Below are the approved meeting minutes of the March 7, 2014 Ohio Cemetery Law Task Force meeting, and the draft minutes from the April 4, 2014 meeting:
MINUTES
OF THE MEETING OF THE
OHIO
CEMETERY LAW TASK FORCE
77 S. High Street, 22nd Floor Hearing Room March
7, 2014
Columbus, OH 43215-6133 9:30
a.m.
________________________________________________________________
I.
Preliminary Matters
Co-chair Petit called the meeting to order.
Roll
Call:Laura Monick conducted roll
call.
Present: Daniel Applegate, Stephen George, Hon. Keith
G. Houts, Hon. Cory Noonan, Anne M. Petit, Patrick Piccininni, Jay Russell, David
Snyder, James Turner, James Wright, Division Staff Attorney Laura Monick.
Excused:Dr. John N. Low
Review of Meeting Minutes:Co-chair Noonan opened the floor for discussion of the
minutes of the January 24, 2014 meeting of the Ohio Cemetery Law Task
Force. Mr. Turner noted an errant “n” on
line 3, page 2 of the minutes. Mr. Turner then moved to approve the minutes of
the January 24th meeting with such correction.
Mr. Piccininni seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
II.
Old Business
Co-chair Noonan opened the floor for discussion of old
business.
Co-chair Noonan noted that the
Ohio Farm Bureau was contacted and at this time they respectfully declined the
invitation to provide testimony.
Mr. Turner then moved to amend his motion to be an
approval of the February 21,2014 minutes.
Mr. Piccininni seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Co-chair Petit, on behalf of Mr. George, announced a
change in staffing at the Ohio Historical Society.
Ms. Dean left their employ
prior to sending the contact information for the Tribal historical preservation
offices.
Mr. George and Dr. Low will now
assist in finding contact information for the tribal leaders.
III.
New Business
Co-chair Petit brought the task force into new
business and welcomed Heidi Fought with the Ohio Township Association (OTA) to
the meeting.
Ohio Township Association (OTA) – represented by Heidi Fought, Director of Governmental
Affairs.
See written testimony attached.
Townships in Ohio maintain over 2,400 cemeteries and
take pride in caring for those cemeteries.
Townships have specific requirements with respect to cemeteries as found
in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 517. Primarily, funding is a huge issue. In their 2015-2017 requested legislative priorities,
the OTA asked the General Assembly to address funding in two ways. A few years ago, then Representative Widener
introduced legislation allowing townships to sell cemetery related items to
bring in additional revenue if a township wanted to sell those items. This was House Bill 382 (126th GA).
Municipalities currently can sell cemetery related items but townships
cannot. The other funding piece noted in
their requested legislative priorities is a grant program proposed under ORC
Chapter 4767. The OTA supports the grant program and thinks is a great
opportunity.
The OTA would also ask the
task force to look at defining“abandoned” or “burial ground.”These need clearer
definitions because while they are mentioned in the Ohio Revised Code there are
not current definitions. If the definitions would include large numbers of
additional cemeteries then townships will need adequate funding to match. Another area for the task force to review is
cemetery levies. Currently, cemetery
levies only can be five years in length but townships would like the ability to
have a continuous levy option.
With
respect to maintenance schedules and standards, townships do have Ohio Revised Code
Chapter 517 that generally speaks to cemetery maintenance. The OTA likes the current minimum
requirements but understands, perhaps, the need for more and looks forward to
working with the task force on this issue. The loss of funding to townships has
greatly impacted townships and the OTA tries to provide education and training opportunities
and would like to look at creating a training program as an option to specific
maintenance standards.Finally, there is an Attorney General opinion on extinguishment
of burial easement and re-selling of lots which states that Ohio Revised Code
Section 517.07 only permits townships to re-sell lots on lots with deeds
executedfrom July 24, 1986 forward. The
townships would like the ability to re-sell lots that are older and where they
can show that there is no existing family left.
During questioning the OTA supported the same text of ORC
517.07 and just removing the date restriction.
If the date is removed then the OTA thinks it would be reasonable if
some more protection measures were added concerning when a township could
re-sell a burial right but ideally they would like that date restriction be
removed. With respect to former House Bill 382, in 2005 there were several
hearings in the House and sellers of cemetery related items opposed the
language that would permit townships to sell cemetery related items. Co-chair
Noonan requested that the OTA mesh proposed changes into Ohio Revised Code
Chapter 517 and provide that electronically to the task force.
The OTA emphasized that with respect to the
proposed grant program, any grant amount would help and how many townships
would apply would depend on whether townships took the time to apply. Townships know that grants are competitive
and the OTA understands that a tiered process with restrictions on how often a
township could apply for grant funds or placing a cap on grant amounts may be
needed.
After some additional discussion of a potential grant
program and townships selling cemetery related items, the task force moved
forward with the agenda and began discussion about the American University
Washington College of Law State Burial Laws Project. The task force had the
opportunity to view the State Burial Laws Project website.
Discussion then began on the mission of the task force
and what direction the task force wants to move with their process now that
they have heard the testimony of many interested parties. Discussion included thoughts on broader
goals, what format the task force’s recommendations might take and how to
organize the structure of the recommendations to help create a vision of how
the State can move forward. Each member
of the task force had the opportunity to provide their views on moving forward
and as a group the task force decided that they would have the homework of
reviewing the previous meeting minutes and testimony then come up with their
own lists of broad categories they feel the task force should discuss. Co-chair Petit offered to work on compiling
each member’s list and then sending a master list back out to the task force members
prior to the next meeting. It was then
agreed that the master list could be the focus of next meeting agenda with the
goal of setting out broad categories and then listing out under those broad
categories more specific issues as identified by interested parties and the
task force.
