To most Americans, the name “Fort Knox” conjures up images of piles of gold bars locked away behind massive rock walls in Kentucky. To Mainers, though, Fort Knox is known as the Civil War-era fort perched at the mouth of the Penobscot River, looking across the water at Bucksport and the Verso paper mill. The fort and its grounds are a state park which in recent years added a much-visited amenity by virtue of it providing access to the Penobscot Narrows Bridge’s observatory.
Like some other parks in Maine, Fort Knox was blessed with the love and attention of a local friends group. The Friends of Fort Knox formed in the early 1990s during a recession that hit Maine especially hard and dried up state revenue. When serious structural deficiencies were found at the fort — the roof was in danger of collapse — and there was no state money for repairs, the locals raised funds, donated materials and volunteered their labor to repair the venerable edifice.
The group split a decade later over direction and personality conflicts, but the Friends of Fort Knox has continued as a viable organization, helping the fort and park thrive in these more recent times of lean public funding. But a bill that would put the Friends of Fort Knox in charge of maintaining and operating the park fundamentally changes the nature of such public assets. The arrangement may work well for many years or it may be fraught with problems, but regardless of how it plays out, the move does not bode well for our understanding of and esteem for such important parts of our heritage.
The state now contracts the Friends of Fort Knox to collect admission fees, operate the gift shop and give interpretive tours. These seem to be reasonable activities for a support group. But a management role is very different.
To be clear, the park still will be owned by the state. And the Friends of Fort Knox will have to manage the facility according to state park policies — i.e., the group can’t lease it out for a Hempstock festival or let visitors chip souvenir chunks off the fort’s granite walls.
The Department of Conservation insists this case is unique and that it does not intend to turn over management of other state parks to such private groups.
Still, it’s hard to understand the motivation for such a potentially precedent-setting move. A similar proposal was floated in 2009 and defeated, with good reason. Advocates of the move for Fort Knox State Park cite annual savings of only $40,000, hardly enough to warrant the risk.
And there are risks.
The maintenance work could be contracted out to friends of the Friends, so to speak. Other cronyism could creep in as well. Some maintenance projects could get higher priority based on the subjective decisions of a nonprofessional board of directors. And frankly, the Friends’ fractious history does not bode well for a consistent, steady management.
The state sees the potential for a group intimately involved with the park and fort to boost attendance. That more narrow mission could be delegated to the Friends of Fort Knox as an adjunct group. Our state’s history and public parks should be treasured and deemed worthy of attention, not left to nonprofessional management.
The contentious nature of the “friends ” group seems to demonstrate that they can’t even be civil let alone manage the place. Perhaps a “friend” or two that are or have been in the state legislature are pushing their agendas on “friendly” colleagues.
The FOFK board of directors has always been a haven for failed politicians. I count 6 at least starting with John Hyk, Joe Brooks, Michael Celli, Chris Popper, Faith Campbell, and Carol Weston. I’m sure if I thought about it a bit longer I could come up with more.
All those cockroaches? I didn’t realize there was that much to steal.
Fighting is what human beings excel in. I’ve yet to see a single Legislative issue in which there was unanimous agreement. Read George Orwell’s book Animal Farm and you’ll see that its all about self-serving pigs at the trough.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zy23pvkobU
Why would anyone want to retain a monument to war? I say bury the fort and plant some grass and I’ll mow it for free.
This is not a monument to war! It is structure that was petition for by the people living in the region for protection from invading forces. The same area that was taken and controlled by the British in 1779-1782 and in 1814-1816. It was ceded to the State with the condition that it never be used for a military purpose with price tag of $22,000.
The Fort attracts tourism and some jobs in the region, just by being there. With the price of gas I doubt you’ll mow it more than once.
The source of the Friends fractiousness is still in charge as executive director and now he’ll be running the place.
Hard to understand the motivation? It is POLITICAL! I am a proud republican, but what they are doing here makes me sick. Please, call your state rep and tell them that this is not ok. That this group is not in it for history, one member even stating “history doesn’t pay”, hence the ghosties and the paranormal and pirate stuff…and Bill, just because you don’t care about history, there are a lot of us who do, so if you don’t like it, don’t go.
