While I can understand that they do have to have some meetings. Is this one REALLY necessary? Especially, when you consider that most of the officials currently in office will most likely be replaced or move on when the next President is elected.

This sounds like a junket trip for those involved. And we wonder why the U.S. generates such huge deficits?

Where is the fiscal responsibility? I guess as long as it's OPM (other people's money), namely the U.S. taxpayer. Why should they care?

I agree with rvalens2. More than once I have heard family members who work for government brag about "free vacations" and how little work was really done. When the private sector is relying on teleconferencing and other cost saving measures, government workers are happy to spend OPM. If we really want work to be done, let's hold these conferences in places like Vernal or Delta where there isn't as much partying available. Oh, I know, there aren't enough facilties in those places. Duh. As far as the criticism of Pres. Bush, any President can only do whatever Congress allows. His influence isn't as great as many of us think.

Seems like those complaining about the meeting are motivated more by partican politics than a desire to improve park management.

Still, there have to be adequate (not plush) facilities that are a heck of a lot cheaper, even if the Snowbird folks gave them a generous convention rate.

Wanna bet Bush or McCain shows up at the meeting? It's a great place to strike a pose and say how much they love national parks, even though Bush's appointees did their best to tear down the park system with a reactionary rewrite of park policies in 2006. They abandoned that project after the public caught on.

Was this a news article or one writee's chance to hop on the Bush-jabbing bandwagon? It appaers that there are those who think the meetings are a waste and those who believe they're invaluable--typical of any government or business meeting. How about a headline that ends with "...draws fire, praise"? How about some data on how many park officials fall on each side? How about some information on how the parks will be hurt or helped by the meeting? It appears you had just one negative source--the retired superintendant of Shenandoah--and fabricated the idea that there are several others who are afraid to speak out.

The idea of such a meeting is sound. It just should have been done in the first or second year of the Administration.

The private sector does this sort of thing more often than government precisely because of the attitudes expressed above. The same old refrain of "run government like a business... except..." It is those exceptions that mean one can't run government like a business.

The timing of this meeting in the last six months of the Bush administration is just plain bad management. The idea of the meeting would have been good management several years ago. I hope that the next administration has these kind of meetings early on... like a good business would.

annother free lunch for the priviledged government employees.

Why didn't they meet in one of the great national park lodges instead of at Snowbird? Or is the answer to that question obvious?

Tell me why we want people like this running our healthcare?

If it has been 20 years since the last meeting, they could not be too essential to maintain the Park system.

Dan's idea of meeting in a National Park Lodge is great as it would provide "hands on" experience for all the directors. The objectives of dialouge and sharing could have been accomplished in Yellowstone, Grand Canyon or Arches, without all the deluxe trimmings.

I'm sure if the commenter did his research, he would find that to have a convention at a ski resort in the off season is probably a bargain compared to using a National Park lodge in high season.

As far as I know, most National Park Service managers are career employees that will be here into the next administration, so having a conference now might be a great way to plan to get the parks back on track after the Bush adminsitration departs.

Let's see--As Dr. Evil learned in "Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery" a million dollars doesn't go as far as it used to. That's less than $2500 per person attending, including plane tickets, lodging and meals, plus the cost of conference materials.

Complaining about being gone from their offices for two days of meetings is ridiculous. They never get the flu or eat a bad tomato at McDonald's? Other Federal agencies do this kind of thing every year.

The notion that the conference has political purposes is silly. Federal civil servants are barred from active political involvement, and they are not going to be handing out McCain literature at the National Parks. Bush is not running for reelection, so has no political motive.

The criticism of the idea of private donations to the national parks is silly. Our public universities solicit such donations all the time. If Jon Huntsman wanted to pay for a new visitor center at Norris Geyser Basin in Yellowstone, why should we taxpayers complain?

As for budgets, let's raise the price of national park passes. They provide a full day's entertainment for far less than the cost of a movie for a family.