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.
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
You do what Jarvis tells you to do or we will Ranger Danno you. Lockstep with the Fuhrer.
If NPS management treated a capable superintendent in this manner, imagine the hundreds of rank & file employees they have crucified. Is it any wonder NPS employee satisfaction scores are cratering?
You got a year or two? I could tell you many tales of idiocracy from the NPS
I wonder what the rest of this story is, and what reasoning NPS had. My guess is that there is much more to this story than was mentioned in the article. After all, there are always at least two sides to a situation such as this.
Unfortunately, you will NEVER hear the "rest of the story" or the "REAL story". I've been wanting to know the "REAL stories" behind similar things I have witness throughout my 42 years with the National Park Service. What wonderful reading that would be. :) Of course, they have always and will always protect the guilty so none of those stories will never be put in black and white. BUMMER. This lady needs continue to fight this.
Spot on Paula. Wagon circling at the highest levels, demoting the efficiency of the fed at the expense of a few folks who really care about good government.
The real story will come out - it'll take time. And the "guilty"will be long gone...
But the again, no one ever said a democracy was efficient :)
This isn't just the National Park Service; it is now rife throughout the American workplace. In my field, university teaching, this is exactly how universities get rid of people who dare question the Administration. The Administration sets up some impossible standards and throws you out the door. Then they hire a part-timer, at half the salary and no benefits, and claim the protection of academic standards. Consequently, at our state university, there are 10 administrators for everyone (including part-timers) in the teaching faculty. Nationwide, 69 percent of all university teaching is done by part-timers, in contrast to 30 percent in the 1960s.
Bureuacracies go looking for trouble--only to find it as justification for their time. You want to change this? Good luck. To make matters worse, administrators in government can now hide behind affirmative action--substituting trouble-making for merit. Oh, they don't call it trouble-making. They call it protecting standards, but the only standard they protect is their job.
This is also partly to explain the loss of seasonal rangers across the park system at large. Educators are subversive; they talk about goals and ethics. A bureaucracy couldn't care less about those things.
There are hundreds of books and thousands of articles on the topic, but the bottom line is this: On the way up, America was known for making opportunities. On the way down, it is eating its own flesh. Why should we expect the Park Service to be immune--or any of us to be immune? 95 million Americans of working age have no job period. The bureaucrats know they can rule with fear.
NPS posts - especially on Superintendet level - are usually temporary, right? A bit like in the diplomatic service - you serve your term, then head on to another job. If Mrs Miller can't accept to change her job then maybe she should quit the NPS - instead of suing them.
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.
Who said superindent jobs were temporary? Is that some rule?
{This was a direct reply to Gila Monster's query about NPS positons being like Foreign Service pack on page 1. "Reply" doesn't seem to link comments. But now, I'm happy with both Kurt's original post, which didn't have the whole story, and especially with the comments from folks in the know about what went on at Sitka. I have seen several folks (professional but not superintendents) moved laterally rather than being fired for malfeasance, but those cases were actual malfeasance, not poor performance, and more or less consensual. I thought that the higher managers were being wimps for not biting the bullet, but maybe the make-work position is cheaper than the multi-year legal battle. I have also been told that it is almost impossible to remove someone for poor performance, so things need to be documented as specific actions rather than failure to perform. I think that the current system is broken for both good & bad employees: a good employee not in upper leadership shouldn't ever be faces with "move or be fired", and it should be possible to deal with a bad employee directly. I'm glad I don't supervise anyone.}
Not so much, actually. Permanent NPS positons are like most other GS-scale jobs*: in order to get a promotion and advance your career, you have to move to a new, different job. Until you get to a very high level (SES, _maybe_ GS-15), the job you have is the job you have, until you apply for a different position, have major malfeasance, or perform so poorly that you get pushed out. Many positions, including all or nearly all superintendents, are open to "status candidates" only, so only those currently in NPS permanent positions. Yes many careerists (good & bad) move among chief & then superintendent positions every few years in order to climb the ladder: a superintendent at a big park has almost certainly already been a superintendent at a medium park and a deputy at another big park, they likely were a chief ranger or division chief at one or more parks before their first superintendentship, a number of old timers started as LE rangers. The rest of the itinerant lifestyle in NPS is term positions, 1-4 years then you have to move and you don't have status as a permanent employee for applying to status-only openings, and seasonals, who either have ways of living cheaply in their off-season or else have to string together several parks each year just to have sufficient months of income to get by. [I find both rather abusive.]
