Davitt Woodwell, president of the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, and Constantine Dillon, a long-tenured National Park Service veteran, were unanimously voted onto National Parks Traveler's board of directors during its recent meeting. The two bring new vision and energies to the nonprofit media organization that provides daily editorial coverage of national parks and protected areas.
Woodwell has worked with PEC since 1991. He took a brief leave of absence during 2000 and 2001 to serve as executive director of the Riverlife Task Force that developed a master plan for Pittsburgh’s waterfronts and proposed the creation of the new “Three Rivers Park.” Woodwell’s current work at PEC focuses on issues including deep decarbonization of Pennsylvania’s electricity grid, shale gas development, and trail and riverfront development.
Dillon enjoyed a long Park Service career, concluding it wth a six-year stint as superintendent of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, which recently was renamed as a national park. Among the honors he received during his NPS career was the Department of the Interior Meritorious Service Award.
"The talents Davitt and Costa bring to the Traveler are greatly welcomed," said Kurt Repanshek, president and CEO of the Traveler. "Their insights, knowledge, and perspectives will help us grow and broaden our coverage of the world's most diverse and intriguing park system."
National Parks Traveler, with an annual readership of about 3 million, earlier this year expanded its coverage with the addition of weekly podcasts that complement the daily coverage on its flagship website. Woodwell and Dillon will work with the rest of the board to explore new approaches to presenting news and feature coverage of national parks and protected areas, and revisit the news organization's strategic planning with an emphasis on ensuring adequate funding to facilitate growth.
Comments
We can hope these board members make a difference and NPT ceases to become the mouthpiece for the OIG. It's embarrassing!
Perhaps you could be more specific, "Let's hope." Which OIG case do you disagree with? Part of the problem you perceive might reside in the fact that individuals questioned in OIG cases don't like to publicly discuss the cases. And your comment would carry more weight if you used your real name.