CORRECTION: Governor’s office MISINFORMED me on Friday. State Park closure NOT REVERSED.

June 1st, 2009:     9:40 a.m.

I called the Governor’s office this morning to confirm what I had been told on Friday by someone at the Governor’s office.  The fellow with whom I had spoken on Friday, in response to my question whether the Governor had reversed his posiiton to close the state parks, said, “it’s not a vicious rumor,” and directed me to the topmost PDF link marked, “Revision,” dated May 29th.  He was not willing to stay on the phone while I looked through that Revision.  Upon viewing this Revision, I found no mention of state park closure.  That is how I came to post what today is confirmed NOT to be true.

Here is how the webpage appears, at:  http://www.dof.ca.gov/

Governor’s Budget

• 2009-10 May Revision with Addtional $2.8 Billion in Solutions — 5/29/09 (.pdf, <1 MB)
• 2009-10 May Revision with Additional $5.5 Billion Spending Reductions — 5/26/09 (.pdf, <1 MB)
• 2009-10 May Revision General Fund Proposals (.pdf, <1 MB)
• Summary Tables and Veto Messages for 2009 Budget Act (.pdf, <1 MB)
• Summary Document for 2009 Budget Act (.pdf, <1 MB)

As you can see, since each of the three items topping this list is marked, “Revision,” and the first two, “Revision with Additional …”, one reasonably concludes that the topmost of these listed “Revisions” supercedes any of those Revisions marked at an earlier date, that the topmost file

2009-10 May Revision with Addtional $2.8 Billion in Solutions — 5/29/09 (.pdf, <1 MB) 

file would have within it the information already appearing in the file below it, 

2009-10 May Revision with Additional $5.5 Billion Spending Reductions — 5/26/09 (.pdf, <1 MB)

but with the new “Solutions” information tacked on, and that is precisely what the fellow had himself believed.

After concluding the telephone contact with this fellow, I opened the latest (topmost) Revision listed, dated May 29th, and concluded that the Park closure had indeed been reveresed since it does NOT include mention of eliminating funding to the State Parks.

This morning I am informed by the Governor’s office that the topmost Revision, dated May 29th, constitutes an “additional” Revision consisting of additional proposals (“Solutions”).  What the Governor’s office assistants have failed to understand is that they mean ” Supplemental Revision to … .”   The May 29th “Revision” is adding to the  previous “Revision” file dated earlier than May 29th.

Wouldn’t you also reasonably conclude that the information within the May 26th “Revision” would also appear in the latest “Revision” of May 29th?  In my experience, use of the word “Revision” in this situation is incorrect, leading the viewer to expect that the info on “Budget Reductions” of May 26th, is included within the more recent “Revision,” that the most recent “Revision” constitutes an aggregate of previous “Revisions.”

Do you concur that since the “Budget Reductions” in fact do not appear in the more recent May 29th file marked, “Revision with additional… (“Solutions”)”, the more recent file should be marked as SUPPLEMENTAL to the previous May 26h “Revision” (marked with “Spending Reductions”)?  

The proposal to close the State Parks appears in the file listed second from the top:

2009-10 May Revision with Additional $5.5 Billion Spending Reductions — 5/26/09 (.pdf, <1 MB)

 

Oy.

 

May 29th, 3:15 p.m.

I got telephone confirmation from the Governor’s office that he has indeed removed the proposed closure of state parks from the proposed budget!

 

 

I just finished reading the article: “25 Bay Area parks may close from budget crisis“.

Please consider contacting the Governor’s office to voice your opinion on the matter. Below is my letter already sent via email.

Governor’s office Contact: http://gov.ca.gov/interact#contact

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,​

I am writing to you to voice my strongest objection to this proposed funding cut.

It is at these times of grave economic downturn that the State Parks are needed the most. Also, as the article above indicated, there is more to LOSE in terms of state revenue after closure of these parks than with keeping them open and funded. And further, even with the horrendous cascade of direct and indirect employment loss, a mere 0.2 percent of the total budget deficit is to be gained from closing these parks! A drop in the bucket! That alone sends red-flag signals to the public that there may exist an underlying motive for this proposal: sticking it to us for refusing the further tax constraints put before us on the special election day of May 19th.

It’s high time that the State Government itself look closely at the cost of its own bureaucracy. Also, you can’t tell me that there aren’t special interest groups haggling for a sustaining thread for projects/​ventures that are more self-oriented than focused on public service.

Identify the true leeches and cast them out.