That said, yes what's I've read about this situation seems odd. I have no idea what happened. Regional offices may be able to assign collateral duties or details (temporary posting) to superintendents, although I've never heard of a detail that didn't require applying and being selected. As of today Mary is still listed as Sitka Superintendent on the insideNPS AKR pages.
*[In contrast, NOAA fisheries have ZP instead of GS, so a position has a huge range of salaries and you start where you qualify but can get raises & promotions within the same position as your performance & experience & responsibilities and performance increase. In my opinion, repeated seasonals and term positions for permanent needs in NPS are abusive.]
"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!
wrong. they are not temporary assignments.
I agree with TwoCollie. There must be more to this story. The plaintiff is claiming the NPS intentionally set her up for failure. If she was indeed "highly valued for her performance and skills". Why would they do that?
"If she was indeed "highly valued for her performance and skills". Why would they do that?" ecbuck.
It happens far more frequently than most would imagine. I have known other NPS employees, most in park management, who have had the same experience. A regional director and the superintendent of Glacier Bay NP were both removed from their positions in response to complaints and demands from the Alaska Congressional Delegation and commercial operators unhappy with their attempts to protect park resources. A superintendent of Denali also felt the sting of a "redirected assignment". All these individuals were acknowledged as excellent employees who were doing their job.
A "redirected assignment" is a bureaucratic tool used by the Park Service and other federal agencies to force an employee to move from a given assignment, often when the employee has incurred the wrath of political and/or commercial forces. The employee likely will never be officially told why they are being effectively sacked. They have no recorse but to accept the reassignment or be fired - even when he/she has excellent performance evaluations. All-too-often the reassignment is into a make-work, career dead end job where the employee is essentially destined to finish out their time until retirement. All superintendents and upper level management live under the cloud of possibly being "reassigned". It is an unspoken warning not to "make waves".
i'm really interested in learning more about this story. why did NPS want to railroad her out of there? was it really worth it to go through all this trouble?
also, is being an NPS superintendent that different from being a USFS Forest Supervisor? Forest Supes aren't just moved from place to place. They apply for jobs and accept them if they want to.
A National Park Service Superintendent is equivalent to a Forest Service District Ranger, both are responsible for managing public land acres and employees that do the work.
@Forest Lover - No, more like a Forest Supervisor. Some national forests like San Bernandino are incredibly complex with hundreds and hundreds of employees, some are like the somewhat-tiny Sam Houston National Forest where the total acreage and staff is smaller than any one district in San Bernandino. Just like there is a big difference between Sitka NHP versus Yellowstone NP. But just like Forest Supervisors, Park Superintendents exercise an incredible amount of discretion - some one say control - in how their park is run, unlike USFS District Rangers.
So Ray, who complained about Miller and what were they complaining about?
Know the whole dtory before you write an article! Things arent always as they seem!
There is a lot more to this story. "Reprehensible" actually applies to the conduct of the Superintendent while she was in charge in Sitka. Her removal played out all kinds of wrong. Ultimately this is the outcome that should have happened from the beginning.
I completly agree. I was one that worked for her during all of this. Yes, a lot more to the story...her performance was terrible and how she treated folks that worked for her was more than a disgrace. NPS should have documented her performance accuratly, which was very poor, and they should have reprimanded her based upon the investigation of all the park employees that occured prior to her directed reassignment. Nevertheless, I'm happy to hear the outcome.
Perhaps you could provide some details, The Rest of the Story, and drop the anonymity to bolster your comment.
Too many excellent NPS employees transferred, retired, or quit. There is a lot more to the story, and I applaud the NPS for the more than 5 year saga to improve a languishing workforce. Here are some other articles:
2010 original removal - http://juneauempire.com/stories/052610/sta_644797640.shtml#.VoxRgvkrLIU
2013 reinstatement with back pay and removal of the new superintendent - http://www.adn.com/article/20130405/claiming-discrimination-tlingit-nati...
