Despite an unusually strong public showing at this meeting of the Audubon Commission, business was conducted for the most part in its usual way. With much gavelling and calling to order of a clearly uncooperative public, the Commission was able to eventually motion, second and pass most of its business without inconvenient dissent.

For the first time in recent memory, Ron Forman did actually lose a vote, of which more later. However, on the whole the meeting proceeded briskly and positively with little or no time lost to unnecessary reflection.

Clubhouse Plans

Mr Dale Stastny presented the latest Audubon Institute clubhouse and parking lot location plans. Focussing more on Plan 'B', developed in the past 9 days, than on its hapless predecessor, Mr Stastny declared that the Institute had "come a long way in terms of the clubhouse and its location". Referring to the public comments received at the October 15th meeting, Mr Stastny went on to describe the original clubhouse as being "for some people" too big and described the many alterations in interior size, configuration and location that now make up the official, final and officially final plan.

(For those of you not immediately familiar with the terminology, Plan A was the plan presented at the October 15th Public Meeting, and presented dangerously large kitchen and dining facilities within the clubhouse as well as a location within the Oak Grove that necessitated the construction of a roadway through the trees for vehicular drop-off access to the clubhouse. Plan B, by moving the clubhouse to the parking lot side of the Oak Grove, obviates some of these destructive aspects of the previous plan.)

Declaring the Institute "very pleased with where we have come with this part of the plan", Mr Stastny neglected to mention that after two years of planning, the constructive input of the public was admitted only one week previously and that the new plan, while a marked improvement on the old, still has serious implications and deficiencies that ought to be further discussed.

Plan A versus Plan B

Various speakers spoke in favor of one or other of the Institute's current designs.

Mike James of the Lakeshore Property Owner's Association, spoke strongly in favor of the Institute's overall golf course plan, and contested the view that there is little public support for the golf course plan as a whole. He supported location 'B'

Glenn Adams of the Audubon Area Zoning Association , concluded that 'A' was 'less intrusive' than 'B' but restated his group's concerns with the commercialization of Audubon Park. David Anderson of Burtheville Neighbors supported 'A' also, but remarked that this was only "given the choices" and that he would prefer no more development within the park.

Speaking in favor of Plan B, the Upper Audubon Association spokesman noted that the clubhouse was still too close to the Oak Grove, that there was still concern over increased traffic in Magazine St, and that lights and a turning lane in Magazine would be needed.

Helen Schneider of the Uptown Triangle Association also supported Plan B, noting that it negated the impact on the Oak Grove threatened by Plan A. However she was still concerned about traffic and concluded that "given the choice between A and B, B is the better solution" - a ringing endorsement that the Audubon Commission can construe as 'public support' if it wants to.

Against Everything

It is a sad commentary on the attitude of the Audubon Commission and the Audubon Institute, that speakers opposed to the false choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, should be characterized as being "against everything". We think we are entitled to our opinion, and that in opposing not just the ridiculous Plan A, but also the shortcomings of Plan B and the overall window-dressing of Audubon procedures, we have a point that is widely supported and worthy of more than the Audubon Commission's undisguised contempt.

Debra Howell, one of the founders of SaveAudubonPark.org, thanked the Audubon Institute for coming up with Plan B and noted that it was a "giant step". However, she also noted that the clubhouse was still too close to the Oak Grove, that there was still too much new parking, that the new plan still eliminates the Heymann Conservatory and that she is looking forward to the Audubon Institute presenting its latest plan at a Public Meeting.

Michael Deas quoted John Charles Olmsted in describing large buildings in the park as being "utterly inappropriate, ruinous, not germane to the nature of Audubon Park". He asked the Audubon Commission to reconsider the concept of building such a large clubhouse anywhere inside the park itself, and noted that the golf course plan as a whole, and the intrusiveness of the clubhouse in particular as contributing to the "privatization of the park".

Keith Hardie, local resident, declared his opposition to both Plan A and Plan B and in general to the commercialization of the park. He remarked that current zoning does not permit a restaurant in the park, and that according to qualified commentators, the amount of space dedicated to kitchen and dining facilities in the new clubhouse does indeed amount to a "full service restaurant", totalling 100 seats.

