Bruce and Sara Schundler, who alleged they lost their seasonal jobs as rangers at Mesa Verde National Park for bringing attention to suspect spending by the park's former superintendent, have been vindicated by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel.
In a ruling last week, the OSC staff's investigation revealed that the couple was not rehired at Mesa Verde "in part because of their perceived whistleblowing."
The couple's struggles to investigate the spending habits of the former superintendent led to their decision to launch a website to chronicle their efforts, which involved a long and evasive process through the Freedom of Information Act procedures.
Bruce Schundler was subjected to a correspondence-heavy, administrative maze since requesting information on Mesa Verde's fiscal 2007 and fiscal 2008 budgets, the travels of its superintendent, and the number of unfilled vacancies at the park. Mesa Verde officials initially put off his first requests for the information, saying the staff was too busy to comply immediately
In its ruling, the OSC noted that the Schundlers "had spotless work records at Mesa Verde National Park..." In raising concerns about the then-superintendent's spending habits, they alleged that he had used National Park Service funds "to travel excessively to conferences and seminars, in support of a private company," the OSC finding noted.
"They filed Freedom of Information Act requests for information on the matter and also filed a complaint with the Inspector General. The (Office of Inspector General's) report found that the park superintendent’s actions 'created the appearance of a conflict of interest,'" the OSC noted. "The following season, the couple was tentatively offered seasonal park ranger positions again, only to see the offer rescinded.
"The OSC investigation showed that Mesa Verde management decided not to rehire the couple in part because of their perceived whistleblowing."
After the OSC investigated the matter, the Park Service "agreed to provide the couple with seasonal work at another national park of their choosing and to reimburse them for expenses incurred in anticipation of the rescinded rehiring."
“I’m pleased that the National Park Service corrected the actions its employees took against these park rangers,” said OSC Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner. “All federal employees have the right to blow the whistle on perceived wrongdoing without fear or retaliation.”
Comments
You will get no argument from me that there are many wonderful people in the NPS. It is for them that I speak out against people like Cliff Spencer who the government now acknowledges violated the Whistle Blower Protection Act when he retaliated against the Schundlers.
As for the two Ricks; I don't want to get personal when it comes to other users of this site. I appreciate the forum and the exchange of ideas. But, to put Mr. Smith's comments here into perspective, I would reccomend readers take a look at the review of the book "The Case of the Indian Trader" he wrote for NPT.
/review/2011/billy-malone-and-national-park-service-investigaton-hubbell-trading-post8533
The comments section of the review is replete with long time NPS rangers with twenty plus years of experience stating over and over how bad NPS leadership has gotten over the years. They tell of instance after instance of malfeasance in the agency. Mixed in with those comments you'll see Mr. Smith making comments to the effect of 'well I never saw anything like that' and 'that was not my experience.' How is it that he never saw or experienced these things that are epidemic in the agency? Maybe he's just that lucky.
My sense of it is that things have gotten a lot worse in the last twenty years that could be a factor as far as people's perceptions as well as where you served. My impression is that the Northeast is the worst when it comes to corruption. I saw supervisors there who would go out shopping while on the clock. I think the division you work in has something to do with perceptions of how bad things are. I have the feeling that leadership in visitor/resource protection and maintenance is much better than interpretation; human resources and administration in general are a total mess.
Rick B. and Rick S.--I have read your comments, along with those of others, with considerable interest. While both of you have been courteous, and I applaud you for the level-headed approach you have taken, the fact remains that in my view you are in essence in a situation of defending the indefensible. I have read and re-read Ranger Danno's account, along with some of the documentation he cites. As someone with a background in research and writing (retired university history professor who has written widely for both scholarly and popular audiences), I find his coverage compelling. What makes it even more so is his willingness, repeatedly, to point out where he made mistakes.
When it comes to the Malone situation, it is one where a solid dose of common sense would have served far better than a vindictive, costly, "we can never be questioned" NPS approach. Again, the book is carefully, indeed meticulously, documented, and the NPS cost the taxpayers a great deal of money even as they did their level best to destroy a good, decent man.
