Grand Canyon National Park Superintendent Christine Lehnertz/NPS
An investigation has cleared Grand Canyon National Park Superintendent Christine Lehnertz of any wrongdoing in managing the park, but it has placed the National Park Service in a hard-to-defend position by leaving her accusers in the park.
Lehnertz's attorney, Kevin Evans, has said she won't return to the park until the agency ensures that similar unsubstantiated attacks don't follow her return.
“Chris cannot go back to the park right now because she is not safe there,” Denver-based attorney Kevin Evans told Outside Online last week. “We need assurances that she will have protection if these kinds of malicious accusations are filed against her again by subordinates."
The blade does indeed cut both ways.
Employees should be able to anonymously bring matters of concern to higher-ups for investigation. But at the same time, those accused of wrongdoing without any hard, substantial evidence and then cleared of the allegations shouldn't have to endure the same venomous environment.
"It puts you in a 'damned if do, damned if you don't position' where no matter the decision (or lack of it) you are condemned and whistleblowers now can exercise extraordinary power," said Rob Arnbarger, who himself was a superintendent at Grand Canyon during his long Park Service career. "Don't get me wrong. There needs to be an environment where employees have the capacity to stop unethical practices and managers removed when these practices continue. That needs to be encouraged.
"However, the hidden problem with this is that it also creates an environment where some employees use this to their advantage when they, themselves, are the problem and a senior manager moves aggressively to solve that problem only to face an allegation and investigation that may, in fact, clear them ... but in reality hamstrings them from ever solving the problem, or others that rear their ugly head," he added. "You get allegations and investigations that do nothing but handicap a manager from making difficult decisions. It is a nearly impossible situation to be in. The problems at Grand Canyon, and other parks, need to be eliminated by aggressive leaders. But, in doing that, it is obvious that there are people in the right place and time who seek an entirely personal agenda using this against the leader as an opportunity to try to protect themselves. How in the hell can you lead in an environment like this?"
A heads-down atmosphere has enveloped the National Park Service in recent years. Anonymous allegations are too easy to toss around, cause much disruption, and potentially ruin careers while investigators delve into them. Is there substance to the accusations? Or are they just vindictive missives intended as retribution for a bad performance review?
It took more than a little time and much intestinal fortitude -- guts -- for those surrounded for years by the sexual harassment cesspool that enveloped the Grand Canyon's River District to come forward. And it took a letter to then-Interior Secretary Sally Jewell to bring much-needed light and action to the sordid situation. Park Service managers, including the Grand Canyon superintendent at the time, David Uberuaga, and the Intermountain Regional director above him, Sue Masica, were aware of the allegations. And did nothing, according to those on the ground.
A lengthy investigation by Interior Department's Office of the Inspector General found credence in the allegations. It was seen as a pivotal moment in the workplace atmosphere in the park, and even the National Park Service. The River District office was disbanded, Uberuaga headed off into retirement rather than take a reassignment to Washington, and then-National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis promised a zero-tolerance approach for combating sexual harassment. But his words didn't seem to cleanse the agency of discrimination and harassment, as cases continued to crop up across the park system.
Lehnertz arrived at Grand Canyon, as the park's first female superintendent, from Golden Gate National Recreation Area in the midst of all this. Her task was to right the park's moral compass. It wasn't expected to be as an easy task, and it hasn't been.
"The sexual harassment at Grand Canyon National Park and Cape Canaveral National Seashore means that some of our NPS colleagues have suffered immeasurable harm, and the outrageous misconduct of a few park employees has driven dedicated professionals away from federal service," Lehnertz wrote in a 2016 email to announce her departure to her staff at Golden Gate, where she was superintendent. "We can't wait another moment for this to change dramatically, or for the NPS to honestly, directly, and completely address these issues."
In September 2016, shortly after settling in at Grand Canyon, she told me that she had found the park's employees to be "resilient" and committed to the mission at the park.
"Taking care of one another has been a theme that I’ve heard, things like, 'We have a ton of work to do, and we’re serious about it, but we also are concerned about burnout, and I see it in my colleagues,'" she added. "Those kinds of things tell me that folks here aren’t going to sit back with anything. That they’re going to stay engaged, that they want to be the strongest park possible, and so you have to keep a spotlight on things like sexual harassment that are challenges until we’re the best park in the nation preventing sexual harassment.”
