First, an apology: At the end of a heated exchange with California State Parks Foundation President, Elizabeth Goldstein, I said under my breath, “I’ll get you.” I should have realized that the phone connection was not yet severed. It is unfortunate that Ms. Goldstein heard it. I learned only later, via Mr. Anderson, that she had indeed heard. What did I mean, really mean, by such a statement? I meant to say that I will get to the bottom of this privatization mess. I believe privatization is the trend. And, I do believe that California State Parks and the Foundation have not been willing to engage in this issue. Ms. Goldstein believes otherwise. Who knows if and when our divergent views on the matter will converge?
Those who believe that State Parks must remain a public trust for the benefit of all Californians are in for a nasty surprise. Since May 2011, there has indeed been a spirited defense of state parks by volunteers and donors, most often coordinated by non-profit volunteer and donor organizations. It is no exaggeration to say that tens of thousands of individuals have answered the call for money and volunteer service. Why, then, is the public in for a nasty surprise?
The following analysis should once and for all put the lie to the promise of the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to honor their public trust obligation to “preserve and protect” our California state parks. The core obligation of this public trust is to “preserve and protect” park lands, AND to insure access to all Californians and visitors. Every Californian needs to add their voice of opposition to the policies and plans that will, without a doubt, make a mockery of the very idea of what a public trust means. (Voice your concerns to Janelle Beland, Director, Department of Parks and Recreation (info@parks.ca.gov) If we do not present a unified opposition now, the organized forces of privatization and restricting access to state parks will prevail. This is not overstating the case, as the following analysis will show.
False Assurances and Deception: On the heels of announcing the plan to close 70 state parks in May 2011, the media spin began. On June 29th, Roy Stearns, Deputy Communications Director stated: “We don’t see privatization as a good option at this point.” On the same day, Elizabeth Goldstein, President of California State Parks Foundation, echoed Mr. Stearns, “I think peoples’ concern about privatization are unlikely… people already involved in parks are going to be the ones to step up.”
From that point on, the struggle to line up volunteer and donor efforts to keep state parks open went into overdrive. Dozens of volunteer organizations (by one count at least 80) developed initiatives to solicit donations and to prepare operation and joint operation agreements. The obstacles placed in their way were by every measure daunting. Also in the wake of the decision to close 70 parks, experts unreservedly demonstrated that state parks provide at a minimum $4.3 billion in economic benefit, yet required only $122 million in general fund (taxpayer) support. All such arguments demonstrating how much economic benefit state parks provide fell on deaf ears. The march toward abandoning state support for state parks continued apace. The Governor and Budget Office were determined to starve state parks into virtual submission, if not insolvency. And where were the DPR executives when it came to fighting for continued general fund support, in return for the windfall benefits state parks provide? For one, the Director, Ruth Coleman was at the January 8-11 American Recreation Coalition meeting. She was taped toasting, champagne glass in hand, the private for-profit company executives for their superior ability to operate revenue-producing elements within state parks. Volunteers, wouldn’t you know, just don’t know how to run campgrounds.
So it was at the beginning of 2012, with the July 1st deadline looming, that volunteers and donors continued to toil mightily to stave off the threat of the Closures Cliff. No one knew that at the very moment Director Ruth Coleman, who certainly must have known of the $54 million in “hidden funds” being withheld and unavailable to relieve the immediate budget crisis facing parks, was preparing to send out a Request for Proposals (RFP) to private for-profit companies to take over the revenue producing elements of up to 21 state parks. To compound this betrayal of public trust, Coleman was also aware that it would not look good if it became known that PROS Consulting was about to enter into a contract to provide a report that could (and without doubt will) alter forever the mission and operational policies of state parks.
Deception and Misdirection: If Ruth Coleman had let it be known that PROS Consulting was to be contracted “to create tools that allow park managers to understand and manage their costs and financial resources at the park level,” (Elizabeth Goldstein, October 18, 2012)for the sum of at least $175,000, the public response would have been to raise serious questions as to the intent of the “study” to be conducted. The very existence of such a consulting contract would have called into question the intentions of the DPR and its lack of transparency, lack of public input, and failure to keep state elected officials informed. There are additional reasons for keeping the study under wraps:
• Outsourcing a review of park operations, by DPR executives, undermines the field staff at the park unit and District level. Park managers, the professionals on the ground, possess a deep understanding of what they it takes to run a park efficiently. They certainly do not need yet another study to identify problems and solutions.
• The problem parks faces is years of declining state support and the ever-increasing backlog of deferred maintenance (currently estimated at $1.4 billion). The focus of the PROS contract completely ignores the need for general fund revenue support.
• State legislators, notably Senator Noreen Evans and Assemblyman Jared Huffman were in the process of crafting and passing legislation that, at a minimum, will enhance user/visitor fees in order to put parks on a more sustainable footing.
• Any hint that DPR was planning to advance privatization initiatives would have discouraged donors and volunteer groups. They would question the sincerity of DPR to support their efforts. Not a single volunteer organization supports privatization.
• Throughout the crisis of the pending closures, every effort by volunteers and donors was summarized on a “Parks Closures” list maintained by CSPF. However, not one entry was given to the status or existence of private for-profit proposals to take over any park unit. This in spite of the 21 state parks identified as open to bids by for-priofits, this includes the five state parks that have indeed been given over to private for-profit operators.
