PROSPECT, Maine — After Gov. Paul LePage signs a financial order next week that will make official a comprehensive lease to privatize the day-to-day management of Fort Knox Historic Site, state officials will be required to give advance notification before inspecting the park — which will continue to be owned by the state.
That is one of the points of the lease between the Maine Department of Conservation’s Bureau of Parks and Lands and the nonprofit Friends of Fort Knox. The document was made available to the media late Wednesday afternoon by Gov. LePage’s spokeswoman Adrienne Bennett.
State and Friends of Fort Knox officials say the agreement simply extends a long-standing partnership between the two entities. But critics believe that privatizing management of a state-owned facility is not a good step for Maine and that there should have been an opportunity to weigh in on the matter before the deal is complete.
Gordon Williamson of Prospect, a former member of the Friends of Fort Knox, said the leasing of the fort makes him “really frustrated.”
“I don’t believe we should privatize anything that’s public, specifically something like this,” he said Thursday. “It’s a visible expression of the love for the state that the citizens of Maine have. It’s a precious gem of ours. Giving that away … I think it’s wrong.”
He asked why the public has not been given the chance to comment on the deal. Bennett said Thursday that Maine Department of Conservation Commissioner Bill Beardsley should respond to the question. Efforts to contact Beardsley on Thursday were unsuccessful.
Earlier this week, he said the lease agreement with the friends group was a “short-term thing.”
“We’re going to see how it works out,” Beardsley said.
According to Maine statute, the state can lease the operations of the fort with the consent of the governor and the commissioner of the Department of Conservation. The Legislature will not vote on the current plan.
Williamson also said he is concerned that nothing in the lease appears to prohibit the commercialization of the fort for profit, via concessions, merchandising or signage.
“Of course these corporations won’t spend this money without getting something in return,” he said. “Mark my words that there will be signage around the fort saying that ‘this repair’ or ‘that walkway’ is brought to you by XYZ Corporation.”
The lease will run from April 15 until Dec. 31, 2015, and under its terms the Friends of Fort Knox will operate the 19th century fort as a state park that will be open to the public during its usual season from the beginning of May through the end of October.
In exchange for managing the park, the friends group will receive 85 percent of all gross admissions, with the other 15 percent going to the state’s General Fund. Last season, the Friends of Fort Knox received half of gross admissions in exchange for its services, which until now have included collecting admissions fees, giving interpretive tours, running the gift shop and staffing the observation tower at the nearby Penobscot Narrows Bridge.
Among the specific points of the new lease:
• The Friends of Fort Knox will be responsible for all grounds maintenance as well as maintaining the interior and exterior of all the buildings.
• The Friends of Fort Knox has the right to “improve or alter” the leased fort, as long as the changes are consistent with federal, state and municipal laws and are approved by the Bureau of Parks and Lands.
• The Friends of Fort Knox will charge admission fees during regular hours of operation that are consistent with the state’s parks admission fee schedule for the 2012 season. But in subsequent years, the friends group may set its own admission fees with approval from the bureau. Those fees must be consistent with the state policy of keeping fees affordable for Maine residents.
• The Friends of Fort Knox may not sublet the fort without prior written consent of the bureau.
• Use, replacements, additions to, or renovations of historic facilities such as the ovens must be approved in writing by the Bureau of Parks and Lands.
• The Bureau of Parks and Lands may cancel or revoke the lease after giving due notice to the Friends of Fort Knox if the conditions imposed in the lease are broken.
• If the deal is defaulted, state officials may reenter Fort Knox and “remove all persons and all or any property” from there. Upon the expiration or termination of the lease, the Friends of Fort Knox must “peaceably and quietly surrender” the fort to the state.
“state officials will be required to give advance notification before inspecting the park.”
If the FOFK is so confident it will operate the fort in an above board manner, what would they have to hide that they would require advance notice?
Standard phrase in any lease…any lease.
Not for a public facility it isn’t. A family from Massachusetts can visit whenever they want, but the DOC staff has to notify the FOFK first.
Well said.
Also on the interview on WABI5, ( http://www.wabi.tv/news/29289/lease-between-friends-of-fort-knox-and-department-of-conservations-bureau-of-parks-and-lands-soon-to-be-official )
“We believe it’s going to give us an opportunity to do additional projects here. We’ve always been focused on restoration and preservation,” said Friends of Fort Knox Executive Director, Leon Seymour.”
Just what “projects” do they intend to do that they were not allowed to do previously when the state had operational control? If FOFK was genuine in their role, what would have been disallowed by the state but now allowed under FOFK control?
Please post the lease for all to read.
As well as the original contract for this year in the works before this lease was forced on DOC.
Who cares! Nothing ever, EVER, happened at this fort! Nothing!
It’s a tourist trap and let the FOFK run it. They fixed it up and care it about it. Give it to them. BTW. It became state property after the Army declared it useless.
Much ado about nothing.
Yellow journalism at its best. I would use it as textbook for advocacy journalism. Certainly not objective reporting 101. The most contentious, but found in any lease text, was the lead. The more reasonable aspects buried at the end of the story. I was an editor for a newspaper.
Its is shameful how this story has been portrayed by the BDN. How can you expect anyone to believe what is written about other subjects?
Yes so was a guy named Houghton who owns that rag in Bucksport and just happened to be on the board of the FOFK some years ago. So, are you Houghton?
This is a shame. Bill Beardsley should explain his decision here. Was this done in a vacuum? No public comment? This park, like all of them, belong to all Mainers, not just Beardsley. I know some folks at DOC who cannot wait for the merger with Agriculture so that they can work for Walter Whitcomb, who is reportedly a common sense, easy to talk to, regular speaking person who listens. They say that this will be a radically different change for them compared with what they have now.
Clearly spoken by someone who has never spoken to Mr. Beardsley.
soon it not be by the people , for the people …!
The state lacked the ability and the will to keep the fort up. When I first visited it in 91 there were broken beer bottles and trash everywhere. If not for the FOF it would still be that way, the current adminstration certainly isn’t going to spend any money towards it’s upkeep.
You don’t give away public property because the state isn’t doing it’s job. You fix the problem with the state.
Good luck with that notion…
I’ve been going to Fort Knox for well over 30 years. I saw it’s decline and I’ve watched it’s improvement under the stewardship of the Friends of Fort Knox. For all the people screaming about this management lease, and it is just a lease not a turn-over of the property, where were you when the state was running it solo and letting it fall into ruin?
I may not like LePage and many of his policies, but I’m not damning everything that happens just because it’s happening while he’s in charge.
It appears the BDN has no qualms about doing exactly that.
BDN is responding to citizen interest.
You bring up the most important point Carey. It was, and still should be, the responsibility of the state to maintain the public property of it’s citizens. They didn’t and there-in lies the problem. Giving the Fort away isn’t the solution. Making the state meet it’s obligations is the solution. To paraphrase another post, Keeping something precious is much easier than giving it away and then taking it back.
The state isn’t giving the Fort away, they’re turning over the day-to-day management of it to a group that truly cares about it and will have to follow the rules that the state have set, I absolutely do not have a problem with that.
“Earlier this week, he said the lease agreement with the friends group was a “short-term thing.” ” I don’t call 4/15 to Dec. 31, 2015 “short term”.
It’s not even four years. The fort’s been there since 1844. It’s all relative…
Bury this ugly monument to war and adorn it’s rocky and ugly surface with peaceful green grass and beautiful colored flowers.
Don’t like forts? Don’t visit them.
I know that to tour the fort is free I go there every year with my nieces and nephews and every year I look forward to it as much as they do. I guess what I am asking is are they going to start charging to explore the fort now?
From what I gather from reading the four articles on this issue, within the last week, the only thing to change is the uniforms.
It hasn’t been free to get into Fort Knox for many years, at least a decade probably more.
Carol Weston and her companions in the FOFK are using Fort Knox to promote the GOP doctrine of privatizing all public lands. She has a friend in LePage who is also a staunch supporter of privatization. To me, that is the fundamental force driving this give away. The devil is in the details and the details smell bad. It appears as though the FOFK does indeed have the opportunity to bring in commercial interests, increase fee’s with prior consent (what the heck does “affordable for Maine residents” mean?), can make physical changes consistent with laws, (what laws?), I see nothing about concessions, and they can sub-let the property with permission. It seems there are no limits on the FOFK here at all! That must make the Director of operations Mr. Seymour happy. Weston, who seems to have replaced Celli as the protagonist here, and LePage will be happy because they are making their GOP masters happy. The only people who won’t be happy are the ones who usually take the brunt of bad political decisions, the citizens of Maine.
