More woes found in California parks management

California's state park system has had its share of woes. First it was the budget crunch – the system was in jeopardy, scores of parks were on the block to be closed down for lack of funding. Then a scandal erupted: In July of 2012, a Sacramento newspaper reported that agency higher-ups had orchestrated secret vacation buyouts for themselves to the tune of over a quarter million dollars.

Within two weeks of that eruption, an even bigger revelation: Two accounts were "discovered" hidden in the agency, worth $54 million that had been stashed away for 12 years. The found money would have easily paid for the short-falls that the agency claimed many times over. The agency director resigned, and the acting chief deputy director was fired.

That was two and a half years ago. Are things any better for the beleaguered agency today? In a sad saga in a 'the more things change, the more they stay the same' vein, a recently released independent review of agency operations reveals the Golden State's park agency is staggeringly fat at the top, filled up with accounting system problems, and a seeming inability to take advantage of park assets to pull itself out of a huge financial debacle.

In a story carried by San Diego's Union Tribune, management of the county's largest state park system can be considered questionable at best. Findings of a study conducted by FTI consulting were detailed in the UT article, which gives a less-than-glowing account of how the agency is being managed. Interestingly, the agency's new director, tapped by California's governor to take over the helm about a year ago, told the paper that there was, "little in the report to disagree with."

Some of the highlights of the Union Tribune article are these:

Top heavy:  One in four employees are assigned to Sacramento headquarters and 30 percent of the budget goes to run the central office in the capital city.

Out of balance:  Twenty parks account for nearly 60 percent of the revenues. About 100 produce no income at all. None cover all of their expenses when factoring in maintenance and building projects. State parks with water features, such as near-shore camping, beaches and boating, account for 76 percent of all income. Yet, 98 of the 171 parks with water features do not have concessions, such as equipment rentals, stores or lodging.

Blundering budgets:  Budget accounting is woeful, including instances where spending is not itemized by park or function, such as the cost of law enforcement, making specific decisions more difficult. There was a $14 million to $38 million “variance” in figures between the parks budget and the governor’s budget.

Five improvement projects were studied at random. Of those, two had literally no support documentation. Of the other three, cost estimates were overblown by as much as 10 times — $15.6 million instead of the actual $6.2 million.

Fee collections are so antiquated that in some cases only cash is accepted — no credit cards.

Read the full story in the Union Tribune