So begins the existential French expression, meaning that the more things change, the more they stay the same. This phrase comes to mind as we ponder the recent direction by the Sonoma City Council to develop a solicitation for proposals to manage the farmers market, for that is its desire, really: to effect some changes behind the scenes without dampening the popularity of the Tuesday evening Plaza event.
That event serves, with no burden on the taxpayers, as a communal gathering for many in Sonoma Valley. And the warm feelings reach beyond just those thousands who attend, even sporadically; the mere existence of such a regular gathering serves to remind us all that we live in a community small enough to gather in a central place in happy, healthy celebration of life in this place.
Complaints have arisen over the years, though, regarding the selection of locals chosen to participate as vendors at the market, with decisions by the private management that seem arbitrary to those who were denied access. It’s important to recognize that our market is a “California Certified Farmers Market,” which means it is subject to state regulations as well as supervision from the Sonoma County Agricultural Commission. It is primarily as a place where farmers can sell their crops directly to the public, and sellers of other goods cannot be situated among the farmers.
Council member Steve Barbose at a recent meeting summed up the interest of the council with three words: “transparency, accountability and fairness.” Readers know the importance we place on instilling these qualities in all government business.
The issue is the process for determining who gets access to the Sonoma market as a vendor, and who does not. A priority for local farmers would seem to make sense, though there are many foods sold that are not grown in the Valley; it is the dedicated farmers willing to come to Sonoma and participate in our market who provide us with a greater variety of fruits and vegetables.
Giving priority to local vendors of other goods would seem to make sense, too, and that issue seems to have been the principal source of complaints. Understandably, that part of the market can occupy a disproportionate share of management’s attention, but it is an important element, too, for serving the community.
Government decision-making is rightly cumbersome, lest it become arbitrary itself, and the council was correct to hold hearings on this issue, even if it was uncomfortable for the present management to have dissatisfactions aired so publicly, including live coverage on local TV. It must be recognized that this is not a private business arrangement. Among the various courses of action available to the council, seeking competitive management proposals is a reasonable one. Through that process, the present management may well be chosen to continue its work, perhaps with some clarified directives, or new management may be selected.
We conclude with another cliché, reportedly German, that as the council members consider changing management, they’ll want to make sure they don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. In our view, the city council needs to ensure that a management change doesn’t negatively impact the important community functions that the farmers market serves.
Clarification
In our musings last week about the retiring high school principal, we commented about the willingness of this school board to make independent personnel decisions. Some readers thought we were dismissive of the superintendent when we suggested that “presumably” she knew of the events two years ago. We intended that merely as a statement of fact; Dr. Pamela Martens has been consistently professional and thorough during her tenure here, and she tells us that we presumed correctly, with regard to her intent to include the trustees actively in the selection process for a new principal.
