[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING MISCONDUCT AND MISMANAGEMENT AT THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 22, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-164
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
26-123 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
JIM JORDAN, Ohio ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM WALBERG, Michigan Columbia
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee JIM COOPER, Tennessee
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
RON DeSANTIS, Florida TED LIEU, California
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
KEN BUCK, Colorado STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
MARK WALKER, North Carolina MARK DeSAULNIER, California
ROD BLUM, Iowa BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
JODY B. HICE, Georgia PETER WELCH, Vermont
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
WILL HURD, Texas
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
Jennifer Hemingway, Staff Director
Andrew Dockham, General Counsel
William McGrath, Interior Subcommittee Staff Director
Melissa Beaumont, Professional Staff Member
Sharon Casey, Deputy Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 22, 2016............................... 1
WITNESSES
Mr. Michael Reynolds, Deputy Director for Operations, National
Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Oral Statement............................................... 5
Written Statement............................................ 8
Mr. Kelly Martin, Chief of Fire and Aviation Management, Yosemite
National Park, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
Mr. Brian Healy, Fisheries Program Manager, Grand Canyon National
Park, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Oral Statement............................................... 23
Written Statement............................................ 25
APPENDIX
Letter of June 16, 2016, Representative Hice to the President re
Director Jarvis's Resignation.................................. 74
September 22, 2016 Ms. Kearney Congressional Statement submitted
by Mr. Palmer.................................................. 76
Submitted by Ms. Lummis:
September 21, 2016 Congressional Statement Grand Canyon...... 86
September 22, 2016 Congressional Statement Yosemite.......... 88
September 22, 2016 Hester Congressional Statement............ 94
September 22, 2016 Larkin Congressional Statement............ 95
September 20, 2016 Nebel Congressional Statement............. 103
September 22, 2016 Williams Congressional Statement.......... 105
September 22, 2016 Brady Congressional Statement............. 113
Response from Mr. Reynolds, NPS, to Questions for the Record..... 116
EXAMINING MISCONDUCT AND MISMANAGEMENT AT THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
----------
Thursday, September 22, 2016
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:02 p.m., in Room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jason Chaffetz
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Chaffetz, Mica, Walberg, Amash,
Gosar, Gowdy, Lummis, Meadows, DeSantis, Blum, Hice, Carter,
Grothman, Palmer, Cummings, Norton, Connolly, Plaskett, Welch,
and Lujan Grisham.
Chairman Chaffetz. The Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform will come to order. And without objection,
the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time.
We have an important hearing today. It is entitled
``Examining Misconduct and Mismanagement at the National Park
Service.''
In June, National Park Service Director Jarvis testify
before this committee about the problems and sexual harassment
throughout the Park Service. He suggested that things could
potentially get worse before they got better, and boy, was he
right. Things have gotten a lot worse. We have certainly been
able to illuminate and find more problems that unfortunately
have been festering and been part of the system for far, far
too long.
Since Director Jarvis' testimony, numerous park employees
from multiple parks have contacted the committee to describe
patterns of misconduct at the Park Service, and today, we are
here to determine what the Park Service is doing to stop the
harassment and find out why it keeps happening. There seems to
be some patterns here that are just not anything that we should
come close to tolerating.
These incidents are happening at our country's most beloved
parks. From Yellowstone to Yosemite and the Grand Canyon, these
are some of the most visited and famous parks literally in the
world. Unfortunately, they also face serious management
challenges and allegations of disturbing misbehavior.
It is difficult often to have these discussions in an open
setting, and I warn the parents of young people who may be
watching this some of this is going to be probably a little
touchy and a little inappropriate, but it is what we do in this
committee. We illuminate things. We shine a light on them.
We are different in the United States of America, as I have
said time and time again, in that we are self-critical. And we
better come to a reality grip of what is happening because far
too often the people that are accused of this hideous behavior
are simply promoted, maybe they get a bonus, and they just move
on. There doesn't seem to be a consequence.
In Yosemite at least 18 employees, 18, have come forward
with allegations of harassment, bullying, and a hostile work
environment. These employees lay the blame at the top on Dan
Neubacher, the superintendent of Yosemite. The Park Service law
enforcement official who investigated the allegation in
Yosemite concluded this: ``The number of employees interviewed
that describe horrific working conditions lead us to believe
that the environment is indeed toxic, hostile, repressive, and
harassing.'' I don't know that it could get any worse than
that, but that is his conclusion. These are the words of the
Park Service's own internal investigators, not the committee
staff, not the Office of the Inspector General. Currently,
Superintendent Neubacher is still running Yosemite. He is still
there.
If this was the only park suffering from these problems, it
would be enough of a serious concern, yet recent allegations
from America's first national park, Yellowstone, are truly
beyond the pale. They include sexual exploitation,
intimidation, retaliation, and sexual harassment so depraved
that it is disturbing even to discuss. With accusations so
alarming, you would expect the Washington office to step in
immediately and ensure that employees in Yellowstone are safe.
While I appreciate the decision to call on the inspector
general for assistance, the Park Service must be more
aggressive in protecting public service. We see this time and
time again. It is not good enough to just say we are going to
ask the inspector general to do it. The Park Service and the
other agencies need to do their job and provide immediate
relief, not punt it to somebody else to start doing it. And it
is not good enough to just say we are going to do a survey. I
am tired of hearing about surveys. There is a problem.
In our June hearing we heard about the serious problems at
Grand Canyon and Canaveral National Parks. Since then, it was
reported that the supervisors who allowed misconduct to occur
in these parks were not just left unpunished, some were even
promoted. What in the world does it take to get fired from the
Park Service? In most of these cases that I have seen it is not
just one he said/she said. Here is a case that we are going to
talk about today where we had 18 people, 18, who are talking
about this.
Leaders who fail in their obligations to protect the public
or employees, they need to be fired. If they are not going to
take action and they are not going to protect the employees of
the United States of America, then they should leave.
We had hoped our hearing with Director Jarvis would have
prompted to change. Instead, it seems to have been treated
merely as a speed bump. Based on what we have seen, the
response to the crisis has been to require additional training
for managers and to realign the EEO, the Equal Employment
Opportunity office, so it reports to Director Jarvis.
Here is the problem with Director Jarvis, though. Of course
this is the same director who was removed from overseeing the
Park Service's ethics program because his own integrity
failures, including lying to the Secretary of Interior.
I am glad to see that Director Jarvis has announced his
retirement. I think that should have happened quite some time
ago, but it is kind of stunning that the director of the Park
Service is prohibited from administering an ethics program
because of his own ethical problems. And then we wonder why we
have a hard time implementing ethical reforms or just
implementing things at the Park Service. How are employees
supposed to trust the EEO process when the person in charge
hasn't followed the rules themselves? Something needs to change
and it needs to change fast.
And I would like to acknowledge we are joined today by two
Park Service employees testifying in a whistleblower capacity.
These brave employees have come forward despite the fear of
possible retaliation. Now, I have got to tell you, we will have
nothing of that. Mr. Cummings and I, Democrats, Republicans, we
are united in the idea that we will go to the ends of the earth
to protect and support people who step up as whistleblowers.
It takes a great deal of guts to come testify before this
committee in a voluntary situation and explain what you have
seen and heard firsthand. For that, we are exceptionally
grateful. It is a difficult thing to do. I can't imagine you
ever imagined in your life that you would be in this situation
testifying before Congress, but as I said before, we take this
responsibility very seriously. We can't fix it if we don't know
precisely what it is. We have a pretty good indication of what
it is, but to hear from the frontlines what is really happening
is a pivotal concern to us.
We want to thank you for your courage, your willingness to
step forward, and we expect candid answers. And we will do all
we can to protect you from any sort of reprisals.
Chairman Chaffetz. So I would now like to recognize the
ranking member, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I do
indeed thank you for calling this hearing.
No employee in Federal civil service should ever feel
afraid to come to work. This is a simple statement, but it is
very, very important. And no employee should ever feel
retaliation if she steps forward or he steps forward to report
misconduct that makes him or her feel afraid or uncomfortable.
I thank Kelly Martin, the chief of fire and aviation
management at Yosemite national Park; and Brian Healy, the
fisheries program manager at the Grand Canyon, for being here
today. I thank them for their courage and their willingness to
come forward and share with this committee their experiences
over decades of work for the Federal Government. I also thank
you for your service. It should not have been necessary for
them to be here today to testify.
A task force convened some 16 years ago commissioned a
study to examine women in law enforcement occupations in the
Park Service. Here is what that study found: Some individuals
in positions of authority appeared to condone either by their
action or inaction sexual harassment and discrimination. The
system used for handling complaints is not trusted by the
employees, nor timely in its ability to bring resolution to
complaints. That is a major, major problem.
It went on to say that employees feel retaliation of
complaints are voiced. That was 16 years ago. The task force
concluded, ``It is critical for the National Park Service to
show a sense of urgency in ensuring that all employees are
working in an environment free from unlawful harassment.''