Stephanie Bruno, of the Preservation Resource Center, spoke on behalf of the PRC and on her own behalf. Regarding the PRC's position, she read a resolution of that board that expressed their grave concern with the lack of opportunity for public input in the deliberative process.

Speaking on her own behalf, she noted that "some people", believe that New Orleans is dying, and that it has been overtaken by Atlanta. These people believe they have a formula for reversing this trend, but that this formula does not work well with New Orleans, being based on emulating the urban sprawl of Birmingham, Atlanta and Austin.

As Vernon Palmer, Professor at Tulane Law School, rose to speak, Willard Dumas of the Audubon Commission declared that at 30 minutes, the time for public input was up and that "we have heard all the comments we are going to hear".

Amid protestations from the gallery, and murmurings among the Commission members that a teacher of Constitutional Law might perhaps have something relevant to say, it was motioned, seconded and carried that Mr Palmer should be allowed to speak.

He spoke of his deep concerns with the entire process and that he is against both plans. He described the way in which various plans presented two years ago were superseded over time by others, that "every day there is a change to the plan", that "Mr Stastny had changed the plan before our very eyes", and ultimately that the entire process was "a parade of ad hocs by Mr. Forman, a parade of extemporizations by Dale Stastny, presented to the ad nauseam of the public...". The result, he said, was "not rational public planning. It resembles an improvised talk show."

He also noted that the project was "riven with illegalities" and challenged the Audubon Institute to have their own lawyers examine their procedures. He urged the Commission to not approve the plan until it receives a clean bill of legality.

The Empire Strikes Back

Various members of the Commission spoke in response to the two proposed plans, and in response to the public input just expressed.

One member, who had attended 6 or 7 meetings on the golf course plan regretted that Mr Palmer in particular had not heard about it.

Another member decried the fact that she had heard "only criticism" of the Institute, and talked of its previous good work. In an interesting oration, she also declared that she did not foresee any problem of people "running over joggers" because of the addition of "whatever it is" number of new parking spaces and that the Institute's Plan A represented a "wonderful way to use a very underutilized space". She also noted that the opposition had acted unfairly by starting a website before anyone even called her.

She did not wonder aloud whether the Institute had perhaps 'acted unfairly' by bulldozing a large part of the park before we started our website.

Roger Ogden, former Chairman of the Commission, concluded this period of discussion by rejecting claims that the Commission was turning New Orleans into Atlanta, and returned discussion to "the two plans we are going to vote on". Implicit in this is the Commission's rejection of earlier pleas by many speakers that more time was needed for compromise plans to be further discussed.

Nonetheless, Mr Ogden did voice support for a re-activated and enlarged "Friends of Audubon Park", which would have input to the Commission. We have previously floated the idea of a Citizen's Advisory Committee to ensure public participation to Audubon Park issues, and been flatly rejected by the Institute. Perhaps, however these two bodies represent the same ideal.

Darth Vader

Mr Forman spoke to declare that it was time to make a recommendation, and time for the Commission to vote on it.

He likened the current controversy to the closing of Audubon Park to traffic, which apparently caused a similar public outcry. This tactic, like that of harkening back to the controversy over the now universally acclaimed zoo, is Mr Forman's stock in trade. It suggests that public opinion is useless and irrelevant, and that because the Audubon Institute was right once it will forever be right in the future and any opposition is necessarily ill-advised.

He then made the typical and irritating assertion that the Audubon Institute, faced with many possibilities, "went to the public" but unfortunately "you were not there". This seems to mean that we knew all about the plans, that we declined to have our say when cordially invited years ago by the Institute, and that we preferred to wait until it was too late. Quite why we, the general public, would do this, is not explained. Perhaps we do have a cunning plan. Perhaps Mr Forman doesnt know what he's talking about.

He then proposed the motion to approve 'Plan B', noting that some groups 'disagree among themselves' and that 'we will never get a unanimous decision'. We can only point out that disagreement is a natural part of any public process and that unanimous agreement is not a requisite of normal decision making. In fact one of the worrying aspects of Audubon Commission deliberations is their relentless unanimity, which suggests that the Commission does not represent a wide range of views.

