Speak Out: State Park System Layoffs Are Damaging and Unnecessary

Posted by hprice on Sun, Nov 1, 2009, at 1:33 PM:

One hundred layoffs proposed for the Missouri State Park System by parent agency Department of Natural Resources are a brutal and unnecessary way to deal with a shortage in State Park Sales Tax revenues. The layoff process, designed for large agencies in a few locations, is particularly damaging for an agency with small staff units scattered in over 80 parks and offices across the state. The "bumping" process that is part of layoffs cannot be equitably accomplished, when the only position available to "bump" may be on the other side of the state and no relocation costs or consideration for breaking up families is accounted for in the process. The axe falls on November 4, and employees unable to "bump" will be terminated on November 15. Successive rounds of bumping will continue until 100 positions are eliminated.

State Parks and Historic Sites are seasonal businesses. Employee furloughs and park closures in the winter months, when park visitation is low, can be used to accomplish the personnel and facility cost savings. Everyone working for State Parks would share in the financial pain in this scenario, but 100 people would not need to lose jobs and about 50 more would not need to relocate and break up homes and lives. Layoffs are intended to make up for about $3,000,000 in shortfall in the Parks and Soils Sales Tax revenues for this year. Thirty "working day" furloughs, which are allowed under state law, combined with park closures, could save nearly $100,000 per day, making up the revenue shortfall.

Park, Historic Site, and office closures of one month to 45 calendar days will likely be needed to achieve the required savings and balance the park system budget for this year. Using furloughs and closures, the system would be in the position to expand employee hours and facility services when funding improves. Layoffs cripple the system by permanently eliminating about 20 percent of the full and part time positions of the park system. Because of the "bumping" in a layoff, DNR cannot be certain which employees will lose jobs, and who will still be on the job on November 16. Services to the public and maintenance of the parks will be heavily impacted by layoffs. Local economies will suffer directly from the unemployment created in many rural areas and from any downturn in tourism that results from loss of services.

DNR argues that the sales tax revenues will never adequately recover. In fact, the sales tax revenues will fluctuate with the economy over time. Furlough and closures this year, and possibly in other years in the future, allow the state park system to shrink its personnel and facilities costs over time, taking advantage of attrition and retirement, and reorganizing management accordingly. This is far preferable for long-range management of the system, rather than cataclysmic layoffs that will hurt families, local economies, the park resources, and the public the park system serves.

Contact: Bill Farrand, retired Deputy Director of State Parks in the Ashcroft and Carnahan Administrations, 801-671-0467

Replies (15)

  • Since the DNR believes that tax revenues will never recover, perhaps it is time to sell the state parks to reduce and / or eliminate these taxes.

    -- Posted by Lumpy on Sun, Nov 1, 2009, at 1:47 PM
  • Excellent Thread! One of my best friends is a full time employee for the Trail of Tears State Park. His position is on the chopping block. He's hoping that enough long time employees will choose early retirement instead of bumping him out. There are few state parks close to where he works. So hopefully, no one will want to move. In this economic climate, it's unreasonable for the state to think that enough people will try to sell their houses and move to another area. The state's idea to cut their expenses in this fashion is ill conceived at best.

    -- Posted by riregrist on Sun, Nov 1, 2009, at 1:55 PM
  • Positions are being cut in state and federal agencies with positions being consolidated and have been for a while. Having worked for a governmental entity, I believe this should continue and accelerate as we have had far too much "empire building" over the years.

    -- Posted by Red_Rhino on Sun, Nov 1, 2009, at 2:58 PM
  • Hard times call for hard measures. Economics is economics and that's all there is to it.

    Except, it seems, for the Federal Government which exempts itself from reality. Until, that is, the next peoples' Revolution at which time it will be let the tumbrels roll.

    Such happens from time to time.

    -- Posted by voyager on Sun, Nov 1, 2009, at 3:00 PM
  • Really great comments! While it's so sad to see anyone lose their job ... My first thought was ... Do we really all believe that we, the average taxpayers, should feel it's our responsibility to provide employment, regardless of our government's financial circumstances, and even as many in our states/country are suffering due to layoffs and cut-backs?

    As in much of the private sector, all our governmental agencies should be seriously cutting back ... everywhere. Unless and until they do, it's difficult to believe that they are serious about how they utilize the taxpayers monies.

    Then I wonder ... if private businesses were run the way our governments operate, would there be any private business left, or would they have all gone bankrupt?

    -- Posted by gurusmom on Sun, Nov 1, 2009, at 5:10 PM
  • Then I wonder ... if private businesses were run the way our governments operate, would there be any private business left, or would they have all gone bankrupt?

    -- Posted by gurusmom on Sun, Nov 1, 2009, at 5:10 PM

    Mom,

    That's an easy one. Without the power to tax, private industry would go broke if they operated like the government.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Nov 1, 2009, at 5:51 PM
  • Well ... Wheels ... you passed the math test with flying colors.