I’ve been involved with doing events there for almost 20 years and I’ve seen some major changes in the physical aspects for the better. I hope that will continue. If this works well for the fort then ,I’m all for it. It IS a historical place even though it never saw a battle. Read your Maine history to see why it was built there , and you will certainly see that it has an honored place in Maine’s history.
It is the best example of a coastal fort left in the US, a marvel of architecture, which for that reason alone it is historical and worth a visit.
I don’t know how this is going to work, but a long as the state still owns it and the Friends only have a lease, I feel that it will work out. Unfortunately, politics enters everything. I’m willing to watch and wait and hope that I continue to see improvements to this wonderful Maine “artifact”. The state hasn’t and isn’t willing to, or have the money to do what has been needed to protect this gem.This group can do no worse, and has shown to do much better.
I am not happy watching and waiting aroostookme. It does not matter how benevolent the FOFK was/is, the park belongs to the citizens of Maine and should remain in the public domain. Parks, created and sustained by the people, belong to the people. If the state isn’t taking care of our property then THAT is the problem which should be addressed. Not whether some private organization should do the job for us. The FOFK will own Fort Knox in all but the actual property deed. This is in line with the oft quoted GOP doctrine which states that our government should own no public property. Non-profits CAN and DO make profit. That profit often goes out in salaries for the administrators. So the FOFK will enjoy profit at the expense of the citizens of Maine while some ill-advised GOP governor gets to look good to his party. Dang! Never forget that it is easier to keep something that it is to take it back!
“It does not matter how benevolent the FOFK was/is, the park belongs to the citizens of Maine and should remain in the public domain.”
– It is remaining in the public domain under state ownership. Any attempt to say otherwise is juvenile or adolescent, as you’re wont to say.
“Parks, created and sustained by the people, belong to the people. If the state isn’t taking care of our property then THAT is the problem which should be addressed. Not whether some private organization should do the job for us.”
– Fantastic attitude you’re demonstrating. Real spirit of community and citizenship, taking pride in our community. All hail the omnipotent state!! Got to hand it to you, though. You’re the first person I’ve seen in these comment threads dissing non-profits because the money they earn isn’t going into government coffers.
I guess I am doing the wrong thing being a member of the Friends of Acadia National Park. I should probably just sit around and wait for some money to come from the Feds to fix up the park. I guess George PickleWalker wouldnt think very much of what I or many others are trying to do.
I feel your suggestion that the state “isn’t willing to” is misinformed. The partnership is indeed necessary for the fort to continue in a positive direction.
If you have been “doing events there for almost 20 years”, surely you know that there has been much negativity expressed on behalf of FOFK toward the state. This friction is nothing new. You must also be aware of the state’s efforts in the past few years to support more accurate historical activities at the fort, something FOFK does not do. Regardless to this, giving “exclusive rights to all events” at the fort to FOFK does not sound like it is retaining it’s status as a State Historic Site. As a state venue, ALL state citizens have a right to access and upon approval having activities there. With an “exclusive rights to all events”, it certainly seems to be more of a “private property” situation.
Republican? Just what have you got to be proud of?
Way more than what the liberals have. I work for a living and pay taxes, not sit on my rear and collect a welfare check. And my taxes help pay for these historic sites which are public property. Which I believe is the real issue here, not stupid comments like yours.
“Other cronyism could creep in as well. Some maintenance projects could
get higher priority based on the subjective decisions of a
nonprofessional board of directors. And frankly, the Friends’ fractious
history does not bode well for a consistent, steady management.”
-Cronyism? non professionals making decisions? Unpredictable history? You just described how government works to a “T”..how can you with a straight face actually advocated for the state over a private entity?? All that you described occurs ten fold by hack parasite politicians on a daily basis! Boggles the mind, really…
I much prefer a group like the friends who will be held accountable if they mismanage rather than public parasites who are not accountable to anyone..
