APR. 21, 2023 UPDATE: On Wednesday, April 19, the Appleton Common Council voted to uphold the Municipal Services Committee’s denial of resolution 2-R-23, proposed by District 15 Alderperson Chad Doran, that would have repealed No Mow May, meaning that the resolution was defeated and No Mow May will continue to be a city ordinance. The vote was 11-3. District 10 Alderperson Vaya Lauren Jones was excused from the meeting. District 13 Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim, District 14 Alderperson Chris Croatt and District 15 Alderperson Chad Doran voted against the recommendation of the committee.
The Appleton Common Council’s Municipal Services Committee has voted against a resolution proposed by District 15 Alderperson Chad Doran that would eliminate No Mow May, a city ordinance that delays lawn care enforcement until June, which was designed to protect bees and other pollinators. The committee voted to deny Doran’s resolution, which means that the Municipal Services Committee will recommend that the Common Council vote against it at the meeting on Wednesday, April 18. The committee is chaired by District 1 Alderperson Bill Siebers and is made up of Doran, District 3 Alderperson Brad Firkus, District 5 Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland and District 8 Alderperson Joss Thyssen. Other alderpersons who are not committee members were also present.
The ordinance was based on research led by Assistant Professor of Biology and District 4 Alderperson Israel Del Toro and Assistant Professor of Geosciences Relena Ribbons, published on Sep. 22, 2020. Doran’s resolution, introduced at the Common Council meeting on Wednesday, March 15, was based on the fact that the authors of the article chose to retract it on Nov. 18, 2022, due to some inconsistencies in data handling and reporting. The resolution, Resolution 2-R-23, was originally supposed to be voted on at the Municipal Services Committee meeting on Monday, March 20, but was held until the meeting on Monday, April 10, due to time constraints.
Doran’s resolution argued that the retraction proves that there is a lack of scientific evidence to back up the results of Del Toro and Ribbons’ study, and that long grass provides no discernible benefit for bees and other pollinators, a point which Doran reiterated at the meeting. The resolution also called for the city to eliminate No Mow May, delete references to it from the city code, repeal the ordinance to adopt No Mow May and enforce the city’s long grass ordinance during the month of May, which requires lawn grass to not exceed eight inches. At the meeting, Doran argued that gardens are a better way to support urban biodiversity, citing experts, and pointed out that scientific studies are typically retracted because of fabrication or unreliable findings.
Del Toro defended the findings of the study. He pointed out that the resolution is not about grass, but about allowing plants that thrive when grass is not cut to grow, as well as community education about the environment, and added that other communities have followed Appleton’s example. He argued that the retraction proves that the scientific process is working, citing that the study was published in a journal that’s free for anyone who wants to read it and that the reviewing and editing process is transparent.
As to why specifically the study was retracted, Del Toro said that a reviewer didn’t like that the study compared unmowed lawns to city parks, which operate on a consistent mowing schedule, instead of comparing unmowed lawns to mowed lawns. The reviewer also objected to the fact that they were identifying bee species present by eye “to the best of their abilities,” but not taking them back to Del Toro’s lab to identify species scientifically. Del Toro said that this was done to avoid having to kill bees, which is necessary for specific identification, as he feels that would have been counterintuitive. He pointed out that, despite these issues with the study, the findings that suggested that unmowed lawns have a greater abundance of both flowers and pollinators did not come into question.
“The only thing that came under question […] is specifically which species were present,” Del Toro said.
Del Toro added that the team of researchers who conducted the study re-did the study in 2021 in order to improve the research methods, and that the retraction was made to include findings from this study, a study which he says only reinforced the conclusion that delaying lawn height enforcement is beneficial for pollinators. He argued that Doran’s resolution displays a lack of due diligence and understanding of the scientific process, borders on defamation and is an inappropriate use of policymaking.
Ribbons used the public comment opportunity to speak to the committee. She argued that the resolution attacks her and Del Toro’s work, as well as the people who made the fieldwork possible. She wishes that Doran reached out for a conversation instead of going after her work and added that no one reached out to her to ask her about these concerns.
“I don’t appreciate being told I’m not an expert in a study I designed,” Ribbons said. “It’s a form of bullying. I understand that’s perhaps allowed in the political realm, but there’s no space for that in science.”