Next
Meeting Dates:
April 4, 2014 at 9:30 am
April 28, 2014 at 9:30am
IV. Adjournment
Mr.
Turner moved to adjourn. Mr. Russell
seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
***********
MINUTES
OF THE MEETING OF THE
OHIO
CEMETERY LAW TASK FORCE
77 S. High Street, 22nd Floor Hearing Room April
4, 2014
Columbus, OH 43215-6133 9:30
a.m.
_____________________________________________________________
I.
Preliminary Matters
Co-chair Noonan called the meeting to order.
Roll
Call:Laura Monick conducted roll
call.
Present: Stephen George, Hon. Keith G. Houts, Dr. John
N. Low, Hon. Cory Noonan, Anne M. Petit, Jay Russell, James Turner, James
Wright, Division Staff Attorney Laura Monick.
Excused: Daniel Applegate, David Snyder, Patrick
Piccininni
Review of Meeting Minutes: Co-chair Petit opened the floor for discussion of the
minutes of the March 7, 2014 meeting of the Ohio Cemetery Law Task Force. It was noted that Dr. Low should be marked as
excused.
Mr. Turner moved to approve the minutes of the March 7th meeting with
the noted revision. Mr. Russell seconded
the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
II.
Old Business
Co-chair Petit opened the floor for discussion of old
business. Co-chair Petit noted that based
on the list provided by Dr. Low, twenty-three letters were sent inviting tribal
leaders to attend the April 28, 2014 meeting or to provide written
testimony. The ORC Chapter 517 draft
language was received from the Ohio Township Association. In addition, an email from Gini Chandler, Wayne
Twp. Trustee from Jefferson Co., OH was read into the record.
III.
New Business
Stephen
George arrived during discussion of new business.
Co-chair Noonan brought the task force into new
business. Discussion commenced on the task
force coming to a consensus on the topicsthat need to be addressed in any final
recommendations madeby the task force.
In addition, the members acknowledged that there may be other topics where
there is not a consensus but those topics may be issues that should be included
in a separate section of the final recommendations so as to bring them to the
attention of the legislature, should that body determine that any require
further consideration or reexamination.
The task force then began a mapping exercise with open
discussion on possible major topics, sub-topics and how to approach the
sub-topics.
Main topics for discussion during mapping
exercise:
1. Enforcement
2. Statutory Alignment
3. Registration
a. Cemetery vs. per burial
b. Issue of unmarked graves
4. Technology
5. Record Keeping
a. Importance of record keeping for cemeteries
b. Issue of no existing records due to issues such as flooding,
fires, etc.
6. Maintenance
7. Definitions
a. Inactive
b. Abandoned
c. Natural Burial
d. Human Remains
To be considered:
i.
Not limited by
the passage of time
ii.
Whether it needs
to be a limited definition for certain sections of ORC
iii.
Is it different
for protected groups? Further research needed – see Indiana’s two definitions
e. Burial Site/Grounds – Further research needed – see Indiana
To be considered:
i.
cremation
ii.
degree of
intentionality
iii.
green cemeteries
f. Historically Significant vs.Archeological Site;Burial
vs. Native American remains;Funerary Objects/Artifacts
g. Preservation
h. Protection
i.
Restoration
j.
Maintenance
8. Funding– One
of the highest priorities
a. sources for funding
b. set standards for appropriations and equitable
distribution
c. account for the spending
d. Provide townships funding to allow for selling
merchandise
After initial discussion it was determined that the task force would save
final discussion on funding for last so they would know which
identifiedtopicswould need funding.
9. Protected Groups
a. Is there a need to separate out American Indian protection/registration?
b. Further research into OHS’ historic preservation
office and any currently available state, federal, private funding.
c. Promoting collaborations with Native American groups
and making it easier to work together.
d. Further research into discovery/notification
requirements when grave sites are found;similar to IN
e. Discussion on a Native American Commission similar to
IN to address future disposition/re-internment of remains and standards for
re-internment
10. Preservation/Protection
a. What does each mean and do the topics need to be
separated out?
b. Protection for burial artifacts and remains from
antiquities/black market trades.
c. Discussion commenced on different models such as a
State trusteeship, land bank model, permitting cemeteries to return all or a
portion of their grounds back to nature
d. Can the differences be bridged with funding instead of
using discussed models?
e. Discussion on how canal propertyis handled (ODNR)
Final discussion centered on the next steps of the
task force. It was determined that prior
to discussing other topics, the task force needs to focus on solidifying
definitions for the identified terms.
Before the next meeting the task force requested that research be
completed with respect to other jurisdictions’ definitions in order to assist
them in their discussion on April 28, 2014.
Mr. Russell offered to assist the Division with that research.
Next
Meeting Dates:
April 28, 2014 at 9:30am
May 16, 2014 at 9:30am
James Turner
left at 1:00pm after the next meeting dates were set.
IV. Adjournment
Mr.
Russell moved to adjourn. Mr. Houts
seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
*****
~~~~~~~~~~
**Please note that the term "registered" in relation to cemeteries refers to those cemeteries where burials have been within the last 25 years or are NOT considered to be family cemeteries.
If a cemetery fails to meet these requirements, then it is not currently eligible to be registered.
