In a brief, four-paragraph memorandum, National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis has brought to an end a budgeting process that stripped arguably key positions from parks. Dubbed "core ops" for its approach to analyzing a park's core operations, the process failed to produce wise budgeting decisions, the director said in a letter to his regional directors.
"Core ops" was instituted during the Bush administration by Intermountain Regional Director Mike Snyder. Intended to save precious dollars by eliminating operations that were not central to a park's core operation, the process forced superintendents to make tough, and at times questionable, decisions.
For instance, at Dinosaur National Monument the superintendent decided to cut two of the three positions in her paleontological department, at an annual savings of roughly $200,000 in salaries and benefits, so she could, in part, afford more law enforcement staff. Elsewhere in the Intermountain Region, officials at Canyonlands National Park did away with a deputy superintendent's position when the incumbent retired to save $122,000, and Rocky Mountain National Park officials filled a deputy superintendent's job with a division chief, and then left that position vacant to make ends meet.
In a letter (attached below) sent to his regional directors November 20, NPS Director Jarvis said the agency has better tools -- such as its Budget Cost Projection model and the NPS Scorecard -- for seeing that budgets are prudently crafted.
"As director I want to emphasize use of management tools that empower managers with unbiased data and analysis to make informed decisions, improve the justification and presentation of our budgets, and improvement the management of our financial resources. Based on extensive feedback I have received from field managers I believe that the Core Operations process fails to meet these requirements," he wrote.
At the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, Bill Wade praised Director Jarvis's action.
"I am very pleased to see that Director Jarvis has ended this debacle. It was an absolutely stupid process - born out of the minds of those who placed a higher value on efficiency (saving money) than on effectiveness," said Mr. Wade, who chairs the council's executive committee. "We never heard of a single case where the process ended up with a result that improved the capability of meeting the mission of the park involved, much less being worth the time and money invested in carrying out the process."
The Traveler has asked the Intermountain Regional office for reports assessing the impact of the core ops process, and for Regional Director Snyder's reaction to the directive.
Comments
I don't disagree that individuals from outside the NPS can make good park managers however, we have a process by which those individuals can learn over time how to become managers of the resources we hold in trust for the people we serve. That process is called experience. I would not want an auto mechanic, even if he was a capable, highly intelligent person, performing surgery on me. He must learn about the human body and the techniques and technologies that will lead to becomming a capable surgeon. Like the surgeon. a park manager, must learn the laws that govern parks and resources and techniques for leadership and program management within the Park Service culture. This is gained by experience not jumping headlong into park management from a position at the YMCA in North Carolina, for example (Florissant several years ago). At times I am horrified by the NPS hiring practices especially for superintendents and as a taxpayer I am outraged by some of the choices that are made when filling superintendent positions. From personal experience in the Intermountain Region, the Directorate needs a shakeup. Good luck John Jarvis!
Traveler..,
While the memo from Director Jarvis to the Regional Directors seemed clear in that it “brings an end to Core Operations Analyses for the parks and programs in your region,” it evidently did not make it to Omaha. A number of parks in the Midwest have been informed Core-Ops that were previously planned will go forth, including several that have yet to have dates scheduled.
Am I alone in hoping that this is not how the Director plans ‘to improve the justification our budgets and improve management of our financial resources”
From the people I spoken with, it appears to be business as usual.
Another round of CORE OPS Letters were just distributed yesterday, December 15, in continuation with the CORE OPS Plan, for Glen Canyon NRA. Some have described the IMR (Inter-Mountain Regional) and the GLCA hand picked pocket men, as Odessa, (The Organization of Old Nazi Hold-0uts). They appear to be continuing with their CORE-OPS plans in spite of Director Jarvis's letter and comments. They are hiring brand new positions at the same time they are trying to abolish positions under the CORE OPS Plan? The Superintendent has just hired an "Assistant Superintendent, GS-13", non-competively, that is. They have a Deputy Superintendent (GS-14) already? The person will be supervisied by the Superintendent, however? And a GS-12 Administrative Assistant for the Superintendent (Planner) as well? Many other goofy and strange things going on there as well I hear?
Karen Breslin is the current Public Affairs Specialist for the NPS Intermountain Region.
I've always been interested in how people who participate in an historical episode see it differently afterwards. A salute, I suppose, to that old saw "What you see depends on where you sit" The above discussion seems a good example of that. As I consider my own time in the NPS, I am humbled by the recollection of the large number of poorly conceived management initiatives we all participated in. I even seem to recall that Rick Smith and Bill Wade, two very fine and thoughtful men, coordinated something called Management Grid during their Albright days. And for all the passion that evoked I doubt it had a lasting impact. Core Operations was the most recent of a long list of bad initiatives. The Natural Resource Challenge and Vanishing Treasures were perhaps notable exceptions, because they brought new money to operations..