The means by which the existence of the PROS consulting contract was kept from public and legislature is indeed questionable. The California State Parks Foundation (CSPF) did the actual contracting, thus avoiding any opportunity for the public or legislators to know of or comment upon the terms and focus of the study. Elizabeth Goldstein, President of CSPF, defends the consulting contract, stating that its purpose is “to identify the cost of service for all key functions and services at the park level.” The work product of this effort, therefore, is “to create tools… to manage… costs and financial resources at the park level.” (Personal communication, October 18, 2012) President Goldstein denies in the strongest terms that the intent behind the PROS contract, namely to develop “tools” with which to charge whatever is possible for “services” is the prime goal. When President Goldstein insists that it is only about increasing ways to improve the revenue for “services”, she avoids all the other elements to be found in PROS reports, especially recommendations to turn over the “high potential” revenue producing elements of a park unit to private concessionaires. Nor does she seem to care. When I mentioned to her the example of recommending that a campsite, say at a lake, that a shoreline site should cost more than one set back from the lake, her response is “And why not?” Clearly, she does believe in finding ways of wringing out the maximum revenue from every state park unit, even if that means that some park visitors are more equal than others. Parks have long had a tradition of being open, accessible, and dare I suggest, equal in access to all. Why on earth would we want our parks so commoditized that only the well-off get the best places in them?
Before we get lost in the weeds of consultant speak, let’s examine what the survey/study by PROS Consulting, in all likelihood, will recommend when submitted to DPR by way of CSPF. Every PROS Consulting report I have been able to access, from the 2010 report to Sonoma County Parks and Recreation to the the state level reports (such as Oklahoma, Kentucky, Arizona) lead to a set of common and unvarying recommendations. Keep in mind, the objective is NOT to include a recommendation that the governing authority continue to vigorously contend for general funds (taxes) support. Rather, it is to commoditize every possible “service” as a means to charge what the traffic will bear.
PROS Consulting reports and the recommendations they highlight uniformly include the following essential elements:
• Increase fees to users/visitors
• Shed obligations to maintain facilities by transferring them to other agencies
• Promote “special events (weddings, corporate retreats, sports events such as bike or
motorbike racing) which temporarily restrict public access
• Lower labor costs, replacing professionals with low-cost, less well trained staff
• Promote capital investment in “gentrification” of campground facilities, through an increased emphasis on yurts, tent-cabins, lodging and dining facilities
• Privatize “high potential” elements of state parks to for-profit companies.
• Conducting of “training” sessions to insure staff and personnel “buy-in” of recommendations.
One need but ask one question: Will any of the above recommendations insure universal and fair access to California State Parks? Keep in mind that the operation of five state park units, without public comment or legislative oversight, have already been given over to private for-profit operators. At every turn, when I raised the Brannan Island SRA example, President Goldstein refused to engage the fact that such a private for-profit concession is a give away, with little or no benefit to the state parks. So much for the claims within DPR or CSPF that concerns about privatization are “unlikely” to be real. (Goldstein, June 29, 2011) Well, for five park units in 2012, they are indeed very real. How many “takings” of park units will it take before DPR or CSPF recognize or admit that it is a problem?
Scott Silver, of Wild Wilderness, put it best “If something can be commodified and once something is commodified, it will be privatized.” Elizabeth Goldstein makes it clear that every element of state parks will be identified as to its “cost of service.” The key objective of every PROS Consulting contract IS to identify and commodify the “Value Added/Visitor Supported” elements of a park system that can be put under the control of for-profit companies. Exhibit A (page 9) of the contract between PROS and CSPF makes that abundantly clear. Value Added/Visitor Supported Services are “Services the agency may provide when they are fiscally sustainable through visitor support; add value above and beyond what is required or expected of the agency’s core functions; are easy opportunities to integrate alternative providers and operators into providing services at one or more sites.” Keep in mind that the excluded services that are identified as “core functions” are the responsibility of the public parks department, not the for profit operator.
One concrete example will demonstrate just how inequitable a for-profit concession can be. The operation of Brannan Island State Recreational Area, as of July 16, 2012, was transferred to American Land and Leisure. It was accomplished with not so much as a by your leave from California State Parks Foundation. Brannon Island, in 2010, brought in $411,715, while serving the recreational needs of over 118,000 visitors. In return for capturing the revenue base of this park unit, American Land and Leisure has agreed to a “rent” of $35,100. But wait, it gets better. The cost of maintaining and improving the facility taken over by the company is deducted from the Facility Maintenance/Improvement Account, which is funded by that supposed “rent” of $35,100. In effect, it will be no surprise if at the end of the year there is no money left in the FMIA account to be realized as rent due the state. Count on zero dollars going to the state. Beyond the first year of operation, not only is American Land and Leisure free to increase fees, potentially beyond the level of statewide operations, it will also have the option not to honor specific paid-for state park passes issued by DPR or CSPF.
If true that Brannan Island was already experiencing a deficit in operations, then the loss of $411,000 in revenue only digs the hole deeper. Over the five year period of the current contract, the DPR is likely to lose in excess of $2,500,000 of operating revenue from Brannan Island alone. And, “The CSP will continue to provide natural and cultural resource management, protection, and monitoring throughout the contract.” (p.122) It just will not have any of the revenue to support such responsibilities. If security is needed at the site, call 911!
The Brannan Island case is just one of five examples of where the DPR has given up valuable revenue sources for no benefit, other than the abandonment of essential park unit functions. By any measure, such agreements are predatory on the part of the for-profit companies involved. By any measure, such agreements only further weaken the system as a whole. With the pending report from PROS Consulting in hand, it is certain that the push to weaken the sustainability of state parks will accelerate. Why on earth…?
Elizabeth@calparks.org needs to hear from you!
Janelle Beland through info@ca.parks.gov needs to hear from you!
Be First to Comment