Add to that the highly questionable and quite possibly illegal activities of Jarvis, the shameless money fiddling of a female predecessor of his, and the Schundler situation which led to this exchange of views, and you begin to have a quite compelling case for pervasive problems in the NPS hierarchy
As for the situation connected with backcountry fees in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, I am intimately familiar with that issue. Quite simply, superintendent Dale Ditmanson has lied, multiple times. on issues related to the fee. Those began with his justification of the fee being based on overcrowding in the backcountry. When I pointed out that the Park's own statistics belied that, since camping in the backcountry had been dropping steadily over some three decades, and when others used that finding (it came from the Park's own statistics) as one reason for challenging him, things began to go downhill. There has been cronyism, initial resistance to FOIA filings, special favors for hig-placed politicians, questionable dealings with concessionaires, and more. From start to lawsuit the whole matter has been handled in a miserable fashion laced with arrogance.
There are enough comments on this thread, many of them clearly coming from folks with every reason to use noms de plume when writing, to make it abundantly clear that their are major management issues in the NPS as well as a culture which brooks no dissent.
Jim Casada (and for matters of clarity, that's my real name--I have never worked for the NPS, although some people I know well and greatly admire have done so--and therefore don't have to worry about the all too real threat of retribution)
Jim Casada, thank you for your post. I must admit that I think it is right on, and I am a firm supporter, generally speaking, of the NPS. I have also read both books twice now, ("Worth Fighting For" and The Case of the Indian Trader"). I find them both very sobering, you nailed it in my own humble opinion.
Mr. Casada--
I fully agree with you. The Danno and Malone cases are inexcusable and I said so in the book reviews that were published on NPT. I don't know as much about the Schundler case so I will leave that to others who do. I don't see a problem with a backcountry camping fee in the Smokies, but have no idea how it was implemented or whether the superintendent is guilty of not telling the truth or not, All I have are the charges from smokiesbackpacker as evidence and I am not absolutey sure he is an unbiased witness.
Nevertheless, we are talking about a handful of people out of the 20,000 or so that work for the NPS. Maybe, as perpetual seasonal states above, I was lucky in my career not to run into that handful. Nonetheless, that is still a small number. I am reluctant to castigate all the employees of the NPS for the actions of a few. One poster above says NPT is replete with charges against the NPS. Yet, when I look back at the posts, it's pretty much the same people who are doing the criticizing.
No government agency or private business is without its faults and poor performers. The NPS's get highlighted here because that is the topic to which NPT is devoted. I worked for the NPS for 31 years and like most employees, I was a bit of a vagabond. I worked in 6 or 7 parks, 2 regional offices and in the headquarters in DC. The vast majority of employees with whom I worked were honest, hardworking and dedicated to serving the public and preserving and protecting resources. That majority, by the way, includes a number of posters on NPT.
I don't doubt that some posters here may have run into some of the minority of employees who were poor performers. But it is another thing entirely to blame the NPS for carrying out the policies or laws that someone doesn't like. That's not poor performance; that's doing what you are supposed to do.
I appreciate you using your real name and suspect that some who don't are far beyond the reach of the NPS. Thank you.
Rick
And I also have never defended the NPS in the Danno or Malone cases. I jyust don't like the off with her head, NPS is the bad guy, black helicopter, generalist attitude.
Mr Smith,
You say that situations like this are the result of just a handful of wrong doers but do you honestly believe that if tomorrow some seasonal were to start filing FOIA request on his park that he isn't going to face the same kinds of reprisals ten out of ten times? What odds would you give anyone who did that for being rehired for the next season?
An interesting article on how the agency continues to stonewall Freedom of Information Act Requests regarding possible efforts to make the government shutdown as painful as possible:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/366063/national-park-service-stonew...
Do you have a more objective source than William F. Buckley's National Review. Per Wiki: "Many of the magazine's commentators are affiliated with think-tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute. Prominent guest authors have included Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Sarah Palin in the online and paper edition."
Sorry, but I do judge information to a degree by the credibility of the source, as I'm certain you do as well.
Typical Rick - rather than provide any facts to show the source wrong, just dismiss it on ideological grounds.