Tim Reid, a former Yellowstone National Park chief ranger, on occasion let family and friends, and even a family from France, use his government-owned housing at Mammoth Hot Springs/NPS
Editor's note: This updates with comment from Yellowstone Superintendent Dan Wenk.
A former chief ranger of Yellowstone National Park, although required to live in the park, opened his government-owned housing to friends and relatives, and even a family from France looking for a house exchange, while he lived in nearby Gardiner, Montana, according to an Interior Department investigation.
Timothy Reid, who was promoted to Devils Tower National Monument superintendent last June, over a number of years let 19 individuals use the one-bedroom apartment at Mammoth Hot Springs, the Office of Inspector General report (attached below) released Monday stated.
"Among the Yellowstone visitors who have stayed at Reid’s apartment was a family from France who resided there for 8 days. In exchange for staying in the apartment, the French family agreed to allow Reid and his family to stay in one of their homes in France as part of a home exchange program," the reported noted. "The remaining visitors to the apartment were Reid and his wife’s family members, friends, or family of friends. None of these guests provided compensation to Reid and his wife.
"We also determined that Reid—despite annually certifying that his on-park government housing was his primary residence—violated the terms of his required occupancy agreement by living at (his wife's) family-owned bed-and-breakfast, not the on-park apartment. The Yellowstone superintendent and deputy superintendent both admitted that they knew Reid did not comply with the required occupancy condition of his employment and that they took no action."
The report noted that while Reid did not receive compensation for letting others use his apartment, the practice raised concerns over the propriety of his decision to live several miles north of the park in Gardiner.
Ironically, it was Yellowstone Superintendent Dan Wenk, during a stint as acting director of the National Park Service, who signed the service-wide order stating that, "(T)hose NPS employees assigned housing as a condition of employment are referred to as required occupants because their positions require them to reside in government housing. Their physical presence is required within a specific geographic area to provide a timely response to emergencies involving human life and safety and/or park resources, and to provide a reasonable level of deterrent protection."
Superintendent Wenk said Tuesday that while he inherited the situation with Reid, he "should have handled it differently." Moving forward, the superintendent said he has reviewed the staff positions affected by the required occupancy rule and reduced the number of those required to live in the park by about 25 percent, from 201 to 149, and outlined how government housing can be used. While Superintendent Wenk said he saw no problem with family and friends staying in government housing, he said there's an expectation that the leaseholder should be present at the time.
In his interview with OIG personnel, Deputy Superintendent Iobst said he believed "that Reid lives within a reasonable response time from his off-park residence."
Reid told the OIG investigators that he had lived in government housing since his arrival in Yellowstone in 1994, and eventually worked his way up to a four-bedroom duplex in Officer's Row at Mammoth Hot Springs. In 2008, however, he moved out to his wife's B&B in Gardiner.
"Reid told us he knew he had to keep an on-park apartment as a condition of employment. To satisfy the required occupancy condition, when his family moved to Gardiner, Reid surrendered the large NPS duplex, then bid on and was awarded a small efficiency apartment, reducing his monthly housing cost," the report said. "He also explained that for the first couple of years he stayed at the apartment 3 nights per week, but has gradually reduced his time to very few nights. He does use the apartment during peak operation periods, such as fire season, to remain in the area while getting some sleep. Otherwise, the apartment is vacant unless used by family and friends."
The French family used the apartment in 2013.
"We spoke with the French couple, who explained they found Reid and his wife’s bed-and-breakfast on a home-exchange website and emailed Reid’s wife in the fall of 2012 to negotiate a home exchange at her bed-and-breakfast. The French couple also explained that prior to the couple’s arrival, Reid’s wife emailed them, explaining that the cabin they had booked was no longer available," the OIG report stated. "She offered them the on-park government apartment as an alternative place to stay.
"When the family arrived on September 7, 2013, Reid’s wife also provided them with a free vehicle park pass to Yellowstone. The French couple told us that Reid escorted them to the on-park apartment, showed them around, and provided them with the key to the apartment. Even though Reid and his wife did not know the French family prior to their arrival, the family stayed in the on-park apartment unsupervised for 8 nights among other NPS employees," it went on. "The French couple told us that, as part of the home exchange, they offered Reid and his family a stay at one of their homes in France as compensation."
The Reids never took up the French couple's offer, according to the report.