One of those employees, at least, apparently didn't buy into his new boss's views or vision, or maybe he just didn't like her gender. Last fall, Lehnertz found herself facing allegations that she was bullying, had created a hostile atmosphere with a brusque management style, and had spent recklessly on housing to be used by a deputy superintendent. She was temporarily reassigned somewhere in the park system, left to wonder what had befallen her.
And then the OIG staff exonerated her of all charges. In doing so, it created a portrait of one of her accusers as determined not to follow her directives and even impede them. Were the allegations a bald-faced attempt to have Lehnertz reassigned or fired? Read the report and draw your own conclusions.
As we said in 2016 after Jarvis announced his zero-tolerance plan, today’s Park Service managers have to follow a plethora of Office of Personnel Management rules, and deal with labor unions, when it comes to disciplining their employees. While those rules were established to protect employees and keep a good employee from being arbitrarily fired or reassigned due to political pressure, they can also impede attempts to discipline or remove employees. Where's the protection for the managers?
When the Traveler reached out to Park Service officials in the agency's Washington, D.C., headquarters to ask what repercussions those who brought the allegations against Lehnertz might face, the question was met with silence.
Though we can only hope, for Lehnertz' sake, that the individual(s) are reassigned to another park, that would only move the problem, not deal with it.
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.
Comments
https://grandjurytarget.com/2017/02/28/oig-investigations-why-lawyers-an...
There is no protection for NPS Managers. The processes have been weaponized to benefit those who have a beef. It is duck and cover time for leaders.
How fair is this? - (from email to all NOs employees)
Necessarily, and by policy, when allegations are made against senior executives of the NPS, they are referred to the Office of Inspector General (OIG). Investigations of other employees may be made by the OIG, a third-party contact investigator, or a trained federal employee. In any case, the impartial finding of facts is crucial to a fair and full investigation. Each of us should be willing participate in these efforts and commit to providing true and accurate facts in every investigation.
———
So some complaints get fast tracked straight to the OIG - is that really the right way to go? While other complaints could languish - what if you have a beef against a GS 11 - does that mean it languishes because the prize for the OIG isn’t big enough?
Excellent article. You head the nail on the head!
if she did wrong she needs to be brought to the carpet
She was exonerated. She didn't do anything wrong. That was the entire point of the article.
The same exact thing has happened at Great Smoky Mountains National Park in regards to the Chimney 2 fire. ... Those that voiced concerns were met with hostile intimidation tactics by park management and others.
This comment was edited to remove potentially libelous comments.--Ed.
Meanwhile... park employees have to continue to work with the accuser, without benefit of the superintendent being in her chair. Lose-lose-lose for park employees all the way around.
She isn’t the issue. Jeez.
Fairly evident when you read beyond the lines that this Superintendent was sent into Grand Canyon to create an environment that would very much target and create an environment that could be seen as hostile towards men. Of course, the NPS won't ever admit that in their review, so of course they will try and cover their tracks. Creating a toxic matriarchy to counter a toxic patriarchy now seems to be the answer that extreme liberal feminists and their beta male orbiter subordinates use as a tactic, however, many innocent men get caught in the crossfire of this dangerous ideology that is making people not want to work in these type of environments. The problem with this philosophy is they seem to assume that any man is the enemy, and must be subdued, emasculated, and feminized. There will one day be a massive rejection to this philosophy and it will not play well.
I agree with what your saying, unfortunately the rejection is already rearing it's ugly head, that's how we got Trump.
Must also add that if this Lenhertz is so afraid of one employee that has a beef with her, then she is not fit for the job. She cries victim over one complaint? That is serious passive agressive beta female mentality going on here where she's now playing "victim" in order to seek revenge on her employee that filed a complaint, that seemed to have some legitimacy to it..
This reminds me of the recent issue that went on in Grand Canyon where the park housed a unanium bucket in a museum and the safety manager at the park called it out because he didn't want to risk his reputation, and instead of the managers owning the mistake, they instead blamed the safety coordinator. The government is broken, and bad managers fueled by immoral and unethical policies that they use to write new rules to cover their incompetence plague the system.
