A proposal to increase front-country fees at Great Smoky Mountains National Park drew some interesting, and accusatory, comments/NPS
The information highway between park managers and park users can be full of curves and hills, as a recent situation at Great Smoky Mountains National Park demonstrated when it comes to what some users want in terms of information, and what parks routinely provide and even how they provide it.
Great Smoky officials recently went through the process of assessing public support for an increase in front-country user fees, which haven't been increased for about a decade or more in some cases. Among those commenting on the proposal was Robert Wightman, who ran the park's campground reservation system for many years. While Mr. Wightman in general said fee increases were due, he also raised concerns over the way the park went about seeking public comment on the plans.
Among his many comments was that, "… too often the park seeks public comment on actions which are strongly favored by the park and for which much effort has been devoted to likely implementation.”
In response, Great Smoky's spokeswoman Dana Soehn said that park staff uses "their professional expertise in bringing forward well-thought out proposals to the public for review. We would not ask the public to comment on a proposal that, based on experience, training, and knowledge of the issue, staff does not think is a feasible or good idea."
"Putting together proposals requires a significant amount of time on behalf of key staff involved in the project to ensure that both NPS management and the public have adequate background information to make informed comments and decisions," she added in an email. "We have also learned that through civic engagement we learn of many other valuable perspectives which typically result in us modifying our original proposals or how they are implemented. This again proved to be the case with this proposal, which has been modified through the planning process and is currently undergoing internal review. Throughout this process, park management continues to discuss the pros and cons of implementing the proposed changes. The proposal was put before the public, congressional delegates, partners, and stakeholders and feedback is being fully considered before a final decision is made."
More glaringly, Mr. Wightman said the park was "guilty" of "spinning" the fee increase proposal to its benefit.
"It is my opinion that some of the public dissatisfaction with government (very evident in this election year) results from a tendency by agencies to spin information to their benefit, to avoid transparency and/or provide only minimal information or to require extra effort to obtain detailed information. Unfortunately, I think GRSM is also guilty of that," he wrote in his comments. "That may result to some extent by the difficulties encountered when individuals or small groups take issue with an action and generate adverse public opinion and/or sue the agency in court.
"But it is good to remember that agencies serve the public and a forthright sharing of information is absolutely critical to an educated public and a democratic form of government. Perhaps a good example of the tendency towards spinning information is the fact that the park provided virtually no information on the disadvantages of implementing either aspect of this proposal. The information disseminated was all pro - the cons were left to the public to identify."
Ms. Soehn didn't directly respond to Mr. Wightman's contention that the information provided the public on the fee proposal "was all pro," but did say park staff are willing to provide more information if it is sought by the public.
"The park staff works hard to provide accurate, transparent information that is also concise and relevant. Having worked directly in the fee program, Bob has had access to a wealth of information that is also available to the public, but it is not often in a readily accessible format for distribution," she said. "Much of our budget information is in databases and tracking systems that output data in formats that are difficult to interpret. In the interest of clarity, we provided totals and summaries to the public in a concise, readable format. We attempted to include the best available information pertinent to the proposal.
"We are also always glad to pull more information for those who desire to see more data. Through the comment process, we received several questions for more information and requests to discuss the proposal," wrote Ms. Soehn. "Our staff responded to each of the inquiries in person, on the phone, or via email. Each day, park staff at the Smokies work diligently to be good stewards of funds and lands entrusted to us."
Regarding some of Mr. Wightman's project specific questions, Ms. Soehn said:
* Park officials are considering the installation of shower facilities at the Smokemont Campground;
* Park officials proposed a 25 percent across-the-board fee increase for campgrounds and pavilions because, with 27 park facilities to consider, "staff could have proposed 27 different percentages or fee increase amounts but felt that overall results were similar enough to simplify the proposal."
