Is the National Park Service's Centennial Initiative as "audacious" as Director Mary Bomar claims it to be? Will it truly prepare the agency for its second century, or is it lacking in its current form some critical aspects that are necessary for the Park Service to attain greatness as protector of arguably the world's best park system?
Dwight Pitcaithley served as chief historian for the Park Service from 1995 to 2005. In his insightful and thought-generating essay, On the Brink of Greatness: National Parks and the Next Century, written for the George Wright Society, Mr. Pitcaithley leaves us wondering whether there are areas that so far have glaringly been overlooked in the Park Service's centennial planning.
Indeed, he writes that the agency is drastically underfunded; is failing its employees by not providing opportunities for continuing education; is hamstrung by politics, and; is not adequately supporting its cultural and natural resource programs. Continuing to fail to adequately address those areas would be a critical mistake, one that would fail the national park system and, in tandem, our children and their children and their children's children.
The centennial will either begin a renaissance for this most American of American institutions or it will pass, as so many centennials pass, with much fanfare and celebration signifying nothing more than the banal mediocrity which unfortunately we have come to accept from important national anniversaries.
As has been pointed out on these pages before, the Centennial Initiative is a bold concept, but one that seemingly is missing some key elements. In introducing the initiative earlier this year, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne and NPS Director Bomar spoke boldly of their vision for the Park Service's future:
* Stewardship and science will guide decisions, Mr. Kempthorne said in his cover letter to the president. An inventory of all wildlife in parks will be completed, a vital baseline to monitor change and adjust management. Strategic acquisitions will protect landscapes.
* Much has been accomplished and more remains to be done to fulfill a common American dream -- to leave things better for those who follow us, added Ms. Bomar in her own letter.
* This is not only a report to the president, but a pledge to the American people, who are the shareholders in the greatest system of parks and special places in the world ... a pledge that the men and women of the National Park Service will continue in preserving these wonderful places for the generations yet to come, Ms. Bomar added a bit later.
The two also said projects deemed worthy of helping the agency move strongly into its second century would revolve around stewardship, environmental leadership, recreational experience, education and professional excellence.
And yet, while the first 201 projects declared "eligible" for centennial funding touch on those five areas, what seems to be missing is a solid, underlying cohesion to them. Indeed, those projects were selected largely, if not entirely, on the merits of already having gained funding of some measure from private groups, not entirely because they embraced one of those five points or truly would strengthen the Park Service or park system.
In his essay, Mr. Pitcaithley calls for clearer, and more determined, foresight as the Park Service moves towards its centennial.
As this country begins to think about the centennial of the National Park Service, it is appropriate that we have a serious conversation about parks and their value to our society, and the role we want parks and the National Park Service to play in the future. What is our obligation, as the trustees of these magnificent places, to our children and their children? The upcoming centennial provides an opportunity to think creatively about the kind of National Park Service we want for the next century and envision systemic changes for its betterment and ours.
The 100th birthday of the National Park Service should be cause for a national celebration. It should prompt us to imagine a future for the agency and the magnificent collection of parks and programs it manages based not on the vision of a hundred years ago, but on the reality of today.
Mr. Pitcaithley's essay in its entirety (© 2007 The George Wright Society. Used by permission) can be found below. But here are some snippets:
* "As we envision a future for the National Park Service, we must logically consider the problems that currently plague it -- primarily those of inadequate budgets and increased politicization. While Congress is enamored with the idea of new parks, it has never felt obligated to support those parks with adequate and consistent funding."
* According to studies by the National Parks Conservation Association, the average budget shortfall among nearly 100 park units is 32 percent. Yellowstone's shortfall is 35 percent, Gettysburg's 35 percent, Everglades 32 percent, Valley Forge's 36 percent, Acadia's 53 percent, Fort Sumpter's 24 percent.
* The rapid turnover among Park Service directors in recent years "means that the essential relationships between the NPS and Congress and interested support organizations, not to mention funding priorities, change with the administrations and that the focus of the agency shifts with political winds. These changes at the very top of the agency create a degree of instability in an organization that can only be successful in a future characterized by certainty and consistency."
To that end, Mr. Pitcaithley suggests the agency's director no longer be a political appointee but rather an individual who serves a 15-year term, "on the model of the Government Accountability Office. This model has served GAO, and the American people, well by preventing politics from influencing that agency's decision-making process. Following the GAO's lead in this regard would also break the detrimental cycle of the NPS director tendering his or her resignation on January 20th upon the inauguration of a new administration."
* The Park Service must recommit to science in the parks.
* "A renewed vision for the future should also include authorization and funding ... for the National Park Service to send its employees -- in all disciplines -- back to institutions of higher learning to seek advanced degrees so the agency can manage its resources and programs with the very best of current science and scholarship."