The task force developed a five-year action plan with
nearly 30 recommendations to correct deficiencies with handling
complaints, recruitment, and retention efforts and sexual
harassment prevention. However, the Park Service, by their own
admission, few of these recommendations were ever implemented.
Obviously, they did not consider it to be that important. They
did not feel a sense of urgency. And so that task force report
was filed away, put on a shelf, gathering dust, ignored.
Sixteen years later, the inspector general has issued a
report finding ``evidence of a long-term pattern of sexual
harassment and hostile workforce environment in the Grand
Canyon River District.'' Sixteen years later, the inspector
general has issued a report finding ``a pattern of harassment
involving a law enforcement supervisor at the Canaveral
National Seashore.'' And 16 years later, members of the
committee, allegations have been made at Yosemite and
Yellowstone National Park's about possible harassment, hostile
work environments, and even sexual exploitation.
Today's hearing will enable us to hear from the Park
Service with regard to specific measures it has implemented to
ensure that all employees work in facilities where sexual
harassment is not tolerated, and the agency's culture welcomes
and supports a workforce that reflects the diversity of our
nation.
I want to hear about the specific reforms that the Park
Service has implemented to ensure that all complaints are
handled in a fair, timely, and thorough and consistent manner.
I want to hear about the reforms that have been implemented to
ensure that the disciplinary process yields consistent and fair
discipline across all Park Service facilities and cannot be
abused to retaliate against employees who file complaints.
And I want to hear about the reforms that have been
implemented to bring the Park Service's Equal Employment
Opportunity program into compliance with the standards of a
model program.
In Ms. Martin's prepared testimony she wrote, ``With
steadfast resolve to work together and confront the serious and
subtle misconduct issues we currently face, we will set a north
star for the culture change for the next generation of National
Park Service employees.''
With the commitment of employees like Ms. Martin and Mr.
Healy, I am confident that we are on the right course to
correct longstanding patterns of harassment and retaliation in
the Park Service. And I thanked them before but I want to thank
them again because they are not only here about themselves and
things that they have seen, but they are trying to make sure
that the Park Service is a place that is welcoming to
generations yet unborn.
However, to make the changes that clearly need to be made,
we have to hold the Park Service's feet to the fire. Sixteen
years ago, there were those who sat in the same chairs and
tried to hold feet to the fire, but apparently, the fire was
not hot enough. Well, we are going to have to do it again.
It has been 99 days since our last hearing. Our committee
should continue to hold hearings on the Park Service every 99
days until all employees feel safe coming to work and reporting
misconduct whenever and wherever it occurs. As I have often
said from this committee during committee hearings, when I see
things that are not right, I often say we are better than that,
and we are better than that. And I want to thank our witnesses
for coming forward to help us get to where we have to go.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
I will hold the record open for five legislative days for
members who would like to submit a written statement.
I will now recognize our panel of witnesses. It starts with
Mr. Michael Reynolds, deputy director for operations at the
National Park Service of the United States Department of the
Interior. Ms. Kelly Martin is the chief of fire and aviation
management at Yosemite National Park of the National Park
Service, the United States Department of Interior; and Mr.
Brian Healy, fisheries program manager at the Grand Canyon
National Park, the National Park Service, in the United States
Department of the Interior.
We thank you all for being here. Pursuant to committee
rules, all witnesses are to be sworn before they testify, so if
you will please rise and raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. You may be seated. Let the
record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative.
In order to allow time for discussion, we would appreciate
your limiting your verbal comments to five minutes, but we are
going to be pretty lenient on that. If you go over, you will be
just fine. Your entire written record will be submitted as part
of the record.
Mr. Reynolds, you are now recognized. And you have got to
make sure you turn it on but bring that microphone
uncomfortably close to your mouth. There you go. Thank you.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL REYNOLDS
Mr. Reynolds. Thank you. Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member
Cummings, and committee members, thank you for the opportunity
to update the committee on steps the National Park Service has
taken to address sexual harassment cases at the Grand Canyon
National Park and Canaveral National Seashore, as well as the
broader issue of harassment in the workplace.
The cases at the Grand Canyon and Canaveral were more than
a wake-up call for the National Park Service. They presented us
with clear and undeniable evidence that we, as we begin our
second century of service, must extend the same commitment to
the employees of the National Park Service as we make to the
protection of our nation's most extraordinary places.
On behalf of the senior leadership of the National Park
Service and the majority of our 20,000 plus employees who are
outstanding, honorable public servants, I share your disgust
with the behavior that the inspector general outlined in these
reports.
In response to those situations, the leadership team at the
National Park Service has committed to making substantial and
long-term culture changes at the agency to prevent sexual
harassment and to ensure that every employee has a safe and
respectful work environment. This kind of change is neither
easy nor fast. We will need to develop trust and support among
our employees, visitors, and Congress to make the changes that
are undeniably necessary. This hearing today is one step in
that journey.
Prior to becoming deputy director in August, I worked in
many parks and regional offices throughout my 30 years with the
National Park Service. As the regional director for the Midwest
and more recently as the associate for Workforce and Inclusion,
my focus has been accountability and performance management and
change.
As the new deputy director, I am personally committed to
providing a culture of transparency, inclusion, respect, and
accountability and making this a safe place for employees to
work. We want to become a model agency. We will become a model
agency.
I will start by outlining the specific actions we have
taken at the Grand Canyon and Canaveral since we last testified
here in June. Since the June 14 hearing at the Grand Canyon, we
have appointed a new superintendent, Christine Lehnertz, closed
the River District within the canyon for now in terms of the
rangers running the program, taken actions to hold employees
accountable for misconduct, and acted on an 18--18 action-item
recommendations in response to the OIG report.
At Canaveral, we have removed the chief ranger accused of
sexual harassment from his duties at the park, moved the
superintendent into a detail assignment with the regional
office, and initiated the process of moving forward with
actions to hold employees accountable for misconduct. Employees
and supervisors at both parks have received mandatory sexual
harassment prevention reporting and response training sessions.
Nationally, we are working with the Department of the
Interior to take steps to eradicate sexual harassment and to
change the NPS culture. Some of these include mandated online
training for all managers and employees and distributing new
NPS-specific guides service-wide; additional focused training
for EEO, human resources, and employee relations staff to
support the workforce, the professionals that would support the
workforce; new reporting options including a hotline and an
ombudsman office, which will be operational within weeks to
serve as an independent and confidential resource for
employees; a service-wide workforce harassment survey to be
conducted later this year; an EEO office that now reports
directly to the director and will receive additional support
for their critical work; updated policies that provide guidance
to employees on harassment, equal employment opportunities,
discrimination, and diversity; and a mandatory 14-day deadline
for completing anti-harassment inquiries.
These efforts would be insufficient without a long-term
plan to fundamentally change the culture of the National Park
Service. Culture change begins with leadership commitment and
accountability and is sustained through ongoing training,
education, and employee engagement. In our centennial year, NPS
leadership has refocused on what we want the service to look
like in its second century and are committed to a transparent
process focused on accountability to make the improvements that
our employees want and deserve. This needs to be done very
urgently.
Thank you again for inviting me to testify before you
today. I am happy to answer any questions that the committee
may have.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Reynolds follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
Ms. Martin, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF KELLY MARTIN
Ms. Martin. Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings, and
members of the committee, I was requested before you today to
discuss my personal experience with employee misconduct with
the National Park Service.
My name is Kelly Martin, and I am the chief of fire and
aviation management at Yosemite National Park. I have been in
my current position for over 10 years. Prior to Yosemite, I
worked for the Forest Service for 16 years. Between the two
agencies, I have 32 years of distinguished service to the
American people. I am here before you today as a citizen and on
behalf of many of our public land management women leaders. My
testimony provided for this hearing focuses on management
diligence to address misconduct over the course of my career.
My motivation for this statement is for greatest focus and
scrutiny on the culture created when leaders of our
organization fail to take disciplinary action and to hold
perpetrators accountable for their actions.
It is not without note the vast majority of individuals who
have devoted their life work on working for the National Park
Service is an honorable and noble profession, myself included.
I am here before you today to tell you my story but more
importantly to provide testimony regarding the dark clouds of
misconduct that remains elusive from public view.
When I began working for the National Park Service as a
college student in 1984, I was sure I found my dream job living
and working in the outdoors with those who share the value of
the importance of public lands in improving resources for the
American public.
Imagine for one minute being 20-something again. We have an
idealistic view of the world that is equitable and just. My
idealistic view was soon shattered when I became victim of
sexual harassment not once but three times. One of my
perpetrators was repeatedly caught engaging in voyeuristic
behavior, all the while receiving promotions within the
National Park Service until his recent retirement as deputy
superintendent.
This is very difficult to sit before you today. I am not
boastful of the history of my sexual harassment experiences. As
a matter of fact, this is the first time I have come out
publicly to describe the painful scars of my past in a hopeful
effort to eliminate these kinds of experiences from happening
to young women entering our workforce today.
