LAMAR BATH HOUSE,

Re C3823 MZ

Mr. JOHN E. Cook,

Hot Springs National Park, Ark., August 7, 1974.

Associate Director, Park System Management

DEAR MR. COOK: In reply to your letter of July 25, 1974 concerning the case of National Parks and Conservation Associates v. Morton, we of the Lamar Bath House offer the following information.

We operate under the Supervision of the National Park Service and our Contract calls for us to send them a monthly report plus an Annual Financial report prepared by our Auditors. We feel this is privileged information and also feel it would be unethical to have this information released to anyone else except the National Park Service whether local or regional.

We also feel that our operation could be affected if any other concessioner or interested parties were to have access to this information. Since our contract is with the National Park Service we feel this information is due them and our Auditors and no one else.

We are very much opposed to any other group or individuals having access to our Financial or operating information.

Yours truly,

WILLIAM R. GRIM, Manager.

Mr. DINGELL. Go ahead, if you please, Mr. McCloskey. Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Do you get reports, for example, on these summer month conventions?

Mr. Cook. No, sir.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. So that it would be up to the ranger, I suppose, to walk over to the Ahwahnee and determine whether they are private guests or a convention.

Mr. Cook. Excuse me, sir; I answered your question "did I get reports." No, sir; I do not as it relates to those. I cannot answer as to how that park superintendent has the reports, how he became aware of the wine festival, and those things. I don't know what his particular methodology and the organizational structure in his park are for working with and overseeing the concessioner.

As Mr. Dickenson testified earlier today, most major parks have on the immediate staff of the superintendent an individual who does devote the majority of his or her time to concessions management activity.

Mr. DINGELL. Who is that person at Yosemite?

Mr. Cook. I don't know who that individual is, sir. I knew at one time, when I was stationed at San Francisco.

Mr. DINGELL. Would you submit the name and information about that individual at Yosemite, please?

Mr. Cook. Yes, sir.

[Subsequently, Mr. Cook submitted the following list of persons on the Yosemite staff who are responsible for concession activities:] Question. Who on the Yosemite staff is responsible for concession activities? Answer. Listed below are the names, grades and titles of those individuals who have been responsible for concession management activities from 1969 to date. It should be noted that only the present incumbent, Mr. Parker, was hired as a Concession Management Specialist, bringing professional training and experience to this important position.

Lawrence Quist, Management Assistant, GS-12-July 13, 1969 to August 8, 1971; Lynn Thompson, Management Assistant, GS-11-August 25, 1968 to June 28, 1969; Lewis Albert, Management Assistant, GS-9/11-September 5, 1971 to August 6, 1972; James Sleznick, Park Ranger, GS-12-August 20, 1972 to October 9, 1974; and R. Phillip Parker, Concessions Management Specialist, GS-11October 9, 1974.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. This is almost incredible to me-the GAO reportbecause I think out in the bay area every summer there have been discussions and there have been radio talk shows and newspaper stories about the difficulty of making reservations at Yosemite and about getting into the park. It is really an important matter that these kinds of conventions are booked in the summer months, and it's certainly another indication of why the public ought to be fully informed.

I don't think we are very happy with the record of Park Service compliance with the Freedom of Information Act in this connection. It appears that if we have to depend on citizen complaints, or on a GAO investigation, to find out that your own administrative practices are being violated on this scale, then the Park Service isn't doing its job-unless you want to come out and tell the public that you are going to book conventions in the summer months. I don't think any of us could stand this particular revelation to the public at this time.

I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, are we going to continue these hearings in January or February?

Mr. DINGELL. That is the intention of the chairman of this particular subcommittee, and Mr. Reuss has so assured me with regard to your subcommittee also.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully ask whether the witnesses, in anticipation of those hearings, could furnish to the staffs of these committees every communication within the Park Service relating to this particular concessioner in Yosemite National Park. [The following statement relating to communications between NPS and Yosemite Park and Curry Co.-February 1973-January 1975were subsequently submitted for the record. The communications are in subcommittee's files.]

Washington office communications are included for the record. Due to the time limitations, it was not possible to search files and duplicate all notes, memorandums, letters, etc., to Yosemite concessionaire contained in the Western Region files and in the Yosemite files. However, all of these files have been made available to both the GAO auditors and the Committee Staff when they visited these offices in November and December.

If this material is not sufficient, we will provide any requested material as quickly as possible.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. In light of the record of the close relationship between the director and Mr. Stein, and Mr. Stein's letter to this committee about these concessions alone-which is a clear misstatement that these conventions were not booked-and the fact that the Park Service at this level didn't even know that conventions were being booked in the summer, I think we ought to review all of the correspondence between employees of the National Park Service relating to this concessioner, so that we can examine the whole picture of this relationship.

Mr. DINGELL. The Chair will instruct staff to make such inquiries if they can. The Chair does feel that staff has done a good job; they have most of the papers relevant to this particular matter.

The Chair, gentlemen and young lady, is very much troubled. I think the major problem that we see here is that the Park Service is still operating as if concessioners and concessions were family type operations which they are not. We are dealing with large corporations and major combines. MCA is one of the biggies of the American enter tainment industry. And they are capable, there is no question about it.

