Long-standing disagreements between the Montgomery Parks Foundation and the Planning Board over what role the nonprofit should play in supporting the county's park system led to what proved to be a fatal breakdown in communication between the two bodies.

The foundation was created by the Planning Board in 1992 to support and enhance the county's park system, but the nonprofit had difficulty sustaining its independence and financial stability. The foundation saw its role in construction, development and project management, while the Planning Board viewed it as a fundraising arm of the parks department.

The foundation's Board of Trustees voted in December to suspend operations and transfer leadership of the nonprofit to new trustees while the Planning Board determines its future with the foundation.

"There wasn't any malicious intent," said former Montgomery Parks Foundation Executive Director Stephen Joseph, who left in December after three years. "On each side, they both wanted the community to benefit — they were just coming at it from two different sides."

The county's parks department revised its public/private partnerships policies in 2003 to make them more efficient and donor-friendly, according to Planning Board documents. Parks staff and Joseph drafted a memorandum of understanding defining the relationship in 2006, but it was rejected by the foundation's board, which spent much of its time in the following years discussing its purpose.

The foundation received differing guidance on its mission as the makeup of the Planning Board changed, according to Richard Pettit, who was president of the foundation for three years until resigning in December.

"It seems like every time there's a new [Planning Board] chairman, there's a new vision," he said, describing the foundation's original purpose as "operating outside the normal and customary process of park and planning so that things could be accomplished quickly."

There was also disagreement over how much say large donors should have in what kinds of facilities are built in parks.

"They wanted us to raise money, which we did very successfully, but people who give large sums of money want some input," Pettit said. "…People just don't give millions of dollars without an expectation of what it'll go to."

According to a February 2008 report by park and planning staff, the foundation increasingly overstepped its authority, and its development efforts were often mishandled and created an extra burden on park staff, charges Joseph disagreed with.

"As a foundation of its age and affiliated, moreover, to an outstanding park system, MPF is remarkable in that it is neither self-sustaining nor a revenue-producing partner of [park and planning], nor does it consider itself accountable to the agency in any capacity," the report states. "…MPF's only consistency appears to have been in its lack of established and transparent procedures."

The foundation ended 2006, the last year foundation tax records were available, with a deficit of $344,489, according to the documents. Payroll for the foundation's two employees, including Joseph, totaled $173,771. The foundation reported raising $26,187, including $6 in net revenue from a golf tournament fundraiser.

The foundation ended 2005 with $95,791 and had a $24,931 deficit in 2004, according to tax records. It received $300,000 from park and planning's budget between 1998 and 2000 to cover operating expenses as well as two $30,000 grants for operating expenses in 2005 and 2006, according to Planning Board documents.

Those grants stemmed from a previous agreement that the Planning Board would give the foundation $15,000 for overhead costs every six months, Joseph said.

The foundation also submitted several proposals for generating operating revenue, such as installing bottled water vending machines in parks, that were rejected, he said.