The Common Council met 04/19/2023. The item which took up the largest part of the meeting was the discussion and vote on Resolution 2-R-23, the Resolution To Eliminate No Mow May. This resolution was discussed extensively at the 04/10/2023 Municipal Services Committee meeting during which the committee recommended 4-1 that the resolution be denied. The Common Council ended up voting 11-3 to uphold the denial with Alderpersons Sheri Hartzheim (District 13), Chris Croatt (District 14), and Chad Doran (District 15) voting to eliminate No Mow May.
I’ve prepared a transcription of the discussion.
No Mow May was permanently embedded into city code in March of 2022, based in part on a research paper published by Lawrence University Professor Israel Del Toro who had since gone on to become the District 4 alderperson. The research paper was referenced in the second “whereas” statement of the resolution to update the code and was a point of discussion during the deliberations regarding the resolution. Additionally, Professor Del Toro spoke in favor of No Mow May before the Municipal Services Committee and the Common Council.
Alderperson Doran brought forth this resolution to eliminate No Mow May in response to the retraction of the research paper in question. The paper was retracted after Zach Portman, a bee taxonomist at the University of Minnesota, published an article on Medium detailing several basic issues with the study.
A point of discussion regarding this resolution has been the relevance of the retraction to the reliability of the underlying study results. During his presentation to the Municipal Services Committee, Alderperson Del Toro argued that the only thing the Medium article called into question was the identification of some of the bees, not the overall bee counts. He also said that the study was retracted because they had conducted additional research in 2021 and wanted to publish a new paper with that additional data. [Note: that updated paper has not yet been published or undergone peer review, but when it does, I will update this article.] Alderperson Brad Firkus (District 3) also argued on his aldermanic blog that “What the retraction request doesn’t contest is the most important premise that came from the paper- the beneficial impact on pollinators of delayed and differed mowing.”
On April 15, Mr. Portman updated the Medium article to clearly indicate he believed every part of the study was invalid. He also directed readers to a panel discussion by University of Minnesota researchers regarding lawn care practices to support pollinators. The full update is as follows:
“Second Update (15 Apr 2023): I have received numerous questions recently and would like to provide some brief answers and clarification. First, in my professional and scientific opinion, no part of the now-retracted paper should be considered reliable. In general, retractions of papers only happen for serious issues that cannot be addressed with a correction, and the findings of a retracted paper should be considered invalid. More information about the process of retractions is available on the website of the Committee on Publication Ethics, whose guidelines PeerJ follows.
“Finally, my critique of the now-retracted study should not be taken as evidence either for or against the general concept of “No Mow May” as it deals only with this particular study. If you would like to learn more about “No Mow May” and lawns for pollinators, I recommend this presentation and panel by University of Minnesota researchers.”
Mr. Portman reached out to Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) and let her know about this update, and she informed the Council and let the public know about his statement.
Alderperson Del Toro encouraged the Council to defeat the resolution. He said that the Municipal Services Committee’s recommendation of denial reflected “hours of thoughtful consideration of this problematic resolution,” and also reflected the will of community members which had sent 45 emails to the council in favor of No Mow May versus only 15 against.
Later in the meeting he expressed a desire to get to a vote saying, “the committee work has been done at committee and there is no need to rehash this yet again to give Mr. Doran an inappropriate platform for political grandstanding.”
Alderperson Doran thought that much of the discussion about this resolution had not been focused on either science or the city ordinance that the resolution was directed at.
During his presentation to the Municipal Services Committee meeting on 04/10/2023, Alderperson Del Toro had argued that the resolution presented false information and bordered on defamation. Alderperson Firkus also believed the resolution deceptively omitted information. During the 04/19/2023 Council meeting, Alderperson Doran responded to those criticisms, saying, “I’ve been really careful throughout this process not to share my opinion about any of this. I’ve simply shared language in the resolution that comes from the journal in which the retracted study by our colleague was published. And the resolution also just quotes directly from the editor of the journal, and other scientific studies that I found online.
“So, to the point where my some of my colleagues have repeatedly made claims, I’m somehow slandering the authors, or defaming them, or sharing false information, or straight up lying, I’m happy to share the sources with them where that information came from so they could redirect their misplaced outrage there. And despite what some of my colleagues have apparently been told, I did have discussions with the mayor and with the attorney’s office about the resolution, and I did share it with our colleague who authored the retracted study prior to introducing the resolution. So, I think those are are some important facts to share.”
