John Latchar's Top 10 List For Good Partnering

Ranger talks with group of people sitting on grass

John Latchar's Top 10 List For Good Partnering

Superintendent John Latchar at his desk

#10 - Commitment - Don't underestimate the commitment of time and labor that will be required to bring home a major partnership. From 1995 through 1999 - five full years - the planning and the politics of this venture occupied 75% of my time, 100% of our park planner's time, 75% of our public affairs specialist time, and 50% of our management assistant's time. A good portion of that time included many briefings and speeches, including 39 briefings to 116 Congressional Members and staff, and over 40 speeches and presentations to groups and organizations all across the country.

#9 - Longevity - A major partnership demands recognition on the part of both the Superintendent and the NPS that the Superintendent must stay in place longer than normal in order to bring a major project home. Until a major partnership is well through the planning stage and well into the implementation stage, much of the commitment between the NPS and the partner is based on good faith and personal commitment between individuals.

#8 - Good Science - Do your homework and do it well. All of the implementation actions in the Gettysburg GMP (including our partnership) are resource-based. Sometimes, some of the best science is the validation of the continuing harm of no action; i.e., the continuing deterioration of resources if we don't take some action to redress the faults causing that deterioration. The fact that we could demonstrate on-going resource damage resulting from "no action," provided our action alternative with a compelling sense of urgency, which both the public and the media clearly understood.

#7 - Progress creates friction - be prepared for it. Progress means change, and change frightens some folks. Some fear it will effect their economic well-being, while others may not understand what is happening. Inevitably, if you are proposing change, you are threatening someone's sense of security in the status quo. Nothing is more unpredictable or dangerous than a person who feels frightened and threatened.

#6 - Be prepared for personal attacks. An adage of planning, whether in the public or the private sector, is that those frightened or bewildered by your proposals will likely attack the product, process, or key people involved. First, they will debate the product itself. This is the expected part of public review, wherein the actual pros and cons of the actions which you are proposing will be debated - and rightfully so. If you've done good science, you'll win this debate. However, when opponents get the sense that they are losing the debate of the merits of the case, they will...

Attack the process. When the process that you used to reach a decision is attacked, you can take solace in the knowledge that you have prevailed on the merits of the case itself. You need to have your process tied down tight, whether it's a question of providing sufficient opportunities for public review, or appropriately following the procedures of the Administrative Procedures Act, NEPA, and NHPA. Attacks upon our process of decision-making are the basis for most lawsuits against the NPS. If you've done good science and have your processes nailed down, then opponents who cannot be convinced of the wisdom of your proposals have only one option left, and that is to attack the.

Key people involved. In our case, a few of the die-hard opponents, reverted to personal attacks upon, under the assumption that if key people could be personally discredited then the NPS would abandon the plan. This can be hard to bear, so you must take solace in the fact that they're attacking you personally only because they have no basis to attack either the merits of the plan itself or the process you used in decision-making.

#5 - Support Base. If friction is inevitable and attacks are expected, make certain you prepare your bases of support. For the NPS, this automatically means you must have the support of the Regional Director and the Washington Office. In our case, that support was personified by Marie Rust and Deny Galvin - both understood what we were trying to do, and never lost their faith in our ability to get it done right. For the NPS, it also automatically means that you must have a base of support in the Congress, in case friction generates enough outcry (whether valid or not is beside the point) to attract the attention of Congressional Members or staff. In our case Senator Rick Santorum, an early and enthusiastic supporter of both the GMP and our partnership, has provided invaluable support.

Finally, the support of key members or staff of the appropriations and resource committees is important. In our case, this is where I made a basic mistake. Because I have a long working relationship with the staff of the appropriations subcommittee, and because I knew they would be highly interested in a partnership project which would eliminate a major chunk of the service-wide backlog, I briefed both members and staff of the appropriations subcommittee early and often. They loved it; in essence, their response was "God bless those who help themselves, instead of blaming all their problems on inadequate appropriations."

I made a major mistake in assuming - since we were following Deny Galvin's advice and were working well within the parameters of existing Congressional authorities - that the resource subcommittees would have less interest in the project. It was no accident that all three Congressional hearings we endured came from the resource subcommittees, and not the appropriations folks. I am still paying for that mistake, and playing catch-up with both resource members and staff. Be sure to brief both the resource and appropriations subcommittees for buy-in.

