Look who's asking the questions
Rick Smith
Huffington Post (Washington, DC)
Green blog
Friday, May 27, 2016
No, America’s National Parks Are Not for Sale. A Q&A With National Park Service Director Jonathan B. Jarvis
Will Shafroth President, National Park Foundation
I am often asked about the role of corporate partners and how their philanthropy supports the National Park System. More recently, I’ve heard concerns about commercialization attaching itself to the national parks themselves. I always welcome the opportunity to have an open conversation about the great need for philanthropic support for national parks.
In fact, I receive communications from park lovers every day and am inspired by each individual’s commitment to the national park idea. Be it critique or compliment, every note, every phone call, every social media post is important as it’s someone’s personal thoughts or concerns about America’s national parks and programs, which we collectively steward.
Currently, a proposed update to the existing Director’s Order 21, the policy that guides philanthropic support of national parks, has sparked some discussion. In an effort to clarify what these updates are and what they mean for our national parks, I sat down with National Park Service Director Jonathan B. Jarvis to answer the questions that have come my way.
WILL SHAFROTH: Before we jump into the proposed updates, I think it’s important to first talk about the need for private support. Why do America’s national parks need private support from individuals, foundations, and corporations if taxpayer money already goes to parks?
JONATHAN JARVIS: From their very beginnings, national parks have benefited from private support, often from the corporate community. Many of the earliest national parks, including Glacier and Grand Canyon, were the direct beneficiaries of the transcontinental railroad companies, which helped design, build, and provide much needed visitor services in the parks. This tradition of generous, committed philanthropy continues today and is critical to the success and longevity of our national parks.
Private philanthropy has always been and will continue to be a critical part of ensuring the preservation and enhancement of the National Park System.
SHAFROTH: Does corporate philanthropy threaten the integrity of national parks?
JARVIS: No. Corporate partners are vetted through a thoughtful process to align objectives and benefits to parks and programs. We also check for issues that would prevent us from accepting a donation from a corporate entity including, but not limited to, litigation, negative business practices, and conflicts of interest arising from existing or in-progress contractual relationships with the National Park Service (NPS).
SHAFROTH: Why are proposed updates to Director’s Order 21 necessary?
JARVIS: We need to be state-of-the-art and sophisticated about how we engage with donors and corporate America. While we’re not going to allow naming or product endorsement or any of that, there can be positive association with the National Park Service and the National Park Foundation, and that’s okay as long as it’s done tastefully and appropriately. The proposed updates outline what we can and cannot do.
For a list of proposed updates, please visit the National Park Foundation’s blog.
SHAFROTH: Are you worried about commercialization of the national parks?
JARVIS: No. The proposed updates, as well as the donor recognition legislation, contain protections against this. In addition, we’ve consistently found that the companies we are working with are not interested in being a part of commercialization of the national parks.
SHAFROTH: What are the rules and guidelines for recognizing someone or a company that contributes to the National Park System?
JARVIS: Donor recognition is offered as a package to individual and corporate donors when the donation is being negotiated. The donor is not obligated to take any or all of the donor recognition rights and benefits. Sometimes, a donor does not want any recognition. There are laws, regulations, and policies that govern donor recognition.
For a list of the policies that govern donor recognition, please visit the National Park Foundation’s blog.
SHAFROTH: Recently, a few news outlets have said that the updates make it possible for parks to be re-named or have “brought to you by...” tagged on to its name. Is that true?
JARVIS: Absolutely not. Such acts would violate both the law and policy, both of which prohibit naming of parks or features and donor recognition that implies endorsement of a business or brand.
SHAFROTH: Will we see park facilities named for donors?
JARVIS: Absolutely not. Naming rights to any unit of the National Park System or a National Park System facility, including a visitor center or historic structure, are prohibited. You will not see the type of corporate naming like there is at stadiums. Rooms inside facilities like a gallery or meeting space may be temporarily named, for a 5-year period, to thank a donor specifically for supporting the renovation or construction of the building. It’s important to remember that these renovations enhance the visitor experience. But even still, the Director of the National Park Service must authorize naming opportunities before an offer can be made to a potential donor. As I mentioned earlier, the National Park Service is committed to ensuring that this is done tastefully and appropriately.
