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."