This meeting was attended by 7 neighbors (1 late arrival), 3 board members from Clark Park Coalition, and 5 board members (Caton Arreguin by phone; Myett Risker absent). It was held at Clark Park.
After brief introductions, one agenda item was set aside: HFNA has communicated on multiple occasions with DLBA about a speaker, but she has yet to attend when scheduled.
Therefore, the initial conversation centered on concerns brought by 3 residents and one board member regarding the blockade of the alley between Hubbard and Vinewood at the Porter (south) end. According to neighbors, concrete barricades were placed early one morning, with no notice. This alley is well used by neighbors who have homes along Vinewood and Hubbard, between Porter and Bagley.
From initial inquiries spearheaded by James H., this appears to stem from a property line dispute between a new row house property owner and MiSide/SW Solutions. James H. has taken steps to visualize property lines issues on a map (not presented) and request additional information from the city about the process, as it seems to conflict with all known alley policies and processes. MiSide supports the continuing use of this alley access. Shared anecdotal experiences with the row house property owner have indicated a strong unilateral stance which favors legal remedy. Marlena asked James H. to share his documentation so that it could be posted online. Nat volunteered to work with James H. for FOIA requests. Monte volunteered to reach out to MiSide for a letter of support.
In preparation for what was planned as a pro forma vote on a resident-approved budget, Marlena presented the results of the project rank choice ballot. The results were:
16 qualified votes
Budget Approval: 15/16*
* Single “No” vote was based on format confusion, rather than substance of expenses or projects. Rank choice method used takes the project which received the majority of votes, if applicable, in each ranking. For example, the Annual Event received the highest amount of votes for 1st place. Votes received for any other project are aggregated with the vote tally for the next place. Therefore, projects ranking 2-7 reflect cumulative votes. The order presented is the order of preference. Chart form.
- $ 250 Annual Event – 5 votes
- $ 500 Garden – 6 votes (cumulative)
- $1,500 Pocket Park – 9 votes (cumulative) and rank majority
- $ 500 Green Streetscape – 9 votes (cumulative)
- $2,500 Traffic Calming – 11 votes (cumulative) and rank majority
- $ 500 Qtrly Neighborhood Clean-up – 11 votes (cumulative)
- $ 500 Housing Policy – 16 votes (cumulative)
This introduced an extended conversation not planned or scheduled on the agenda. Some questions arose from new attendees who were unfamiliar with the process as it had been rolled out, and therefore wanted information not in the summaries.
There were 3 representatives present of behalf of what has been understood as the garden committee. They were supported by 3 board members from Clark Park Coalition and some template letters which were solicited from neighbors. The objection and controversy stemmed from the board-approved allocation of approximately 30% of unspent, expired grant monies which were recovered in the budgeting and planning process. The grant was originally designated for one season of projects at the garden in 2022, some of which were subsequently covered by a third party. The purpose of the shared revenue allocation was to secure HFNA’s federal status, making it eligible for greater fundraising, and minor, but concrete, expenses needed to maintain basic organizational function, such as annual LARA filing. Additionally, the board hoped to increase engagement and avenues of participation by offering more projects proposed by neighbors earlier in the year.
There were varied and conflicting narratives about the history of the grant. The stance presented by attending garden advocates at the meeting was that the grant money had been intentionally, but informally, held aside for future seasons. There was some disagreement about the record and past board knowledge of the grant balance. The central spokesperson asserted the grant was initially awarded to the garden group as a stand alone organization, separate from HFNA, in direct partnership with Clark Park Coalition as its fiduciary. A board member from CPC supported this assertion. Consequently, it was argued, HFNA had no claim to any of the funds. The Coalition asserted authority to determine the disposition of the funds, counter to a HFNA board decision and direction, as the informal fiscal sponsor of a pre-approved grant (Model C); this was often incorrectly referred to as a fiduciary. In some comments, this authority was in its role as HFNA’s fiscal sponsor; in others, it was as the garden group’s fiscal sponsor. It was pointed out that the grant had not required a sponsor. It was pointed out that the grantor had released the funds, formally and in writing, to the grant recipient, HFNA. (Editor’s note: The board relies on objective documentation and statements on record, available in detail through the resolution history and notes.)
Both garden representatives and CPC board members characterized the board decision as “stealing” the money, for purposes of funding HFNA and resident projects, including the garden. It was also stated that the board was untrustworthy, although no specific rationale for the statement or examples were expressed. As a result of the ad hominem attacks directed at the board and tactics used by some in the garden lobby, one board member resigned at the conclusion of the meeting.
The bulk of the agenda was tabled as a result of the length of this discussion. The meeting ran over the scheduled time and was adjourned at approximately 8:20pm.