Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: NAC Advisory: California Parks

  1. #1
    CFF Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Boston, MA
    CFI Member
    Yes
    Posts
    226

    NAC Advisory: California Parks

    ************************************************** ********************
    NATURIST ACTION COMMITTEE
    ADVISORY
    ************************************************** ********************
    http://www.naturistaction.org
    ************************************************** ********************
    Copyright 2012 by the Naturist Action Committee, which is responsible
    for its content. Permission is granted for the posting, forwarding or
    redistribution of this message, provided that it is reproduced in its
    entirety and without alteration.


    DATE : July 22, 2012
    SUBJECT: Scandal and fallout at California DPR
    TO : All naturists and other interested parties

    Greetings.

    This is an Advisory from the Naturist Action Committee (NAC) concerning recent developments involving the California State Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR). The fallout from those developments is significant for naturists.

    SCANDAL, RESIGNATION, FIRING

    In a time of severe budget austerity and plans for the closure of as many as seventy state parks because of a shortage of operating funds, the California Department of Parks and Recreation was found this past week to be sitting on a hidden fund that amounted to nearly $54 million in two accounts. To establish perspective, we note that the amount needed to keep all state parks open had been estimated to be $22 million, less than half the hidden stash.

    The news comes at a time in which state lawmakers are considering increasing taxes on citizens for a DPR bailout and local groups are having bake sales to keep their nearby parks from having to close.

    In the immediate wake of the scandal, DPR Director Ruth Coleman resigned her position. Acting chief deputy director Michael Harris, Coleman’s second in command, was fired.

    In her letter of resignation Friday to California Governor Jerry Brown, Coleman claims that she was unaware of the unreported surplus, which she characterized as “an excessive balance.”

    ANALYSIS

    During her 12 year tenure as the Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation, Ruth Coleman did not make herself easily available to naturist and nudist groups or leaders. However, in a focused effort to negotiate in good faith with the Department in the context of the San Onofre State Beach situation and other matters, NAC has met in recent years with Director Coleman formally in her Sacramento office and informally on other occasions. Coleman has participated in a number of one-on-one phone conversations with NAC Executive Director Bob Morton, and she has initiated several of those calls, herself. NAC has enjoyed an access to the Director that was not accomplished by others.

    From this perspective, conclusions regarding former Director Coleman’s management style have become apparent. Coleman was not a “hands-on” director. She relied on others to establish policy for her. For example, Ruth Coleman did not originate the directive she signed in 2008 that abrogated the long-standing Cahill Policy at San Onofre State Beach. That memo was written by local park superintendent Rich Haydon, who had been in his position for all of two weeks. Haydon was unfamiliar with the policy or its history. Indeed, in referring to former DPR Director Russell Cahill, the author of the eponymous policy, Haydon’s memo identified him as “William Cahill.”

    Ruth Coleman too frequently accepted what her underlings told her, even when it was obviously wrong. A Department lawyer advised Coleman, for example, that park employees at a state-operated clothing-optional beach could sue her department for sexual harassment because of the nude beachgoers. That legal opinion was baseless, but it was a view Coleman came to hold strongly.

    Throughout DPR’s relentless crusade against clothing-optional areas in state parks since 2008, Anthony I. “Tony” Perez, Deputy Director of Park Operations, has been a powerful and vigorous adversary of nude recreation. Documents uncovered by NAC through California’s Public Records processes have shown that Perez has regularly and surreptitiously intercepted naturist and nudist communication intended for Director Coleman. Representatives from the American Association for Nude Recreation have dealt with Perez, but they have never been allowed to meet with Ruth Coleman.

    NAC’s observation of Coleman’s unquestioning reliance on the poor advice and faulty reporting of those who worked for her tends to offer awkward support for her contention that she was unaware of the funds that had gone unreported through her entire tenure. Regardless, her defective management style does not excuse the blunder.

