Hill County Park Board Grazing Committee discusses possible changes

The Hill County Park Board’s Grazing Committee met Monday at the request of one of its members, Leon LaSalle, who wanted to talk about possible changes to the committee’s makeup, rules and operations in the wake of recent controversies.

LaSalle said the committee has gotten some bad press lately, and there is a perception among people in the public that the committee is made up of the wrong people or that its member are making decisions for the wrong reasons, and he had some suggestions for how that may be addressed.

The biggest recent controversy involving the committee revolved around their handling of a recent request made by members of the Kallenberger family who say the committee and board were not following proper procedure when it comes to how they choose who has access to grazing land on the park.

Last month the board, after receiving a recommendation to do so by the grazing committee, rejected a request by Ray and Debbie Kallenberger to be granted a portion of grazing land on the park used by them in years past.

The decision came after several months of conflict between the Kallenbergers and the board, with the former arguing that their treatment by the committee is the result of a “good ol’ boys club” attitude that ignores present conflicts of interests and keeps most from having a fair chance to use the park for grazing.

At Monday’s meeting, LaSalle said his term on the committee is up pretty soon and he feels like he hasn’t had much of an effect on things despite the problems he sees and he thinks there are things the committee can do to address some the issues.

He said the makeup of the committee has been called into question by many who feel it shouldn’t have so many members who are actively grazing the park, that this represents a conflict of interest.

LaSalle said he doesn’t beleive anyone on the committee is guilty of anything nefarious, but his concern about the committee’s makeup received some pushback from fellow committee member Bill Bradbury, one of those who is grazing on the park.

Bradbury said the only way to have people free of conflicts of interest is to have the committee or park board made up of people with no interest or experience with the park.

LaSalle said if the committee isn’t willing to address its makeup, at the very least they have to codify rules about when those grazing the park are required to recuse themselves.

“If you don’t want to change, at minimum you can come up with a set of bylaws for this committee to go by, about when you vote and when you have to recuse yourself,” he said. “Right now it’s wide open.”

Committee member and Hill County Commissioner Diane McLean said when she spoke to former Hill County Attorney Karen Alley, it was her opinion that committee members could be grazers currently using the park, but they would need to recuse themselves from votes they stand to directly benefit from.

McLean concurred, saying a member of the Hill County Park Board who stood to benefit from rejecting the Kallenberger’s request did not recuse themselves from the vote, so making those rules clear is a good idea.

Committee member and Beaver Creek Park Superintendent Chad Edgar said such rules would need to make it clear that recusal under the circumstances they determine must be a requirement, not request to eliminate any ambiguity, which LaSalle agreed with.

“I think that would go a long way, guys.” LaSalle said.

He also questioned the wisdom of having the park’s superintendent as a voting member, suggesting the position should perhaps be advisory, a suggestion the superintendent wholeheartedly agreed with.

“I don’t think I should be a voting member,” Edgar said.

He said one of his responsibilities as superintendent is enforcement of rules when it comes to grazers and he doesn’t think he should be voting on some of the disputes or issues he’s expected to, as they can sometimes give off the appearance of favoritism or antagonism on his part when neither is his intention.

The committee members also discussed possibly extending terms on the committee to three years instead of two, which many agreed was a bit short.

When it came to how the committee makes recommendations, LaSalle said, he thinks they need to start basing decisions off more reliable data, and he thinks, based on what he’s seen, that the committee and board are allowing overgrazing of the park recently.

He proposed that the park have a full range inventory done so they can better track carrying capacity in each area of the park, identify key species and create more compressive data sets to use for their decisions about grazing.

“It would be the best money Hill County could spend to help with some of these issues,” he said.

He recommended hiring an independent consultant.

LaSalle said using this data to set up a system that would change grazing allocations based on the conditions of park areas will allow them to better manage the area’s resources.

He also said the committee needs to define the term “immediate family member” in their rules so people aren’t confused about who can be given allocations by family members.

This was a major sticking point in the conflict with the Kallenbergers, as the committee contended they did not meet the requirement of being “immediate family members.”

Another sticking point in that conflict was the board and committee’s lack of an application for allotments, which McLean said they are required to have by their policies, but evidently don’t.

Bradbury said he sees no reason to spend much time coming up with an application because allotments could only be applied for when being given up and no family members are available to take it.

“There’s nothing to apply for,” he said.

McLean said there are plenty of times where people can’t use a given allotment and need to give it up, so there is clearly a need to have some kind of process for new people to express their interest in using the park for grazing.

Members talked about how such a system would play into haying on the park.

Edgar said there are plenty of areas on the park he would like to see hayed just to mitigate fire risks.

Brabury said that haying takes more nutrients out of the ground that grazing.

The committee also discussed possibly changing grazing rules to allow for work dogs on the park, but Bradbury thought this may attract accusations that they were being unfair to campers who are required to keep their dogs on leashes.

Committee members also discussed the possibility of allowing All-Terrain Vehicles, but most members present at the time — Hill County commissioners and committee members Mark Peterson and Jake Strissel arrived later in the meeting — seemed to think the idea was problematic.

The committee also discussed who would actually be drafting and making decisions on any of these proposed policy changes, but no solid decisions were made.