Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

2.

often than not have neither background nor experience on their side--have taken it

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

talented career employees...and

$

have created a management house divided against

itself

pitting career bureaucrat against

political bureaucrat.

I firmly believe

-- as I point out in my soon to be published book,

Battling for the National Parks

that politics have returned to the national

parks where Mather and Albright found them in 1916. Only about five per cent (5%)

of the employees in the Washington office of the Directorate have ever pulled a

day of duty in a national park--a condition as absurd as operating a Navy with a

corps that has never sailed a ship.

We must not allow politics to ruin the

National Park Service as we have known it.

Having heard your keynote address at the Convocation of the National

Parks and Conservation Association on March 15, 1988, Mr. Chairman, I know you

understand the crisis confronting the Service and I applaud your willingness to

try to find solutions so that it can do its job.

Your leadership is appreciated

by all those dedicated to the mission of the National Park Service.

The task is

not a simple one.

H.R. 3964 focuses attention on this problem and offers a constructive

opportunity to redirect responsibility for management of the National Park System

back to the career professionals where it belongs.

As I see it, your bill would

do two things:

[blocks in formation]

the Congress followed in restoring professional integrity and public confidence in

the management of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

In that case, the Congress

established a statutory term of ten (10) years for the Director.

I respectfully

suggest that five (5) years for the Director of the National Park Service is too

short a tenure although it is a marked improvement over our recent experience of

five (5) Directors in fifteen (15) years.

When the fixed term is combined with the Presidential appointment and

Senate confirmation, that should assure needed continuity and a greater degree of

responsibility in the selection of a Director.

If there is a suggestion to be

made here, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the bill should state in broad terms

the qualities and qualifications that a suitable Director should possess.

Turning to the other element of the bill -- the Review Board:

As I

understand it, the Board would be a permanent full-time administrative entity with

its own professional full-time staff.

Its responsibilities would be relatively

broad, including investigative, review and reporting activities as well as sub

stantive management duties, i.e., budget recommendations to the Congress.

As presently drafted, the first category of responsilitities appears

to duplicate the oversight duties of the Congress, as well as to overlap the

investigative responsibilities of the General Accounting Office and the review

functions of the Advisory Board on the National Park System.

[ocr errors]

Under the terms of the bill, the second category of responsibilities

seems to place the Board in a key management role over the Director and appears

to infringe upon the overall management responsibilities of the Secretary of the

Interior particularly with respect to budget formulation.

To function effective

ly, I believe that the Director and the Secretary must work directly together to

foster and promote park values through common management objectives.

It appears

to me that there are some inherent inconsistencies in taking budget formulation

from the Secretary of the Interior while keeping the National Park Service within

the Department.

I realize that in the recent past mutual cooperation in the

management of the Service and its programs has been lacking, but the question

which must be answered is:

Will this Board restore this needed compatability?

If your Subcommittee finds that it will, then I suggest some other

[blocks in formation]

in view of the fact that the bill provides for a separate

full-time professional staff and in view of the fact that

[blocks in formation]

5.

(4)

To what extent would the activities of the Board and its

employees duplicate or conflict with the responsibili

ties of professional employees of the Service?

Mr. Chairman, even though I have reservations about the efficacy of

the Review Board as now proposed, I heartily agree that the Director should have

the benefit of outside advice in the performance of that difficult position.

We

now have a National Parks Advisory Board.

In years past, this organization pro

vided Invaluable professional and practical guidance to the National Park Service

and was very helpful to the Congress.

Unfortunately, the Advisory Board, too, has been politicized.

Per

haps, it could regain its role as a constructive contributor to National Park

policies and programs 1f its charter were reviewed and revised to make it more

effective.

H.R. 3964 significantly addresses internal aspects of the crisis in

our National Park System, but there are other equally serious threats to the

Integrity of our National Park System. Major threats lie outside the boundaries

of our parks.

I have addressed this issue in the last chapter of my book.

Το

deal with this aspect of the crisis, I have suggested a Congressionally sanction

ed Register of Natural Places and a legislatively mandated President's Council on

Nature Preservation to advise, mediate and propose solutions to the competing and

oft-times conflicting demands and programs that impact adversely on our national

parks.

I realize that this subject is not addressed by H.R. 3964, Mr. Chairman,

but I felt it useful to bring it to your attention.

In this regard, you and

Members of the Subcommittee and your staff may find it useful and instructive to

examine the record and legislation (Historic Preservation Act of 1966) enacted by

the Congress when, in the nineteen-sixties, the preservation of our cultural heri

tage was at risk.

Such a review may suggest some ideas to meet the external

[blocks in formation]

to answer any questions you or any Member of the Subcommittee may have.

Thank you very much.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »