In a brief statement on Thursday, Yosemite National Park Superintendent Don Neubacher announced his retirement as of November 1. In his resignation letter, Neubacher, 63, pointed to a number of accomplishments during his six years at the helm of one of the nation's most iconic parks, but says, "I regret leaving at this time, but want to do what's best for Yosemite National Park. Our employees, our park, and our partners are some of the best in the nation."
His announcement comes just a week after a Congressional hearing regarding harassment at a number of park units, including Yosemite. The House Oversight Committee Chairman, Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican, described a hostile work environment at Yosemite, as the "result of the behavior and conduct of the park's superintendent." The committee said last week that over 20 Park Service staff had complained to them about the hostile environment, bullying, and sexual harrassment. During that hearing, four other National Park Service units were discussed as well, including Cape Canaveral National Seashore and Grand Canyon, Yellowstone and Yosemite national parks.
Yosemite National Park's Chief of Fire and Aviation Management, Kelly Martin, told the committee that there was a "hostile work environment in Yosemite where dozens of individuals have come forward with personal statements of demoralizing behavior to include acts of bullying, gender bias, and favoritism." She then described, as an example, an experience as the victim of a peeping tom at Grand Canyon.
Superintendent Neubacher, according to Chaffetz, did not agree with the assessment that his conduct was to blame. Committee Ranking Member Elijah Cummings said, "No employee in the federal civil service should ever be afraid to come to work."
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
Heaven forbid Jarvis ever resign, despite being asked to do so by many congress folks. It's just his agency responsible for all this. Too embarassing for the NPS on their 100th anniv.
What's sad is that within rules and regulations of the National Park Service, there are well-defined procedures through which complaints should be heard and problems resolved. But the procedures don't work, complaints are't recognized, and retaliation against anyone submitting a complaint or reporting a problem is more often the norm than the exception. And in the final analysis, victims are not protected, and those violating laws and regulations are not disciplined. Probably everyone is beginning to notice a pattern---nothing happens unless the press and public media embarrass the Park Service (as happened finally to resolve years of sexual harrassment at Grand Canyon NP) or Congress begins to ask questions and publicizes a problem (as happened now in Yosemite.) When will the NPS fulfill its responsibility to protect victims and Whistleblowers, and discpline those who violate laws and regulations? And if something doesn't change, does it mean different leaders are needed?
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell made a horrible mistake and sent exactly the wrong message when she gave NPS Director Jarvis a meaningless reprimand, but didn't fire him for the massive ethics violations which have occurred during his tenure. Allowing a corrupt Director to preside over the NPS' 100th birthday is a travesty.
I read that the PWR regional director said that Yosemite needed new leadership to move forward from these issues (true dat!), and offered Don Neubacher a position in the Denver Service Center, not in the PWR office in San Francisco where his wife works. He retired instead.
Jarvis has already announced his retirement effective Jan 1, so his replacement will presumably await the next president. With Dave Uberauga's resignation at Grand Canyon last July and now Don Neubacher, that's huge turnover in one cohort of leadership that came up through Ranger & LE, and 3 of the ~16 EX/ES grades. I don't know them and am not attacking them for what they did over their careers, but I don't think they're the leadership required by NPS now and into the future.
Will they be replaced with same 'ole same 'ole, or folks with different perspectives and priorities? If Jarvis is replaced from outside, will the replacement understand the mission & (good parts of) the culture of NPS and how to address a couple of major problems and make NPS better, or will they treat it as a less-well-funded equivalent to BLM or USFS? I want to get back to Horace Albright's "Do not let the Service become just another executive government bureau". But I want NPS to be _better_, not worse, than the average government bureau. Will these be sufficient changes in leadership to make a difference? Overall, I know of parks and programs where bullying & sexual harassment are not tolerated, and I know of others where both are entrenched. Can any central leadership effect broad change, or will change happen one park fiefdom at a time, and only due to public exposure & pressure? Can NPS survive 5 or 10 or 20 individual flagship park public scandals?
I'm curious about what other current employees thought, but I found the new NPS Sexual Harassment training lame & minimalist (online training it took 17 minutes to complete & pass). It was restricted to just the law: no relationships or improper interactions within the chain of command & supervision (including indirect influence on job assignments & promotions), no sustained actions by anyone creating a hostile work environment, no retaliation for complaints, and how to make complaints. beschundler is right: that is necessary and would be an improvement from how many parks operate. But that really isn't enough. There was nothing about treating fellow employees with respect while at work, the fundamental behind "microaggressions" and bullying. There was nothing about how to make a team work well with only 1 or 2 women (or minorities, or folks with different background & skills): how to get cooperation and the best out of everybody. Perhaps the diversity & teams stuff is taught to supervisors in DOIlearn leadership (perhaps), but for all the small leaderless ad hoc teams out in the field, everyone needs the training. Does anyone have a more favorable reaction to the training?