    A RETIREMENT UNREPORTED IN THE MEDIA, BUT OF IMPORTANCE TO NATURISTS

    The existence of irregularities began coming to light when auditors found evidence of unauthorized vacation buyouts among DPR headquarters personnel as far back as 2004. The conversion of unused vacation hours into a cash payment is not typically permitted for state employees during times of budget shortfalls. Probing the vacation scheme through its own Public Records Act requests, the Sacramento Bee forced the issue in recent weeks and uncovered the hidden funds.

    Deputy Director Manuel Lopez received more than $20,000 in unauthorized and improperly reported vacation buyout cash. The total involved in the dollars-for-vacation-hours scheme has been estimated to be more than $270,000. Lopez was demoted in October, 2011, and he resigned in May of this year.

    As the scandal continued to unfold, DPR Deputy Director Tony Perez quietly retired late last month. No presently existing allegation connects Perez to any of the departmental improprieties. Regardless, the departure of Perez may be seen as more directly significant for naturists than the resignation of Coleman.

    THIS DOES NOT SIGNAL A RETURN TO THE CAHILL POLICY

    Governor Brown has appointed Natural Resources Agency Undersecretary Janelle Beland to be the acting director of the Department of Parks and Recreation. Beyond the obvious tasks of caretaking and cooperating with the inevitable investigations, it is unlikely that Beland will propose any new initiatives in the near future.

    A great deal of dust will have to settle before the affected state agencies are able to move forward effectively. Naturists, who are understandably eager to read instant change into recent events, are encouraged to temper enthusiasm with wisdom.

    Ultimately, resurrection of the familiar Cahill Policy as a management tool for clothing-optional beaches is unlikely. An appellate court has ruled that Cahill was never properly installed, even though it worked reasonably well for close to 30 years. Other long term solutions are more attractive and viable.

    WHAT WILL NATURISTS DO?

    Two years ago, the Naturist Action Committee developed a formal petition requesting the setting aside of portions of State Park units for clothing-optional recreation. The petition was submitted not only to the State Department of Parks and Recreation, but also to the California Park and Recreation Commission and to the State Natural Resources Agency. Many naturist and nudist clubs, resorts and organizations with California interests joined NAC in signing the document. Others were offered the chance to sign, but elected not to do so.

    When the time is right, NAC will be submitting the petition again with the sincere hope that this time, AANR and AANR-West will choose to sign it, too.

    What else will be different this time? Well, we won’t have the DPR Director telling the Park and Rec Commission that there’s just no money to allow the Department to be responsive to the 62% of California adults who believe “the California Department of Parks and Recreation should exercise the legal authority it has to designate clothing-optional areas in state parks.” [Source: 2009 NEF California Poll.]

    WATCH FOR INFORMATION FROM NAC

    Watch for NAC Action Alerts, Advisories and Updates on this and other important issues affecting naturists.

    PLEASE HELP NAC TO CONTINUE HELPING NATURISTS!

    The Naturist Action Committee remains committed to issues of body freedom. Activism on behalf of naturists is expensive, and NAC relies entirely on the voluntary financial support of people like YOU.

    Won't you please send a generous donation to:

    NAC
    PO Box 132
    Oshkosh, WI 54903

    Or call toll free (800) 886-7230 (8AM-4PM, Central Time, weekdays) to donate by phone using your MasterCard, Visa or Discover Card. Or use your credit card to make a convenient online donation: www.naturistaction.org/donate/

    Thank you once again for choosing to make a difference.

    Naturally,

    Bob Morton
    Executive Director
    Naturist Action Committee

    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Naturist Action Committee (NAC) - PO Box 132, Oshkosh, WI 54903
    Executive Dir. Bob Morton - execdir@naturistaction.org
    Board Member Allen Baylis - rab@baylislaw.com
    Board Member Charles Harris - carlopianoforte@gmail.com
    Online Rep. Dennis Kirkpatrick - naturist@sunclad.com
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    D. Kirkpatrick Boston, MA. USA
    naturist@sunclad.com

  2. #2
    CFF Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NY
    CFI Member
    No
    Posts
    7,125

    Re: NAC Advisory: California Parks

    What is AANR's response and what are their plans for beach and park going naturists in CA????

  3. #3

    Re: NAC Advisory: California Parks

    The fish rots from the head! Getting a new parks director will not necessary make the situation any better, but it is unlikely to make the situation any worse.