He believed Alderperson Del Toro had a responsibility to let the community know that the study had been retracted because it had been the basis for passing the No Mow Mat ordinance last year. “I think it’s important for the community to have a chance to have discussion about that.”
He highlighted Mr. Portman’s statement calling into question the reliability of the study and said, “[S]ince that was the impetus for us passing this ordinance, I think there’s clearly nothing there that supports it any longer.”
Alderperson Doran said he had also shared lots of scientific evidence that contradicted the claims in the retracted study, and he believed that dandelion and clover growth could be promoted while maintaining the city’s original grass height maximum of 8 inches, given that both dandelions and clover typically don’t grow higher than 8 inches anyways. “Every recommendation that I could find, for the optimal height for cutting your grass to actually help dandelions grow is four inches. And a USDA study shows the optimal mowing frequency for the best bee habitat is two weeks.”
He concluded by saying flowers and gardening were far more beneficial than long grass, so he encouraged the Council members to follow the science and remove No Mow May from the City ordinance.
Alderperson William Siebers (District 1) did not participate in No Mow May and had not voted in favor of it last year, but he respected those involved with it and did not think it was doing any harm. He thought most of the people who participated in it felt they were doing something very positive, so he supported keeping No Mow May in the city code.
Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) was in favor of eliminating No Mow May. She did not think that the emails sent by residents through the “contact all alderpersons” form was a way to truly gauge what was occurring in their districts. She said she had received many individual contacts from her constituents who supported ending No Mow May.
She believed there was value in supporting pollinators in the city but that there were other ways to do that and having the maximum height of lawn grass set to 8 inches year-round was sufficient to support early pollinators.
She also disagreed with the idea that there was no harm in No Mow May. If the way in which someone tried to help bees affected their neighbors and what they do on their property there could be harm. It could also increase the need for properties to mitigate pests and maintain their grass to their satisfaction. She also felt No Mow May was causing disharmony between residents. She supported the educational aspect of No Mow May and thought the city should figure out ways to support early pollinators but was in favor of maintaining the 8-inch grass height restriction year-round.
Alderperson Nate Wolff (District 12) said he had heard all the arguments and listened to his constituents. He thought people who didn’t know what No Mow May was about were receptive when they learned it was intended to help bees and other pollinators. He voted to embed it into city code because he didn’t think they needed to keep talking about it every year. “As far as the science being explained to me against No Mow May, I don’t trust the source of those facts. that’s all I’d say.”
Alderperson Kristin Alfheim’s (District 11) thoughts on the resolution require a little bit of background….
The email that Zach Portman had sent to Alderperson Van Zeeland letting her know that he had updated the Medium article with further thoughts also included a link to a presentation and panel by University of Minnesota researchers. That presentation talked about some of the issues/considerations with not mowing during the month of May and explained the reasons why they were pushing for “Slow Mow Summer” rather than “No Mow May”. Starting around the 7:20 mark, Jon Trappe, a University of Minnesota Extension educator in Horticulture, Turf, and Urban Green Space, talked about how No Mow May impacted turf health. Although he believed that leaving grass uncut for the entire month of May was not necessarily the best way to promote the health of turf and flowering plants, around the 14-minute mark he offered some suggestions, in the spirit of No Mow May, to promote healthier lawns. Those included:
- Mow at the tallest setting possible
- Remove clumps of clippings to compost off-site
- Gradually lower the mowing heigh over 2-3 mowing events, allowing the lawn to recover between events
- Mow on dry, un-stressed turf
- Mow in the evenings
- No Mow May could result in a stressed lawn going into a stressful season
- Plant low-input lawns like fine fescue
- Mow when the lawn needs it, not what day or month it is
The email from Mr. Portman also included a transcript of Assistant Professor Trappe’s comments during the presentation. The transcript included basically every “uh” and “um”, and, additionally, Assistant Professor Trappe was not necessarily the most polished public speaker.
Alderperson Alfheim was unimpressed with the transcript. She said that she had appreciated Alderperson Del Toro’s presentation at the committee meeting on 04/10/2022 which had helped her understand what had gone wrong with the study and what was being corrected. “I enjoy listening to professionals who know their stuff and present it confidently.” In comparison, she found the transcript from the University of Minnesota panel to be “perhaps not the most scientifically written response to an important issue for us.” She read the transcript word for word and my understanding of her point was that Assistant Professor Trappe was inarticulate. She concluded, “Based on this, which is the paper that has been quoted, um, I’m not convinced. I think there are more professionals presenting their information than what we have based this entire conversation on. With that in mind, can we please allow No Mow May to continue? Thank you.”