Request, using the FOIA, to see ALL correspondences and documents between FOFK members, DOC, governor…. ALL. Follow the timeline. See how the present contract agreement was on the table when mysteriously a “lease” was agreed upon. Do your research. The citizens have a right to know what quietly happened behind closed doors.
Your idea is a good one. I am considering reviving a group called the True Friends of Fort Knox, assuming enough interest, only this time around we could elect an ethical leader. No not me, though I would certainly work towards the goal of rescinding this lease and holding the state responsible for the administration, care, and maintenance of Fort Knox. All interested parties should contact me via my company email at: mainefurnsol@fairpoint.net
gordon williamson
Prospect, ME.
GW
The current rates at the park are affordable, but I’ll bet that changes. however, maybe someone will be smart enough not to charge a 2 tier rate one for residents and another for non-residents-this is ridiculous. Show me another state that does this!!
Just performed a very perfunctory search….It appears as though Montana, New Jersey, Wyoming, and Washington have some sort of a two tier system for non residents….
Gerry,
You must STOP doing originial research when responding the the emotioal expressions of “facts” presented on these pages.
Someone just might begin to feel badly about themselves and do outside and eat dirt.
Stop it ya’ hear?
I’d like to know whose idea this was to begin with. Did the idea come from The State (an all-inclusive term for all elected, appointed, and hired affiliates of the state) or did it come from the FOFK?
If it came from The State then it’s just as some here have feared – it’s being seen by Augusta as a ‘test case’ for privatizing the state parks and monuments, thereby saving the state some money.
If it came from the FOFK then it’s probably a matter of the Friends saying, “Hey, we’re doing all the work here and we want a bigger share of the money.”
Either way, if you want to know what’s happening, “Follow the Money”.
I just fail to see what is wrong with the way it’s currently being done.
The state was letting the park fall apart before this group got involved. It’s non profit. Its not a secret lair for republicans. History buffs. Thats it. I’m guessing the union has sicked BDN on this because it is working so well having FOFK run this park, somebody will want to expand it elsewhere. But in reality, there are no other parks in the state where a volunteer group is as dedicated to put the time in.
Ed. You obviously don’t know this group very well. The BDN article was more likely their doing as their director loves to gloat. And I have been visiting Fort Knox since the 1980s and have never seen it “falling apart.” I’ve never seen graffiti or beer bottles lying everywhere, as FOFK folks are claiming. This management issue is what tore the group apart years back when the board wanted to remain a group that raised money and worked on projects while the director had designs on taking over this and many other parks. He wouldn’t listen to the board so they fired him. Trouble is, they didn’t follow their own by-laws in doing so.
The trash was mostly up by the road. How did you miss the decay and damage and more and more areas cut off from the public due to safety issues?
Did you miss the editorial?
I didn’t miss it because it wasn’t there to the extent it is being described by those supporting the new agreement. I live fairly close and visit often. The FOFK have funded some great projects to repair the fort, but the state isn’t ignoring the place. They spent a million dollars back in the 1990s to replace the entire roof. Contrary to the comments of the FOFK executive director, the state employees there have worked hard to keep it in good shape, including two who are now on their board.
I have been visiting the Fort since I was a child, back in the early 1960’s. I agree with you that the place was no dump. Showing a lot of wear perhaps, but no dump.
Your description of the disagreement between the former FOFK board, the operations director Seymour, and the membership is fairly accurate. However I would add that the former board had developed an attitude of arrogance while simultaneously attempting to disenfranchise the FOFK membership from participating in the operation of the group. You can argue the merits of this till we are blue in the face but once this attitude became ingrained within the FOFK board, everyone dug in their heels and, as I’m sure you well know, it ended up in arbitration. In my humble opinion the new board is no better, perhaps worse, than the original board you speak of. I supported the new group at that time and sincerely wish that it had turned out differently. These days within the FOFK there is the political agenda being pushed by the GOP doctrine of privatization (Celli, Beardsley, LePage and Weston), the ambition of Leon Seymour as director of operations(or whatever he calls himself now), and a bunch of “yes” people making up the rest of the Board. Perhaps it is time for yet another change.
