I read with interest Tom Cramer’s letter regarding the Durango Farmers Market (Herald, May 14) and the May 23 rebuttal from DFM board member Kay James defending the board’s decision to exclude Cramer’s lemonade vending business from the market this year.
Perhaps James should also tone down the possibly inflammatory rhetoric using such a term as “castigating,” when I did not get such a tone from Cramer’s letter.
Is there some past history between these parties that drove the rebuttal letter’s tone in this regard? If so – and knowing the DFM’s laudable mission – I would think the board as a whole would want to portray itself and its actions as being above such rhetoric and avoid bringing further controversy onto itself.
James cited a board rule regarding two vendors offering the “same” product, with preference, according to the rule, being given to the ag vendor. Perhaps a more clear definition of what constitutes a “same” product is also needed within the framework of the board’s rules.
I have visited the DFM website, and there is a statement regarding the DFM’s participation in the Colorado food stamp program. If this is indeed the case, I suggest the board review its rules from a standpoint of possibly being discriminatory, knowing the food stamp program receives federal funding. Cramer is a small-business owner and could make a case that certain current DFM rules are discriminatory to him and similar small businesses, and that this type of action could fall under federal-law purview regarding discrimination.
Perhaps he could consult with the Small Business Administration and/or a small-business lawyer specializing in just this type of case. It would put a negative atmosphere over the DFM and its mission for lawyers to get involved, but we all would do well to remember that the only ones who win in the end are the lawyers if this situation were to degenerate further.
Stan Mattingly
Mancos