"There was nothing about ....the fundamental behind "microaggressions" and bullying"
I see part of the problem. If I hear the term micro aggression one more time I'm going to vomit. Welcome to the real world where life is sometimes unfair and imperfect. I'm not close enough to say how big a problem moral or harassment is in the parks but have been around long enough to know there are always employees who cry over nothing, are never satisfied and who themselves create a hostile work environment where people fear offending some fragile ego. Those worried about "micro aggressions" would rise to the top of that list and need to grow up.
Amen.
Our Natinal Park Service is in full meltdown. Instead of being recognized for its remarkable 100th anniversay, the 2016 legacy will reveal a mismanaged organization with a toxic culture. How many more stories must come out about gross misconduct by park service leaders before there is a real culture change? How does Jonathan Jarvis keep his job?
Morale within the NPS is bad and getting worse, according to friends who still work for the agency. The "Best Places to Work in the Federal Government" survey results from recent years give a clear picture of an agency in trouble and decline. This problem is much worse than "Employees who cry over nothing, are never satisfied", etc. The National Park Service has a lot of dedicated and talented employees who are being let down by corrupt management.
Wild Places--
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I, too, have a pretty thick skin & much disdain for the pervasiveness of the term micro-aggressions. But there is a lot of obnoxiousness and lack of respect that doesn't rise to the legal "hostile work environment" standard, and not complete bullying. That still runs off good folks, or at least wears them down, makes less work get done, and helps kill morale. Folks don't whine, they leave. My perspective is that the legal standard isn't enough: there needs to be a simple edict to respect each other so that the mission is accomplished and the work gets done efficiently. I tried to use the term de jour micro-aggressions to label that intermediate level of impairment of effective working relationships, giving it a meaning that I could back. Perhaps that term is beyond saving.
Also, I'm talking about field operations, not about management track. I don't run in management circles.
_________________________________________
As an update to the article & my comments: on Sunday Patty Neubacher announced her resignation as a PWR deputy regional director. Apparently during his hearings Rep. Chaffetz accused her of using her position in the regional office to protect him, although that wasn't widely reported at the time. I don't know about that; superintendents of flagship parks are SES and have a lot of power relative to regional offices where someone nominally supervises them. Don Neubacher was one of the 2 park superintendents (Dan Wenk @ Yellowstone is the other) who are paid more than Jarvis; so are the deputy director for operations & IMR regional director.
I don't know Patty nor Don as individuals nor as managers. My guess is that Patty and Don asked for him to be moved from Yosemite to PWR, instead of them becoming a 1200 mile long-distance marriage with him in Denver. [Before he moved to Yosemite he was superintendent at Point Reyes, a much more reasonable distance to the PWR office then in Oakland.] When that request was rejected, the writing would have been on the wall.
anonymous, thanks for your interesting posts. I do think it is very important for employees to have the opportunity to report misconduct. For the employee, it is a risky undertaking and sometimes expensive or a career ending decision. I have no firsthand knowledge of either the Yellowstone or Yosemite allegations of either sexual harassment or hostile work environment except to know the IG inspections started last week and many employees are being interviewed. That said, the retirements of both the high ranking officials in the Pacific Far West Region, seem a little bit of a railroad job. Both sides of the story should be out on the table regarding the allegations before these type of punitive actions, transfer offers., etc. are made, at least in my view.
And Patty Nuebacher was one of the best NPS leaders there ever was, her husband was a victim of the Senior Executive Service, easy to move them, they can't turn them down. Nothing has been proven other then Don was hard to work with and had a temper. The real loss here is Patty, and it was collatoral damage. Your right, many of us are concerned over the direction the Park Service is moving in, but not for the reasons cited by the headline slashing events. It's the low bar of proof and evidence and the sudden rush by our own NPS administration to be oh so politically correct. When the doers are all gone, good luck getting the job done with nothing but complainers and talkers.
Of course, Mr Mackie, there is always the possibility that people resign ahead of legal findings because they don't want to be immobillized in the public eye when said findings erupt. I don't know - just wild guessing here.
Rick B., always a possibility, as I am acquainted with both individuals, I must admit I was blindsided by the hearing. I do think the allegations were serious, the person testifying took a great risk and the issues of women in the workforce are relevant and need great improvement, not just in the parks but other public agencies and the private sector. It will be interesting to see the IG investigation results, but I do feel the media has tried and convicted the park superintendent before a proper investigation was completed. Much was accomplished in Yosemite under Mr. Neubacher's tenure, the record will show he did much to improve the park.
I'm not sure about the standard of proof for SES employees, but for GS employees in an administrative disciplinary matter, it is the proponderance of the evidence which is more likely than not. It doesn't necessarily require an extensive investigation to gather enough evidence to meet this burden. I think this is important to keep in mind when considering whether an agency is acting on insufficient information.
I don't know the parties involved but I imagine being a dual career couple at this level in the same region would place one or both in some challenging situations when it comes to use (or misuse) of position. For instance, NPS employees supervising spouses in an acting role probably happens more often than it should, considering how common dual career couples can be in individual parks.
I worked at Yosemite for a couple of months back in 1993. The housing was deplorable (old trailers) and I never felt like I belonged, unlike the other 9 units of the NPS system where I worked.