She cries foul over being removed for FIVE MONTHS from her position, for calling out someone who happens to be male for not doing his job. FIVE MONTHS of not being allowed to do the work she is good at. Which could have been easily fixed by him apologizing, accepting appropriate fairly mild discipline, and doing his job. You are reading WAY in to this situation.
I am reading way into it, because it's more than likely the truth. Seems that since this "new agenda" came into play at the Grand Canyon, there's a lot of cases where male managers that voice concerns all the sudden are harrassed and intimidated. I see this tactic of her crying victim that can't play with her coworkers as another intimidation tactic. A real leader brushes it off, gets back to the office, shows leadership and gets people to follow her/him/it. Unfortunately, if you do find a work environment that is progressive and a great place to work because the leadership is solid, it never lasts long. Sounds like the Grand Canyon is more Detroit Lions than New England Patriots.
Do you consider being removed from your job for FIVE MONTHS something you didn't do as something to "brush off"? Do you think a manager - of any gender - who refuses to do basic tasks of the job should not be disciplined ever-so-slightly in order to get them to do their work? Do you think that filing a harassment claim that gets your boss removed for five months, because you didn't want to do your work, is o.k.? Because it's all there in the OIG report. I understand you have an axe to grind and there are certainly situations where your concerns apply, but read the facts of the OIG report.
As for the football metaphors I do not know this football you speak of, as it relates to "a work environment that is progressive and a great place to work" for everyone, INCLUDING women. But, reading behind your words, I think I detect someone who doesn't think girls should get to play, or at least, when they play they shouldn't complain when the boys break the rules.
Once again, like a tool you take the mantra of the report and fail to see that certain motives behind that very report can be construed by the political influences that are trying to enforce the "new guidelines". As was pointed out in this article - in her farewell email, she pretty much went charging into the job at the Grand Canyon with a "tame them bad males" agenda. I could very well undertand how a feminst trained in SF's Golden Gate could have a few men not want to be emasculated in the rugged red country of Arizona. I also am appaled as a tax payer on the amount spent to refurbish a house for a deputy superintendent. Get them a tent, a monthly supply of rice, beans, and a shower every few days and they should be proud to be serving in such a place.
As I mentioned, the Grand Canyon has quite a few incidents of late, where men have been harassed and intimidated by women. I'm going to assume you work in the park, and are a female, hence your defensive nature about this subject. I read the report, but like the 911 comission report, it sure does leave quite a lot of questions.
I have not heard this fellows side directly, but would like to hear his account, as well as the Safety manager that tipped off people about the uranium ore that was in the bucket sitting for years on the floor of the museum. That gentlemen also seem to face harassment from the same sort of management group. So before making some broad decision to accept the NPS mantra, I would wait to hear little more on this. And no, a progressive environment doesn't have one sex favored over the other. Sex doesn't matter. It should be even freakin' steven. Women and men working together as a team, not being forced to accept gender idenity politics that then attempts to segregate and seperate sexes to subdue, harrass, or intimidate one another. It's how you do your job and the quality of the work. I have worked in such an environment, but like I said change in management can always cause a place to go from the New England Patriots to the Detroit Lions. But, then again, us private sector employees understand that, while government lackies tend to focus on gender politics and political infighting. Makes you wonder if they are actually spending any real time protecting the park. So get to work and do what we are supposedly paying you for. I'm starting to see a continual pattern that so many working environments in the National Parks Service seem pretty hostile to many types of people, whether female or men. Seems like the culture needs a serious change.
What I am about to say may not be the right platform for this problem at the Grand Canyon and many other parks around the US. Yes! Being a civil servant in these "Last Days is a cruel place to be. How about someone from Region or HQ's call a meeting of all those who feel that the world is against them and sit down at a "neutral place" take out God's Holy Word and read aloud "Mark 12: 29-31" Have a brief devotion how could "I" might apply these verses with my coworkers? Then end the meeting holding hands and having prayer. If your heart is pricked "Hug thy neighbor" and depart ways. That worked for this ol' former NPS Park Ranger and I departed and went to East Africa for some twenty years to use my Ranger experiences as a "Servant" No fancy title. Now I have more joy than my years with the NPS.