I did find my own way to push past these experiences and
decided to preserve my opportunity for career advancement. My
experiences would go unreported until now. This is a highly
personal decision a woman must make, and it is almost always an
embarrassing, arduous situation to endure. What brings me to
testify today is due to a hostile work environment situation in
Yosemite National Park where dozens of individuals have come
forward with personal statements of demoralizing behaviors to
include acts of bullying, gender bias, and favoritism.
While not rising to the notoriety of sexual harassment,
equally damaging behavior patterns that create a hostile work
environment are more pervasive than one might think and is
unlikely confined to one park like Yosemite, as you will hear
today.
The time has come to recognize hostile work environments
affect our employees on a day-to-day basis in our agency. All
members of the team that allow a toxic work environment to
persist are complicit in the negative effects that resulted in
a decrease in employee morale and productivity. The subtle and
overt nuances of a hostile work environment erodes human
dignity and diminishes the full potential of our most valued
resource, the people who care so deeply in the mission of the
National Park Service and their desire to reach their personal
and professional aspirations. We owe this to our future
generation of women and men leaders who our agency desperately
needs to guide us through our current human resource
challenges.
As I walked through my 33 years of service, I want to leave
here today with a strong conviction of hope, hope for the
future generation of the Park Service conservation leaders that
will not know what it is like to experience sexual harassment,
gender and racial discrimination, sexism, and hostile work
environments; hope for national direction to encourage
engagement of women and men at the smallest work unit to
recognize and thwart negative behavior patterns at its insipid
stage; hope we can identify misconduct and take swift and
appropriate action against perpetrators.
I also recognize our agency has many great men who will
come forward to be courageous mentors and champions of women's
contributions and encourage and support an equitable work
environment.
As a chief of fire and aviation at Yosemite, I aim to bring
courage and inspiration to many women I am here representing
today who are hopeful that my full written testimony would be
the catalyst that is needed for change in our culture that is
accepting of everyone.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my experiences and
concerns as the current situation in the National Park Service
is dire and needs immediate attention to ensure future
generations of employees have access to a workplace free from
harassment and hostile work environments.
I would be happy to answer any questions you have of me at
this time.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Martin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
Mr. Healy, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN HEALY
Mr. Healy. Good afternoon, Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking
Member Cummings, and members of the committee. Thank you for
the opportunity to speak to you today. I hope the information
that I share will provide additional insight into the full
scale of the sexual harassment and hostile work environment
issues that Grand Canyon and the efforts of the National Park
Service to address misconduct at the park.
The vast majority of Grand Canyon employees who believe in
the NPS mission are hard-working, selfless, and willing to
cooperate to meet management goals. Nevertheless, as this
committee has seen in the Office of Inspector General's report
on the previous--pervasive misconduct within the River
District, there are exceptions.
My testimony today may anger some of coworkers and
managers. Based on my experiences, I feel as if my career, my
safety, and the safety of other employees at the park maybe at
some risk even though there are numerous legal protections in
place for whistleblowers. Thus, I am using caution in how I
characterize these experiences to protect the privacy of
individual victims and witnesses.
I know this committee is particularly interested in the NPS
response to the findings of misconduct by the OIG. I can report
on the progress of 12 of the action items proposed by the Park
Service and how they've impacted operations and employees at
the park.
First, in August, a boat operator that was implicated in
many of these sexual harassment incidents has been removed from
his position. In addition, training sessions were held to
address sexual harassment reporting and confidentiality. The
training also provided recommendations on responding to
reference checks on former River District employees, and the
agency is making progress on the development of a hotline for
reporting harassment.
However, some actions did not have their desired impact. By
shutting down Grand Canyon's River District and contracting
river logistical support, we learned that we have very limited
ability to prohibit problem boat operators from returning to
work as contractors on NPS science trips. In addition, innocent
employees that have worked at the River District may be
negatively impacted by having their duties changed or, in the
case of temporary employees, they lost work. We could have
avoided this uncomfortable situation altogether if employees
and supervisors were held accountable for their misconduct.
Accountability is elusive for managers. The deputy
superintendent remains in a position in my chain of command,
and the River District supervisor was assigned to a temporary
chief ranger position at another park. While only a temporary
position, this appeared to be a promotion to Grand Canyon
employees. The OIG found this individual and the deputy
superintendent had distributed confidential information related
to victims of sexual harassment to the perpetrators, which is a
violation of regulations and potentially put the victims'
safety at risk.
In addition, despite reasonable and cost-effective
alternatives, the deputy superintendent forced my worker to
continue to work with the River District, which had become a
hostile work environment in 2015.
The culture of bullying and harassment is not limited to
the River District, nor have all the issues been addressed.
Beginning in 2013, I reported multiple instances of bullying
and threatening behavior by members of Grand Canyon's trail
crew and the program manager to the superintendent, deputy
superintendent, and human resources staff. Examples included
retaliation by some members of the trail crew directed toward
an assault victim that had reported her assault to law
enforcement. The assault victim's confidentiality was breached,
and she was labeled with an expletive by members of the trail
crew, the use of a misogynistic slur in reference to a female
senior manager by the trail crew program manager, which was
reported by a witness, and the witness was allegedly threatened
with violence by the program manager on two occasions.
According to those involved, it appeared that NPS managers
did not follow through with appropriate investigations and in
some cases made excuses for this behavior. An investigation
into these incidents involving the trail crew, which occurred
in 2013 and 2014, was finally initiated in April 2016 by the
Intermountain Region, but the findings have yet to be reviewed
five months later.
Years of unchecked misconduct by the River District and
some members of the trail crew and the termination of two
employees that had reported sexual harassment have had a severe
impact on employee morale, productivity, and perceived
workplace safety. Witnesses and victims remain fearful. I have
heard the term ``I was afraid to report harassment because I
feared retaliation'' countless times in my seven years at Grand
Canyon.
Reporting is also discouraged. I was told that the deputy
superintendent viewed me as a whiner, and my own supervisor was
pressured to lower my performance rating due to ``Brian's
problems with the River District and trail crew.''
In closing, our new superintendent has pledged to improve
the work environment for all employees. She indicated that we
have much work to do. This summer, the regional office received
almost 100 complaints or concerns related to workplace issues
at Grand Canyon.
Cultural change is difficult and will take time. The
retention and promotion of managers that are perceived to be
implicated in wrongdoing may continue, which will discourage
future reporting of harassment and challenge employee morale
and confidence in NPS leadership. I sincerely hope that this
testimony will lead to continued positive change in the agency.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Healy follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
I will now recognize the gentlewoman from Wyoming, one of
the most beautiful States, perhaps second only to Utah, but one
of the more beautiful ones and the home of one of our most
treasured national parks. With that, I would like to recognize
Mrs. Lummis for five minutes.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We are primarily focused here on Grand Canyon and Yosemite
National Parks, but it seems that more problems are cropping up
in the system. Mr. Reynolds, are you aware of allegations by
Bob Hester of misconduct among employees at Yellowstone
National Park?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay. Well, in an article published in the
Montana Pioneer just before Labor Day weekend, Mr. Hester
alleges that there was sexual harassment and exploitation as
well as retaliation by supervisors at Yellowstone. The article
mentions allegations also of financial misconduct. Now, who is
currently investigating these allegations?
Mr. Reynolds. The IG, inspector general.
Mrs. Lummis. Have they begun interviewing witnesses?
Mr. Reynolds. The last information, as I understand, is
they have not, but they have an arrival date of September 27 in
the park.
Mrs. Lummis. When was the outside investigator scheduled to
begin interviewing?
Mr. Reynolds. I had a first phone call around September 3,
and I believe the following week, the week of the 5th,
Superintendent Dan Wenk began to put together the right
mechanisms to bring in an independent investigation team.
Mrs. Lummis. One of the things that concerns me, Mr.
Chairman, about this is that in instances where the
superintendent of a park is not implicated in the charges or
the allegations of sexual misconduct and then attempts to
investigate it or initiate an investigation quickly, that maybe
the IG stops the investigation that is going on.
I think this was the case in Yellowstone where
Superintendent Wenk was beginning an investigation and bringing
in outside investigators to do an independent inquiry and then
was prevented from doing so because the IG was brought in,
thereby delaying the opportunity to obtain statements while
people's memories were fresh and potentially providing for the
opportunity for certain of the alleged perpetrators to retire.
So trying to balance how can we protect employees? How can
we protect the people who, like Mr. Healy and Ms. Martin, who
are bringing this information forward and at the same time type
make sure that these investigations are conducted in a timely
manner?
Mr. Reynolds. I agree completely with your concerns. One of
our new policy shifts that I alluded to in my testimony that
we're doing with our EEO program is to establish these third-
party investigation units that would be able to swiftly go in.
I'm going to recommend a 24- to 48-hour turnaround once we have
a report. Superintendent Wenk had begun that process.
I would like to have further conversations with the IG. I
think they're doing absolutely their job to come in and do
this. I'm not sure--they want to have a clean investigation,
and so they did ask us to stand down a third-party
investigator, but I know the superintendent has expressed his
dismay to me about how he's worried about the time for that. So
we agree.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay. Well, in the case of Mr. Wenk, there
were no allegations against him. There were no allegations to
my knowledge that he knew and looked the other way. But what
about the case where that is not true? What about the case
where the superintendent of a national park is implicated? How
do you deal with that situation?
Mr. Reynolds. It's very important that we have somebody
from the outside managing that process so that you don't have
any problems if you will tainting an investigation, right? So
our policy is to develop--in one example we have a different
region, an EEO director from a different regional office of the
other park to direct the investigation and to work with the
regional office. In our chain we have seven regions that
oversee these different parks. So to bring in some sort of
third party that way is our current plan and our current
policy.
Mrs. Lummis. Well, and before my time is gone, I want you
to know that we are going to be watching the National Park
Service in the way that Ms. Martin is treated and Mr. Healy is
treated and other whistleblowers are treated as a consequence
of their bringing these allegations forward and that we are
going to be watching the National Park Service because this
should not be tolerated, it should not be unaddressed, and it
has been inadequately addressed.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentlelady.
I will now recognize the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia, Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
hearing.
Mr. Reynolds, we are very grateful for how the National
Park Service runs most of our neighborhood parks. It is not
just the Mall but our neighborhood parks are owned by the
National Park Service. We have a good relationship with the
Park Service. I want to know if these two parks where these
allegations, these issues have come from in the West, are they
ours? Are people quartered together? Or are these nationwide
problems?
Mr. Reynolds. Congresswoman, if I can ask just to clarify.
Do you mean, in other words, are these unique problems to these
parks----
Ms. Norton. To the Western part of the United States where
these large parks where there are cabins. I don't understand
whether or not the staff are quartered there instead of going
home the way my own ----
Mr. Reynolds. Understood.
Ms. Norton.--Park Service rangers do.
Mr. Reynolds. Right, we--so 413 units nationwide, very
diverse system now. As you know ----
Ms. Norton. I am talking about those Western units.
Mr. Reynolds. In these two parks--and I would be happy to
let Ms. Martin and Mr. Healy also comment--things can be
exacerbated when you have communities much like a military base
living and working together.
Ms. Norton. Let me ask you both. Do you live in the park
where you are located in cabins, men and women, or how do you
operate since the only parks I know are the urban parks?
Mr. Healy. At Grand Canyon there is--many employees are
housed on the south rim, but then there is--there's times when
they're working out of bunk houses in inner canyon in the
backcountry. Myself, I work in Flagstaff, which is about an
hour-and-a-half drive away. So it ----
Ms. Norton. Ms. Martin?
Ms. Martin. Thank you, Congresswoman. I do live in Yosemite
Valley in a cabin, and a lot of our seasonal staff that's on
our fire crew will be housed in, say, one house or one bunk
quarters. There are certainly opportunities there that could
potentially lead to a hostile type of environment, especially
with our young folks. So we do have close quarters that men and
women do live and work in on a regular basis.
Ms. Norton. Which should caution the National Park Service
to take such matters into account.
Mr. Healy, I was reading your testimony. On page 8 you
speak of a contractor. This doesn't go specifically to sexual
harassment but it goes to issues like--you name alcohol abuse,
drug use, so I am interested in how the policies relate to
contractors. I was chair of the Employment Opportunity
Commission. I wasn't aware that contractors were treated any
differently, but I do note that you say in your testimony that
you were informed that your concerns about the misconduct were
not considered when the contract was awarded. I suppose I
should ask Mr. Reynolds. Why are matters like drug abuse of a
contractor, alcohol abuse, I take it maybe even sexual
harassment are not taken into account when a contract is
awarded?
Mr. Reynolds. They should be for any on-duty thing, and
I'll be happy to investigate what happened in this contracting
process.
Ms. Norton. I wish you would because it said--Mr. Healy
said that he was specifically informed that his concerns were
not considered, not even considered. That is what caught my eye
when the contract was awarded.
Mr. Reynolds. I would be very concerned about that if that
is true, and I will be happy to get right back to you ----
Ms. Norton. And we would like to know whether or not they
are considered generally or whether that was an exception, and
if you would let the chairman knows so that we can ----
Mr. Reynolds. Yes, certainly, I can tell you ----
Ms. Norton.--go back ----
Mr. Reynolds.--and I think Mr. Healy will back me up. For
any on-duty if you will period of contract, performance, that
should be standard language in any contract how ----
Ms. Norton. I would think so.
Mr. Reynolds. To your point, when you're living and working
24 hours a day if you will on the river, that may be where we
have some issues.
Ms. Norton. Yes, but Mr. Healy--there was a similar report
16 years ago about this systemic harassment of women, and there
were specific recommendations made. Are you aware of that
report? I mean, we hear again 16 years later. Are you aware of
that task force report about similar problems?
Mr. Reynolds. The Women in Law Enforcement report?
Ms. Norton. Yes.
Mr. Reynolds. Yes, I am.
Ms. Norton. When did you become first aware of that report?
Mr. Reynolds. I ----
Ms. Norton. And were any of its recommendations
implemented?
Mr. Reynolds. No, they were not as far as I can ever figure
out. There were, as the chairman actually mentioned, 30
different recommendations. I think things were worked on during
that time frame. I wasn't involved at the time.
Ms. Norton. Of course.
Mr. Reynolds. But ----
Ms. Norton. How can we be assured that any recommendations
either from this committee or from similar task forces since--
worked on but full implementation apparently did not occur so
we are back here again 16 years later?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes, it's a very regrettable action that did
not occur.
Ms. Norton. Finally, Mr. Chairman, if I could ask,
apparently in that report 16.3 percent of the Park Service
women in law enforcement, park ranger and special agents were
women. What is the percentage of women in those positions
today?
Mr. Reynolds. I believe we have about 247 women in law
enforcement out of about a force of 1,664 so ----
Ms. Norton. So do the math.
Mr. Reynolds. I'm not the best in math but about 15 percent
or so.
Ms. Norton. You are going down, not up. One of the first
things that agencies and private sector does when this problem
occurs is to of course increase the number of women in law
enforcement or in the applicable mission.
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentlelady.
I will now recognize the chairman for Michigan, Mr.
Walberg.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
panel for being here and we hope this is very worthwhile for
yourselves but also for the people you serve with.
Having spent many weeks in national parks, North, South,
East, and West, as a kid with my family camping, hiking,
fishing, and then with my family doing the same thing even as I
look forward to being out in Glacier National Park this next
August, impressive territories we have, impressive treasures.
And in every case, my experience, we have been treated with
great respect and professionalism by the staff, so it is
concerning to hear some of the behind-the-scenes and though we
deal with humans and yet these type of things have to be
addressed, so thank you for being here.
Ms. Kelly, can you describe for this committee some of
Superintendent Neubacher's behavior that you observed which
prompted the investigation?
Ms. Martin. Thank you, Congressman, for that question.
Myself personally I have been the chief there at Yosemite for
the last 10 years, and the marker point for me was when we had
the rim fire of 2013 and I happened to be off unit on another
fire and returning. My duties have been to act as the agency
administrator representative for the superintendent when we
have large incidents in the park. I returned. I told my
supervisor I would be returning and I could assume those
duties. And for whatever unknown reason, I was not allowed to
perform those duties that is part of my official duties of my
job within the park.
It was for myself personally discrediting my
professionalism, and it was humiliating for me to not be able
to perform that job and that function in front of my peers, our
interagency wildfire cooperators, and even the--our park
internal staff that I was not able to provide that leadership.
Mr. Walberg. Any rational reason given to you for that?
Ms. Martin. No, sir.
Mr. Walberg. Any reason at all?
Ms. Martin. No, sir.
Mr. Walberg. So it was just an arbitrary decision that was
made by Superintendent Neubacher to not allow you to function
----
Ms. Martin. I requested to be able to split the duties
between myself and I have a very competent deputy fire chief
that took over two roles, both the agency administrator and he
was also in the role of incident commander trainee. I'm
confounded as to why I was not able to truly perform that--in
that role.
Mr. Walberg. In your testimony you mentioned the fear of
retaliation for speaking out about what was happening at the
park. Can you describe for us this concern and where it stems
from? And are you aware of other employees that share the same
concern?
Ms. Martin. The fear of retaliation, the fear of coming
forward is not necessarily in our culture to come forward and
to describe hostile type of situations or a toxic type of
environment. Ours is certainly dealing more with a hostile work
environment. It's not dealing with sexual harassment, so that's
not at issue right here.
But people do not fear--or they do fear that they are not
safe in bringing issues to management. And one of the concerns
that I've heard is that within Yosemite National Park we have a
superintendent, and our deputy superintendent position has been
vacant for three years. So unfortunately, there's a
concentration of decision-making within one person and is not
necessarily shared within the deputy superintendent and the
superintendent.
Mr. Walberg. Has that been done for a purpose, keeping the
vacancy there?
Ms. Martin. I'm unaware of why that would remain vacant for
the last three years.
Mr. Walberg. Do you believe Superintendent Neubacher's
actions to be an isolated incident or are they reflective of a
larger cultural problem within the National Park Service?
