Overall organization has formally been known as Ashland Parks & Recreation Commission, blurring line between its governing commission and what it governs

By Damian Mann for Ashland.news

“What’s in a name?” Is an oft-repeated Shakespearean refrain that could describe the Ashland Parks & Recreation Commission meeting Wednesday night.

Henceforth, the parks commission proposed that it be known as the Ashland Parks & Recreation Department to avoid confusion about its more integrated role in city government.

“Going forward, Ashland Parks & Recreation Department (APRD) shall be the name of the organization/department,” Commissioner Rick Landt said. “APRC in both usages shall be discontinued.”

Other commissioners supported Landt’s proposal, which suggested the elected governing commission itself be referred to as the APRD Commission, park commissioners, or simply the “Commission.” 

Significant branding has gone into the “APRC” name over the past 12 years, Landt said.

He suggested retaining the same branding used for marketing, but changing it to reflect the new APRD name, which would require financial and personnel resources to accomplish this step.

He offered his proposal during a discussion of the “new cooperative framework” being drafted between the commission and the Ashland City Council.

Landt also proposed that an upcoming ordinance, which would establish the cooperative framework, also spell out that the APRD manages parks, recreation and senior services.

The commission, while discussing efforts to cooperate better with other city departments, also raised long-standing grievances. Including the city pushing parks and recreation staff out of The Grove several years ago.

“The city manager said, ‘We’re taking it back,’” Commissioner Jim Bachmann said, recalling the ouster.
Commissioner Justin Adams said he expected citizens of Ashland would be similarly upset if the city decided to push the fire department out of one of its buildings.

But Adams said those grievances should be put aside to establish a better framework for cooperation.

“We are all part of the same city, working together,” he said. “The desire is not to re-litigate the past.
The city and APRC previously fought over park funds, leading to the 2022 general election when voters were asked to consider re-assigning a significant portion of food and beverage taxes to the general fund. Voters rejected the measure by a wide margin, as well as a similar measure that would have moved APRD staffing management to the city manager’s office rather than under APRC.

Commissioner Jim Bachman said, “Sure, everything can just fall apart like it did two years ago and then we have to take it to the people.”

Moving forward, Bachman said the commission has to “trust the process of reasonable people getting together.”

Landt described a possible scenario under the proposed cooperative agreement where the six members of the City Council plus the mayor could outvote the five members of the Parks Commission over a disagreement.

Commissioner Stefani Seffinger said she hoped that the city and the parks commission will work out a framework “that’s in the best interest of the citizens.”

She said the city wouldn’t turn a fire station into city offices and hoped it would show the “same respect for the parks and recreation department.”

Parks commissioners and the City Council held a joint meeting on Aug. 16 to discuss the cooperative agreement. More meetings are expected before an ordinance will be voted on to enshrine the agreement.

In another discussion that revolved around a name, the parks commission formalized a Trails Advisory Committee from an existing trails committee.

The trails committee, which was supposed to recommend actions for the 53-mile Ashland trail system and proposed expansions, had morphed into an advisory committee without going through a formal city procedures.

Now, with the formal designation, which was previously overlooked, the Trails Advisory Committee will work on various initiatives established by the parks commission.

“I know there is a lot of pent-up energy on that committee and we don’t want to slow it down,” Landt said. “Don’t let that hold up your work.”

Adams said the trails committee hasn’t met recently because of confusion about its ongoing role with the city.

Seffinger said she hoped the advisory committee isn’t just about bike trails, but also considers dog walkers and others who also enjoy the trail system.

“I want to make sure we’re meeting the needs of all our community,” she said.

Reach freelance writer Damian Mann at [email protected]