  4. #4
    CFF Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    VA, USA
    CFI Member
    No
    Posts
    131

    Re: NAC Advisory: California Parks

    Oh my. Good job by the Sac Bee and the auditors to discover this hidden hoard. I wonder if it was just "lost" or intentionally hidden. Hiding such a sum of money when parks are being closed due to lack of funds is more than criminal, it's evil.

    As the advisory stated, it will take a while for the dust to settle and new officials to be appointed. I hope AANR and TNS can coordinate and work together with whoever takes over. But I expect the best thing to do now is keep quiet and watch how things play out.

  5. #5
    CFF Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NY
    CFI Member
    No
    Posts
    7,125

    Re: NAC Advisory: California Parks

    Nobody here knows what AANR is doing about this???? Nobody??? Are there any AANR members here who know what their organization does???

  6. #6
    CFF Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Mid-NC
    CFI Member
    No
    Posts
    4,287

    Re: NAC Advisory: California Parks

    Quote Originally Posted by Sanslines View Post
    Nobody here knows what AANR is doing about this???? Nobody??? Are there any AANR members here who know what their organization does???
    Kind of impatient. You posted a questions at 5PM and complain the next day at 8AM that no one responded. There are only a handful of contributors that are on every day and have seen it and most of them have not professed to be AANR members. I would doubt that you would get a response this quickly. Just saying.
    I'm aging like fine wine ... I'm getting complex and fruity.

  7. #7
    CFF Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Yucaipa, Ca
    Posts
    3,308

    Re: NAC Advisory: California Parks

    My hope is that because of this mess that the decisions made while Ruth was at the head falls under heavy scrutiny and/or reversed. That will be a great boon for San O, and others that were in danger of ending up the same way.
    An opinion shared by many does not make it true.

  8. #8
    CFF Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NY
    CFI Member
    No
    Posts
    7,125

    Re: NAC Advisory: California Parks

    Quote Originally Posted by Kouak View Post
    Kind of impatient. You posted a questions at 5PM and complain the next day at 8AM that no one responded. There are only a handful of contributors that are on every day and have seen it and most of them have not professed to be AANR members. I would doubt that you would get a response this quickly. Just saying.
    What do you think AANR's response will be to this situation???

    According to Clothesfree: "Welcome to ClothesFree Forum, The World's Largest Naturist Community, with over 5,000 members and over 280,000 posts!"

    There are over 5,000 members here and so certainly there must be more then just a small handfull who read and reply to posts. However, it sounds like you do not believe that the above Clothesfree statement is accurate? How many members do you believe are active on this site? How many AANR or TNS members do you believe are also on this site?

    I am not trying to trap you in any way. All that I am seeking are your honest and direct opinions.

  9. #9
    CFF Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    VA, USA
    CFI Member
    No
    Posts
    131

    Re: NAC Advisory: California Parks

    Have you been to AANR's own forum? It's a ghost town. I think the number of nudists active in online social media is extremely small. And there are so many different sites that the online nudist community is very fractured. And I'll agree with the statement that less than 24 hours is an awfully short time to expect some sort of "official" AANR response.

    - Jasen.

  10. #10
    CFF Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Southern Calif.
    CFI Member
    Yes
    Posts
    3,545

    Re: NAC Advisory: California Parks

    Honestly ... you're not going to get a response from AANR. Without an ALL OUT "demand" from the membership, AANR, in my opinion, has no interest in working with TNS or NAC. They want to be the only org and it's childish and destructive to all nudists. Regardless of what happens to San O, and that's our nude beach, what I'd like to see even more than getting our nude beach back, is for the two orgs to stop the infighting and start working together for the benefit of ALL nudists and not just their personal interests in open/public lands, clubs or resorts.

    We are members of both orgs and have an open mind about both of them but TNS and NAC are the only orgs willing to devulge ANY information. Even when asked point blank ... AANR skirts the issues and won't answer the questions. So ... who do you think many people believe, an org that's sharing information, or the org that will share none?

    http://www.naturistfamily.net/

    It's different...ask me about it!

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •