A lawmaker is chastising California State Parks administrators for the manner in which they arrived at the decision to close 70 parks statewide and questions whether such a cost-savings tactic is feasible, or even financially prudent.

"It was not satisfying to learn the park closure process consisted of 12 unnamed people in a room throwing darts at a wall," said Assemblyman Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael), who sits on the California State Assembly Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review.

The committee spent four hours Tuesday grilling members of the parks department, foremost of which was Bill Herms, chief deputy director of the parks department, who was testifying in Director Ruth Coleman's stead. Coleman was in Washington, D.C.

Herms said during testimony to the committee that no rubric was applied to determine which 70 of the 278 parks under the parks department system should be closed. Huffman labeled this admission a "bombshell," during a Wednesday interview with The Union.

More concerning to Huffman, are the "unintended consequences" of shuttering parks, such as opening the state up for potential lawsuits that could end up costing more than closures would save, he said.

The parks department has proposed the closures as a means of filling an $11 million budget shortfall from 2011-2012 fiscal year and additional $22 million ongoing cuts.

But, Huffman envisioned at least one potentially costly scenario where a fire created by vagrants on state park land that spread to adjacent lands could end up costing the state large amounts of money in liability costs. Similarly, the parks must be protected from marijuana grow operations, Huffman said, as such operations occur now with law enforcement and rangers making regular patrols.

If a hiker was harmed by a member of an illegal operation, lawsuits would assuredly ensue and "the state would have blood on their hands," Huffman said.

"You can't close parks," he said. "If the department stubbornly tries, we will all end up paying a price in terms of vandalism, damage and many liability issues."

South Yuba River State Park and Malakoff Diggins State Historical Park, the two western Nevada County-based state parks currently scheduled to be closed in July 2012, could be removed from the closure list, largely because their expanse and several access points raise law enforcement and wildfire concerns, said Alden Olmsted, a park advocate, on Tuesday.

Huffman is the author of Assembly Bill 42, which allows nonprofit organizations to participate in raising funds and managing state parks.

"Nonprofits are a significant part of it and the private sector has a role," Huffman said.

He also believes some changes can be affected within the parks department, saying even minor adjustments in fee collection policies at parks throughout the state could help bring additional revenue.

"The department just hasn't gotten around to it in some cases," he said. "In some cases, it's just a no-brainer. Simple adjustments in parking will result in positive revenue."

The response

Roy Stearns, spokesman for the parks department, said the closure list was never meant to be a finalized and definitive document.

“We've said all along, since January when the governor first announced the budget, that we are in search of more creative solutions that can include nonprofits, companies, private corporations, private individuals and endowments,” he said. “We are not sitting on our hands; we are searching for creative ideas.”

Stearns said Huffman's characterization of the process to arrive at the initial list of 70 parks slated for closure was “unfair.”

“We had 12 long-employed highly trained park superintendents who knew the parks personally and individually,” he said. “We thought about developing a scorecard, but there are so many complexities ... that we gravitated toward experience, judgment and a narrative analysis. This is not a golf game.”

Stearns also said the department has said all along it will make adjustments along the way.

“Do we like closing parks? No, we hate it,” he said. “But the choice was between reducing services to an unacceptable level at all 278 parks, or closing some of them so we can maintain service levels at some of the parks.”

He also noted that the very legislators that are currently criticizing the department are the same who approved the large reductions in the department's budget.

“Our budget has been reduced 43 percent since 2006-07,” Stearns said.

To contact Staff Writer Matthew Renda, e-mail mrenda@theunion.com or call (530) 477-4239.