“annual savings of only $40,000, hardly enough to warrant the risk.”
of course 40,000 is probably chump change when set next to your trust fund…
In an article in 2009 ( http://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/2009/02/23/news/friends-group-to-staff-fort-knox/?ref=relatedBox ),
Mr. Celli is quoted as: “This is strictly a
financial proposal,” Celli said. “This could save the state $130,000 to
$160,000 a year, and the Friends organization could definitely handle it.”
Why is it now only a $40,000
savings?
Because in my opininon ANYTHING representative Celli says is, how do I put this politely, disingenuous.
What do YOU stand to get out of this? Or are you must mouthing the GOP doctrine of privatization of all public lands?
Can you refute my post? Or are you just mouthing the communist doctrine of state owned everything?
I, we the citizens of Maine, stand to have our precious heritage stolen and I vigorously oppose any opportunity for the FOFK to steal it. First, it doesn’t matter how benevolent the FOFK was/is, this property belongs to all of us and I feel that after this agreement is in place the FOFK will assume ownership of Fort Knox in all but deed. Refute that my friend! Second, no one who knows the recent history of Fort Knox would dispute that yes, the state wasn’t meeting it’s obligation when it came to the care of this precious heritage site. However, giving the park away is not the solution. Holding the state accountable is.
Oh, you need to learn what words mean before mouthing off and calling people communists’. Politeness keeps me from expressing my real opinion of you and your remarks afreeradical.
This makes no sense. Government officals are held accountable by voters. They can be voted in or out off office. Private entities are the dictatorships.
“This makes no sense. Government officals are held accountable by voters. They can be voted in or out off office.”
-That’s what they tell you in preschool to make you believe the lie that the voting populace actually has a voice…the truth is it is almost impossible to unseat an elected politician and I challenge you to try..secondly 90% of government parasites aren’t elected so please get….a…..clue….
“Private entities are the dictatorships.”
-mindless drivel…no private entity has ever told me how to live me life and they don’t extort half of my pay by way of force…
Hahahaha!, Mindless drivel, preschool…pfffffff….ATTENTION ALL! BDN poster “afreeradical” is the only one who sees the truth! We are all just sheep BAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! BAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
The founding fathers put in the constitution that the government has the right to tax (or, extort half your pay by way of force, as you so elegantly and not at all hyperbolically put it). Sounds like your real beef is with them. I did not realize that the last 230 years of the democratic experience in America was only an illusion. Thank god your here.
“The founding fathers put in the constitution that the government has the right to tax (or, extort half your pay by way of force”
-oh THE “CONSTITUTION” YES some words on parchment written down by some dead guys over 200 years ago gives people living today the moral authority to steal from me..hmmm you have been well programmed….
” I did not realize that the last 230 years of the democratic experience in America was only an illusion.”
the democratic experience?? stay off the pipe kid…
bradygirl2, don’t bother trying to engage afree….. My guess is that his/her posts are meant to aggravate the anti-FOFK crowd. In fact, this poster is probably a plant by the FOFK. Besides, it’s not nice to pick on the ignorant.
I know…I was bored on my lunch break….I feel dirty.
“The state sees the potential for a group intimately involved with the park and fort to boost attendance. “…. This has been part of the FOFK mission all along, but have only brought fictitious events to the fort… although the fort is a State Park and these things do attract visitors, when is the last time FOFK brought an original idea for an event to the fort…aside from ghost tours? There was a groups of folks willing to volunteer time and bring history to the fort on a regular basis, but was refused by FOFK. Some statements made were “There was never a battle here, that is not historical”, also”They never used the oven, it is not historical” (the official report shows the oven was indeed used and used a lot). “There was never a floor in the enlisted men’s quarters, that is not historical”…. to which a reenactor replied “neither were pirates”. There was room for all these activities, yes even ghost hunts, but FOFK refused to work with others. Doesn’t seem very “friendly” to me.
Bill Randall brought up the subject of mowing grass. I can tell you from personal experience, there is plenty of grass in and around our beloved Fort Knox. Specifically, along the roadway, the picnic areas, around the Visitor’s Center, along the rock wall behind Batter B, the entire area of Battery B down to the water, Battery A, the hill known to us as the “glacier”, Batter C, Battery D (which is within the walls), and down in the dry moat.