Mrs. Reid told the OIG investigators that, "since the apartment is vacant most of the time, she takes it upon herself to offer its use to their personal contacts, friends, and family as a 'courtesy.'"
"It’s basically a nice thing we can do for somebody," she told the investigators. "She said that she and her husband agreed that she could allow family and friends to stay in the apartment. She also said her husband did not know all of her friends, but if she told him someone was her friend, he accepted it."
The OIG investigators told Deputy Superintendent Iobst that, "families with children and suitcases frequently stay in Reid’s apartment for several days and then depart via rental car, creating the perception that Reid is using the apartment as an overflow for his family’s bed-and-breakfast. Iobst stated that he understood the perception and that the chief ranger position is a position of incredible responsibility and should be held to NPS ethical standards. In addition, he would have similar concerns if the allegations were concerning any park employee.
"He added that the allegations were disturbing, disrupting, and disconcerting," the report noted.
While the OIG referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Montana for disposition, that office declined to prosecute Mr. Reid and the report was forwarded to Park Service Director Jon Jarvis "for any action deemed appropriate."
Comments
I lived in park housing as a required occupant for 14 years. I see nothing amiss in having friends, families, and guests stay in your quarters while you are gone. As for the required occupancy, I am sure the Chief Ranger could have easily argued that his home in Gardiner was within a reasonable distance from the park in order to respond to an incident. And I doubt that he would normally be considered a first responder in a park staffed with fully-trained rangers. If anything, he would serve in a leadership role. Anyway, this story is far from newsworthy and certainly does not fit the profile of waste and abuse. As an NPS retiree, I am far more concerned with the deterioration of park facilities and field employee staffing levels under current budget constraints. Also, there were, and maybe still are, far more noteworthy abuses by members of Congress and their staffs in their use of government quarters at no or reduced cost. This was going on 15 years ago and I do not know if this is still occurring in parks.
The report clearly states that the Reids were found innocent of the charges as they were reported to the IG. Innocent. As a retiree, I often say that the best part of my job was the "family" that I was fortunate to be a part of during my tenure in 17 parks across the United States. The dialouge here makes me wonder if things have changed and if those who are still fortunate enough to be among the ranger ranks have lost that spirit of community. Seems to me that the Reids extended hospitality to many and that their living situation was well known to those in charge. A damn shame.
If he was in violation of NPS housing rules then it is a big deal. That would be a Federal offense(s).
I don't remember seeing they were found innocent. Normally if it is turned over to the Justice Department, it means there is some kind of criminal charge. It isn't unusual for DOJ to turn things over to an adminstrative process. In some cases, the penalty for a disciplinary action can be much worse than one through the avenues for criminal offenses.
I hear a lot of rationalization going on here. It comes down to this. His supervisors determined that the position he holds meets the requirements for making it a required occupancy position. He would have known this when he applied for the job as well as when he accepted the job and signed a form during onboarding recognizing that it was a required occupancy position. Employee do not get to decide whether their required occupancy position is necessary, or that they can live outside of the park and still be as available. There are avenues available for being released from required occupancy, but only in certain circumstances. Additionally, if he or she can no longer fulfill that condition of employment, other options are applying for other jobs without this requirement, request a reassignment to a position without the requirement, or even take a voluntary change to a lower grade. He had other options, albeit unappealing ones.
It's a big deal to me as a taxpayer. Usually when someone complains to the IG, they have spend many unhappy hours pondering the situation. Unfairness, or inconsistency in enforcing the rules, kill employee engagement, which coorelates with less efficient and effective operations. Not everyone working in the park service feels like it is a part of the "family", and bending the rules as it relates to a condition of employment is a good way to reinforce the perception.
Also, I believe there are tax implications associated with required occupancy housing which require the housing to be the primary residence. If this Chief Ranger were taking advantage of a tax benefit inappropriately, I would question his overall honesty and integrity and he or she would lose a great deal of credibility in my eyes.
Imagine how it would be if park guests took this kind of attitude. It's just one empty waterbottle on the side of a trail. It's just one tiny piece of petrified wood I'm taking back to my third-graders who will never be able to visit the park. The fire was mostly out when we left the campground and besides, nothing bad happened. All I did was spray-paint a cactus. It won't kill it.