Ms. Martin. It's hard for me to address the larger
cultural--I have reason to believe that it probably is a larger
cultural type of issue. I do believe that it is important for
the image to be in-house and for us to kind of take care of
things in-house and not be able to share these types of issues
publicly, but I think it's very, very important for the women
that are--that have left, the women that are currently there at
Yosemite to really understand and daylight what it is, what the
behaviors that are exhibited that really truly cost people's
integrity and a reduction in morale.
Mr. Walberg. Well, thank you for your testimony, and I
yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. The gentleman yields. I have just a
follow-up to that.
Mr. Reynolds, there are two things the committee would like
to see. You have been unwilling so far to give us the expedited
inquiry into the Yosemite situation. Is that something you will
provide to the committee?
Mr. Reynolds. Mr. Chairman, we did give your staff--I think
they call it an on-camera--I'm not sure what that means but --
--
Chairman Chaffetz. In camera, yes. Yes.
Mr. Reynolds.--in camera, you know, visibile--and I know
you're concerned about it. I know we've had some exchanging
correspondence. I'll continue to work with our folks on it. It
is an active investigation I guess is the short answer that I
could give you. I am not unwilling to share with you data when
I can. I just don't want to infringe on ----
Chairman Chaffetz. It is something in your possession in
Congress would like to see it, so can you name anything that we
shouldn't able to see? Is there anything classified in there?
Mr. Reynolds. No. And I don't disagree with your ability to
get that. I'm just hampered a little bit ----
Chairman Chaffetz. Wait, wait, wait ----
Mr. Reynolds.--by the process ----
Chairman Chaffetz.--don't disagree with my--you won't give
it to us.
Mr. Reynolds. At the moment we're having conversations
about how to do that ----
Chairman Chaffetz. What is the conversation? What is the
hesitation?
Mr. Reynolds. To keep--to be candid with you, sir, to keep
the investigative process as clean as we can while we're
getting into it.
Chairman Chaffetz. So you don't trust Congress? Is that
what you are saying? It would make it dirty?
Mr. Reynolds. No, that's not what I mean.
Chairman Chaffetz. Well, you said you are trying to keep it
clean and you won't give it to Congress so ----
Mr. Reynolds. It's just for public data purposes during an
investigation, but I would--I will pledge to you to continue to
work ----
Chairman Chaffetz. No, I want you to pledge to give it to
Congress.
Mr. Reynolds. I understand that, sir.
Chairman Chaffetz. Do you need a subpoena? What do you
need? Who makes this decision?
Mr. Reynolds. It will be a decision that I will talk over
with our solicitors predominantly.
Chairman Chaffetz. I would also like to see anybody who has
been fired, dismissed, or retired from Yellowstone since 2013.
Is that something you can give to us?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes, I can.
Chairman Chaffetz. When will you give that to us?
Mr. Reynolds. I will give it to you within 48 hours.
Chairman Chaffetz. Fair enough. Thank you.
Chairman Chaffetz. I will now recognize the gentleman from
Maryland, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. I want to pick up where the gentleman left
off a few minutes ago, this whole thing of retaliation. And as
I was listening to you, Ms. Martin, I cannot help but think
about the question of how do you tackle a culture? It is not
easy.
In the Baltimore City Police Department I had asked for
pattern-or-practice investigation. And the reason why I asked
for it is because we had people in the department, good
policeman, who knew that things were going bad and wrong but
they do not feel comfortable talking about it because they were
worried that they would be retaliated against. Their comrades
would do some things that may be harmful to them. And when we
got that pattern-or-practice report, it was 10 times worse, 10
times, probably 20 than I ever imagined with regard to African-
American men and the way they were being treated by police.
So, Mr. Healy, you said something that really kind of
struck me. You said, ``I feel as if my career and possibly my
safety and the safety of other Grand Canyon employees may be at
some risk.'' That is a hell of a statement and it is one that I
feel pain that you even have to even think it, let alone say
it. And the mere fact that you have said it in a public forum
puts you even, I would assume, in even more jeopardy. It is one
thing to think it, it is another thing to say it, it is another
thing to say it in a public forum.
What can we do to help? Because, as I see it, the culture
that I talked about before and I think that Ms. Martin is
alluding to and probably you, too, is one that is--I mean, you
almost have to dig deep and pry out probably a lot of folks and
almost start over again. And so I am trying to figure out what
is your hope? I mean, I am sure you have thought about this,
said to yourself, you know, there has got to be a better way. I
mean, how do you see that way?
Because let me tell you something. The reason I am raising
this is because, you know, in my opening I talked about 16
years ago. Guess what? Most of these people weren't even--none
of them, none of these people were here 16 years ago except me.
They weren't even here. So another group of Congress people
were addressing this supposedly, and yet it has not been
corrected and the culture grows and metastasizes and gets
worse.
And you come here and I want you all to be effective and
efficient. See, not only do I--I mean, I know that you have
your concerns about retaliation, about your comrades being all
upset, but it will be a damn shame if you came here, you gave
your testimony--and this is my great fear--and it was not
effective and efficient and what you drive it to do. But that
is a lose-lose all the way around. You go back and they said
why did you do that? And then it gets worse.
And so help me in looking at what you have seen. I think
Ms. Norton said one thing, Ms. Martin. She talked about having
more women in key positions in law enforcement and supervisory
positions. But what do you see? I mean, how would you like to
see us try to break this culture? And do you have confidence--
you made some complementary statements, Mr. Healy, about some
of the things you have seen being done but then you came right
back and talked about the negative impact of some of the
positive things that were supposedly happening. So help us.
Help us help you.
Mr. Healy. Thank you. I think what would help is that if we
can ensure that these people that have come forward to me to
ask for assistance in reporting things are protected to the
same extent that I am. And I think, you know, in preparing for
this testimony, I went back to some of these individuals that
had bad experiences at the park and I asked them to help me
deliver that message here. And I heard a lot of fear from those
people, you know? And there's individuals at the park that
have, you know, as I mentioned in my testimony, threatened
people with violence and they're still there. And I think
account--holding those people accountable is a really good
step. And I'm not really sure how Congress can assist the Park
Service in doing that, but that would be a good first step.
And then the other thing you mentioned was you alluded to
the--shutting down the River District and the river
contracting. Those decisions were made--I'm not sure who made
the decisions, but there was definitely no consultation with
folks on the ground that are doing the work like myself or my
coworkers that have experience and understand the risks and
making some of those decisions. And I think if the Park Service
leadership were to more effectively engage its employees in
developing solutions for these problems, we would--it will go a
long way.
Mr. Cummings. What about you, Ms. Martin?
Ms. Martin. Thank you, Mr. Cummings. I believe that we
really have to start with the awareness of the culture that's
been created over the years, and we have to--like you said, we
have to root it out. We have to really understand what's at the
root of this type of culture and this type of behavior that
then supports sexual harassment and hostile work environments.
I think that's truly our first step is awareness of the issues
of how those behaviors actually ascend to these types of
situations.
Mr. Cummings. Now, Ms. Martin, I have been on the Naval
Academy Board of Visitors for about 10 years now, and one of
the things--we had a major sexual harassment problem, and what
we found is that a lot of the midshipmen--I am going to
something you just said to make sure I am clear. A lot of the
midshipmen were doing things that were harassment and they
claim--and some of them--I believe some of them--I am not sure
about. So they didn't even know I was harassed. I mean, can you
comment on that? You say you just talked about awareness. Go
ahead.
Ms. Martin. At some point we have to create an environment
that's open and transparent with our leadership to really be
able to talk about these hard issues. And until we get there,
we're going to continue to have these misunderstandings between
management and employees as to he said/she said. And until we
get to that point that we can then provide this transparency
and really expose it for what it is, we need to really talk
about the behaviors and be able to communicate that.
Right now, there's so much fear in being able to
communicate what that is, and so I see that as, number one, the
awareness and the culture that we've created and then being
able to communicate what it is that creates these types of
situations. Then ----
Mr. Cummings. I am sorry. Please.
Ms. Martin. And then at that point how do we then best
educate our employees so that we don't have these kinds of--we
don't have these kinds of hearings 16 years from now or five
years from now. We just--we've got to think about things
differently in terms of how we can be more communicative, you
know, with our senior leaders. Right now, that's not happening.
Mr. Cummings. And now that you have heard what they just
said, Mr. Reynolds, can you tell us how, you know--you know, I
get frustrated because, you know, I know we are going to hear--
you say a lot of nice things about what you are going to do
and, you know, but convince us that you get it and that your
folks get it because I am telling you, after these lights go
out, they have got to go back. They have got to go back. I
mean, how do you assure them and people coming into the service
or want to come into the service or people that are there that
they don't have to go through this crap? This is crazy.
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. And unacceptable.
Mr. Reynolds. First off, I will join you in protecting my
colleagues ----
Mr. Cummings. Now, how are you going to do that?
Mr. Reynolds. Well, the first thing I'll do is we really
need to dive into the cultural issues, as well as, if you will,
the fundamentals of ----
Mr. Cummings. Well, what about the person who is watching
us right now who is sitting there laughing and just--I mean,
just like can't wait till they get back. I got something for
them.
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. I am going to hurt them. I'm going to do
something to them. How do you deal with that person, those
people? Because apparently, there are quite a few.
Mr. Reynolds. We can't let those lights go off. We have to
not have any darkness, right? It has to be very transparent
from here forward. There has to be an accountability that
everybody can see and touch.
They're also--with our culture we're trying to pull
together some parts of our organization. So, for example, we've
never really had affinity groups in the National Park Service,
women's groups or other employee groups that might come
together, and we're trying to attempt to do that in order for
there to be a cohort that can be another protective kind of
place that people--a safe place if you will to be--also for
management then to be required to listen to those groups and to
those employees about what the concerns might be.
Mr. Cummings. All right. Thank you very much.
Chairman Chaffetz. I now recognize the gentleman from
Georgia, Mr. Hice.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, based on the actions of Director Jarvis, I think
further oversight of the National Park Service is desperately
needed.
This is actually my third hearing on this matter. As a part
of Oversight, we of course were here in June but also but also
Natural Resources Subcommittee. We were with Director Jarvis in
May.
And I want to thank Ms. Martin, Mr. Healy for your
testimony this afternoon and what you have endured.
Director Reynolds, let me start with you. Based on your
testimony, I know that you are aware of the sexual harassment
cases specifically at Cape Canaveral, the operation there. Can
you tell me just how many total complaints came from there
even, you know, those that are ongoing or resolved cases?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes, Congressman. I believe there's about
three complaints, but I believe there might be a few more IG
reports that I'll follow-up in a confirmation with you on that.
Mr. Hice. Okay. There has actually been four. And in fact,
the Washington Post reported in early July that four
investigations there since 2012 is an unusually high number,
they said, for such a small operation of the National Park
Service. And, as you just mentioned, these are just the ones
that we know about. As has been testified to today, people are
scared. Who knows how many other cases have been swept under
the rug because of the culture of fear.
During the time of these investigations since 2012, who was
the superintendent in charge?
Mr. Reynolds. In 2012 I believe it was Superintendent
Palfrey.
Mr. Hice. That is correct. And I don't represent the good
people of Florida, but just yesterday came across an article in
the Florida Today, and they reported, like I said, just
yesterday that Superintendent Palfrey was promoted to the
position of special assistant to the Southeast regional
director. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hice. Okay. And as she has been promoted, she gets to
work at home, she gets a comfortable $116,000 salary. And you
mentioned in your testimony a few moments ago that the chief
ranger at Cape Canaveral was no longer at the location there,
but you failed to mention that the superintendent has received
a promotion to the Southeast regional director. Do you know
where the Southeast regional director office is located?
Mr. Reynolds. It's in Atlanta. And if I could offer, sir,
that ----
Mr. Hice. No, let me go on.
Mr. Reynolds. Okay.
Mr. Hice. It is in Atlanta, and that is in my backyard. And
that raises a great deal of concern for me personally. You are
also aware that Director Jarvis testified here in Congress over
a book deal where he failed to secure proper permission for
that book. You are aware of that?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Mr. Hice. And, Mr. Chairman, you know, my point in all of
this is the pattern that is clearly unfolding before us.
Obviously, under the direction of Director Jarvis there is
unaccountability, there is poor management, unsafe work
environment, and that has permeated throughout the National
Park Service. And what is the consequence for Director Jarvis?
Again, he gets a mere slap on the wrist. He has to go through
some silly monthly ethics training once a month, watch a video
or something for the duration of his time.
And so here is what people are getting at the Park Service:
these type of slaps on the wrist and/or promotions. You know,
this is just insane. This is absolute insanity.
And, Mr. Chairman, on June 16 I wrote a letter to the
President, President Obama, asking for the resignation of
Director Jarvis. And I actually have a copy of that letter here
that I would like to go in the record.
Chairman Chaffetz. He is asking unanimous consent. Without
objection, so ordered.
Mr. Hice. And while I understand Director Jarvis is going
to retire in January, what we have heard yet again here today
and what continues to be prevalent in National Park Service I
just want it on record that I stand by my position in
requesting the immediate resignation of Director Jarvis.
And with that, sir, I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Welch, for
five minutes.
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much.
You know, the National Park Service is a great treasure. It
is unbelievable. We have all been to the national parks and I
go to one every year, so it is pretty sad to hear about this.
And my experience as a visitor, as a hiker is one of just
enormous appreciation for the staff that I meet from the bottom
on up. It is really quite wonderful. And my sense is that in
general there is just an enormous appreciation for the work
that people do.
My sense, too, is that the people who work there, it is a
way of life for them. They love the outdoors, they love nature,
they love the history and tradition. So it is very sad that
also part of it is a situation that you all have been
describing, but I want to take all three of you actually for
the work you have done and for coming forward.
I will start with you, Mr. Reynolds. You know, the culture
on this has got to be in a way zero tolerance, and the culture
and how employees are expected to work does come from the top,
and that has to imbued from the top down and then reinforced in
every way. So what concrete steps can you take to do that? If
the leadership doesn't take this deadly seriously, then no one
else will.
Mr. Reynolds. We have to get this right. This has to be our
top priority. One of the first things that I would like to do--
I'm in day 52 here in this new job, so I'm just--I found the
bathroom, so now we need to get going on some very big focus
through the chains of command. We'll be meeting next week with
some of the field leadership, and I would like to be able to
tell them at that point what we plan to do with a diversity and
inclusion outfit that would be tied to my office ----
Mr. Welch. You know ----
Mr. Reynolds.--and that can start working on the cultural
issues because you're right, it is ----
Mr. Welch. Well ----
Mr. Reynolds. We have some of the most outstanding public
employees, as these two represent ----
Mr. Welch. You do, but you know what ----
Mr. Reynolds.--and we have to give them that kind of
management.
Mr. Welch. Yes, but I don't quite know what that means,
what you just said. I don't think it takes a big meeting. It is
like, look, folks, any unwanted advances just aren't allowed. I
mean, how complicated is that?
Mr. Reynolds. We have put out quite a bit of extensive
refresher if you will and reminder and zero tolerance policy.
But I agree with you and I think it needs to be a step further,
which is actions. Actions will be louder than words in this in
terms of the accountability.
Mr. Welch. The action is I think--all the people in
management have to meet with their staff and they have to have
a discussion and basically say it. It is not complicated. They
have to say it and mean it.
And then on the other hand and we also want to get more
women into leadership positions as well.
Mr. Reynolds. Right.
Mr. Welch. All right.
Chairman Chaffetz. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Welch. I will. Yes, go ahead.
Chairman Chaffetz. Mr. Reynolds, what was your job before
this job? What were you doing at the Park Service?
Mr. Reynolds. I was the associate director for workforce --
--
Chairman Chaffetz. Yes, so you are in charge of H.R. Don't
lead Mr. Welch to believe that you are in day 54 and, hey, I am
the new kid on the block. You have been running the H.R.
department at the Park Service since 2014, so your words are
little bit hollow in here, hey, well, you know, we have got to
do some refresher. And can you give me a single instance where
you have--you said you have a zero tolerance policy. Are you
kidding me? Show me an example of zero tolerance.
Mr. Reynolds. Well, you know, first off, I understand your
perception, and I've been dealing with revamping the whole
systems and process of workforce, haven't gotten there yet. We
have the zero tolerance policy, and I guess my point is ----
Chairman Chaffetz. Wait a second.
Mr. Reynolds.--putting it into action.
Chairman Chaffetz. It is Mr. Welch's time, but you haven't
gotten there yet. You had the job--when did you first take on
that job in human resources?
Mr. Reynolds. Two years ago.
Chairman Chaffetz. I know, but give me a month in 2014.
Mr. Reynolds. April of '14.
Chairman Chaffetz. Okay. Sorry. It is your time but ----
Mr. Welch. No, I appreciate your questions.
You know, here is my view on this. We can have personnel
policies and we can write down the this's and the that's and it
can be 10 pages or 500 pages. None of it means anything other
than what is the culture that people in that environment are
expected to live by? And people respond much more to a
reinforced culture because it is the way it is, and that comes
with a pride. It comes with a mutual respect.
So, you know, give me all the policies in the world, but
employees are not going to be thinking at the time they may
want to do something that they shouldn't be doing whether this
is a violation of subsection 4 of article 5 in chapter 2. It is
just going to be--we don't do that around here. And that I
really do think is a top-down responsibility. It is just every
single day in every way.
And the reason I got a little nervous about your answer is
that it suggested to me or this is the implication I have which
may not be true, but that if we write the right policy, that
will take care of it. And, you know what, we don't have to
write anything and we can take care of it by having management
make it clear that any unwanted advance is totally out of line.
Mr. Cummings. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Reynolds. I'm sorry if I misled--misunderstood ----
Mr. Welch. You didn't mislead ----
Mr. Reynolds.--Congressman, but I agree with you.
Mr. Cummings. If the gentleman would yield just for one
second, I know you don't have much time.
I just had one question. When you were running H.R., what
does zero tolerance--what did that mean? Because I hope it is
not about writing a memo to do a refresher course because let
me tell you something. The people watching this at the Park
Service, when they hear you say that, they say, oh, boy, we are
in great shape.
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. Nothing is going to happen, and we will keep
doing what we have been doing. I am just telling you.
Mr. Reynolds. Right.
Mr. Cummings. So tell us, define for all of us so that
other people when they ask their questions will know what you
meant when you were zero-tolerancing.
Mr. Reynolds. Well, we need to have a much better
fundamental set of professionals ----
Mr. Cummings. But what did it mean when you were doing the
job?
Mr. Reynolds. It should mean that we have ----
Mr. Cummings. No, no, no, no, no, no. I am asking you, you
were head of H.R., am I right? Come on now.
Mr. Reynolds. The Workforce Directorate, yes.
Mr. Cummings. All right. All I am asking you--the chairman
talked about zero tolerance. That was your thing. All I am
asking you is what did that mean? The reason why I am asking
you this is because I am trying to predict your future. I am
trying to figure out how you are going to act in this position
because they have got to go back.
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. And it seems listening to you say I am going
to write a little memo, I am going to send them a refresher
course, those guys are laughing at you like you are a big joke.
Mr. Reynolds. Right.
Mr. Cummings. And you know what happens? They get screwed.
Mr. Reynolds. What it means to me is to make ----
Mr. Cummings. What it meant to you. What did it mean? And
then tell me what it means now.
Mr. Reynolds. It meant to me to make the safest place we
can for our employees. It meant that they would have the
ability to report, that they would be protected.
Mr. Cummings. Well, you failed.
Mr. Reynolds. Yes, we have, so far.
Mr. Cummings. Sitting here ----
Mr. Reynolds. We have.
Mr. Cummings.--failed.
Mr. Reynolds. We have.
Chairman Chaffetz. I now recognize the gentleman from South
Carolina, Mr. Gowdy.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Reynolds, I want to you tell you. You have managed to
do something that I have not seen done in the five years I have
been here. Peter Welch is one of the more level-headed,
reasonable-minded, one of the more decent human beings that you
will meet in public service. You have managed to even get him
upset. Getting Mr. Cummings and I upset is not as much of a
challenge. Getting Peter Welch upset is.
And I think what upsets him is when you have a fact pattern
of someone spying on another person while they are taking a
shower, you don't need a policy change and you don't need a new
memo. You need handcuffs and a trip to the sex offender
registry. That is what you need.
So, Ms. Martin, you said a couple of things in your
statement that resonated with me. You said, ``It is a deep,
conflicted, and risky decision for me to come forward and speak
up today.'' And you said, many women ``feel shame and fear of
coming forward to report misconduct'' and cannot bring
themselves ``to be the ones who have the difficult and painful
task of speaking up.'' Here is what I want you to help me do. I
want the fear and the difficulty and the pain to belong to the
perpetrator, not the victim. So I want you to tell us as much
about your fact pattern, your story, and I want you to stop and
cite all those instances where something more could have been
and should have been done, and do it on behalf of the women who
maybe don't have the ability to speak up like you do.
Ms. Martin. Thank you, Congressman, for this opportunity.
It is a very painful and conflicted position that I'm in right
now. This happened. I was a victim of a peeping tom at Grand
Canyon in 1987. It was a very difficult and painful experience
for me. I reported it to two supervisors immediately that first
day that I was able to positively identify a park ranger in
uniform that was peering through my bathroom window. I reported
it to two supervisors. Visibly shaken, it was very, very
difficult for me to do. It was very embarrassing. I didn't
think anybody would actually even believe me that something
like this had happened to me.
I was given options. I could say nothing and move on. I
could file an EEO complaint or a criminal complaint. I had to
think about that for a couple of days as to how I wanted to
proceed. I was just starting my career in the Federal service
in my early 20s, and I just did not want to make this an issue.
I just did not want to come forward in admitting a complaint
like this this early in my career and be labeled as a
troublemaker.
In the end, what I agreed to was a conference or a sit-down
with the two supervisors that I reported this to, along with
the perpetrator. He apologized to me. He assured me that this
had never happened before and that it'll never happen again.
And so for me this has been with me my entire career, and
so when I think of zero tolerance, I think this is where this
was the hardest part for me is to--it just did not feel like
zero tolerance for me. I've had to live with this a long time.
This particular individual continued to be moved through the
Park Service and just recently retired.
So for me I believe that this was the tipping point for me
to come forward and tell my story that this is why I could no
longer remain silent. There's a lot of other women out there
that I represent that these very same things have happened or
very similar things, and they just fear that management will
not take action and then we become victims again for coming
forward.
Mr. Gowdy. So the perpetrator went on and finished his
career with the Park Service and is now enjoying the perks of
his retirement?
Ms. Martin. That's my understanding.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, I will just say this. You should never
have to choose between your career and justice ever. You should
be able to pursue both of them with all the vigor in the world,
so I am sorry it happened to you and I appreciate the courage
it takes to come and share your story.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
I will now recognize Ms. Plaskett.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
being here this afternoon and sharing this somewhat
uncomfortable discussion with us here.
We all know that there is an urgent need to stem sexual
harassment, discrimination by increasing female representation
in the workforce and particularly at senior leadership
positions and individuals having a say in how these policies
are done.
Ms. Martin, you wrote in your prepared statements--I am
going to quote--``The jewels of the Park Service heavily favor
men in the most powerful positions of superintendents, deputy
superintendents, fire, and law enforcement.'' Mr. Reynolds, how
many national parks are there, and how many park
superintendents are women?
Mr. Reynolds. We have 413 parks, and as you know,
Congresswoman, there is not a superintendent necessarily in
every park. And I believe--I'm going to find the actual number
for you, but I think it's around 258 superintendents ----
Ms. Plaskett. Okay.
Mr. Reynolds.--and I believe about 127 are women. If you
just give me a minute ----
Ms. Plaskett. Okay.
Mr. Reynolds.--I'll find the right number.
Ms. Plaskett. That would be good.
Mr. Reynolds. It's about a 60/40--slightly under 40
percent.
Ms. Plaskett. So 60 percent are?
Mr. Reynolds. Men.
Ms. Plaskett. Men. And then those positions below that at
the deputy superintendent level?
Mr. Reynolds. Deputy superintendents, I have 58 percent
men, 42 percent female ----
Ms. Plaskett. And ----
Mr. Reynolds.--and I will clarify for you, 62 percent men,
38 female on superintendents.
Ms. Plaskett. Okay. And the parks that the women are
superintendents over, are they the same size and scope in terms
of geographic size, as well as personnel, as the men that are
superintendents ----
Mr. Reynolds. You know, I'd have to ----
Ms. Plaskett.--because there are different kinds of
superintendents.
Mr. Reynolds. Correct. I think it's pretty evenly
distributed. We could look at that more carefully, but I have
not heard a concern on that level other than our demographic
numbers.
Ms. Plaskett. Okay. I know that there are two initiatives
to expand the presence of women in the Park Service. So you
said that it seems to be evenly distributed. I mean, it is not
exactly what the demographics of our country are but it seems
evenly distributed as much as wouldn't seem askew. What are the
initiatives that you are doing to increase the number of women
in that workforce? So we have the same number level at
leadership, so you have a 60/40 split. Do you have a 60/40 in
terms of at middle management and then in terms of the workers
that are in the park?
Mr. Reynolds. I'd have to pull out exact numbers, but I
think it tracks fairly close to that. We do have women now
scattered through in our senior leadership as well, in our
regional director ranks, for example, and in our associate
director ranks.
We have some initiatives in general to diversify the Park
Service. We also have strong majority numbers of our employees,
and so we're working across the board. We've set up a new
recruitment office to begin to focus the H.R. community on that
very topic.
Ms. Plaskett. Okay. I know that you have the Women's
Employee Resource Group, the Fire Management Leadership Board.
How are they bringing benefit to the Park Service?
Mr. Reynolds. Well, I think they're a start. I don't think
they're fully achieving their goals, but they bring us some
tools and some awareness and some requirement on our leadership
to be considering these things in the recruitment process ----
Ms. Plaskett. What are the goals of those initiatives?
Mr. Reynolds. Well, the Employee Resource Group, there's a
number of them that we're trying to form to give people, again,
a safe place to have a cohort to bring forward, for example, if
it's the women's--we call them ERGs, Employee Resource Group.
Then they can bring forward issues important to women in the
service. They can represent a voice. They can be a defense
place if they need it, that kind of thing.
Ms. Plaskett. And I would be remiss without asking--I know
we were talking about sexual harassment against women, but how
many people of color do you have as superintendent of the
parks?
Mr. Reynolds. I don't know the answer to that. I can
quickly get it to you, though. But I will tell you that our
workforce is generally 80 percent white across the board.
Ms. Plaskett. Across the board?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Ms. Plaskett. Okay. But I would like to know how many men,
women of color are superintendents and deputy superintendents
----
Mr. Reynolds. I would be happy to get that to you.
