To the Editor:
It was with considerable interest that I read the article concerning the proposed merger of the five conservation land trusts. The blitz of press releases in favor of the merger in all the regional newspapers is pretty amazing.
Despite the enthusiasm of supporters for this concept, I am left many questions about the necessity or wisdom of this change. As a member of PWA, I am concerned about its entertaining ideas of merging into a larger, more bureaucratic, cumbersome organization.
Maine is fortunate to have many environmental organizations, both large and small, working to preserve and protect the land, wildlife, watersheds, and lifestyle of Mainers. This hierarchy of effort rests on the members and volunteers of the most local of groups. Why eliminate this first rung on the ladder? PWA, and other local land trusts, have a role to play in land preservation and have been doing so, successfully, for a long time.
PWA has been enormously successful over the years. Why would they risk losing local control over their efforts? Small land trusts partner up with other small land trusts, regional groups, state agencies, state reps, state and federal governments as it becomes necessary. PWA has a large and growing membership, and its fundraising activities, gifts, and grants have enabled them to accomplish much and look forward to well-supported future activities.
The Pemaquid Watershed Association name means something in the Peninsula region. It has a history of community involvement, working with local schools, and the town governments, as well as other civic groups and businesses. Before giving up that name, I would need to see compelling factual evidence that such change would be worth the risk involved.
So far, after looking at all the handouts from the supporters of the move, I have seen nothing that would justify such a move at this time.
Economies of scale? The proposed budget of the new organization shows that its administrative top-heavy structure leaves few funds with which to carry out its mission. Won’t any savings realized by closing four local offices disappear after that first year?
What’s wrong with seeking expertise from a neighboring business? Why must it be in-house, on our payroll? Most often, competent advice is given for free, or at least paid for on a project-by-project basis. Why pay a yearly salary and benefits for work that is not required on a daily basis?
How is this a “once-in-a-lifetime” opportunity? If after closer inspection, PWA came to the conclusion it wanted to merge later on, I think it would be able to. Why the push for such a hasty change? It seems to me that all that the new group says it will do, PWA is already doing.
Bigger is not always better.
Joan Panek
Damariscotta