SHAFROTH: Will we see vehicle wrap designs that display advertising slogans?
JARVIS: You may see wrapped vehicles with park-inspired designs. You may see a vehicle with a short, unobtrusive credit line including a donor’s name or logo, but only when the donation relates to the actual vehicle. Unlike public transportation like subways and buses, you will not see vehicles with advertising slogans.
SHAFROTH: Will we see logos displayed in parks?
JARVIS: First and foremost, I want to clear up any confusion there is about logos. Logos would not be permitted on donor boards and walls, paving stones, park furnishings or other ways donors are often recognized.
The only new aspect to the proposed updates would be that logos could be part of a short, discrete credit line on temporary materials and interpretive displays. This credit line would follow strict design guidelines. For example, the Find Your Park/Encuentra Tu Parque banners currently displayed in parks are part of the donor recognition offered to the National Park Foundation’s partners for the Find Your Park/Encuentra Tu Parque movement. Another example of how a logo or a person’s name could be used is “This exhibit was made possible through the generous donation of X donor.” A short credit line like that could be used on interpretive and digital media, printed materials, temporary signage, or other temporary items. Logos at special events will have to follow very strict guidelines, which are outlined in a separate Director’s Order.
More information about Director’s Order #53 can be found on the National Park Foundation’s blog.
SHAFROTH: Does the updated policy make it mandatory for National Park Service staff to raise money?
JARVIS: No. To clarify, park employees have always had the authority to support their partners, including the National Park Foundation and local Friends Groups, by attending partner fundraising events as subject matter experts. However, they may not solicit donations.
Superintendents already have the authority to accept donations, they just can’t solicit. Under the proposed updates, the only change is that they may be delegated the authority to accept larger donations, if and when they complete a required training and certification program.
It is very important to note that, as private support for the parks isn’t a new concept, philanthropic partnerships aren’t new for superintendents and park staff. These partnerships are a fundamental way for parks to achieve more than fundraising goals. Partners provide volunteer support and vital in-kind services, equipment, and specialized skills.
SHAFROTH: How will the role of the National Park Foundation and the more than 200 Friends Groups across the country be impacted by the proposed updates?
JARVIS: The proposed changes would streamline certain processes, move more authority to the field, and generally make the National Park Service a more effective partner. They would also allow our superintendents who don’t have local partners to accept donations and create an environment for them to develop new partners.
SHAFROTH: Will product placement be allowed?
JARVIS: No, it is not allowed. Distribution of free products or samples to park visitors would not be permitted at non-NPS events. During NPS events, donations for NPS programs could be recognized with a credit line or statement of appreciation on program materials distributed at the event to which a donation was made. Examples include a “Thank you” on t-shirts, key chains, water bottles, hats, or first aid kits.
SHAFROTH: Can a donor own and operate a park facility?
JARVIS: No. A donor may not own and operate a park facility. Creating new facilities goes through a rigorous review process and the requirements are very strict to ensure that federal requirements are met and park resources are protected. A donor or partner may assist the National Park Service in this process. Park facilities constructed by partners become the property of the National Park Service.
SHAFROTH: Thank you, Jon.
My hope is that this conversation will help clear up some of the confusion surrounding the proposed updates to Director’s Order 21. Taking a broader look, the very existence of our national parks depends on our collective accountability. This comes in many different forms including the support of individuals and corporations, volunteers, and continuous, relevant engagement with visitors.
I am grateful to be part of such a passionate community that is dedicated to ensuring that the integrity of our national parks is respected and protected.
Corporate partners are uniquely positioned to leverage major resources to improve parks and ensure they’re not just protected, but enriched well into the future. Thoughtful corporate philanthropy is more than a source of funding for America’s national parks; it is a cornerstone of their origins and key to their next 100 years.
Through our shared commitment to protect and strengthen these national treasures, they will thrive today and into the next century.