In any case, Mr Forman knows well that he sat at the head of the table on October 15th for the presentation of the first 'final design' (Plan A), which is now condemned even by Audubon Institute executives. Given this, how can he doubt that more public discussion is needed, and more refinements to the Institute's plans are at least worthy of consideration?

The Vote, no Surprises there

The motion was then made to approve Plan B, and to the astonishment of the tense crowd was carried unanimously with no discussion.

New Audubon Contract Arrangements

An unusual debate then took place within the Audubon Commission regarding the new contract arrangements proposed for the relationship of the Commission and the Institute. The chief components of the new arrangement are:

1. Ron Forman to become CEO of the Commission as well as of the Institute
2. The term of the contract between the Commission and the Institute to be increased from 5 years to 15 years
3. The upper limit of Institute discretionary capital project spending, without submission to the Commission, to be increased from $100,000 to $250,000.

For more details of the new contract arrangement presented at this meeting, click here

Those of us interested in the public process with regard to Audubon Institute activities in the future are alarmed by all three points, especially the first. We believe that the Commission has been excessively supine in the past in its dealings with the Institute. We fear the implications, and doubt the legality, of further blurring the lines between the publicly appointed Commission charged with overseeing the park for the benefit of the public, and the private, unelected and unappointed body known as the Audubon Nature Institute.

Interestingly, while a controversy did emerge at this meeting about points 2 and 3 above, leading to a rare defeat for the Institute, point 1 was never raised.

The counter-motion proposed a 10-year term and a $150,000 cap. It was proposed by Roger Ogden and eventually narrowly carried (8-7) despite remarks from Ron Forman that 30 or even 50 year contracts for non-profits are commonplace.

Goldilocks Formula

While we certainly support the lower limits adopted by the Commission, rather than the higher ones, we are left wondering what was wrong with the old limits. Since the Commission was never remiss in taking an opportunity to praise the miracle of the Audubon Institute, we have to ask "if it aint broke, why are we fixing it?"

As with Plan A versus Plan B, both of which substantially favor the Institute, the Commission contents itself with voting on alternatives that exclude real opposition.

Lastly, it was interesting to hear one or two Commission members back the new 10 or 15 year contract by remarking that this put the unelected Institute beyond the "interference" of the elected mayor and other elected officials of this city.

Hold on a minute...

Keith Hardie, who spoke earlier on clubhouse issues, spoke against the new arrangements. He described citizens' concerns that the Institute already does most of the planning and feared that the 10 or 15 year contract would cause the Institute to be even more removed from public accountability.

He argued that issues raised over the current controversy, from the destruction of the Olmsted conception of the park to the closing of the Hurst Walk demonstrated that the Institute needs to be more accountable to the City Council, not less.

He contended that the placement of the CEO of the Institute, Ron Forman, as the CEO of the Commission would concentrate too much power in his hands, would promote his already substantial feeling that he is above the process, and would tend to accelerate the development of Institute plans rather than slow them down for more public consideration.

Captain, my Captain

As mentioned above, the amended contract with its 10 year and $150,000 limit, was approved by the Commission.

Having voted for the amended contract arrangements, members of the Commission then proceeded to voice their continued devotion to Ron Forman and Most of His Works. Various members spoke to refute assertions that they are a 'rubber-stamp', to state that they make no excuses for agreeing with the Audubon Institute, that despite the rare split vote on the contract arrangement the Commission is 'unified' in support of Ron Forman, that the Institute is the "best operation in the state", and that they have not heard enough recognition of Institute achievements (outside of their own pronouncements).

In particular, two Commission members who voted for the amended contract arrangements made it clear that this was not in any way a vote against the Institute or Ron Forman, and was not in response to the kinds of misgivings voiced by some members of the public.

Master Plan

Another motion was presented calling for a $300,000 Master Plan to be drawn up for the zoo and aquarium.

Cynthia Swann asked to be heard, and ignoring Mr Dumas' objections, pointed out that a Master Plan for the zoo and aquarium that did not also address Audubon Park as a whole was inadequate. As she pointed out the lack of a Master Plan for Audubon Park is "what all this has been about"

For more commentary on the Audubon Commission meeting, from one attendee, read Concerns about the Process by Mark O'Bannon.