GAO Report On Partnerships Doesn’t Cite Gettysburg;
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The recently released 95-page General Accountability Office (GAO) report on National Park Service (NPS) management of donations and partnerships did not offer any ammunition to those who were hoping it would expose problems at Gettysburg National Military Park. (See recommendations summary in sidebar story.) Rather, the report requested by the House of Representatives Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, Committee on Natural Resources, took a wider view, with Gettysburg being one of 25 parks surveyed and one of nine visited by GAO staff. In late 2007, Robin Nazarro, GAO’s Director of Natural Resources and Environment, who led the team to Gettysburg, told Civil War News that would be the approach. She explained that subcommittee initiated investigation of the NPS’ “ability to accept and use donations whether it’s cash goods or services.” As part of that overall question, GAO was asked to look specifically at the extent to which NPS procedures are being followed at Gettysburg, she said, because it is undertaking a major fundraising effort through a cooperative agreement with the Gettysburg Foundation. On pages 8 and 9 the report refers to concerns received between 1998 and 2002 from the public and members of Congress about “one park’s proposal for a new visitor center to be supported by a fund-raising partner.” Gettysburg was not named, but the GAO report said questions included whether “the partner organization — which had ties to a construction company — exercised undue influence over the visitor center project when it developed a proposal and the park selected it without first following agency policies to clarify the need for such a facility.” Other questions were whether the project was “excessively large and costly; Congress might have to cover a funding gap if the partner fell short of its fund-raising goals; and proposed features in the visitor center — including a retail store, cafe restaurant, and IMAX theater [dropped from the project] — would commercialize the park.” Franklin Silbey, a longtime vocal critic of park management and the partnership plan under which the Gettysburg Foundation built and runs the visitor center and museum, was not surprised by the report. He calls it “largely useless” and vows he will continue trying to get national media, Washington lawmakers and officials to pay attention and investigate charges that include incompetent management and oversight at Gettysburg and a “total breakdown in the process that is supposed to protect the public interest.” Silbey contends the report was damage control to give the impression of doing something. “I think people at NPS and Interior are appalled at what they’ve got on their hands and they don’t know what to do.” What they have on their hands, he says, is a visitor center and museum that is too commercial and too big. “It is not a patriotically inspired project. It’s not about preserving a shrine or educating the public. It’s about maximizing money.” “If anyone thinks I’m going to stop they’re blowing smoke,” Silbey says. “People who think like I do will keep trying. Eventually we will get a breakthrough and they won’t be able to keep the lid on.” Silbey, who has a D.C. consulting business and used to work in oversight and investigations on Capitol Hill, knows how things work in Washington. House and Senate committees could put National Park Service and Interior Department officials under oath and ask them “why we have this awful mess at Gettysburg,” he says. “Why they have to charge people to walk into their own museum, which was once free. What is really going on in the books of the [Gettysburg] Foundation? Why the Foundation is paying its employees such exaggerated salaries. Why the superintendent tried to accept the job as head of the Foundation and is still in his position.” Silbey is confident that “when that story hits then you will see a lot of political people scrambling to try to find a fig leaf to cover their figurative nakedness.” Silbey says his concerns about the park’s management began in 1990 when the park exchanged seven acres, including the railroad cut, for an easement on 47 acres of Gettysburg College athletic fields. The college then destroyed part of the historic cut by moving the tracks. He traces his interest in Gettysburg to his first visit as a 20-year-old college student, a son of immigrants. He and a friend were hanging around the museum and its founder, George Rosensteel, gave them a tour. The Rosensteel family gave the building and collection to the federal government in 1971. It served as the park visitor center until April 2008. “I think what has happened there is a disgrace. Did they fight so Event Networks [store operator] could sell bobblehead dolls?” Silbey asks. “I think the park should be run by the U.S. government for the American people, not by a secretive private foundation. I believe that the park teaches its lesson when it is open to all as freely, cheaply and easily as possible. If we can afford billion-dollar warships and airplanes, why can’t we afford a great battlefield shrine to be open at cost?” The National Park Service annually receives hundreds of millions of dollars in donated funds, goods, and services to support its 391 parks and other sites. But concerns have been raised about potential accompanying risks, such as undue donor influence, new long-term maintenance costs, or commercialization of parks. To address these concerns, the Park Service has developed and refined policies for managing donations, but questions remain about the agency’s ability to do so effectively. GAO was asked to examine (1) how donations and related partnerships have supported the Park Service, (2) the policies and processes the agency uses to manage donations and how well they are working, and (3) what the agency could do to enhance its management of donations and related partnerships. GAO is recommending a number of actions to strengthen the Park Service’s management of donations and related partnerships, including tailoring agency policies to match the level of risk and developing a strategic vision for the role of philanthropy in parks. What GAO Found The Park Service’s donations and fund-raising policy includes directives in key areas to protect the agency against risks, but their effectiveness is diminished because parks do not always follow these program requirements, and the agency has no systematic process to monitor conformance. The Park Service has made improvements to its partnership construction process to address past accountability concerns, but remaining gaps leave the agency exposed to risks in some situations, such as when operations and maintenance costs increase for new construction. To enhance management of donations and related partnerships, GAO believes the Park Service could take a more strategic approach, further refine its information on donations, and increase employees’ knowledge and skills for working with nonprofit and philanthropic partners. The agency could benefit from a long-range vision of the desired role of donations and related partnerships, but despite growing indications of the need for one, the Park Service has neither a strategic vision nor a plan for how to achieve it. For various reasons, agencywide information on donations from some of its partners is incomplete, out of date, and based on inconsistent determinations of support. Finally, by improving its employees’ skills in understanding the culture, policies, and constraints of nonprofit and philanthropic partners, the agency could better manage the risks that accompany donations. |