Rick Smith
5264 N. Fort Yuma Trl.
Tucson, AZ 85750
Tel: 520/529/7336
Cell: 505/259/7161
Email: rsmit...@comcast.net
 |
Virus-free. www.avast.com |
Ron Mackie
I am diappointed also in the questins asked by Will Shaforth of NPF.
> Huffington Post (Washington, DC)
>
> Green blog
>
> Friday, May 27, 2016
>
>
>
> No, America's National Parks Are Not for Sale. A Q&A With National Park
> Service Director Jonathan B. Jarvis
>
> t-sale> National Park Foundation's blog.
> SHAFROTH: Are you worried about commercialization of the national parks?
> JARVIS: No. The proposed updates, as well as the donor recognition
> legislation, contain protections against this. In addition, we've
> consistently found that the companies we are working with are not
> interested
> in being a part of commercialization of the national parks.
>
> SHAFROTH: What are the rules and guidelines for recognizing someone or a
> company that contributes to the National Park System?
> JARVIS: Donor recognition is offered as a package to individual and
> corporate donors when the donation is being negotiated. The donor is not
> obligated to take any or all of the donor recognition rights and benefits.
> Sometimes, a donor does not want any recognition. There are laws,
> regulations, and policies that govern donor recognition.
>
> For a list of the policies that govern donor recognition, please visit the
> t-sale> National Park Foundation's blog.
> t-sale> National Park Foundation's blog.
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> --
> --
> View all the postings by visiting our homepage at:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/parklandsupdate?hl=en
>
> To join the Park Land Watch group email Rick Smith:
> rsmit...@comcast.net This will allow you to post your messages to the
> PLW Group.
>
> Membership is free
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "parklandwatch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to parklandsupda...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
pkrnger
Some years ago, I noticed that Student Conservation Association staff wore corporate logos on their uniforms st Crater Lake. I'm sure it's just a matter of time when uniform patches might also decorate the green and grey!
I'm not at all a proponent of current trends. Why not simply have free entrance for everyone, but sponsor nation wide requests for crowd funding of our beautiful parks?
Owen
Jim Hammett
jimmy
1. I would be really interested if you have ever tried to change the IRS code?
Have you watched the process? I mean, worked on it?? Are you aware of the pressure AGAINST reauthorizing the Tax Act for historic preservation project, and the pressure AGAINST donations to make Elections taxpayer funded, and thereby corruption-free?
And if one day you wake up and realize, hey ! there is really no way I can get my idea actually enacted, would it make any difference at all in what policies should be recommended (that have a real chance of enactment)?
Because none of would want to rip down the efforts of the NPS to fund the System and Service to do what they can facing the real world we actually are in, just by setting up a choice against completely un-achievable recommendations, now would we?
Remember when Deny Galvin got totally blown out of the water proposing a mere 1/4 of 1% of the Gas Tax? And that one is easy compared to the IRS law. Have you counted lately the number of groups that would love to get a dedicated check-off on their 1040? How many was that? What is the multiplier of those you know about once everyone learns the NPS check-off is actually in the Ways and Means Committee Mark, or draft bill? are you counting on OMB support?
2. on commercialization, do we know how much damage we can identify today from 50 years ago when Chevy co-branded with the National Parks with its "See The USA In Your Chevrolet?" How bad was our recovery from that?
compared to today's Subaru ads co-branding with the Parks, what is our calculation on how those new ads are humiliating and destroying the integrity of parks? is hearing the name "National Park Centennial" several times a day on the radio the kind of recognition that is equally demeaning of the parks and the Service? Considering that just about the only national news other than the Centennial you get on the Media is the constant stream of abuse from the Republican congress and Mr. Chairman Rob Bishop, would we be better off in the political opinion of the Nation with just the stuff from Mr. Bishop?
and does it trouble anyone that NONE of these PEER etc articles EVER describes what has long been the donor recognition standard NOW compared to the NPS proposed changes?