2013 another NP Traveler article - http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2013/12/sitka-national-historical-p...
I have a comment or two, first Kurt's comment to The Rest Of The Story about "drop the anonymity to bolster your comment" is very unjustified. Just because Kurt does not know the full story is no reason to go after someone that may know a little more then he does. I don't want my name out there also, because I still work the the NPS. I did work at Sitka National Historical Park with Mary Miller and I'm sure Kurt NEVER talked with any of the employees she supervised at the park now or in the past and has know idea what happened. He needs to do a lot more research before posting stories like this. The only thing the National Park Service did wrong was to take so long to remove her from office. I love working for the National Park Service. The NPS has made a lot of mistakes, but this is not one of them. This story should be removed from the web site, or updateed after someone does a lot more fact checking.
"The only thing the National Park Service did wrong was to take so long to remove her from office."
I FULLY agree with this response.
In the Juneau Empire article from 2010, I'd like to point out this excerpt:
The report found that the park had no annual budget process, and that the development of “distrustful if not hostile work relationships negatively impact operations.”
This puts it nicely.
This is an extremely poorly researched article. It looks as though Mr. Repanshek just read the court documents and perhaps got the "official" NPS line from the national or regional office(s), which is CYA all the way. If he had bothered to consult with anyone who worked at Sitka during Ms. Miller's tenure, he could have provided some valuable insight into what happened there. Of course, he would have to do some hunting to find those employees, as 80% of the perment staff transferred or resigned during Ms. Miller's rather brief tenure at the park. There is also a management review document (T-map in NPS jargon) that details the situation at Sitka shortly before Ms. Miller was fired. I'm sure there are many NPS Alaska Region employees who have copies of this document, though I doubt that the regional office would be willing to to provide an "official" copy without a FOIA request.
I guess the still-puzzling question is why the NPS management praised Superintendent Miller so highly if she was doing such a terrible job?
As for "dropping the anonymity," why is that unjustified? Anonymity on the Internet is a huge problem, because it allows folks to cast aspersions without concern. That said, we realize there are times for anonymity. This from our Code of Conduct:
And, finally, I did reach out to one NPS staffer with Sitka ties, but never heard back.
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.
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.
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.
Writing articles about personel issues within the government is going to be fraught with the inherent difficulty of only hearing part of the truth. They should be avoided unless very thoughroughly researched. There are layers to this story, the NPS is not without flaws on this issue but they are not what is highlighted. Regardless Park's are about the resource not the people working there, a superitendent may be the best thing since sliced cheese and it is still good for the park for them to leave for a huge variety of reasons. Sitka needs to be able to heal from what has been years of uncertainty.
Some respondants speculate that Superintendent Miller probably deserved her involuntary transfer and the Park Service had ample reason to fire her - even if her official performance evaluations were stellar. I do not personally know Ms Miller, but I have read available reports of the case and am familiar with the process. First, if Superintendent Miller's professional performance and conduct was unsatisfactory the question arises - did she recieve supervisory counciling to correct the problem and was it included in her annual performance evaluation? In other words, is there an official record - as there should be? The "redirected assignment" leaves the door open to speculation that the affected employee is under some type of cloud. Based on available reports, Ms Miller apparently recieved excellent performance evaluations for her work as a park manager. If those evaluations do not reflect the reality of her performance than her immediate superiorers should have been disciplined for failing to adequately deal with whatever problems existed.
The "redirected assignment" process lends itself to abuse by denying the affected employee the opportunity to fully understand whatever performance concerns there may be and to be able to present facts that might counter misunderstandings and provide a clearer picture of the situation. An employee who is forced to leave a given position, particularly one in management, is generally considered to be professionally tainted and unlikely to be selected for future advancement in their chosen career path.
An official descenting from the majority decision in reversing the original finding that Ms Miller was justified in her petition to remain as superintendent of Sitka National Historic Site stated, "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 pretextu- al; 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."
Superintendent Miller exercised her right to appeal a forced transfer from her management position and requirement that she and her affected family move to a distant community. Her efforts should not be condemned simply out of speculation and rumor - particularly if she had recieved positive performance evaluations for past performance. It is this very rumor mill that grinds up too many employees.