Ribbons pointed out that alternative lawns are a good way to preserve biodiversity, conserve water use and educate the public. Three other community members spoke at the meeting, all of whom opposed Doran’s resolution.
District 6 Alderperson Denise Fenton, who herself is a gardener and an environmentalist, spoke in support of No Mow May, citing the fact that bees need a variety of different types of plants to pollinate in order to thrive, many of which bloom later in the season, making the so-called “weeds” that lawnmowers kill, such as dandelions, an essential food source. She added that the trial run of the ordinance took place before the study concluded and was successful.
District 13 Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim expressed concern about Del Toro’s implication that Doran’s resolution could be defamatory, and questioned why the retraction was not brought before the council when it was made. She added that she doesn’t believe that anyone has nefarious intentions, but she was concerned nonetheless. She feels that the previous lawn height enforcement ordinance was reasonable.
District 9 Alderperson Alex Schultz encouraged Doran to pull the resolution. He pointed out that No Mow May is voluntary, not mandatory, and argued that there is scientific backing for Del Toro and Ribbons’ claims. He added that he doesn’t mow his lawn, and he’s seen an increase in insect biodiversity in his own lawn, but that it’s been on an entirely voluntary basis. He feels that because climate change is with us, it’s important to let citizens who want to take action in their own lives do so, and characterized this resolution as “ridiculous” and “infuriating.”
District 2 Alderperson Vered Meltzer encouraged the committee to deny the resolution. He argued that the resolution misses the point of No Mow May, that it’s not about grass height, but is about not disturbing the natural habitats of pollinators. He echoed Fenton’s point that this ordinance was not adopted simply because of Del Toro and Ribbons’ study, and had shown to be successful during the trial period.
“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 source they have, as they emerge from the winter,” Meltzer said. “No Mow May isn’t about allowing people to grow long grass, it’s about giving these creatures a chance and giving people the opportunity to experiment and explore what it takes…for them to come up with different practices that don’t involve mowing so much.”
Meltzer added that Doran’s resolution focused more on going after Del Toro and Ribbons’ study than explaining his own perspective on why he felt No Mow May was bad.
Siebers allowed Del Toro a second opportunity to speak. Del Toro, responding to Hartzheim’s concerns, defended his claim that Doran’s resolution was defamatory, and pointed out that other members of the Common Council reached out to clarify the retraction, but that Doran didn’t, and declined to communicate with Del Toro about the retraction when he made the attempt. He characterized the resolution as a “waste of time” which Siebers verbally objected to.
Before the vote, members of the committee spoke on the resolution, and Doran was allowed to respond to points made by citizens and colleagues. He said that the points being made were based on emotion, not fact, and reiterated issues with the study identified by bee taxonomist Zach Portman in a Medium blog. These issues included the identifying of bee species by eye and comparing parks to lawns, as well as the alleged misspelling of bee names and the “implausibility” of certain flowers that the study identified blooming in May. Doran added that he is not attacking the authors of the study, and does not have the scientific expertise to do so, but feels that there isn’t any information showing that allowing grass to grow above 12 inches has any benefits for biodiversity.
Van Zeeland pointed out that when she became aware of the retraction notice in the fall, she decided to wait until there was more information given, since she is not an academic, and that Del Toro explained the situation to her satisfaction when she reached out. She said that she has voted to support No Mow May in the past because her constituents support it, and that since nothing has changed since then, she would not change her vote. Firkus pointed out that Doran’s resolution omitted the finding that bee populations were stronger in areas of no mowing.
“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,” Firkus said. “I think that this is an entirely inappropriate use of the powers we have as an alderperson.”
Doran motioned to approve his resolution, but was voted down 4-1, with Doran voting to approve and Thyssen, Van Zeeland, Firkus, and Siebers voting no. The committee then took a motion to deny the resolution, which passed 4-1.
After the meeting concluded, Ribbons specifically pushed back on the suggestion that the plants they identified blooming in May was “implausible,” and said that she used a key to identify plants that were blooming in May. She pointed out that climate change causes the winter season to change, which in turn affects the growing season and can cause abnormal blooming patterns. She commended the Municipal Services Committee for denying the resolution.