* Annual funding for the agency, if it is to escape its hefty $8 billion maintenance backlog and move toward greatness, should be in the $5 billion-$6 billion range. "... funding the basic requirements of the National Park Service constitutes such a small fraction of the operations of the federal government that if the current budget were doubled to $5 billion, that figure would amount to less than 0.002 percent of the president's proposed 2008 budget! Proper funding of the National Park Service is not about money; it is about priorities. National parks are important to the ecological and civic health of this nation and should be funded with public monies."
* Do away with entrance fees to the parks. "This user fee is inherently inequitable. In a democracy such as ours, the educational and recreational benefits of the national park system should not be available only to those who can afford them. The riches of the national parks should be available to all without reference to economic status."
Mr. Pitcaithley's is a valuable essay, one whose message arrives in plenty of time for this administration and the next and the next to weigh, and act, if they truly want a great National Park Service and park system.
Comments
I'm not into reference checks. I trust your personal references wouldn't say anything to reflect negatively on your esteemed character. And business references generally pass along high marks, especially on someone there's looking to cut bait with, so what good is that?
The overview of the gig seems respectable enough. It's a pity what upper-management can do, intentionally or not, to create an environment such that decent people are exposed to a level of frustration, irritation, stress, incompetence, and nonchalance that leaving is the best option. It's a regular happening in education, business, and, believe it or not, government of all places! That's why we're stuck with this intolerable level of mediocrity at the federal level; the few honest and decent folk who managed to achieve victory in general elections were run out of town for refusing to be bent over the table and compromise their ideals (and campaign promises) in favor of some idiot committee chairman who's bank accounts are lined by the lobbyists and special interest groups. It's a guarantee that any "lifer" in our Congress plays into this dirty game. And the longer they've been there, the dirtier they become. These are not just my opinions mind you, but the resulting theory of an ex-Senator who resigned after one session of direct interaction within this cesspool. My long-standing suspicions were confirmed by this person, and who better to testify for the prosecution than an eye-witness? There I go, digressing again........sorry.
There are many methods of overhauling a system. Some "tweaks" are simple and generally lend to short-term improvement but usually don't have the staying power. I'm not quite so sure that even a thorough overhaul, from policy-maker status down to kitchen attendant (sorry about that you in the service trade) would be enough to redirect a sinking Titanic away from the iceberg. Those type of sweeping, system-wide modification generally take quite literally, years, to have any real impact. I question the time-frame in which we're working. Personally, I don't believe there are years enough, and generally I'm rather patient. But time is running out, especially if you follow the environmental change hypothesis. My grand plan(s) will take a bit more space to lay out, but suffice to say that for the radical, department wide gutting that really needs to be done, the best way is a multi-faceted approach taking all the tools that have been working against us and redirecting them. This is, after all, a business, and as a business it needs to be managed like any other world-class venture. Everything must be reviewed and revamped, from management to budget controls, finding new funding sources to marketing the product, legal and accounting issues, research projects, environmental issues, hiring, training and retention of quality employees, planning and possible expansion issues, working in conjunction with, as opposed to, other national land management teams and divisions. The list is quite complex, but so is the problem. But in a nutshell, let's say it's centered around putting the public lands back into the public's hands......not a bad sound bite, eh? I'll keep you posted.
I'm certain you answered my question more succinctly than I did yours.
By the way, what's this garbage?
misused funds are inevitable, whether an agency or a corporation or a small business. only the nps, successful or not, has the best intentions in managing our parks.
Mismanagement is inevitable? Poor accounting practices are inevitable? Lack of accountability in inevitable?
Boy am I glad I never had you in MY employ! Maybe the author intended to use the term misguided or misdirected, but I can't stand behind the term misused. Since often times priorities become realigned between the times budgets are submitted and receive final approval and are actually funded, it could be possible that some line items were "reprioritized" in favor of preceived more immediate or more critical concerns, but that's not misuse in my neighborhood. I'd appreciate a bit more of specific definition and notable instances of where monies were misused. Then we can dissect the beast.
lone hiker- i was the one who posted "misused" and i can tell you, aside from the entity that i run, i see misused and hear about misused funds everywhere. from public radio stations to large corporations, it happens... let's not split semantical hairs here, i meant what i wrote. to deny it is to deny reality.
and as for having me on your payroll? you don't really know me, nor my perspective, so why make a flaming, trollish comment like that here? you don't even know me, so please, take a nicer tone. you'd probably like me, maybe even take a hike in a park with me! (unless you really are a "lone" hiker!) ;)
frank- honestly, i'd like to see some further activity on your blog, it seems like a more appropriate place for the tenor of your comments as well as a more suitable location, perhaps, than one who focuses more on parks *overall* than simply reform. additionally, i'm glad you aren't working for the nps system and are now teaching... you're probably making a greater impact on society in general anyway and we need intelligent, competent, award winning teachers.
There's much to address here, and this is the Haunted Hiker's busiest time of year. But I want to take the time to say a few things.
One: Beamis was an brilliant interpreter and dedicated employee. I don't know Frank (at least I don't think I do) but I wish I did. But then I do have a weakness for crushed idealists. Especially the funny ones.