I agree with most of what you say, most especially the first sentence. The reason FOFK was formed was because the fort was falling apart and the state was allowing it to happen by neglecting it. IIRC George MacLeod was the driving force behind the formation of FOFK and it was formed more as a fund raising/preservation “arm” of the fort than anything else. FOFK raised “a boatload” of money and I believe that were it not for them the fort would be closed by now.
I’m not enough of a conspiracy theorist to believe that the MSEA is behind the BDN’s reporting of the story though. I believe that it’s a story, albiet a controversial one, and the BDN needs controversy to sell newspapers. (That’s not a bad thing – that’s just the way it is).
I’m not 100% on board with this takeover by FOFK because I DO think it’s the start of a slippery slope, if not for the Fort then for other state parks. I do not want to see Crescent Beach or Swan Lake or (most especially) Baxter taken over by local groups who lack the foresight to see what harm could be done by allowing private corporations to “sponsor” parts of the parks.
I’ve long beleived that were it not for the Department of the Interior we’d be looking at a sign that says “Holiday Inn at Sand Beach (beach access for hotel guests only)”.
Ed. You obviously don’t know this group very
well. The BDN article was more likely their doing as their director loves to
gloat. And I have been visiting Fort Knox since the 1980s and have never seen
it “falling apart.” I’ve never seen graffiti or beer bottles lying
everywhere, as FOFK folks are claiming. This management issue is what tore the
group apart years back when the board wanted to remain a group that raised
money and worked on projects while the director had designs on taking over this
and many other parks. He wouldn’t listen to the board so they fired him.
Trouble is, they didn’t follow their own by-laws in doing so.
HeaganMt knows the FOFK intimately. I like much of what you say but in this point you are completely mistaken.
That was very well put. For obvious reasons you would know this history pretty well. The FOFK did do great things. It is unfortunate that well-intentioned idea’s such as the formation of the FOFK end up growing beyond their original reason to be. Human nature I guess.
I agree completely with the idea that this lease is a test case for privatization of our public heritage sites and state parks in Maine. In my opinion it needs to be stopped.
History buffs? If that was the case, then they’d be trying to mirror great historical sites such as Gettysburg or Colonial Williamsburg, instead of trying to turn it into a sideshow attraction!
It’s going to happen, the sideshow is coming to a Maine heritage site near you! Here is what I say above.
I am considering reviving a group called the True Friends of Fort Knox, assuming enough interest, only this time around we could elect an ethical leader. No not me, though I would certainly work towards the goal of rescinding this lease and holding the state responsible for the administration, care, and maintenance of Fort Knox. All interested parties should contact me via my company email at: mainefurnsol@fairpoint.netgordon williamson
Prospect, ME.
It began with Michael Celli and Leon. http://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/2009/02/23/news/friends-group-to-staff-fort-knox/?ref=relatedBox
Thanks for the link….the only names mentioned in the article that I read were Mr Celli and Mr. Popper…and Mr. Popper was only mentioned because he was denying FOFK involvement in this bill.
“Although the Friends board is aware of Celli’s proposed legislation, the board has not discussed the proposal formally, nor has it taken any vote on it, according to President Chris Popper. The bill was not submitted on behalf of the Friends group, he said,“We did not ask him to do this,” Popper said.Popper said he has seen a copy of the bill, but, since the board has not discussed it, he said he could not comment on it.”
Those who have been involved are fully aware of Leon’s involvement.
I will openly admit that I am not one who has been involved in this…but I have met Mr Celli a few times while visiting the fort where he was a surgeon/reenactor. My impression of Mr Celli was that he was an outspoken, strong willed individual…never hesitant to share his opinion…I have little doubt that the bill mentioned in this article was indeed Mr Celli’s bill and not the result of the machinations of some alleged “puppet masters”
During last night’s TV interview on channel 2 Mr. Seymour continues to deny FOFK involvement with this lease. I think he is being disingenuous. Sure, LePage would eat up an idea like this but someone had to bring it up in the first place. Was it Celli, Weston, Hall, or all three? I believe that Popper is gone.
Again, True…Request, using the FOIA, to see ALL correspondences and documents between FOFK members, DOC, governor…. ALL. Follow the timeline. See how the present contract agreement was on the table when mysteriously a “lease” was agreed upon. Do your research. The citizens have a right to know what quietly happened behind closed doors.
Why is it that only the posts critical of the FOFK’s director get flagged for removal?
the governor is supposed to sign today