That’s a lot of grass to mow and it took a considerable amount of effort to keep it looking nice.
I wonder what is happening to all of the maintenance equipment that belonged to the State? Is it to be given to the FOFK, or distributed among the other State parks?
Fort Knox isn’t a state park. It’s a state historic site.
And should remain a state historic site, administered and run by the state.
I’ll admit I was one of the people involved with the troubles between the Friends of Fort Knox. That was nearly ten years ago and most everyone has moved on with the issue. I have mixed emotions on the deal but concede that the Friends of Fort Knox has done more to help restore and preserve the Fort than what the State had done in it’s many years of maintaining the place. If it weren’t for the FoFK, the fort itself would be mostly closed or off limit due to decay. I do agree that safe guards are needed to ensure the State can assume control if the need ever arose.
I was also involved with the change in directorship back then and frankly the new group under Mr. Celli was not any better ethically than the group that preceded them. Perhaps worse. The administration of the FOFK has gotten no better since then either. You may recall william that shortly after Mr. Celli anointed himself as President of the FOFK roughly half or more of the new Directors quit within 3 months! Not to mention the ordinary members who left because Mr. Celli wasn’t walking the walk he laid out when he was talking the talk. All of this highlights just how much of a mistake it is to have a private group running a public heritage site such as Fort Knox.
I first visited Fort Knox in 1991, and it was full of trash and broken beer bottles. It was a place for local kids to party, the state did nothing to keep it up or clean it up. The FOF have done a great job revitalizing the Fort. My group holds 2 events there each year, and we love the venue!
Yes they have done a fine job of supporting the park however that doesn’t justify giving Fort Knox to them. Rather, the state should be held accountable. Yes, in all but the actual property deed Governor LePage is giving Fort Knox to the FOFK.
I spoke with Mr. Will Harris, Director of the Bureau of Parks and Lands, yesterday. He was very polite and answered most, if not all, of my questions. I will try to give the details as best I can recall them.
The lease (he called it a lease) with the FOFK will commence on April 15, 2012 if the Governor signs it in time for that date. This is a done deal.The lease is for 4 years.When asked “why now?” Mr. Harris said because of the change in state administration, implying our GOP governor feels differently about privatization than Governor Baldacci did.
Mr. Harris says that this is a matter between the Dept. of Conservation and the Governor, and therefore will not be open to a public comment session.
Mr. Harris made a sincere effort to convince me that this lease requires the FOFK to follow standard Maine state park operating procedures and said I could access that information online. However he also said that the procedures for operations at Fort Knox specifically were not online and that the public did not have access to them.
He confirmed that corporate sponsorship will happen and that “temporary” signage may appear from time to time.
He either could not or would not answer the question of what was in this for the FOFK.
Mr. Harris also told me that should I observe events at Fort Knox that were outside of the Maine state park code then I should report such events to his office ASAP. However this would be hard to do if you don’t know what the code manual says about Fort Knox operations specifically.
All in all our conversation was very polite and Mr. Harris was forthcoming up to a point. He would not commit to a yea or nay when I asked specifically if this or that would be allowed. He seemed like an OK guy but we have a fundamental difference in opinion on how Fort Knox should be run.
On another front, I called Governor LePages office, registered my complaint, and asked that they send me a copy of the agreement, or lease?, to peruse. They will. I don’t know why this information wasn’t public in the first place along with an open session for the citizens of Maine, the owners of Fort Knox state park, to attend. I also contacted my state Senator and Representative to let them know I opposed this change in administration of Fort Knox. The way I interpret Mr. Harris’ statement, and as I say above, it is between the Dept. of Conservation and the Governor so the legislature has no say in this either. Imagine that! I also contacted the Maine State Attorney General’s office inquiring as to whether or not this action by the Governor is legal. A waste of time perhaps but maybe not. Finally I contacted the Maine chapter of the ACLU and asked for assistance in stopping this action.
