By Chelsea McNerney-Martinez
MONTE VISTA—The Monte Vista Cemetery Association Board of Directors met for their monthly meeting Tuesday, May 1. The board welcomed new members and voted to expand the board from six to nine members, as well as discussed water and tree issues.
Wanda Hawman was accepted as a new board member to take the seat vacated by former President Charlie Spielman. Hawman has lived in Monte Vista for the past five years although she has always had family ties to the area, going back to her grandparents who moved to Monte Vista in 1890. She serves on the Monte Vista Chamber of Commerce and volunteers at the Monte Vista Historical Society in addition to managing the Jessie May Olson Memorial Community Garden, which is located on her property. Hawman is the niece of the late Jessie May Olson. Ellithorpe told Hawman “we have a very active, working board,” which Hawman indicated she looks forward to.
Before approving Hawman, attendees discussed expanding the size of the board of directors from six to nine members; because of the importance of the business discussed at the meetings they agreed they can’t afford to not have a quorum some months. Vice President Stephen Hunzeker motioned to expand the board, which passed unanimously. Volunteer Laurie McClung had also submitted a letter of interest for the vacant seat, so she and Hawman were both unanimously approved with one motion, leaving two vacant seats, which attendees indicated several people were interested in. Applicants interested in the seats can submit letters of interest to the cemetery association and must own a plot, be an heir to a plot or have family buried at the Monte Vista Cemetery.
Spielman sent the board a letter requesting he be allowed to purchase two plots that should be considered abandoned as they have not been used since their purchase in 1945 by a Mary B. Thompson from Vallejo, Calif. According to Spielman’s research there were two possible people matching this description but both passed away and both of their heirs have also passed away with nobody claiming the plots. Spielman wished to purchase the plots for the eventual interment of his cremains and those of another family member. Hunzeker encouraged the board to table approving this request until more research could be done, expressing concerns about another family member coming forward to claim the spaces, “A lot of different legalities can come back and bite you.” Hunzeker added especially in dealing with emotional matters like death and when no refund can be issued to an heir of the original purchaser, he cautioned the board to look into other cemeteries’ policies for abandonment and ensure their policy matched these and all appropriate procedures be followed first. McClung noted a cemetery in Colorado Springs maintains a policy where the plot stays empty unless a direct relationship to the original buyer can be proven. Schafer noted he understood their concerns, “but you don’t want these to go on forever,” and encouraged the board to review policy and make a decision soon. The matter was ultimately tabled until the June meeting.
In the same line of discussion, Ellithorpe noted someone had approached the board stating she had inherited two plots from her father, which she has no plans of using and wants the board to purchase them from her. Ellithorpe noted the board didn’t have the funds to purchase the spaces but if she could prove ownership the board would be happy to accept them as a donation they could then potentially raffle off as a fundraiser and give due credit to the donor. Hunzeker noted if the plots have been deeded to potential donor, all children of the original purchaser will have to sign off on the donation or sale of the plots. Since the donation was theoretical, the board agreed to address it in further detail if the heir could prove the family all agreed on the donation.