REPORT OF THE BURIAL GROUND INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE 1967

REPORT OF THE BURIAL GROUND INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE�� 1967.01.11.08

The following report was given to Monthly Meeting on January 11, 1967. Monthly Meeting requested that it be placed before the membership to enable fuller consideration before any decisions are made.

The Committee was asked, among other things, to report on what would be involved in establishing a burial ground at the Meetinghouse. The legal requirements are quite simple. The Meeting makes application for a permit to the Town Selectmen after staking out the desired location. The Selectmen view the site, consult the Department of Public Health if it is near a flowing stream, call a public hearing, and then, if they approve, issue the required permit.

If the meeting does wish to establish a burial ground, the committee suggests that it be located in the southeast corner of our property next to Route 63 and the cornfield. This is far from the flowing stream and will leave the area behind the meetinghouse to be developed as desired as an activity area. The initial size of the area can probably be small, 100 x 100 feet has been suggested.

Several policies on the use and management of the burial ground should be firmly established at the time the burial ground is started in order to avoid future misunderstandings. Below are listed the nature of these questions and the decisions suggested by the committee.

1. The nature of the restriction, if any, on who may be buried. This will remain a difficult problem no matter what policy is adopted.� The committee suggests that its use be limited to members and their immediate family (spouse and children.) �This has the disadvantage of excluding active attenders who are not members.

2. The nature of restrictions, if any, on the characteristics of the gravestones. �The committee strongly recommends, both in keeping with a concern for simplicity and ease of maintenance, that all stones be flat and low enough for a lawnmower to pass over them.

3. The nature of the organization of plots within the burial ground. The committee feels that the ideal plan, from a management point of view, would be to have no assigned or reserved plots but to have each grave located beside the last previous one. We strongly recommend that the meeting move no further in the direction of reserved plots than to leave room for an individual's spouse.

4. A decision on charges for plots.� The committee recommends no charges.

5. The nature of other requirements to reduce the problems and cost of maintenance. The committee is inclined to accept the settling which accompanies failure to use concrete vaults. However, the settling requires periodic filling in of holes and may make it necessary to postpone the setting of stones for many years. An alternative would be to require an inexpensive, non-watertight concrete covering for each grave.

Finally, we wish to present the wording of the 1966 Faith and Practice of New England Yearly Meeting on the subject of burial grounds (page 250.� �Meetings maintaining their own burial grounds should establish rules and regulations governing interments, the marking of graves, and keeping of records. The Meeting should appoint a committee of two or more Friends to have oversight of the burial grounds and to see to the enforcement of the rules. The committee should take care to make no commitment of a plot or reservation of space in the burial ground which, in the passage of time, may permit the property to pass from Meeting control or ownership.

In establishing regulations as to grave stones, Meetings should be careful to observe the principles of moderation and simplicity.

�� John Foster

�� Tom Crowe

�� John Zhradnik