Comments
It's gonna be hard for Cash to spin this one. The NPS own is criticizing the process. What Kurt didn't mention is that over half of respondents OPPOSE this fee increase. So here is what Ca$h will do. Instead of a 25%, he will modify to %20 and act like he is doing everyone a favor. The public comments are nothing more than a checked box on FLREA. They do it because they have to. Good to see an NPS person criticize the sham it is. Just a shame they have to retire before feeling comfortable enough to do so. That speaks volumes of Jarvis agency.
'no toll or license fee shall ever be imposed...' - No spinning it. That is the agreement. No 'if', 'ands' or 'buts'.
Our park and our way of life is under attack. The efforts of the Great Southern Forest Watch has brought this to my attention very clearly. I am greatful for Kurt Repanshek for telling it like it is in this article.
Cash is not listening to the people. In his eyes our comments hold no value at all. He is just simply going through the motions to push the agenda of GSMNP Fees that will adversaly affect our regional businesses and park accessibility for all.
A deal is a deal! Keep your FEES OUT OF OUR SMOKIES!
This has been happening for years in our national park system. I thought everyone knew by now that the "public comment" thing is just some extra red tape that the bureaucrats have to jump through. It almost never really changes the outcome of what the government wants to do.
Unfortunately this is just a minor example of what is terribly wrong with our federal government today. Spinning information, avoiding transparency and providing minimal information in order to gain support for a predetermined outcome (and often unrelated agenda) is par for the course. At least for the NPS it is a Constitutionally granted power. For so much more of the federal government it is a massive bureaucracy that abuses the Constitution and the people. We need term limits for Congress, SCOTUS and the bureaucrats. We need a balanced budget and we need to get rid of the massive bureaucracy that has no Constitutional basis such as the Dept of Education, Dept of Energy, Dept of Agriculture, much of EPA, FDA,....... Those are powers that Constitutionally belong to the states. NPS, Forest Service, BLM? They get to stay - the Constitution establishes their legitimacy.
*grateful *Southern Forest Watch #proofread
Besides hills and curves, that "information highway between park managers and park users..." also contains some notable dead-ends in my experience. NPS management whines constantly for more money, but good luck getting them to disclose how they spent the last batch.
I became curious about spending priorities at Mount Rainier and asked for a summary and an organization chart. I would have been satisfied with a budget pie chart and a phone list with names and numbers redacted. Months of calls, emails and letters produced only evasion, delay, and no response to my request. Besides feeling insulted, I was left wondering what it was they felt they had to hide?
The attitude that how the Park Service spends tax money is none of our business is apparently all too common:
http://www.schundler.net/FOIAfailing.pdf
http://www.schundler.net/Monocracy.pdf
This unfolding fee saga is nothing new, and what is particularly exasperating is that spokeswoman Dana Soehn, whether intentionally or not, comes across as singularly condescending. Many who follow NPS matters closely have ample reason to think that an attitude of "we know what is good for you" or "we have the expertise" is their standard mindset. Indeed, Soehn actually states in her response that they have "databases and tracking systems" that, for the lowly hoi polloi who just happen to pay her salary and that of her colleagues, are "difficult to interpret."
That is, in the first instance, demeaning. Secondly, if it is indeed the case that this information is terribly complex, then perhaps the NPS cognoscenti need to give serious thought to use of information that we lesser folks, the general public, can understand. It is awfully convenient to be able to hide behind a smoke screen comprised of this sort of verbiage, and it is flat-out patronizing to suggest that they have to simplify things because those who might have concerns are, in essence, simpletons.
It is particularly telling that a former GSMNP employee intimately conversant with the internal workings of their bureaucracy calls them out on abject failure to provide any insight whatsoever regarding potential drawbacks associated with implementation of the fees. Soehn's response to this is an ongoing exercise in double speak and deflection, letting us know how her worthy fellow bureaucrats spent endless fine-tuning all of this. That is unmitigated verbal effluent. Any fine-tuning that transpired most assuredly revolved around crafting things to meet required standards and in no way involved due diligence in trying to serve public needs as opposed to bureaucratic desires.
Jim Casada
The Roman Empire all over again.