Municipal Services Committee Votes 4-1 To Deny Resolution To Eliminate No Mow May

[Update 04/15/2023: Alderperson Del Toro’s presentation included slides that were originally not attached to the minutes of the meeting. I have, however, now obtained those slides and am including them for those who wish to review his visual presentation.

You can read more about the effort it took to acquire those slides here.

Additionally, during his presentation, Alderperson Del Toro referenced a new study that he conducted. I have since confirmed with him that the study is, as of yet, not published or available for the public to review.]

The Municipal Services Committee met 04/10/2023. The item that took up most of the committee’s time was the Resolution to Eliminate No Mow May which they ultimately voted to recommend for denial.

Back in March of 2022, the Common Council voted to change the city code to make No Mow May a permanent yearly occurrence. This new resolution would have returned that section of city code back to what it was prior to the changes. 

This resolution was introduced by Alderperson Chad Doran (District 15) on the basis that the 2020 study which was used to demonstrate the benefit of No Mow May had been retracted due to “several potential inconsistences in data handling and reporting”. Those issues were laid out by Zach Portman, a bee taxonomist at the University of Minnesota, first in a Twitter thread on 09/22/2020 and then in a more detailed Medium article published 10/05/2022.  

The study in question was authored by Israel Del Toro the current alderperson for District 4, although he was not an alderperson when the study was written or when the original No Mow May resolution passed in 2022. During the meeting he defended his research, said that he and his coauthor conducted a follow-up study in 2021 that corrected some of the issues with the original study, and indicated that the follow-up study validated the underlying findings that bee “diversity and abundance continues to be high in No Mow lawns relative to mowed lawns.”

Alderperson Doran believed that the educational component of No Mow May was successful and beneficial to the community, but he felt that having No Mow May itself embedding into city code was not necessary. He thought an ordinance change should have some data behind it and noted that, in light of the study retraction, several communities in Wisconsin that implemented their own No Mow May programs were reconsidering those changes.

The committee ended up recommending the resolution for denial by a 4-1 vote with only Alderperson Doran voting to uphold the resolution.

I’ve prepared a complete transcript of the discussion for your downloading pleasure.

[This discussion was long, and several of the participants seemed to have strong personal feelings about the subject. As a result, this recap will be on the longer side because I want to make sure everyone’s views are adequately represented.]

As the author of the resolution, Alderperson Doran spoke on it first. He believed that education was good but the No Mow May ordinance itself was not necessary. [Note: he referred to the ordinance as allowing the grass to be grown 4 inches longer in May (i.e. to 12 inches). That’s not actually what the ordinance says. Rather, city code allows for a maximum grass height of 8” on developed lots but does not allow enforcement of that to take place until June 1.]

He pointed out the fact that the study which had been used as the basis for demonstrating the benefit of No Mow May had been retracted. “I guess, you can decide how you or what you want to read into that as far as why. […] I’ll note the journal that in which the study was published, says that ‘editors should consider retracting the publication if they have clear evidence that findings are unreliable, either as a result of major error or as a result of fabrication or falsification.’ And I think it notes ‘retractions are not appropriate for studies to be pulled back if the main findings of the work are still reliable and correction could sufficiently address errors or concerns.’ So given that, it sounds like, from a layman’s reading I guess, that that the study has been, quote unquote, debunked, I guess, in terms of its standing.

He believed that ordinance changes should have some level of data behind them and should not be implemented just because it made people feel good or “might” result in some sort of benefit.

He noted that a number of communities had implemented No Mow May programs but that he had now heard from a couple of those municipalities who were reconsidering because of the lack of scientific backing behind it.

He stressed that he thought the educational component of the program had been very successful and could continue. He thought that there were ways outside of letting the grass grow long that groups could continue to support pollinators such as by purchasing seed packets of flowers and handing them out to the community.

He also noted that although they had heard from people in the community who supported No Mow May, none of them had drilled down into the issue that the resolution brought forward. None of them had shown any information that demonstrated that letting grass grow more than 8 inches in the month of May benefited bees and pollinators. “And I suspect that’s probably because there isn’t any scientific data to show it. I’ve reached out to experts that I’ve presented to this Council and in over the past two years when we’ve had discussion about this, that say there is at best a negligible benefit to allowing your grass grow four inches longer.”

