Greetings!
Several of us who serve on the boards of organizations which support state parks have begun to identify the reasons for which state parks might be better run by our organizations. Here are a few which we have been identified (kudos to Mike Von Porten):
- Partners can do what State Parks can't -- music series at Jack London -- that might have caused an outcry from the competitive winery events if it was run by SP -- more extensive retail than would be allowed to compete with local businesses if run by SP.
- Partners can use the draconian threat of closure in ways SP can't. SP can't really say, "give us money or we'll close this park," but Stewards can say, "SP is closing this park, give us money to keep it open."
- Partners can convert community good will into donations in ways that a government agency can't. We can certainly say, "if you like this park, give us money." SP can't say it that way.
- Partners can convert community donations from what might have been capital improvements to operating funds.
- Partners can run on lower labor costs -- using volunteers and lower-paid staff than State Parks -- lower on the hourly wage and very much lower on the benefit costs.
- Partners can be more effective because it has less bureaucracy, so can be more nimble and move people and assignments without Civil Service rules.
- Partners can save by taking prudent (but not excessive?) risks -- for example, money can be transported by clerical staff, not paid armed rangers. (Of course, "excessive" is always a hindsight matter.)
- Partners have a more responsive purchasing processes - no need for a complex, public bidding processes.
Are there additional reasons you can suggest?
Gregory Fearon