You may wish to push getting this to peruse, preferably before it is signed by the governor…. contrary to what some are saying with regard to FOFK not being allowed to bring “Hempfest” to the fort, such restrictions may not be contained in the new lease. It may also include such things as FOFK having full control over everything and needing a 60 day written notice from the state with regard to anything they object to.
Hint: Bill Beardsley
This is still WRONG WRONG WRONG! Call the Governors office, your legislators, and register your opposition to this act of piracy against the citizens of Maine. Good grief I cannot believe they are actually getting away with this.
worry about the people stealing from the state on welfare
the friend have been doing this for years.people should worry more about other thing like wealfare fraud.so people just have to much time on there hands and worry about stuff that is good,when they should be worry about people stealing from the state
Typical GOP maneuver, redirect attention away from the immediate discussion when it becomes uncomfortable for those trying to manipulate public opinion.
the fofk has done nothing but improve the fort,the place was a dump,at least with the fofk there is will remain a great place to visit and have a great time.I say let them keep the place running great and looking awesome for familys to go and have fun
In refereference to several of the commenters and comments below: Your comment sounds as though you are one of the American war mongers who loves the heat of battle. Sir, we were the invaders. We WERE the British before we invaded and then later called ourselves Americans. Ask one of the Native Americans if you doubt me. I’m also sure you must be proud of the many American Civil War monuments to war where 640,000 U.S. soldiers killed each with about as many wounded. Seems to me that it is about time we built a few monuments to Peace and burying Fort Knox and adorning its surface with Mother Nature is a good place to start.
I’m not a member of the Friends of Fort Knox but have visited there many times beginning as a cub scout.
Fact is the state has failed to take even simple steps that would enhance the educational possibilities of the fort. For instance, short mention at the fort is made of young Lt. Isaac Stevens who oversaw early construction during the 1840s. Nothing is mentioned of the fact that Stevens, who was stationed there year round, repeatedly begged his superiors to allow him to spend deadly boring winters in New York or Boston instead of Bucksport when no construction at the fort was underway. He even claimed that Bucksport’s drinking water made him sick. His requests were always refused because higher authorities worried that Bucksport residents would carry off all of the government’s building materials if left unguarded.
He was appointed Governor of Washington Territory on the west coast, was elected to congress and was a strong advocate against native american rights and for white settlers.
Stevens would go on to become a General during the Civil War and was on President Lincoln’s short list of possible command replacements of failing General McClellan when he was killed leading a charge against Stone Wall Jackson’s Brigade covering McClellan’s retreat up “the Peninsula”. Had he not died, he might have become as successful and famous as Ulysses Grant.
Fort Stevens, built to guard Washington D.C., is named after Bucksport’s reluctant winter resident.
Isn’t that interesting? But no student will learn this at Fort Knox as it is now managed.
P.S. I’m not a Stevens relative, just a history enthusiast.
Jason, the FOFK is tasked with enhancing the educational possibilities at Fort Knox. Even their mission statement reads, ”
The Friends of Fort Knox mission is to preserve Fort Knox and enhance its educational, cultural and economic value for the people of Maine.”. That being said, please note that the recent largely successful historical activities, Battle At Fort Knox as well as oven demonstrations were NOT supported by FOFK, but rather the state. The group wishing to voluntarily present “Living History” at the fort on a regular basis was refused by FOFK. Although quite interesting that FOFK was allowed to “take control” of the then planned Battle At Fort Knox2012 because they now have “EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS” to all activities at the fort.
Are you referring to the use of the oven?
No, the mentioned Battle At Fort Knox and any future events at the fort. The oven being operation is moot at this time. Although contrary to Members of FOFK as well as Mr. Celli’s inaccurate information being told, the oven was in no way damaged by the limited demonstrations done there.
Cool. That is interesting. You should send this on to the Bureau of Public Lands historian who works closely with FOFK. Fort Knox currently has an interpretive panel on Stevens, and anything new we might add would need BPL’s approval. Contrary to your perception, it’s actually not our call on this one.
