I've been meaning to address the various issues and falsehoods floating around since the last meeting. Its been rather crazy here in the 'burg- spring has sprung early and the natives have gotten restless as well.

The meeting held last Monday evening had a lot of information come to the surface. A big hand has to go to the evening's parlimentarian (was that our own Mr. Wachsmuth?), who kept the agenda on track despite the efforts of a couple of people (including a lawyer) to take over the meeting for their own agendas and turn it into a media circus. Best quote of the evening (IMO)- "Mr. Monahan, we don't have four years" during a long winded commentary of said person. We really should charge an entrance fee for the sheer entertainment value these meetings bring. :)

I think the basic concept that people are missing is that there are no firm plans for the building/exhibits/financing, etc. as of yet. The request for proposals was just that- for the individual companies to come up with a vision, which can be worked out to the fine details at a later time. The process of working out those fine details is where we are at now. Kinsley came up with a rough idea. Its being refined, very much, and with a lot of input from the public. That public input is why the meetings are being held. The meetings are NOT to debate the merits of Kinsley's plan vs. Monahan's plan vs. Harper's plan. The choice has been made who the NPS will deal with. Unfortunately, some people have yet to realize that. At any rate, the public WILL have many opportunities to see and comment on the plans as they become available.

I disagree that no financial information has been released. This past meeting brought forth how the financial arrangement would work. Currently, a foundation is being formed (Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum Foundation). Once formed, the foundation would enter into a cooperative agreement with the NPS to build the actual museum. After the agreement is signed, then the fundraising and financing would take place. As the money solidifies, the final building and exhibit design would occur, followed by construction. Kinsley has offered to front the start up money for the foundation. Once the financing for the project is complete, he would be reimbursed for the front money, plus interest. However, the board of the foundation is not required to take Kinsley's front money and could borrow commercially. Kinsley did state that he was prepared to be "very competitive" in the terms of a loan on the front money.

By no means would Kinsley's construction company have a lock on building the building. The foundation would solicit bids, with the work going to the lowest qualified bidder. It could be Kinsley, but it very well could not be. Its up to the foundation to decide, not Kinsley himself.

An economic concept flow chart was provided at last Monday's meeting outlining how money would flow from the various operations in the building. Its currently envisioned that the foundation and Eastern National would manage the building. The NPS would oversee the artifact exhibits (museum per se), electric map, and cyclorama and pay the foundation "costs of operation" for its share of the building. That's pretty much the same as the fixed expenses the park incurrs now- things like utilities used, alarm contracts, janitorial services, etc. Think of it as those costs the NPS is going to be paying no matter where the Visitor Center is. Each of the other operations in the building would be paying for the "costs of operation" for its share of the building, along with rent to the foundation (Note the NPS does not pay rent). The foundation thus has an incoming cash stream, which it uses to pay the mortgage, maintenance costs, operations costs (utilities, amusement taxes, etc.), and also builds a replacement reserve.

For the funds collected over the fees charged by the foundation, they would be going into various coffers. 'Profits' from the entrance fees for the electric map and cyclorama, along with Eastern National booksales, would go directly to the park. The National Geographic theater receipts would go to National Geographic. The food service income would go to whoever runs that operation (there are several schools of thought of how it should be set up and who should run it). Income from the tour center would go the the Licensed Battlefield Guides and the tour operators.

Unfortunately, it appears that too many people are not listening to what is said during the meetings or reading the information which is handed out. From the beginning, Kinsley made it quite clear that he was not relying on the preservation or historical communities for the bulk of the fundraising. There are organizations that donate money for land preservation, ie the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and then there are organizations that donate money for 'bricks and mortar' projects like a new museum. Kinsley is looking to tap the 'bricks and mortar' area and leave the land preservation funds alone. Back during the initial announcement of the project, either Kinsley or Dr. Latscher (I forget who exactly) stated they truly did not want to see funds taken away from land preservation projects, since there was much important work to be done in that area. APCWS' pronouncement that this project would 'drain' preservation funds, when it does not even seek to tap those funds, rings hollow at best.

