The state's draft "Volunteer Policy" is WAY off the mark

Dear Mr. Lambert,

I'm writing in response to your request for comments on the new DCR "Volunteer Policy" put forth on 2 March 2011. I have been working with other volunteers over the last 18 months to try to establish a friends group for the Harold Parker State Forest (http://www.FriendsofHaroldParker.org). Some very good and forward-looking DCR employees have been instrumental in catalyzing this effort and I'd like to give credit to Steve David (Park Supervisor) Bob Anderson (interpreter) and others in the DCR like Ray Faucher and Barbara Buls. They provided the initial impetus to get us organized, and have supported us at every step. We now have a group of about 65 volunteers interested in this effort, and had 4 good people ready to commit to becoming leaders of the organization until we met with a lawyer who told us of the risks of being an officer and director of an organization such as this without having adequate insurance, which could cost $2,000. Since then we've been in a 'catch-22': we can't proceed until we have insurance, and we can't raise the funds for insurance without starting an organization. We had been meeting monthly to find a workaround to this impasse, and have been told that the state is going to release their new Volunteer Policy which will provide a solution to this problem.

The Policy as drafted not only doesn't provide a solution, but it works in the opposite direction. It imposes on our fledgling friend's group the requirement that we have insurance, and that we idemnify the state! In addition, it imposes ridiculous administrative burdens to actually engage volunteers. (See the excellent and thorough review by the Forest and Park Friends Network). It is completely counter to the original intent of Governor Patrick's 2007 act (and the press about it) and it appears that the state's lawyers are doing what they can to keep volunteer groups from forming and helping the state parks. It is so far off the mark that it would take a complete rewrite to make it work for friends groups like ours.

Considering that it took almost 4 years since the original act for the state to write this draft, I'm left with a very hopeless feeling about the chance that we'll see a reasonable policy from the state anytime soon, and that the Friends of Harold Parker will wilt on the vine. This is such a shame, because the DCR needs good and active volunteers now more than ever. Such volunteers could provide much needed advocacy for the DCR. The state should foster the development of these volunteer groups, not discourage them such as your draft "Volunteer Policy" does.

Sincerely,
Matt Russell