For the existing standard, do any critics have evidence of degraded integrity in the public mind over fundraising in the past using those standards? in the recent mega-millions raised for St Louis and the Jefferson Expansion NM, how has that degraded the NPS exactly? the biggest corporate checks came from money from two national car rental companies. Did your regard for parks fall to zero?
or going further back, the money for Tetons and Acadia come from Standard Oil. Yet like now, no park is named ESSO (or EXON), despite the years of "slippery slopes". Do we all boycott Tetons or Acadia? When the Exon Valdes floods Alaskan coastal waters with oil, have you heard of anyone Co-blaming the NPS for crawling into bed with the Rockefellers? and these new proposed standards CONTINUE to prohibit naming any park or ANY structure after the donor. Why has the slope suddenly become so slippery?
3. Owen mentioned Doctors Without Borders. When Doctors Without Borders is given money by a corporation, and that corporation gets into trouble, do you question the integrity of Doctors Without Borders? Or if they are seen opening a box of life-saving drugs from an ethically-challenged drug company?
is the REAL issue of ethics what YOU actually DO?
Like the issue of blocking the distribution of bottles in parks? Or if a facility damaging a park were built that the NPS believed was unnecessary or an impairment?
But nothing in this policy permits an impairment, right? And wouldn't the DAB prevent any even if the superintendent wanted it? Take that facility in Cape Cod that the Seashore had been thinking about through several superintendencies -- didn't the DAB stop that one cold, as an affront to the the policies to address Global Warming and sea level rise? So even in the face of Cape Cod staff support and the slippery slope, is the Service still preventing impairments?
4. Every one fears that donations entice Congress to cut NPS funding. Last year was the best year ever in NPS donations and highest appropriations.
Does anyone consider the message sent to Congress when notable corporations or industrialists donate to Parks? Does anyone believe there is no effect on the corporation or industrialist who donates to Doctors Without Borders or fixing the Washington Monument? is the message not communicated to the public as a whole that the beneficiaries are among society's Good Guys? Even to people who previously never thought about Doctors Without Borders or the National Park Service?
When the Statue of Liberty fundraiser had the names of Chrysler-Iacocca all over it, and Pepsi for paying for paying for the project plans, how did your objections, if you oppose recognition of donors for the Statue, for Pepsi for Chrysler and for Iacocca in your and the public's mind?
5. WHY DID THE COALITION COMMENTS on 21 begin by saying these draft policies will threaten the integrity of parks, but end by saying they are an improvement over the current policies?
6. Is there a yearning among national park service people to be above politics? to avoid all fees, concessions, or revenue streams even with inadequate appropriations? that believe NPS should never have excepted donations all these years and should abandon donations like Acadia until funded and authorized by Congress, that think the First Lady's project to get children in parks should have been rejected out of hand by the Director, or that people really should have been discouraged from visiting on this Centennial Year?
Do we believe anything can or should exist in a political or societal vacuum, to the extent that it is worth distorting what the DO 21 provisions actually SAY.
-- Anyway, how DO you spell "magical thinking"?
(Disclosure: I have some substantial concerns about the text and proposed provisions, and far more over how these were put together, how the process was managed, who in the Service actually got a chance to comment on them, etc)
Ron Mackie
am going to have to re read "The Politcians and the Egalitarians", I could
not not put it down. I just cannot thank you enough. I do think
philanthropy is a noble giving in many cases, but it does have its dark
side. A very interesting discussion of the subject including the trusts
created by extremely wealthy families to avoid "death taxes" is "Dark
Money" by Jane Mayer. In one iconic park, I have seen a brand new Suburu,
nice SUV type, being used with the companies advertising on it, not
appropriate in my view, but I do like their commercials. I have had
personal experience involved in fund raising events, where, as worthy as
the project may have been it was in violation of our ecological standards.
Like my congressman friend mentioned to me 3 weeks ago, we all want to
accomplish good when we go back to Washington, and we do very well, thank
you. He stated, you are in the seat of power associating with important,
influential and very wealthy people, pretty soon you decide you want to be
part of that group. The temptations are great, it is very human.
You are right it is a reality, and as Sean Wilentz points out, the
historic struggle to fend off what is now termed neo-liberlism, but has
been with us since the American revolution, continues. I must admit, in my
own less than expert opinion, loosening of agency standards on
philanthropy is not a good idea, it just goes against my grain. I just do
not think are park superintendents should have, as a critical element,
fundraising. A complex issue to be sure.