    -- Posted by gurusmom on Sun, Nov 1, 2009, at 6:06 PM
  • Hello again folks,

    Some people are missing the point --our state parks are about to lay off 100 people when there is another option which would save jobs--furloughs. During our economic problems, it would be great to continue to preserve and protect the 80+ parks and historic sites and be able to use all facilities across the state. We don't want to lose our local parks/historic sites, and neither does anyone else. These jobs mean money in motion--a simple and powerful economic concept; however, once the jobs are lost, so is the positive economic impact. To lose these positions has serious implications for both the economy of Missouri and the operations of our state parks.

    Many folks confuse the Missouri Conservation tax--a permanent 1/8 of 1% tax approved by voters in 1976--with the Parks and Soils tax; they are two separate taxes for two separate agencies. Missouri voters reapproved the 1/10 of 1% Parks and Soils Tax by about 67% to 33% in 2006. Parks receive one half of the money from this tax; the other half goes to soil conservation, which helps farmers deal with soil erosion issues (which benefits anyone who eats). The tax was first approved by voters in 1984 and has been approved 3 more times; this tax must be reapproved every 10 years. Since the legislature cut out its funding for parks after the parks and soils tax was first approved, this tax became the main source of funding for Missouri State Parks (some money comes from camping fees, sales and donations). The original 3 times this was put on the ballot, it was done by initiative petition; in 2006 the legislature put it on the ballot without thousands of people signing petitions--and in the process finding out how and where the money was going to be used. Only those of us with long memories remember this stuff--some of this may have happened before some readers were around.

    The question is--which is to our benefit, to close our parks for a short time during the time of year they're probably less used, and have them open the rest of the year--or do we want services curtailed all year because of laid off workers, or could there be a mix of the two? Which option would provide the most benefit for taxpayers? It might depend on the park or site. By law some cultural and natural areas must be protected and preserved--they cannot simply be closed off (because these days it seems to invite vandalism and/or illegal dumping). We are not talking about furloughs for a select few, but for all state park personnel yearly to balance the budget.

    We are not only talking about SE MO parks like Trail of Tear State Park, Lake Wappapello State Park and Sam A. Baker State Park, but almost 30 historic sites across the state including Bollinger Mill State Historic Site and Hunter-Dawson State Historic Site in New Madrid. These are our parks and how we respond will send a strong message to those that manage/legislate for current and future usage.

    -- Posted by hprice on Sun, Nov 1, 2009, at 9:03 PM
  • Where I work "Top Management " people are required to take a week off "UNPAID" a year.

    Other managers step in to cover the off managers work & the "REAL WORK" gets done because no actual workers are off .GET IT...

    -- Posted by rockman54 on Sun, Nov 1, 2009, at 10:21 PM
  • Naw, James ... then those investors would expect to make money, rather than lose money ...

    I love parks ... but somehow, I wonder if all taxpayers should be footing the bill for those who frequent the parks, even visitors from other states. Thinking about some of the various great, privately-owned park-like places I've visited where there are entrance fees ... governmental agencies could use a few tips from places like those.

    I guess I just got old and cranky and aware of so many things 'we' pay for that are not crucial to the welfare of the majority. Not to mention awareness of the wasteful excesses in all our governments' agencies, department, programs ...

    -- Posted by gurusmom on Sun, Nov 1, 2009, at 10:21 PM
  • Believe I do, rockman ... Having seen how state and local agencies have managed to 'get the work done' during absences due to vacations and sick days ... but at the same time 'need' all their employees on a full-time basis.

    It always sort of just boggled my mind how many people are content to spend 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, in positions where they didn't have enough work to keep themselves busy. Drove me nuts, though!

    -- Posted by gurusmom on Sun, Nov 1, 2009, at 10:26 PM
  • What's the alternative...put a turnstile at every entrance to Capaha Park and a fence around it to collect a small fee to enter?

    Good Grief, thats about as bad as the New York subway system.

    -- Posted by voyager on Sun, Nov 1, 2009, at 10:29 PM
  • Losing a third of my salary doesn't sound very appealing either. If that and being laid off are the only two choices on the table then Missouri's State Park system is really in trouble.

    -- Posted by Lumpy on Mon, Nov 2, 2009, at 5:10 AM
  • "You beat me James. I can't believe 100 layoffs will hurt the tourism industry and rural areas economies near as bad as what has already happened."

    -- Posted by Mr. Wiffle on Sun, Nov 1, 2009, at 2:44 PM

    Oh Good Lord! We may have to cancel the Bicycle races then! I might faint!

    -- Posted by Egotistical_Bigot on Mon, Nov 2, 2009, at 7:47 AM
  • Please, somebody catch him before his head hits the concrete. A brainless skull full of mush is a terrible thing to lose.

    -- Posted by voyager on Mon, Nov 2, 2009, at 11:22 AM

Respond to this thread