You are here

National Park Service Ordered To Reinstate Sitka National Historical Park Superintendent


National Park Service officials, who fired the superintendent of Sitka National Historical Park in 2010 because she refused a transfer, have been ordered to reinstate her with back pay.

The ruling, handed down by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board last week, was welcomed by the superintendent, Mary Miller.

“I am so grateful to my family, friends, colleagues and members of the community who have supported me throughout this arduous process. This decision has restored my faith in the system and I’m looking forward to getting back to work to continue building agency relations with the community,” Ms. Miller said in a prepared statement.

The 8-page ruling revolved around the Park Service's decision in 2010 to shift Superintendent Miller from the historical park in Sitka, Alaska, to a new position as Alaska Native Affairs Liaison in Anchorage, 500 miles away.

But the superintendent, who had been at the historical park for three years, said such a transfer would prove a hardship to her, that she was not qualified for the role, and that the impending removal of her from Sitka National Historical Park was '“tainted by discrimination”' based on her race, sex, and physical disability."

In response, the Park Service fired her in August 2010, found a person to serve as the liaison and another to take over the superintendency at Sitka National Historical Park.

In gathering testimony on Ms. Miller's appeal of that decision, the Merit Board heard from the Park Service how it "had a high regard for the appellant’s performance as the superintendent in Sitka. Indeed, agency witnesses testified that the agency relied upon the appellant’s strengths and accomplishments as a Superintendent as the basis for directing her reassignment to the Liaison position in Anchorage," the board noted.

Furthermore, it added in its ruling, "we find that it did not promote the efficiency of the service to direct the appellant to take the position in Anchorage against her will and to remove her from employment altogether when she declined the position. As a result of the agency’s actions, it lost an apparently valued and successful employee, and created two vacancies that the agency had to fill after her removal."

The board did not examine whether the reassignment "was tainted by discrimination," as Ms. Miller alleged, noting that she did not prove that claim during an initial hearing before an administrative judge.

The Park Service has until April 21 to reinstate Ms. Miller as superintendent of the historical park.


Amother case of judicial over reach.

While I recognize that I fail to possess the pseudo-intellectual capabilities required to be An Instant Critical Expert On Everything, and that I actually know nothing about this beyond what I have read here, may I suggest the possibility that this might also be a case of delayed justice finally being provided?

You can suggest anything you like but in my opinion the employer employee relationship is an d should be at will. this is just another example of the third party interference that many have lamented here before. Give somebody a job and let them do it. If you don't like the job they are doing, don't interfere, just get rid of them.

If it were overeach, I suppose it could be at most quasi-judicial overreach.

I'll give you that, Justin.

Alaska has a "covenant of good faith and fair dealing exception" to their "at will" laws. That may be why the firing was not done properly.

The ruling is specifically within the jurisdiction of the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Per Wikipedia:

"The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is an independent quasi-judicial agency established to protect federal merit systems against partisan political and other prohibited personnel practices and to ensure adequate protection for federal employees against abuses by agency management. More specifically, when an employee of most Executive Branch agencies is separated from his or her position, or suspended for more than 14 work days, the employee can request that an employee of MSPB conduct a hearing into the matter."

It can't really be an overreach based on one person's minority opinion on what an employer-employee relationship should be.

mmm. you mean there is some, albeit far removed, form of oversight for Jarvis and his retribution squad? That is great.

Add comment


This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

National Parks Traveler's Essential Park Guide