A couple of days ago the National Park Service amended the Record of Decision to allow winter access through the east entrance of Yellowstone National Park (am I the only person who wants to write Jellystone?). You can access the decision and the meetings leading up to it through the following link: http://www.nps.gov/yell/parkmgmt/sylvanstudy.htm.
It was a challenging and successful process. The final agreement reflected a consensus of the group. It had to - that was one of the ground rules we were operating under. The parties worked hard to reach what all of them believe is a successful outcome. Another "rule" they operated under was to close the meetings to the public, other than when they were reviewing information. And to say that the meetings were closed to the public is a bit misleading in that all of the governments involved - National Park Service, the city of Cody Park county and the state of Wyoming - were represented and the local representatives of the Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho congressional delegations were invited to participate in all meetings.
The press has consistently focused on the fact of closed meetings. The group, in making that decision, did not break any law. But have they undermined their own success? Some of them believed that they could not speak up with the candor necessary to reach an outcome on what has been a very contentious issue unless they had the privacy to do that. Previous public encounters on this issue resulted in loud, rude, unproductive outcomes. This process produced a mutually agreeable result. The apparent fear was that people who believed they represented the right thinking on the issue were prepared to have lots of their followers come to meetings and be confrontational if things did not go their way.
What does the result - an agreement reached with information and deliberation, but "done behind closed doors" - in contrast with the alternative potential public spectacle and the prospect of not reaching a decision - say about public decision-making?