He pointed out that the average height of dandelions is 6-8 inches and of clover is 4-8 inches. Those were the two bee-nourishing flowers that were mentioned as having their growth promoted by No Mow May. “Our ordinance the rest of the year, already allows you to grow your grass twice that height. And a USDA study shows that the optimal frequency for bee habitat is two weeks. You’re supposed to mow every two weeks for the optimal habitat for bees. These are just a few of the things that I found that sort of, in my mind, go against this ordinance that allows us to grow your grass up to 12 inches long. It seems counterintuitive.”

His final point was “I think the one fact that’s indisputable in all of this is that experts in the field of bees point out that flowers and flower gardens are more beneficial. I don’t know that anyone’s going to argue that. So, if the idea of this initiative is to really help, then let’s do the things that help them most. Let’s do the things that actually work.”

Alderperson Del Toro started out by saying, “I’d love to see Alder Doran instead of building a proposal or resolution which detracts or deconstructs, rather to put some money behind that. I’d love to see money being poured into educational efforts on best sustainability practices within our city. And I’d cowrite that resolution with him gladly.”

He said No Mow May was about “our community education of environment stewardship”. He said Appleton was a leader in this area, and now over 50 other cities across multiple states were participating in Now Mow May or Slow Mow May as a way “to provide foraging habitat for early emerging bees.”

He indicated that he published the original study in a journal that the public could access for free and for which the review history was accessible as a way to be transparent. They did receive reviewer feedback which they addressed in the text of the paper and moved on.

He specifically addressed the criticism that they did not have the ability to identify a number of the bee species they identified by sight out in the field. “So typically, as an entomologist, what I would do is go out into the field, set up some traps, collect the specimens, and bring them back to my lab, harvest, kill the specimens, bring them back to my lab, identify them, and put names to them. This seems to be counterintuitive to what No Mow May wants to do. We don’t want to kill bees in this process. We want to save and protect individual bees. And so, what we were doing as part of this methodology was identifying them to the best of our ability in the field to the lowest possible taxonomic unit.”

He stressed, “What doesn’t change about this original No Mow May study is this: three out of the four components remain the same. In No Mow lawns, there are still more flowers. In No Mo lawns, there are still more coverage of more flowers. And there is still greater abundance of bees. There’s just many, many more bees in No Mow lawns than there are in mowed lawns.”

He said that the only aspect of the study that was questioned was which bee species were present in the lawns. He specifically noted that this criticism was raised by an individual “in a blog post, which is not peer reviewed, and is not undergoing the merits of the scientific process.” [That seemed a little unfair to Zach Portman, in my opinion, given that Mr. Portman indicates he reached out directly to PeerJ several times starting in September of 2020, again in 2021, and again in 2022. He concluded his Medium article by explaining, “In light of the slow response of the journal and the proliferation of this research in the public and scientific spheres, I have decided to publicly and thoroughly document the issues here. I hope the journal will conclude its investigation soon and officially correct the scientific record.” In fact, it was only after Mr. Portman published his “blog post” in October of 2022 that the Now Mow May study was retracted in November of 2022. At any rate…]

Alderperson Del Toro told the committee that they reproduced the study in 2021 with the goal of increasing the sample size. They conducted the 2021 study in Appleton, Wausau, Stevens Point, Oshkosh, Kimberly, and Kaukauna. The 2021 study included direct lawn-to-lawn comparisons as well as multiple observers. They did also kill bees, harvest specimens, and bring them back to the lab.

The study which utilized data collected by 39 citizen scientists participating across 78 different sites identified 38 different species of bees. “And diversity and abundance continues to be high in No Mow lawns relative to mowed lawns.”

He said that in November of 2022 they retracted the previous paper because they wanted to include the data from 2021 alongside the 2020 data. “New data, new analysis, new paper. Old paper needs to be retracted before the new paper comes out with and undergoes the same process.”

[Note: I don’t know where this new paper has been published. It does not appear to have been published on the PeerJ website. I have reached out to Alderperson Del Toro with a request for a link or a PDF copy of the paper and will update this post when I receive that. (Update 04-15-2023: I have since confirmed with Alderperson Del Toro that the study has not yet been published and is not available to the public to review.)]

He suggested that Alderperson Doran could do his own study. “If, you know, Alder Doran goes out and does his own study and finds that indeed, there is no data to support this, and goes through the arduous peer review process and has all the appropriate data and his colleagues agree that this this this has merit, then we can say, Okay, maybe there’s potential for false—er not falsification. But there’s potential for countering this observation in the field.”