I always enjoy when people make assumptions about who and what I am. And want everyone to be “even-Steven” but roll the conversation toward making the (perceived) female cower and scrape, and lecture the government employee on how lazy we are. again, all assumption, few facts and an unwillingness to seek them out. At least the comment about Park employees being grateful to live in a tent and eat beans and rice provided a laugh.
And Rimba, I appreciate your good heart. Most of us do indeed get along with each other just fine— we have each other’s backs and want the best for each other— men and women together, dedicated to public service and fulfilling the NPS mission. Grand Canyon has worked hard at healing divides and moving forward— and it is also unfortunately true that much of the Park’s work is in limbo in the absence of a functioning management team while this is all resolved. Thank you for your good intent.
Matriarchal Feminism - well, one thing is obvious, you are a candidate for the Most Incongruous and Inaccurate Alias contest. Everything you have posted has the taste of a very bitter and insecure man. And, no, I'm neither a woman nor an employee of that park. I don't know Chris myself, but wish her all the best of dealing with the nervous ankle-biters all around her feet.
If Raisin is part of the Grand Canyon management team, that's all I need to see to further piece together that place is a hostile work environment. It just has flipped. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. And just like Lenhert, Raisin can't own up to facts and instead plays the "poor me because i'm female" victim card. That's how it always works. You can't question thier management tactics or motives, without them whipping out that card and using it. Common tactic of radical feminists. She came in here and gaslit the individual and added to the hostile work environment that must be rampant at the Grand Canyon National Park. She brought her agenda from work and displayed it right here on the site for anyone that cares to read between the lines. The NPS management can murder people and they'll rewrite reports and change the rules at the top to make their management justified in thier actions. It's a system that is broken.
Fairly evident that the culture is rotten there and needs changed. As was stated in this very article, Lenhertz ran into the Grand Canyon with a gender politics agenda already in hand, and obviously that was supported by the top that placed her there.
Rick, you aren't worth my time. Good luck.
Nope. Not management, not a supervisor, not anywhere near the top of any food chain anywhere. Just an eyewitness to the experience of park employees over the last half-decade. But thanks for giving me a promotion and change of venue. And thanks for your generalizations, refusal to do any research on the individuals involved (which is all out there in public) and commitment to assuming that there is an "agenda," rather than a simple personnel issue that blew up completely unnecessarily and to the detriment of hundreds of park employees and millions of park visitors. If the genders were flipped, you would be talking about how the poor (male) superintendent is being harassed by ugly mean feminists. Rick nailed it. Cheers!
I dont defend the previous male superintendent that brushed aside sexual harassment claims. That to me is inexcusable as well, and he was forced out. I don't support a toxic patriarchy either, but on the same token, countering a toxic patriarchy with a toxic matriarchy is not excusable either. That is obvious what has gone on here.
I did do some research on those individuals, and it seems like they were systematically gaslit by the upper echelon of park service and government syncophants through their loyal lapdog media sources and employees at the park, like yourself. Typical protocol for those that usually file complaints. So there is nothing too shocking about any of this. The government deep state cabal loves their sheepish tag along gaslighters and they get the tools like you to carry the cannisters for them to light it.
"Government deep-state cabal." Gotcha. Bless.
She was exonerated by those that put her there to create the hostile work environment that targeted men. Guaranteed if lawyers subpoenaed performence reviews they would find the evidence strictly in studying those Nothing shocking about any of this. The NPS has a long history of this dating back to Captain Danno and many others that voiced complaints against their superiors.
Good luck on emasculating all the men. I'm sure we'll see more public gaslighting tactics and smear campaigns from this super leader at the Grand Canyon. I guarantee they aren't done yet.
I am an NPS advocate who stumbled on this post quite by accident. I have sympathy for the exonerated superintendent who, based on the report by the OIG (a neutral party), was clearly following her management responsibilities to handle an insubordinate employee. Insubordination has consequences. I'm astonished by the bitterness and partisan comment stream which, in my view, suggests that the NPS needs to clean house of managers, however senior, who don't do their jobs-- and I'm not talking about the park superintendent. If the commenter named "Matriarchal Femiminsm" is an employee of the Grand Canyon National Park, then time is overdue for a reassignment. Bullying behavior (in the form of inuendo and baiting) is not tolerated in the private sector, and it certainly shouldn't be tolerated at the NPS.