But I seriously doubt that they appreciate fully the purpose of the Park Service, the purposes for which your organization is set up, and the great importance of protecting the great national treasures that are entrusted to your hands. I feel that very keenly, because I got my start in the conservation movement.

When you add to that the enormous political influence of bodies of this kind, we find ourselves almost incapable of counteracting the enormous daily pressures that they serve on you folks down there. We find ourselves almost incapable of overcoming a single-minded drive that they have for growth. If you want to see an example of growth, just look at the case we have here, the upward-slide, the rise or whatever you want to call it-in the conventions that are going on.

I would be willing to wager that you will find that MCA has undergone the same kind of increase in its profits. And if you observe the steps that have been taken, and the conflicts between the Park Service and MCA, about which this hearing record is replete, you will find that the fight is always over efforts by MCA to maximize its earnings and profits. Not to protect the area; not to see to it that the interests of the Park Service are protected; not to see to it that the public is informed; not to see to it that the interests of future generations are protected but simply to see to it that its profit and loss statements, its dividends, and so forth, continue their wholesome growth, which makes it so appealing to its stockholders. That's the real purpose of MCA.

Until the Park Service recognizes that and organizes itself so that MCA is not just an example of wrong-doing, but is actually an institution which cooperates, and to which the Park Service Director doesn't write that perfectly awful kind of letter of apology, I suspect that we are going to continue these inquiries.

I want to tell you, Mr. Walker, I'm sorry about the personal inconvenience that may have befallen you here as a result of this hearing, and I want to thank you for your cooperation with the committees. I would like you to know that on adjournment night I've got far better things to do than sit here, as do you and I'm sure our staff here.

So, we thank you and your associates for your assistance to these committees. There will be further hearings, and it is our hope that, as they go forward, you understand that these two committees are motivated by an honest concern that the laws are faithfully carried out; that the public treasures, our parks, are protected; and that the rules and regulations of the Department and the NPS are properly carried forward. And you folks have an honest opportunity to see to it that those who function under your licensing and concessions policies are observing and protecting the public interest, as we want you to do. Gentlemen and young lady, we thank you very much. If there is no further business to come before us, the two subcommittees will stand adjourned pending the call of the Chair.

[Whereupon, at 9:45 p.m., the subcommittees adjourned to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX 1.-BACKGROUND DATA RELATING TO MASTER PLANNING

PART A.-SUBCOMMITTEES' MEMORANDUM OF DECEMBER 18, 1974

[SUBCOMMITTEE NOTE.-The exhibits referred to in this memorandum are printed elsewhere in the hearing.]

STAFF MEMORANDUM OF DECEMBER 18, 1974, CONCERNING NATIONAL PARK SERVICE'S ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING PROCEDURES RELATIVE TO CONCESSION OPERATIONS IN THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

SUMMARY

A. In September 1973, MCA Recreation, Inc., a subsidiary of the Music Corporation of America, Inc., acquired 96.5 percent of the stock of Yosemite Park and Curry Company (YP&CCO.) which had been the principal concessioner at Yosemite National Park in California since 1925. In doing so, MCA Recreation, Inc. also assumed responsibility for the concession operations under a 30-year National Park Service (NPS) contract (NPS-WASO-IX-63-2) dated May 9, 1963. Considerable controversy has arisen about MCA Recreation's administration of that contract.

B. Prior to this changeover, the NPS in 1969 initiated a planning process for Yosemite Valley, and in 1971 published for public review a proposed Master Plan. After public hearings, the NPS professional planners began a process of revising and updating that plan and related documents. But when MCA Recreation took over the contract in 1973 it began vigorous efforts to have NPS change the plan. Considerable controversy has developed over this planning and MCA Recreation's influence, particularly after NPS Director Ronald H. Walker in a July 25, 1974 letter to MCA Recreation, made a "commitment" that by January 20, 1975, NPS would complete the planning process and decisions on upgrading various concessioner facilities at Yosemite.

In an October 21, 1974, letter to Secretary Morton (Exhibit A), Chairman Reuss and Chairman Dingell criticized this commitment as "unreasonably precipitous" and urged that all planning documents and related materials be made available to the public for at least 90 days and that public hearings thereafter be held on them. Presumably, the NPS, based on the hearing record, could revise the documents, give the public a second opportunity to review and comment thereon, and, if acceptable, adopt them by mid-1975.

We have never received a reply to this letter, although the Chairmen requested that NPS reply by November 21, 1974.

However, on December 13, 1974, Director Walker issued a press release (Exhibit B) announcing that "all" planning documents for this Park "have been rejected" and that a "new and complete planning process" for the Park will "be initiated immediately." He said the Master Plan was "somewhat ambiguous" and the environmental impact statement failed "to describe fully the environmental impacts" to be expected from implementation of the Plan.

He also promised that two versions of the Master Plan, including comments thereon by MCA Recreation, would be available to the public. This does not conform with the request by Chairmen Dingell and Reuss that the NPS make available to the public all eight versions of the Master Plan (dated January 1970; July 1971; June 1972; February 1974; July 1974; July 19, 1974; July 31, 1974; and August 12, 1974), as well as the draft environmental statement (EIS), the development concept plan (DCP), and all MCA Recreation letters and NPS letters and memoranda relating to the plan. The Sierra Club and several other