Kurt Repanshek, you might get more information if you posted an email address or look for retirees to talk.
Nice job Kurt.
Current and former SITK "aggreived" staff - there is a different forum for your concerns....when you cannot get on board, you can leave. High school has, in fact, ended.
Bottom line - performance problems have a process that must be followed if you value due process - NPS did not use that process to punish Ms. Miller.
Conduct issues have a process too - NPS did not use that process to punish Ms. Miller.
Instead, NPS used a directed reassignment to punish Ms. Miller, specifically because there were no performance or conduct issues.
Why punish her? "Too hot to handle." Internal politics. Whiney staff didn't like her commitment to good government or change....Insecure leaders desired to make a statement about (their) power in a bureauocracy. Same m.o. as several big cases in the Fran Mainella years, the "reign of terror." MSPB tried to right their initial fumble, but did so in a way the circuit court could not uphold...
In most organizations, Ms. Miller would have received reward and promotion.
The truth will come out - it may take time.
If it is not a rule, it should be. Any job should be based on performance.
Click on the 'contact us' button on the masthead to reach out directly to Kurt.
Did anyone actually click on the link from the 2010 Juneau Empire article? It states that: "Last February, the National Park Service dispatched a team of top officials from the West Coast to review Sitka operations. The review found that the work environment at SNHP was characterized by “very low morale.”
The report said 13 of 16 permanent employees had left the park, or were making plans to leave, and that the “mass exodus” had created “severe problems.”
The report found that the park had no annual budget process, and that the development of “distrustful if not hostile work relationships negatively impact operations.”"
Mary Miller had been a very capable civil engineer in Juneau with the US Forest Service. She had also lived in Anchorage for years, adding in her time in Juneau she had been gone from Sitka for 20 years or more - so much for her family.
Here is another link from Alaska Dispatch News: http://www.adn.com/article/20130405/claiming-discrimination-tlingit-nati... It is unusual, I have never seen the Alaska Federation of Natives go to bat for a Native employee employed by the federal government EVER in the State of Alaska when they were terminated. Various federal agencies in Alaska transfer Alaska Natives around and even terminate them, so why did the Chair and Vice-Chair of Sealaska (an ANCSA regional corporation) take up her cause? Probably because she was politically and personally connected. In Alaska other federal agencies transfer managers around and if you don't want the transfer, you either apply to another job or quit.
While Miller's case was on appeal, she was living in Juneau for the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indians of Alaska (she is Tlingit), headed up by a Sealaska board member. He fired a long-time employee who was also Tlingit with excellent performance in his position so she had a job while on appeal. She could have gone back to the US Forest Service where she was a very capable engineer.
In short, there is a lot behind the scenes but not just with the National Park Service. If you look at the appeals court files, she claimed to have a disability, which was a dry eye condition that she never declared until her termination. She claimed that the dry eye condition would get worse in Anchorage even though she had lived there for years.
I have seen federal agencies give glowing reviews to managers in Alaska who were absolutely horrible and then terminate others who were good managers but not politically connected internally and externally. Given the fact that the National Park Service found problems after a review that I noted in the quote from the Juneau Empire (probably generated by employee complaints), it appears that a lot has not been reported.
I'm glad this case puts a spotlight on pretext within management directed reassignments. I hope it also puts a spotlight on how the NPS takes corrective action on conduct and performance problems in superintendents. For a good case study, read about the problems at Effigy Mounds National Monument involving problems with not one but two former superintendents. The title of Superintendent shouldn't lower the bar on what leadership will tolerate with regards to conduct or performance.
I'm sure the number of people who will ever know the full story in Supt. Miller's directed reassignment is not large, not likely to ever include me, and not likely reflected in the court documents. I never worked for Sitka National Historical Park so I can't really say what was behind the high turnover in the linked newspaper article. If she was told her performance and conduct were acceptable when there were not, shame on leadership for not being direct and honest with her.
There are a lot of terrible federal employees that receive decent performance appraisals. Why do terrible performance receive decent appraisals? The work that goes into dealing with a bad performer is a full time job and supervisors don't want to deal with it. Therefore, they give the employee 3's-fully successful and walk away. And supervisors are afraid of being grieved.