Yes, Congress and the Freedom of Information Act requests did not get some of the financial information contained in the proposals. There were two types of financial information excluded. The first was information about the corporate and personal net worth and liabilities of the proposers. Folks, that's private information. Think about it, would you want YOUR finances published in the papers or bandied about by some windbag congressman? Its information that the parties were required to supply to the evaluation panel, simply so the panel could determine if these companies could back up their financial claims for the project. Hey, I could have put together a proposal too, but I doubt any bank would lend me the money to get it off the ground. The other type of financial information was a little thornier about holding out, but still just as sensitive, and that being proprietary information. Basicly, its that work the company has done in support of its proposal, which if disclosed, would scuttle the proposal. Dr. Latscher used the Lemoyne proposal as an example. They got the owner of the tower to agree to an amount at which he would sell the tower to Lemoyne. Its a figure we all would like to know. But if the NPS released that figure, without the consent of both parties to the transaction, the NPS would be sued for revealing information made in confidence by two private parties.

While of the subject of FOIA requests, I might note that Kinsley only withheld the financial information of the type I described above. The rest of his proposal he promptly cleared for release. Both Monahan and Harper stated their ENTIRE proposal was proprietary and could not be released to the public. Yet, these two continue to yell and scream for the public to support their proposals and Mr. Monahan always states that his proposal was incorrectly portrayed by the NPS, but he doesn't feel he can release it to the public. Now I ask you, just who is asking you to support something blindly?

A recurring issue is that of control of the proposed site by Kinsley. It is a non-issue. The RFP did not require the companies to have physical possession of a site. They did have to demonstrate that, if selected, they could acquire the site. Both Harper and Kinsley had the SAME control over the Levan site, namely, a letter of intent from the owner to sell to the winner for the visitor center. It should be noted that NONE of the four proposals clearly showed physical possession of their site. Monahan claimes he owned his site, but he screwed up in expressing it in his proposal (bet a lawyer got chewed out for that).

Personally, I find the GBPA's position rather weak. They threw their support in with Mr. Harper while the proposals were being made and now that their horse didn't win, they're singing the blues. Somehow, commercial ventures on the battlefield under Mr. Harper were acceptable to them, but under Mr. Kinsley, its an outrage? Why this change?

Now, don't think that I'm blindly endorsing the plan as it stands. There are things that concern me and things that need to be worked out. The next big step is the composition of the board for the foundation. These are the folks that are going to be driving this process very soon. There has not been anything said about who is going to be on the board, or what qualifications the canidates should have. I'd like to know if the board members are going to be paid staff, or volunteers. What sort of office account would they have? Personally, I'm solidly against parking and/or entrance fees for the building. Its my feeling that the NPS provides a certain 'core' service to the public (which they pay for every April 15th). Visitors should be able to come in to the building, get a map and some information, and wander around park exhibits, without being charged for it. Fine, charge a small fee for the 'extra' exhibits, such as the map, cyclorama, the theater. If a person wants to buy a book, or a soda, or a National Geographic t-shirt, no problem, its their choice where to spend their money. But the basics need to be available.

If you are interested in this project, GET INVOLVED. But don't take everything that is fed to you as the gospel truth, be it from the park service or your best buddy and lifelong friend. (I sometimes think the world would be a better place if we didn't have professional PR folks to 'package' things). Write in for the documentation. Read it carefully. Question those parts of the plan that are not clear or trouble you and ASK those questions. Form your own opinions based on the facts, not the wails of the unselected.

Probably the most glaring ommission in the whole mess is the view of the average tourist who visits this field. We've heard grand pronouncements from 'preservationists', local business interests, lawyers, congressmen, etc. But what about the guy from Nebraska who swings by Gettysburg with the wife and kids on the way to DC? The ones who are the bread and butter of our visitation? They can live with a snack bar. (The incredulous "You don't have a drink machine in HERE?" is a pretty standard phrase heard 'round the VC desk). They can live with a National Geographic theater and gift shop. ("Hey, that was a great film") They can live with a tour bus with a licensed battlefield guide to take them around the field. ("Thank God, I'm sick of driving"). They can wander through the exhibits. And see. And learn. And be moved, the way we were moved when we first visited this field. Regards,
Pat Knierman
Gettysburg, Pa.