He finished up by saying, “There’s false information being presented here and in situations that are frankly not appreciated. It also shows a lack of due diligence and lack of communication and foundational understanding of the scientific methods and basis. So, you know, going a little far beyond or maybe sticking your hand in a hornet’s nest if you will. And it, this definitely borders on defamatory, libel, and slander because it’s actually attack—attacking not what I do here on Council. A Council member is fine to attack that. But he’s actually attacking what I do as a job. And it might not seem like a serious accusation to the folks in this room, but other scientists lose their jobs over the language that was pressed in this resolution. So, I don’t take this lightly. I take this as a serious grievance and an inappropriate use of policymaking.”

[Note: it was mentioned later in the meeting that Alderperson Del Toro has tenure.]

Relena Ribbons, an assistant professor at Lawrence University and the coauthor of the paper in question, also spoke. She did not talk about the reasons why the paper was retracted or present scientific support for keeping No Mow May in place. Rather, she spoke on a personal level. She was alarmed to see that her reputation and scientific integrity was being put on the line. “When you want to talk about this removal of No Mow May as an ordinance is not hurting anyone, you’re looking at just one face, a female scientist, that you’re personally attacking. I have not one but two PhDs. I have been in this field studying vegetation for over 15 years. And I do not appreciate being told that I’m not an expert in the study that I designed and have been working on systematically, consistently, using the scientific process, for the past three years. Sorry if that sounds a little emotional. I’m really upset by having this thrown in my face, as opposed to engaging in a conversation.” 

She viewed this resolution as a form of bullying and thought that it was also hurting “all of the children who helped us collect bees over this time period.” She viewed this resolution as an attack not only on her but also on the organizations she was a member of such as Girl Scouts and Envirothon.

In terms of conservation and pollinator protection efforts, she thought that people could be doing more than they were already doing and whatever they were doing could be helpful even if it was on a small scale.

She finished up by saying, “Really what it comes down to, what do the constituents of Appleton want? What do the citizens here want? Do they want aesthetics and controlling other people’s landscapes? That seems like a weird thing to suggest. I don’t want to suggest what people plant in their gardens. If they like squash, I want them to plant squash. I don’t want them to have to plant a specific height regulated lawn. You should allow people to plant what they want in their lawns. You should allow No Mow May to continue to exist. And I actually think we should get more progressive with future measures to promote pollinator conservation.”

Three other members of the public spoke. Bob felt No Mow May made sense because it didn’t cost the city any money, there were no safety concerns, and it was very beneficial to the environment. Brian wondered if anything that had been said that night made “us want to change our mind and maybe withdraw the resolution? And if not, what is it that we’re looking for?” He also wanted to know how they learned that the paper was withdrawn because that was a “pretty obscure piece of information I would think.” Sophie said, “I would just like to stand up for Dr. Del Toro and Dr. Ribbons, and I know how much they care about their work. Dr. Del Toro went up for tenure, and he received it, and he was peer reviewed by a lot of his colleagues and he stood that line of fire. And so as far as the quality of their work and for as important as keeping the academic process away from politics as much as possible, I think they both do a great stand-up job, and we’re lucky to have them here today.”

Various alderpersons not on the committee then weighed in.

Alderperson Denise Fenton (District 6) disagreed with the idea suggested by Alderperson Doran that planting flowers and blooming shrubs and trees was a better solution than letting grass grow long. She went through a list of flowers (Bee Balm, Black Eyed Susan, lavender, lilacs, purple coneflowers, sunflowers, serviceberry, and plum, cherry, and crabapple trees) and said that they all bloomed outside of the time when bees start hatching. She suggested that dandelions were what was available when bees first hatched and “when that’s all there is, that’s what they can eat.” 

She said when they started No Mow May they did not do so based on a study because that data was collected during their first No Mow May in 2020. Rather, they were following the lead of environmentalists and amateur gardeners in the UK. Likewise, placing it into the municipal code was partially based on the study but also partially based on the success that they had in the number and enthusiasm of people participating in the program.

Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) started off with a note of caution saying, “I am concerned when we begin to talk about this [resolution] bordering on defamatory because, in stating that, there’s potential for more defamation.”

She thought the point of the resolution was “we don’t have the scientific backing, so the ordinance is no longer needed.” She wondered why the retraction had not been presented to the Council ahead of time. She also pointed out that “cost doesn’t just come from our city budget. Cost comes from community good feelings, costs come from goodwill amongst your neighbors.”

