Also, I am shocked to read that 65 gardeners were turned away from being able to get plots to garden. There is potentially a whole bunch more space at the Ann Arbor Airport Garden, and it is quite a great place to garden. It is secluded and I haven’t encountered much trouble with animals eating up the gardens there. There are predator birds (owls and hawks) that keep the rodent population in check.

Couldn’t we just have some kind of meeting where we talked about all the differences and concerns, and just come to some kind of common sense agreement ?

Secondarily, “the more the merrier” doesn’t necessarily apply to boards, depending on numerous factors, including the maturity of the organization and its mission.

At this second meeting, I again saw one person who has been one of the most helpful people in my local garden. She is upbeat, very hardworking as a volunteer, and will stop what she is doing in her own garden to share her knowledge of gardening. She was one of the members running for the board on the green paper. Again, I was happy to vote for her.

I was quite surprised, at both meetings, to see a fairly sour attitude by the existing board toward people that I knew and respected as great gardeners and selfless volunteers.

I cannot guess at the motivations of the then-existing board who seemed to want to exclude people that I knew, from experience, to be selfless volunteers with a lot of expertise in gardening. I’m glad the new board got voted in.

Most of the membership seemed to think it was a good idea, too, since the vote was overwhelmingly in favor of the new folks serving on the board. Most of the people attending the meeting who voted were people I’d seen at previous meetings or during gardening. I didn’t see evidence of people who just paid $10 and attended in order to vote. Quite the reverse. Not that it is not a danger for the future. This should be changed.

While some may see community gardening as a frill, I beg to differ. Many of the gardeners garden for food for their families. I know some of them and think they would have trouble affording healthy food otherwise. Not all of Ann Arbor can afford to shop at the organic food stores.

[link]

While not involved in Project Grow, I’ll hazard a guess that seven specific syllables in the line above — nominating committee — hold a key to understanding PG’s grassroots bureaucratic row. As an outsider reading this article, it’s the only context I can think of so far in which to explain the apparent intensity of emotion and breakdown in trust.

Such a committee can be organized as an informal gathering, open to all, seeking other members and community residents as potential board members. The group might create a short laundry list of needed skills that they keep in mind, but these are never intended as necessary requirements. The process creates no litmus test, only mild preferences.

Or, at the opposite end of the spectrum, it can operate as a formal, autocratic gate-keeper that, with the board’s rubber-stamp, unilaterally determines which names appear on election ballots. This process seeks to perpetuate the present direction of a board while marginalizing dissent. Any other aspiring board member must run only as a write-in candidate with limited access, at best, to the organization’s internal communication.

In both corporate and nonprofit environments, an initially informal nominating committee may evolve over time into the latter style of management. Might there have been an unallayed fear of something like this happening within Project Grow, that its member-oriented process would transition to de facto full control by board and staff? Portions of text in the green sheet above indicate a sense of distrust. Though I do agree with Devon in regard to someone (like me, let’s say) spending $10 to get an instant vote on PG affairs — how about having no voting rights for new members during their first 90 days?

Lastly, speculating on points brought up by Vin and Vivienne, I wonder if City Council’s defunding of its modest support for PG represents a political payback. Somehow it wouldn’t surprise me if among Project Grow-ers there’s a fair concentration of folks, including some election activists, who regularly vote for opponents of Council’s political majority.

City council must be looking back on the vote, not to help fund Project Grow, as a major failure. Maybe on their way out of city hall they may reflect on it. We are giving away, to one of the most profitable companies in the world, millions in tax payer dollars for parking and can’t help Project Grow? Very telling of our current government.

I have nothing but respect for both Melissa and Devon. I think that their talents and leadership will be sorely missed. I also think the manner in which they were treated is disrespectful and unfortunate.

I am aware of some of the issues that were brought up and I believe that the organization has needed to update its bylaws for a long time. Unfortunately, there are a few on the board who are deeply resistant to any type of change, even sensible measures.

I suspect for those who acted poorly, this will be a pyrrhic victory. They have argued for their own limitations and now they own them.

It’s very shameful and I think Melissa and Devon should be lauded for their work and commitment. It is a sad day for Project Grow.