As I sat in the audience at Grand Canyon when Mike Snyder introduced Core Ops to I was dismayed by two things. The first was the enormous amount of work that would be required of us, time and effort that would perhaps be better spent getting on with operating the park.
But what bothered me the most was the underlying assumption that park operating budgets would decline, would not even track with inflation. While it was stated as a realistic forcast of the future, it seemed to me an abject surrender. And predictably, if you show the Administration and Congress that the NPS can manage the parks with less money, they will take you at your word and you will get less.
As a parting comment: Mike Snyder is taking a lot of shots on this, but he wasn't alone in pushing it. My recollection is that he was the Deputy RD when he first developed and fielded Core Opts, and he had the support of the Regional Director, some WASO staff, the Director, OMB examiner, and of course Lynn Scarlett. A lot of the comments seem to use Core Opts as a lightning rod as a way to talk about Mike's management style.
To Ron Everhart --
I think you are right that this is not the only Region, and I know from direct experience, that the Washington Office Associate Director for Development & maintenance & planning was pushing this dangerous program in superintendent training sessions, all over the System.
I do think it is true that the Intermountain Region went further than others. But it was a part of several efforts, managed at the national level, and driven by Lynn Scarlett in the Secretary's Office, by committee Republican staff of the House Appropriations committee, and by OMB. It was strongly supported by the Director's Office, first by the Director who appointed Snyder, then by the second Director appointed by Bush (who was a crony (whose background was as an administrative examiner for a previous regional director) of Snyder's from the IMR).
I think you are wrong that this is just another initiative. This was a program to dismantle the Service, and was backing up the initiatives of the Office of Management and Budget NPS budget examiner's efforts at radical restructuring.
The program had the effect of letting Congress and the Administration off the hook when cuts to the Mission of the parks were managed by the parks. I agree with people who say real accountability programs are necessary, and endless expansions of budgets is harmful. But that is not the actual situation in the NPS. The actual situation is that critical functions have been sent down the shute. the worst thing about the program is that it was based on a lie, the lie being that the program would collect data to convince Congress that the NPS was 'accountable' and thus deserving appropriations. The truth is, no organized program was pursued by any of these people to get the additional funds to the parks that they needed.
I think you are wrong about the Managerial Grid. It was a training program, not a management system. It was designed to help managers understand how effective they were, because many managers rarely examine the actual effectiveness of their behaviors. The program gave a simple system for a supervisor to test if some behaviors work better than others. From my personal experience, I was able to apply the system to my entire career, even though I took the course in the 1970's It seems to me to be pretty gratuitous to call out Smith and Wade, in comparison to Core Ops. Unlike Core Ops, you were not required to take or use the self-examination techniques of Managerial Grid. Core Ops
I just received the following correspondence from a long-time employee of an NPS unit who recently received a "buy out" offer. An acceptance of this offer would have resulted in down-sizing of the park's interpretive staff to a single full-time person. Supposedly, a reduction-in-force in interpretive staff would be consistent with that park units' CORE OPS.
Evidently, after professional interpretive staff is downsized, the expectation is that the vacancy will be supplemented with less experienced volunteers. I'm posting this (with approval) because I suspect this experience may be shared among staffs of other NPS units.
"Hi Owen
I'm not taking the buyout - I refuse to abandon this position until I am reasonably assured that it won't be abolished the second I walk out the door. It is not excessive to have two field interpretive rangers, particularly as one's time is committed to managing our website, educational outreach and an increasing large (and sadly ineffective) VIP staff. Even the best VIPs do not have time in 2-3 months, 3-4 days a week, one season, to do good interpretation. This revolving door of trainees is criminal. It debases interpretation and the NPS. Not every visitor comes to the parks with so little knowlege that any harebrained statement by a "ranger" will be accepted.
Oh well...
Happy New Year!"
I have intentionally not included the name of my friend, nor the park unit in which this situation has occurred. I believe, however, that the act of refusing such a buy out demonstrates the career dedication and love of public service that is characteristic most NPS career professionals who are stationed in the field.
Owen Hoffman
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
I am an employee of the National Park Service, Intermountain Region. Many people will never know how this process was abused by management at the park level. People with opposing views to management could find themselves "added" to the CORE OPS list. Friends ready to retire, that were not on the list, "hey, you want on?" Yes, it was that easy. ... Hey, thank God for people like "Rick Smith", and some of the others making very valid comments here. It is nice to see some people really care about their parks, even after retirement! Hat's off to you, and thank you!
This comment was edited to remove potentially libelous material. -- Ed.