Just ask the people of TX how allowing the Daughters of the Republic of Texas to manage the Alamo worked out. Here’s a clue: in-fighting, crazy politics and the near destruction of the Alamo by neglect.
The government removed the cannons during WWII for its iron. The fort was left in disrepair until the friends came along. This is not TX.
Curiously Michael Celli is an alumnus of UTexas. Hmmmmm.
Guess if the BDN thinks it is a bad idea, it must be a good one. BDN almost never gets it right.
”
maintenance work could be contracted out to friends of the Friends, so to speak. Other cronyism could creep in as well. Some maintenance projects could get higher priority based on the subjective decisions of a nonprofessional board of directors. ”
The BDN feels much better with a political hack, like MTA’s Paul Violette, in charge.
The potential for cronyism exists everywhere; public sector, private sector. I happen to be a member of that non-professional board of directors, that in my experience, operates very professionally. Ever consider that maybe, just maybe a non-profit group might, for economic efficiency, to stretch their dollar, offer their necessary contracts to the lowest bid?
Naw, don’t buy it. Might have happened a couple of times but, naw, don’t buy it. Say, if, er when, the FOFK takes over will their accounting books be public? I mean without waiting for the nice clean set that the state requires once a year. Speaking of contracts, will bids go out to the public? How about a list of members so we know who’s courting whom?
Good questions. I’m new to the board, so I’ll ask.
These friends will do an excellent job. Anyone but the government. Typical BDN
“The Friends of Fort Knox formed in the early 1990s during a recession that hit Maine especially hard and dried up state revenue. When serious structural deficiencies were found at the fort — the roof was in danger of collapse — and there was no state money for repairs, the locals raised funds, donated materials and volunteered their labor to repair the venerable edifice.”
All of this under state stewardship (dried up state revenue, structural deficiencies, collapsing roof, no money for repairs) and with LePage’s record, it will just get worse. The state has failed its own state parks. I don’t think the Friends could do any worse.
That State should sell the fort for one dollar to the Friends of Fort Knox and AND subcontract the management of the observation tower on the bridge and move on to more important things. Why does the government have to do everything for everybody?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zy23pvkobU
Correct—too much potential for cronyism and corruption!
When I first moved to Maine, Fort Knox
had many sections closed off to the public, the tar roof was both
inaccurate AND doing more damage than a sod roof could do. There was
a lot of trash, and the corridors smelled like urine. Not really a
place I’d bring friends to, or children.
Thanks to the efforts of the non-profit
Friends of Fort Knox, over the years, areas have been renovated and
reopened, the roof has been restored, cannons have been acquired,
quarters renovated, brick work repaired, a visitors center has been
established, and so on.
Yes, there have been disagreements, but
all in all, those who have persevered make a sincere effort to
preserve and enhance this state jewel. Those who have been able to
put those past disagreements behind them have actually made it
possible to reclaim more of the history of this state historic gem.
FOFK does not own Fort Knox, it manages
it. And rather than let it fall into disrepair, FOFK organizes
fundraising events, some historical, some simply fun to accomplish
the funding needed to pay for general upkeep, repairs, improvements,
and added interpretive information. There are other successful sites
and museums around the country, around the world for that matter that
do this as well. The Taj Mahal in India hosts concerts. Museums
frequently host fundraising galas. Even the humble Y camp where I
had my first job hosted events that turned a profit, so those profits
could be put toward scholarships for kids attending the camp.
I’m proud of so many of my students
(and alums) who volunteer over two weekends for the Fort’s biggest
fundraiser, and over the years, those kids get to see the
improvements to the Fort – the results of their hard work and
creativity. Is that fundraiser purely historical? No, but it
enables more of the historical to be recovered or discovered and kept
alive and well.
It is a great example of the type of
public-private cooperation that might be a model around the country
for states whose budgets are tight and need to fund other priorities.
As a kid, before the Friends of the Fort existed, I used to go to Fort Knox. I remember whole areas of the fort that were not able to be visited due to safety concerns. Did the State really ever put much money into Fort Knox? Look at all the programs the Friends of the Fort operates. Would the State have ever decided to operate those programs or ever have the money to do so?