That is why the NPS did what they did with her and gave her a decent appraisal. Her supervisor was up at the regional office and didn't see her on a daily basis and witness all the crap she was pulling. Superintendents also have tons of power, which she fully abused. The NPS couldn't really backtrack with her after they did their first appraisal with her. They didn't know how severe things were until well into a year or so of her being there.
Perhaps part of any supervisor's performance evaluation should include collection of evaluations provided by a large percentage of people supervised by the person.
As I understand it, Lee, that is the case now. And supposedly the results are provided to supervisors.
Results of questions asked should be anonymous with only a summary provided. But........
Mary Miller is not a valued employee, she thought of Sitka NHP as her park. She wasted millions of taxpayers dollars on stopping projects that she signed off on, her background is in engineering, the project was laid out with blue prints and scales, something she should have great knowledge in understanding. She signed off on the project and once the project was half way completed she alone decided to stop the project and waste taxpayers monies non reusable pieces that sit in a warehouse. That is just an example. The blame should also shine light on the Alaska regional office which did nothing to correct the issue. Joel Hart and Chris Pergiel spoke a very large game but in the end did nothing to assist the staff who were working under Mary Miller. The National Park Service has this blanket of a great organization and ability to stay out of the spotlight. So the picture is bigger than Mary Miller, the wrongs go all the way up the chain, ask any government employee outside of management and they will agree "you screw up, you move up" that is how the NPS does business. Visit Sitka NHP and you will see a happier workforce, a better management view. Are there still issues in Sitka? Yes, and like previously stated those issues fall on the hands of the regional office and their poor performance. Yes this is brief but hopefully an insight into a terrible work environment that finally can start to turn around and look forward to putting Mary Miller in the rearview mirror.
Does Mary have to repay the 2010-2013 salary and benefits she was awarded when reinstated in 2013? In 2013, "the U.S. Merit Systems Protet Board ordered the National Park Service to reinstate Miller, with back pay and benefits." (http://www.adn.com/article/20130405/claiming-discrimination-tlingit-nati...). This article also requires interest be paid (http://sitkasentinel.com/7/2012-05-10-22-08-10/local-news/5650-ruling-re...). So, a little less than 3 years as a GS-13 should be over $250,000!!! Now that's a story!
The real issue here is not a single employee. It is the system that would appear to lend itself to a lack of accountability on the part of upper level management. An employee recieving a superior annual performance evaluation can be expected to believe he/she is carrying out their professional responsbilities in an acceptable manner in line with upper level management's expectations. It is the responsibility of upper level management to be apprised of situations that affect the performance of superintendents and others under their supervision. If, for whatever reason, the level of performance is not satisfactory, the senior supervisor is expected to council his subordinate and attempt to bring performance up to an acceptable level. Failure to carry out this responsibility and to permit a negative situation to further deteriorate unchecked until it reaches a crisis level is an indication of poor management on the part of responsible supervisory personnel. In other words, the buck stops at the top desk.
A common means of covering up a failure of upper level management supervision is to go the "Operations Evaluations" route. This is often a sudden announcement by the regional or area office that a indepth review will be conducted in a given park operation. A team is quickly assembled and sent to a particular park to carry out an indepth review of all aspects of the park. It is common knowledge that an OE is literally the kiss of death for a park manager and possibly other upper level employees in the park. When a park manager recieves notice of an OE it's probably time to pack his bags and hope he/she isn't sent into professional oblivion.
There actually is a workable system for resolving most performance problems in the NPS and elsewhere. It requires effort on the part of the responsible supervisor and a great deal of patience and persistence to make it work. It involves formal counciling sessions including documentation of concerns and plans to make corrections, follow-up checks on progress, etc. The employee in question is provided written summaries of counseling sessions and copies are sent to other concerned management personnel. I have used this system and believe it can work - even when the subject employee is ulitimately negatively affected.
Sorry. I failed to identify myself and the author to the last post.
The federal circuit made their decsion on 9/2/2105, it took until 12/31/2015 for the MSPB to reverse their decsion based on the federal circuit court:
http://www.mspb.gov/netsearch/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=1256963&version=12...
Pages