She believed that an 8-inch grass length was long enough to promote the growth of clovers and early blooming flowers. She wondered if there was any study demonstrating what the ideal maximum height of grass was.

Alderperson Alex Schultz (District 9) hoped Alderperson Doran would withdraw the resolution, and he found the proposal to rescind No Mow May “just a little infuriating” because science had proven that there was a positive benefit.

He noted that property owners were not required to participate in the program, and said that it had been shown scientifically that not mowing a lawn immediately at the beginning “of this month” [I don’t know if he was talking about May or April] “might actually have some benefit to pollinating populations and increase diversity and the number of bees that have a chance to establish themselves if we don’t disturb their habitat right away.”

He said that short lawns were a habit society had accepted because of the culture following World War II.

He also said he actually did not want someone who had been applying pesticides regularly for many years to grow their grass long because the flowers that bloom would pull up herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers.

He finished up by saying, “I think it’s a travesty that we would be considering this resolution given the history of what we’ve done and not have a deeper conversation before something like this would come before this committee and before Council to have a conversation, when it is obvious to me that the science is sound, that the science has reason, and that the foundation of this resolution does not stand against the science.”

Alderperson Vered Meltzer (District 2) stressed that No Mow May was not about the grass height but about not mowing and not disturbing the habitat because “every time you go in there with your mower, you are destroying the world that these creatures live in, and you are destroying the only food they have as they emerge from the winter. […] No Mow May isn’t about letting people grow long grass. It’s about giving these living things a chance to eat some food and not starve to death.”

Alderperson Meltzer also stressed that the ordinance was not adopted because of the paper but because of the trial program the city ran which showed that Now Mow May was successful and there had been no ill effects. “So, we didn’t even need the papers and the lifetime of dedication that our scientists have. As citizen scientists, as experimenters, and leaders in our own community, we were able to try out a concept and see that it was good and change our ordinance accordingly.”

Alderperson Chris Croatt (District 14) noted that back when No Mow May was first placed into city code there had been some concern that costs to the city would rise due to increased complaints from neighbors. He asked if there was any data available on that. Director of Public Works Danielle Block did not believe that there had been an increase in complaints, but she offered to gather more info from staff on that and follow up with Alderperson Croatt.

Prior to bringing the discussion back to the committee members, Alderperson William Siebers (District 1), the chair of the committee, gave Alderpersons Del Toro and Doran one last opportunity to speak.

Alderperson Del Toro responding to Alderperson Hartzheim’s question as to why the Council wasn’t notified that the paper had been retracted said, “I don’t notify the Council about every decision that I make as a scientist. And also, particularly in this situation, when the story doesn’t change then there’s nothing to notify.”  

He also felt that drafting a memo about the impact No Mow May had on the Inspections department was unnecessary and problematic. 

He also clarified why he viewed the resolution to eliminate No Mow May as defamatory. “It would be as if, you know, I accused a colleague of political mismanagement and inappropriateness by representing some sort of political candidate and spreading some conflict of interest, rending the—rendering them incapable of performing their aldermanic duties. Yeah, it has an impact on their job. What we say and what we do on paper and what we write in preparation in these resolutions and spread to our communities, the misinformation that we spread to our communities, has implications to our constituents. And it increases distrust in this body of government.”

He said that other members of the Council reached out to him about the retraction, but Alderperson Doran had repeatedly declined communication with him.

He felt the resolution had only wasted people’s time, but Alderperson Siebers disagreed with him.

Alderperson Doran started out by saying, “I think almost everything we’ve heard today is based on emotion. Lots of emotion.”

He reiterated some of the concerns that Zach Portman had raised regarding the study.

• ”The paper reports multiple bee species that simply do not occur in Wisconsin in May.”
• ”The paper methods state that the majority of specimens were identified by sight in the field. This is a problem because many of the listed species require a microscope to identify.”
• Implausible plant data listed in the study such as Canada thistle when “finding thistles blooming in May in Wisconsin is biologically implausible. Reporting blooming Canada Thistle in May from 30% of lawns in this study is downright bizarre.” 
• There were many misspellings of bee names in the study. 

He said that in none of the discussions that day or in the past had they received any information showing that allowing grass to grow over 8 inches had any benefit. He reiterated that numerous studies showed the maximum height of dandelions and clover was 4-8 inches and that the recommended height of grass to help dandelions grow was 4 inches.