[I will say, personally, I watched the entire 1 hour 20-minute presentation and found it fairly interesting even though it was on the subject of lawn maintenance which one would not think was an interesting subject. Watching the discussion was a very different experience than reading a transcript that did not eliminate filler words, and to her point about enjoying listening to professionals who know their stuff, I came away from the panel discussion with the impression that Assistant Professor Trappe was more knowledgeable about turf health than the average person.]
Alderperson Alex Schultz (District 9) was exhausted by the conversation. “I think the test in this case is what has No Mow May done for the community. And you only have to look to see how many communities outside of Appleton in the United States have moved forward with their own version of No Mow May, whether that’s no mowing through the month, whether it’s a slow mow resolution, whether it is a No Mow resolution, slow mow spring, there are hundreds now communities who have followed our lead.”
He thought there were a lot of unanswered questions regarding best practices and the science was going to follow and evolve. He thought that they may need to reevaluate the program in the future. “[O]ur responsibility now is not to back up and say, ‘Well, we don’t know exactly what the results are. We don’t know what the implications are.’ We have some early scientific evidence showing that the speciation is increasing, and the amount of species and their magnitude is increasing. Can we replicate that year by year? Are there other factors involved? We don’t know that yet. What we do know is that there is a desire by this community and the people who are in it, to try something new and that has spread across the United States. And I think it’s incumbent upon us to keep this going with the understanding that we may have to reevaluate what the program looks like.”
He went on to say, “Yes, there is no question that we have to evolve the program and think about [it] in more detail and more granular approach to how this affects individual properties, and maybe there’s five or six different ways to do it, depending on what your property looks like, what you do to your property. But the program itself is allowing us to have that conversation. And I think it’s incredibly significant for this community to be the first one to do it and have the rest of the United States follow us.”
Although he seemed to recognize that things might need to change, he opposed the resolution to eliminate No Mow May, saying, “I was really frustrated that this was introduced. I wanted it to be pulled once we talked about the science, but here we are a month into this and I would really encourage my colleagues to uphold the committee’s recommendation to deny this.”
Alderperson Vered Meltzer (District 2) said that No Mow May was a very popular program and there was a great desire in the community to participate in it. “[H]aving the ordinance on the books allows our residents that opportunity. There is I feel great harm that would be done to deny them that opportunity now. I think that we have worked very hard to elevate conversations. There’s a sense of community pride and a sense of identity that we are pioneers in the realm of pollinator preservation. And that’s a very important path that we’ve chosen to take, and we need to stay that path. So please vote not to eliminate No Mow May.”
Alderperson Patrick Hayden (District 7) though No Mow May was a good opportunity to help pollinators and also talk to neighbors about helping pollinators. “I just like that it’s kind of bringing our communities together in having a open discussion of these ideas. And I think that this kind of allows our neighbors to come together, and it’s not our job to really police the neighborhoods and to come down hard on it. I think if we start having these conversations with our neighbors, it will find commonality and a way to move forward together.”
At this point in the conversation, Mayor Woodford noted that the item before the Council was the recommendation from the Municipal Services Committee to deny the resolution, but the discussion was about broader issues than that. He encouraged the Council to focus on the item before them.
Alderperson Nate Wolff (District 12) made a motion to call the question, which was upheld, and the council went on to vote 11-3 to deny the Resolution To Eliminate No Mow May.
[Frankly, I think it was good this resolution was brought forward. The issues with the study were raised by Mr. Portman with PeerJ back in September of 2020 and really ought to have been part of the discussion back in the spring of 2022 when the city was considering making No Mow May permanent.
Given that the study was not retracted until November of 2022 after the debate about No Mow May already took place, it seems more than appropriate to give the public another opportunity to discuss it and potentially change things.
The public has now had that opportunity and, if nothing else, it has been shown that, regardless of the flaws with the study, the public is basically on board with No Mow May given that not a single person disliked it enough to come make public comment in support of its elimination.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1084962&GUID=D370E329-616A-435E-A3E9-0D7C7F99E31E
2 thoughts on “Common Council Votes 11-3 To Uphold No Mow May”