When we as a community expect more from park visitors than from a Chief Ranger, we are in a sorry state.
Owen, NPS has guidance available to any employee on what is considered a primary residence. Paying rent alone is not enough. Some of the factors are where a person is spending most of their off-duty hours; where they eat meals, sleep, and from where they leave to go to work, where they receive mail, the address used on their license and used to register to vote, where they keep clothing, food, personal belongings, etc. It doesn't sound like he met the definition. I believe this is absolutely the type of story that should be published considering the level of accountability a Yellowstone Chief of Ranger would be able to enforce in others.
I left YNP for this very reason. This type of favortisim is rampant in the housing assigments and rule enforcement in Yellowstone.
I wanted to buy a home outside the park (16 miles away) and move to a smaller apartment and was told "no way, no how, you are a required occupant". I would have been living at my duty station every nite I was scheduled to work and there were a couple of empty apartments available, I was told that a was required to stay in a +$750.00 per month four-plex and could not move to a cheaper place to allow me to afford two places to live for one job.
Now I know why I was told NO, so they could coverup the favors they give themselves. "If everyone was allowed to move someone might notice what was going on.
The only difference between a cop and a criminal is which side of the bars their standing on. Same morals, same laws broken but, it's OK because they are a law enforcement officer.
Having resided in required NPS housing during part of my career, following the rules and expectations, I am disturbed at this oft-repeated double-standard for higher level employees. If his position was determined to be mandatory residence, then Mr. Reid should have abided by it, if nothing else than to show ethical leadership. If the need for required occupancy wasn't there, then his terms should have been adjusted to reflect that. Whether or not there is anything to the related allegations regarding his wife's B&B, he should have kept a distinct distance in order to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. That's what they preach during annual ethics training.
Interesting post former "required occupant". Without dwelling to much on the required occupancy issue, but excuse me for doing so, NPS (DOI) housing management polices took an historic turn with the appointment of James Watt as DOI Secretary under President Reagan. The Secretary was no great friend of public lands, he did like parks however. He was also an advocate of " the government is the problem" set. In reviewing budgets for the Interior agencies, one of things noticed was the money spent on employee housing did not seem to equate to the rents collected. Up until the early 1980s, rents were minimal, most housing was quite old, some still being used as quarters built by the US Calvary, at least in Yosemite. It was different era, rents were looked at as a subsidy to employees for being on site and immediately available to respond to operational needs. Good for the agency and good for the employee with the added benefit of being able to live in a National Park. The Interior Housing Management unit decided that this subsidy was a freebe, employee tenants needed to pay "fair market value", the criteria being they would be set by regional rent surveys based on comparability to park housing, an impossible task really. Their slogan was "rent is rent and pay is pay". The issue of value to the agency having these employees available was off the table. Of course the issue of raising pay was also off the table as that was another study and survey needed. When the notifications of the new rental rates first came out, based on their regional rental survey data, rents increased from 150% to 400%. Mine was around 400%, if I remember correctly. It all gets quite complicated but one result was a Tenants Association was formed, with people from many parks contributing, and a lawsuit was filed by said against the NPS and the Secretary.
I was one of the 4 elected officers of this association and it turned out to be an extremely education position. In the discovery process, etc, actually quite civil, the issue of required occupancy came up. The Tenants Association felt it was disingenuous to raise rent based on regional "fair market" rental rate surveys set by what the market will bear, and then tell the required occupant employees they had to continue to live in their quarters to keep their jobs. We never got an answer to that issue, and eventually our case was overturned after an initial restraining order against the NPS, but only on the issue of setting the rental rates and only because our attorney, working without pay, was a day late in an important filing. I think the required occupancy issue is in a very grey legal area. To some extent it is bound up in the traditional NPS concept, inherited from the traditions of the military administration, and undefined as far as their own criteria, rent is rent and pay is pay", at least to my knowledge. One question, what is the value to the NPS in making the employee live in quite expensive housing in a park, is s/he on 24/7 notice? What is the pay value to the employee? (some say s/he gets to live in the park). We all are aware of how other agencies handle the issue, from fire, police departments, etc. I could go on at length on the issue but enough said. I do agree with former "required occupant", that with the lower graded employees, for most employees for that matter, it is financial hardship. I also agree that the policy, if there is one, should be uniformly enforced. But I cannot help thinking it should just be abolished.