He was not recommending that people cut their lawns to under an inch like a golf course. “All I’m suggesting is that we take away the ordinance that allows you to grow it for 12 inches in May and put it back to the way it was prior to this resolution being brought forward. Because as I’ve said, nothing that we’ve heard says there’s any benefit to allowing it to grow longer than eight inches.”

Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5)  said she learned about the retraction last fall and had not only talked to Alderperson Del Toro who explained to her what he had explained to the committee but also reached out to Zach Portman who had responded that he had nothing further to add to what he had already written in his Medium article. “I voted for No Mow May the first time after amending it to remove the grace period of two weeks that allowed my constituents to experience a No Mow May and see that some of the fears that they had were unfounded. And since then, each time this has come before us, I have supported it because my constituents have shown great interest in support of the program. Nothing has changed since then so I will not support a resolution to curtail this.” 

Alderperson Brad Firkus (District 3)  felt that because Alderperson Doran was familiar with the Medium article that led to the paper being retracted, he would also have been familiar with why Alderperson Del Toro retracted the article. “What this resolution fails to add in, what it intentionally omits, is that bee populations were stronger where there was no mowing. That seems to me to be the strongest and most relevant fact of all about this.”

He then spoke directly to Alderperson Doran rather than addressing the chair, saying, “The fact that you would know that information, omit that information, and submit this resolution makes it inconceivable that this resolution’s primary impetus is about No Mow May to even begin with.” He went on to say, “I think that this is an entirely inappropriate use of the powers we have as an alderperson. And I think we should defeat this. And I think any alderperson that decides to use their power in the future should face some sort of public notification—something. I don’t know what, but I find this entirely inappropriate.”

Alderperson Del Toro wanted the resolution to be received and filed, but the committee went on to vote 4-1 to deny the resolution. 

It will be taken up for a final vote by the Common Council on 04/19/2023.

[There were definite “Waiting For Guffman” vibes to this meeting, given how absurdly seriously everyone seemed to be taking a resolution regarding grass height during the month of May. It also seemed like one of those meetings where there was potentially a lot of things the public wasn’t privy to happening behind the scenes, because, frankly, the level of weird emotions on display made no sense to me.

The negativity toward Zach Portman also seemed unwarranted, particularly given that he’s a fellow scientist and a disinterested third party in another state who seems to have taken numerous steps to deal with the issues in the study prior to publishing his Medium article. It seems like a lot of this could have been avoided if PeerJ and Alderperson Del Toro had simply responded to him in a timely manner and explained the steps they were taking in response to what appears to be some fairly valid criticisms.

The entire resolution seemed like pretty normal politics-as-usual. The study was listed in the second paragraph of the 2022 No Mow May resolution as providing justification for placing No Mow May permanently in the city code. Professor Del Toro (who was not then an alderperson) was the only member of the public to speak at the 02/21/2022 Municipal Services Committee meeting, and he touted this study as a reason to implement permanent No Mow May. During the 03/07/2022 Municipal Services Committee meeting, Alderperson Vered Meltzer pointed to the study’s findings as evidence that “the rusty patch bumblebee made its home in Appleton”. (Although, in light of the bee identification issues that were brought to light, who knows if that’s actually true.) The study findings were pointed to again during the 03/16/2022 Common Council meeting as evidence of the programs benefits and justification to place No Mow May permanently into city code. That study certainly played an outsized role in getting the 2022 No Mow May resolution approved. What was also established at all of those meetings in 2022 was that Alderperson Doran did not support placing No Mow May permanently into the city code.

To me, it seems pretty harmless for an alderperson to bring the information about the study’s retraction to the public’s attention by introducing this resolution and to give residents another opportunity to voice either their support or disapproval of No Mow May. If nothing else, it has now been well established that Appleton residents don’t care about No Mow May and are happy to let it continue, given that nobody showed up to any of these recent meetings to support eliminating No Mow May from the city code.

As I’ve mentioned in the past, I think people should be able to grow their grass long simply because it’s their property and people should have wide latitude to do what they wish with their land. I also don’t think that one needs “data” to support an ordinance change that gives people more freedom to do what they want on their own property.

Although I’m not a scientist, I do still doubt that burying flowers in tall grass promotes bee flourishing, and after having read the Medium article by Zach Portman I do question the validity of the study’s findings; however, I am happy to withhold judgement on that until I read the updated bee study Alderperson Del Toro mentioned which I await with great anticipation.]

View full meeting details and video here:  https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1092111&GUID=48048C6D-07BD-4F2D-BEB5-9725AFB386C3