A national park superintendent who was highly valued for her performance and skills has been fired by the National Park Service for refusing to accept a job 500 miles away from her home and family.
While Mary A. Miller, superintendent at Sitka National Historical Park in Alaska, initially was successful in appealing her dismissal, a federal appellate court overturned a decision by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board and Ms. Miller was escorted out of the park by the chief ranger on New Year's Eve.
Park Service officials in Alaska decided in 2010 to shift Superintendent Miller from the historical park to a new position as Alaska Native Affairs Liaison in Anchorage, 500 miles away. When she declined the reassignment, claiming she was not qualified for the role and that it would be a hardship because of her family situation, the Park Service fired her. Ms. Miller then appealed that decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which overturned her dismissal.
In gathering testimony on Ms. Miller's appeal, 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 in April 2013, "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 federal government's Office of Personnel Management then appealed that ruling to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the Merit Board, holding that the Park Service had legitimate reasons for reassigning Ms. Miller to Anchorage.
Yet the Park Service's determination to transfer Ms. Miller from Sitka was deemed "reprehensible" by U.S. Circuit Judge Evan Wallach. While Judge Wallach agreed with the court's majority that the Merit Systems Protection Board had wrongly approached Ms. Miller's case, he maintained that "it appears obvious to me that the agency’s actions were entirely pretextual and in bad faith."
Specifically, the Circuit judge wrote that the Park Service had crafted the job description for the Alaska Native Affairs Liaison in such a way " ... to obtain the desired result. It is obvious to me that the agency modified the standards and qualifications to make Ms. Miller the only person uniquely qualified, within the pool of employees that were considered for the position; that the agency’s actions were entirely pretextual; and that they were intended solely to present Ms. Miller with an improperly motivated Hobson’s choice. Such conduct by an agency of the United States is reprehensible."
In its ruling, reached in September, the Court of Appeals directed the Merit Systems Protection Board to reverse its decision. A final order supporting Ms. Miller's removal was filed on New Year's Eve and the Park Service appointed Neil Akana as acting superintendent for Sitka.
Comments
Kurt-I see where you could be easily confused. The documents that you have read would make one think she was wrongfully removed. However, following the typical NPS MO, they failed their leader up. This is the way the NPS typical deals with poor senior managers. But Mary didn't play right and forced them to remove her. Which then got themselves into a pickle. But she was tyrannical and not a valuable Superintendent.
I would recommend finding previous employees that worked for her. There is a story to be told here about how the Park Service inappropriately shuffles poorly performing employees...high level employees. This is probably not what the NPS wants to see as they kick off their Centennial.
While I tend to believe Rest of the Story et al (given the circumstances), I agree with Kurt. If you are going to cast aspersions, you should at least back them up with facts. Even if you don't want to identify yourself, it would lend more credibility to your accusations
I do not know the specifics of this case, or persons involved, but I was an NPS employee for 35 years and a superintendent for 20 of those years. Lateral reassignments (lateral means no promotion or demotion) are legal and all federal employees are susceptible to such reassignment.
In general, federal personnel regulations permit agencies to direct the lateral reassignment of employees from one position to another, even outside of their commuting area. If the employee declines to accept the reassignment, the agency can then remove the employee for failure to accept the management directed reassignment.
A superintendent position is a permanent one. There are term positions that are usually for a year or two but I have never heard of a term superintendent. When a term position ends, s/he is out of a job unless another position opens up, s/he applies and is accepted. The NPS doesn't move people around. I've never heard of a situation like this one.
You are hearing from staff with ties to Sitka. It would nice if there wasn't a need for anonymity, but the NPS can be vindictive. Firing a superintendent is carried out by regional director(s), deputy regional directors and the like, so challenging the official story risks the wrath of very high-level NPS managers. Why would such managers give a superintendent a glowing review if things aren't good in the park? Most likely because they weren't paying attention until the situation blew up. Then, they can't just fire an employee with previous good reviews for poor performance, so what do they do? Perhaps watch for conduct violations, or try to transfer them... But they can't allege poor performance without adequate documentation. And admitting that problems severe enough to merit firing existed without the supervisor being aware of them, or documenting them, raises questions about the competence of the supervisor. I would expect many former Sitka staff to be willing to talk with you, but only if they can remain anonymous.
I keep remembering when I was a "personnel problem" for the NPS. Good Lord! Did I not go through a week of "rehabilitation" for what I was saying in my talks? When Michael Frome got word of it, he wrote it up, much to the consternation of the brass. So did I. The book is called YOSEMITE: THE EMBATTLED WILDERNESS. What is the battle? For the integrity of the park.
No organization likes outspoken people. It is the nature of bureaucracy. And so everyone resorts to "spin." What is the truth here? I don't know, but I certainly do know this. No Freedom of Information request will lead to the truth, since all of the "sensitive" information will have been expunged.
It is Kurt's duty to report from what he has. Rarely does a journalist ever have the "full story" until the story itself evolves. Think of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln; think of Watergate; think of the Pentagon Papers and all the rest. You ask questions; you hope for a few informants. In journalism, it never goes smoothly at the start.
Believe whom you want. That is everyone's privilege, but Kurt is doing his job. He is telling you that all is not right with the National Park Service. He is also telling you what IS right. After my week of rehabiliation, I read to the public from the files. No one could argue those. But that was then--in a more honest country--and one still willing to honor The Messenger. We shoot our messengers now--all of them. No wonder we wish to remain anonymous.
Who said superindent jobs were temporary? Is that some rule?
"In my opinion, repeated seasonals and term positions for permanent needs in NPS are abusive."
I couldn't agree more, tomp2. But there it is--the new American workplace. 5 percent unemployment? Hah!