Two: To dismiss someone's opinions, statements, or rationales because they are "disgruntled" is an ad hominem attack. In other words, lazy logic. I saw supervisors do this over and over again during my 12 years with the NPS. We are all guilty of it from time to time, just like we are all guilty of slouching. Regardless, the NPS is long over due for some well-spoken challenges to the conventional wisdom. Let's straighten our backs and be strong enough to contemplate the insights offered by so-called "disgruntleds"!!!
Three: You can do more (or at least as much) for the parks and the visitors from the outside than you can from the inside.
Gotta go. Spooky Trails y'all!
I have always wondered why we don't have an option on our federal tax returns to donate $1 of our refund to the National Parks similar to the option to fund the presidential campaigns. I would think most folks would donate and it's a very efficient way to solicit donations to our national treasures. I would be much more inclined to donate to our parks than to more campaign ads on TV.
Ah, so many issues, so little time......
Anon-
For three and a half years I served as general manager for a $105MM family of 7-8 units. Annual budget reveiw and approval was one of my main respnsibilities, and I wasn't above rewriting them based on the annual planning stratagies discussed in our corporate planning meetings. I would allocate additional funds for certain areas while eliminating from others based on the focus that we at corporate dictated that each unit pursue for the upcomming fiscal year. Through what some might label as micro-managing, I would then closely track the expenditures of each entity to ensure that our focus was being implemented and properly administrated by the unit managers. I have since embarked on a career in the sciences, and have been placed in charge of establishing a research laboratory. In both cases, total responsibility for all things related to how and why monies are allocated fall directly onto my shoulders. Maybe due to this forced accountability, and the level of ethical pride that was instilled in me years ago, I cannot sanction, condone, or understand the concept of "misused" funds. To say otherwise would, like yourself, be untrue to my principles. You're correct in stating that I don't know you......nor do I know any of the regular contributors to this site. I trust that you are all intelligent, decent, respectable folk, since I have no evidence to the contrary. I just might, as you suggest, enjoy you as a person. And you would be most welcome to join me on my next trans-canyon trek across the Colorado, along the Appalachian Trail, into the Narrows, across some Civil War battlefield site or elsewhere. But after some period of days, you're likely to hear more comments that would confirm my position as your "troll", as I don't suffer fools lightly in any aspect of life, and sooner or later, I'm sure I'd commit another faux pax regarding some issue you hold dear. But no personal affront was then or is now intended, I assure you.
Frank-
I apologize for taking much longer to reply than did yourself, and thank you to both you and Beamis for the biographical data. My intent was to determine the extent of the level of interaction that you both allude to in various posts, and what level of management you have been influenced by and interacted with during your tenure. It is most unfortunate that mediocraty is the rule rather than the exception, but as I mentioned to Beamis, the few good people in federal offices seem to have little staying power due the tolerance and in some cases fostering nature of building and maintaining a staff with the sole intention of surrounding one's self with people of lesser talents, abilities and ambitions solely to make yourself appear "larger than life", thus solidifying your future within the department. Unfortunately, our current governing bodies are ripe with these types of management at more levels in more departments that you would care to believe. Rangers hired at less than GS-5? No wonder they can't find enough good people. It's hard to get by on $24K annually, even single and living at home! The adage regarding government work is as old as the hills, and as true. But when you don't empower people such that they have no role in determining their future, what can you expect? I'm not attempting to rationalize, just overstating the obvious I guess.
I'm familiar with Rauch's work. I gather not too many people are due to their inability to understand I can take the stance that I do regarding our politcal system, being a proud member of NEITHER side, both losers in my opinion. Those of us who project independence are too often labeled "libertarian", another term invented by the media.
When I stress the term INDEPENDENT, I'm usually confronted with "independent Dem or independent Rep?". Jeez, get a clue folks, independent means INDEPENDENT! As in, not dependent on EITHER side. Next they'll be calling me a Separatist, God forbid.
My plan centered around the "Public Land in Public Hands" mantra actually came to me some 6-7 years ago, and unfortunately I've yet to find the time to start the organization process. But you're quite correct, the current state of affairs isn't worthy of much besides the scrap pile, as it hasn't worked, and it's progression has been one of regression of late. The federal government obviously isn't concerned with the current state of affairs, only with the opportunity to generate further profits from the "public" lands without the monies going to public cuncerns. Ah, the continued raping of a nation, what WILL they think of next? As I mentioned previously, there are indeed methods of legally taking back what is ours, as a people of this nation, and turning they system around to work for us as members of this society. Unfortuantely, it will take quite some time and there will be legal battles, probably up to the Supreme Court level. Fortunately, the Constitution has some mentions that can be used to build a case around, making this a bit less tedious a fight as one might believe. After winning that approval, the dominos fall fairly easily into place, in terms of consolidation of current resources. Management, administration, and new funding sources are the major hurdles that will require much for intense planning and execution in order to realign the current system into a fully functioning entity. More exacting details to come, I promise.............