#4 - Perils of Public Service - Make sure your partner is prepared for life in the public sector, because sometimes it isn't nice. As a prime example, Mr. Kinsley approached the announcement of his offer to assist the NPS in solving major long-term problems at Gettysburg NMP with anticipation and joy. In his own words, he approached the partnership as an opportunity to present a gift to the NPS and the American public. He was prepared to accept the thanks and gratitude of the NPS and the general public for his generosity and then get on with the job. He was not prepared to have his motivations questioned, be personally attacked by critics of the partnership, nor be vilified as a despoiler of the battlefield.

It's not that Mr. Kinsley was a naïve person - he founded, built and successfully operates a family-owned construction firm which puts more work on the street every year than does the entire NPS. But he had never been subjected to the "guilty until proved innocent" attitude towards public employees and public agencies which seems to predominate in many members of the media, the public, and the Congress. Fortunately, it only made him mad, and more determined that ever to prove the critics wrong.

#3 - Anticipate Beltway Skepticism About What The Partner is Getting Out of the Partnership - I've given hundreds of speeches and briefings to thousands of folks concerning this project. I observe a distinct dichotomy of responses - enough so statistical trends can be verified. When I speak to people outside the Beltway, the predominant response to Mr. Kinsley's "gift" to the United States is "God bless him for helping a park that is in peril." When I speak to people inside the Beltway, the predominant response is "what's he getting out of it?" That's a sad observation, which seems to say much about prevailing expectations, but it's a reality for which you should be prepared.

#2 - Logic. Logic, common sense, facts, and data are essential, but neither you or your partner should expect them to prevail in the public arena. As a classic example, when we contracted for the economic impact analysis for our GMP/EIS, I was concerned about its conclusions. I knew without a doubt that our preferred alternative was the best thing for the park, its resources, and it's visitors. However, since we were already under attack by a few local merchants who feared that our partnership would have a negative impact upon their businesses, I was worried about what our strategy could be if the analysis showed that they were right.

The economic impact analysis showed exactly what logic, common sense, and good science could have predicted: if we improve visitor opportunities, more visitors will come and they will stay longer. In short, our preferred alternative was predicted to have a $30 million per year positive impact upon the local economy. I breathed a sigh of relief, released the analysis to the public, and expected the opposition of the local merchants to go away. It did not go away. They were opposing us out of fear, and fear is not a particularly logical emotion. They ignored the entire economic impact analysis as though it didn't exist, and continued to proclaim to anyone who would listen that our GMP would ruin them and with them, the tax base of the local government. Despite my 25 years with the NPS, I still haven't figured out how to carry on a meaningful debate with people who ignore facts.

#1 - Your personal commitment - This may sound like the commitment of time and energy we discussed earlier, but now I'm talking about a different kind of commitment - personal. If your project and your partnership is truly good for the park, the Service, and the American public, then I think you should be so committed to that project and partnership that you are prepared to put your career on the line, if necessary. I am that convinced about the merits of our partnership with the Museum Foundation for Gettysburg, and my career has been somewhat close to that line on a couple of occasions. You may feel differently, but it is my personal conviction that if we are "leaders" of our partnership projects, then we should lead with that kind of personal commitment. If we're "just managing" those partnerships, of course, then that kind of commitment would not be expected, nor would that level of results.

I end my speeches to citizens and constituents by saying "Due to the lack of adequate funding for the NPS, I have the choice of: (1) condemning our museum collection, our archives, and the Cyclorama painting to slow but certain destruction, and of failing to remove modern intrusions from some of the most sacred soil in America, or; (2) taking the risk that we can make this partnership work and thereby 'provide for the enjoyment' of the resources of Gettysburg NMP 'in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.' I choose to take the risk."

Home

	About Partnerships

	Dynamics of Successful Partnership

	Success Factors

	John Latchar's Top 10 List For Good Partnering

ParkNet

U.S. Department of the Interior

FOIA

Privacy

Disclaimer

USA.gov