconded the motion, but other council members stated they intended to consult with Zets on the matter. 

"I just don't want it to be forgotten," Borreson said. 

Bergstrom said, "It won't be forgotten." 

"Just checking," Borreson said. 

The next meeting of the Greenfield Village Council will be held June 20 at 7:30 p.m. in council chambers in the Greenfield administration building.