Ms. Plaskett.--of the parks. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentlewoman.
I will now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr.
Palmer, for five minutes.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Reynolds, what steps has the National Park Service
taken in response to the findings of the Grand Canyon's OIG
report?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes, thank you, Congressman. We have about 18
steps that the OIG asked us to endeavor on, and this included
everything from some of the training and awareness kinds of
programs that we talked about to disciplinary action.
Mr. Palmer. One of the action items outlined by the Park
Service in response to the OIG report is that managers who
failed to properly report all allegations of sexual harassment
would be held responsible and that appropriate disciplinary
action would be taken by May of 2016. To date, what if any
disciplinary action has the Park Service taken against these
managers?
Mr. Reynolds. I believe everybody in the canyon--and Mr.
Healy can back me up on this--have been removed from the job
that they had. The boatman has been removed from the park and
is undergoing a disciplinary process as we speak.
Mr. Palmer. Well, as I was listening to testimony earlier,
it seemed to me that Mr. Healy felt like some of the action was
taken was more in the context of a promotion than disciplinary
action. Did I misunderstand that or did I hear that correctly?
Mr. Reynolds. I'm not aware of any ----
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Healy?
Mr. Reynolds. I'm sorry.
Mr. Healy. Thank you. Yes, the supervisor of the River--
former River District was given a temporary promotion to
another park.
Mr. Palmer. Do you think that was appropriate?
Mr. Healy. I don't, and a lot of employees at the park feel
the same way.
Mr. Palmer. Let me read something to you that I find
particularly troubling. It is a quote from the National Park
Service expedited investigation, and it is from two trained
investigators who interviewed some of the victims. And it says,
``It is difficult to articulate in words the emotions that
exuded from those interviewed.'' It says that ``It is apparent
that these employees have suffered in their positions and are
traumatized by the harassment they are subjected to. During the
interviews, the emotions ranged from inconsolable tears, anger,
frustration, helplessness, and regret.'' In that regard, Mr.
Reynolds, do you think appropriate actions have been taken?
Mr. Reynolds. I believe ----
Mr. Palmer. Your microphone, please.
Mr. Reynolds. Sorry. I believe what you are reading from,
sir, is the Yosemite expedited inquiry or is ----
Mr. Palmer. Well, I mean, it seems that there is a pattern
across here that women were intimidated, other people were
intimidated, they were traumatized ----
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Mr. Palmer.--and you gave one guy a temporary promotion.
Has anyone been fired? Has that question been asked, Mr.
Chairman? Has anyone been fired? Has anyone terminated?
Mr. Reynolds. No one has been fired yet, no.
Mr. Palmer. That seems to be a pattern ----
Mr. Reynolds. A disciplinary action is--are underway. And
the one thing that I ----
Mr. Palmer. Let me go on and ask you a couple of other
questions. In November 2015 the OIG found that the deputy
superintendent and other managers of Grand Canyon improperly
shared personal information of the women who wrote to Secretary
Jewell reporting the egregious sexual harassment in the Grand
Canyon River District.
One former Grand Canyon employee who submitted a statement
for the record stated that, ``Given the culture of retaliation
and hostility towards the victims within the Grand Canyon River
District, I, along with the other victims of Diane Chalfant's
negligence, am rightly terrified that the alleged perpetrators
will contact us directly to retaliate against us.'' I would
like to enter that statement in the record.
Chairman Chaffetz. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Palmer. What actions has the Park Service taken in
response to the disclosure of this personal information?
Mr. Reynolds. The actions that we've taken to date is to
recognize that there was inappropriate actions for the EEO
process ----
Mr. Palmer. Well, that is great that you recognize it, but
I want to know, has anyone been fired? Has anyone been demoted?
I mean ----
Mr. Reynolds. No, what I can do under the interest of the
Privacy Act for these kinds of things is to personally debrief
with you on what we're doing with disciplinary actions. I can
assure you that they're underway.
Mr. Palmer. All right. And I just wonder, given all of
this, how any Park Service employees can trust that managers
will keep their information confidential, that any Park Service
employees can be confident that if they are harassed in any way
that they will be listened to and that action will be taken to
protect them?
Mr. Reynolds. The--this has ----
Mr. Palmer. It is disconcerting to me, Mr. Chairman, that
we have had hearings with other agencies and it just seems that
this goes on and on and on and no real punitive action is
taken. And as long as we have that stance, as long as no real
punitive action is taken, these types of things are going to
continue to happen.
My time is expired. I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
I will now recognize myself here.
Let me go back to the expedited investigation at Yosemite.
It is our understanding of the 21 people the investigators
interviewed, every single one of them with one exception
described Yosemite as a hostile work environment as a result of
the behavior and conduct of the park's superintendent. Why
isn't there immediate relief?
Mr. Reynolds. We--I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, that was to me?
Chairman Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Reynolds. We are actively engaged. The regional
director, who's in San Francisco ----
Chairman Chaffetz. Wait, wait. Let's explore the
relationship between Yosemite and the region. Is there a
problem with that chain of command there?
Mr. Reynolds. The regional office that oversees Yosemite is
in San Francisco. We have a regional director. We had the ----
Chairman Chaffetz. What about the deputy? Who is that
person?
Mr. Reynolds. We have three deputy regional directors.
Chairman Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Reynolds. And one is in Seattle and two are in San
Francisco, along with the regional director.
Chairman Chaffetz. Come on. You know what I am getting at.
What is the ----
Mr. Reynolds. One of the deputies is the wife of the
superintendent at Yosemite ----
Chairman Chaffetz. So ----
Mr. Reynolds.--and we have--and if I may, Mr. Chairman, we
have consciously stovepiped that by having a third party in the
Midwest region, our EEO manager, help run the investigative
process.
Chairman Chaffetz. Okay. But here is the problem. These
things didn't just spring up overnight, right? This has been a
longstanding pattern. You have somebody who is essentially
protected and empowered by his wife. I mean, people are afraid
of actually coming forward and filing a complaint. I mean, one
of the complaints is that the complaints get back to the
superintendent. And so when your chain of command and your
ability to tell supervisors is impeded by the fact that they
are husband and wife, how do you let that happen?
Mr. Reynolds. It's even more important why this
investigation is important to me to understand if the
allegations are true ----
Chairman Chaffetz. How long has it been going on?
Mr. Reynolds. I am not sure, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz. What you mean you are not sure? You are
the head of the workforce and then you got a promotion so ----
Mr. Reynolds. Yes, I don't know in terms of what the
timescale has been, but that is what I am asking the
investigative teams to look into.
Chairman Chaffetz. Who did the--you mean the inspector
general?
Mr. Reynolds. The inspector general now is involved. We
were going to be doing our own ----
Chairman Chaffetz. Okay. Ms. Martin, can you shine some
light on this ongoing problem?
Ms. Martin. The expedited inquiry took place about the
first part of August, so I can appreciate the fact that there--
the investigation is now turned over to the IG but with
substantial credible evidence of a hostile work environment.
There was a number of us that did fear that the superintendent
did release or did have a list of names when the regional
director came out with the expedited inquiry looking for
individuals that would be willing to make statements either in
person or written about their perception of a hostile work
environment at Yosemite.
So there was a number of us that feared that the
superintendent probably got our names. We don't know how. Maybe
it was through the regional office. We don't know, but I--there
are people that felt that they were not going to come forward
and provide a statement based upon this expedited inquiry
because the superintendent had a list of names ahead of time.
Chairman Chaffetz. Were there any repercussions for that? I
mean, are you aware of anybody who had any sort of retaliation
against them because they had stepped forward and made a
statement about the reality of what was going on?
Ms. Martin. Not at this point. There--because it still is
under investigation, we don't have--we're not hearing about
any--no names have been shared. We only have an informal
network of individuals that have come forward, but we--this is
the first time I'm actually hearing what some of the additional
allegations are in this--in the statements that have been made.
Chairman Chaffetz. Can you share with us any of your other
personal experience? You mentioned that you had been the victim
three times, and you were very candid in what happened in the
1980s. But when you came back to the Park Service, what was
your experience?
Ms. Martin. I came back to the Park Service after working
for the Forest Service for 16 years. When I came back in 2006,
I was very excited that my career was coming back to the Park
Service. I really enjoy working for the Park Service. But I
am--experienced the culture that's very closed in terms of
being able to talk about these difficult issues.
And when I came back to the Park Service, my fear was is
that the first individual that was the perpetrator for my first
sexual harassment was still working for the Park Service, and
indeed he was. And it was up until just recently that I--this
is why I made the decision to come forward is that I really
felt that it was important to shine light on the fact that this
was the tipping point for me and for so many other women that
needed to have this heard.
Chairman Chaffetz. And this was a person who was arrested
in the year 2000, a high-ranking national park official accused
of peeping at naked women at a YMCA. Then, there is another
incident report in 2001. They were having voyeurism issues. A
police officer was sent; this person was found to be behind a
home or a building in a highly suspicious behavior in that
situation. And again, nothing happens. It seems to be a little
bit of a pattern. These are just the one that they caught.
So if you don't mind my asking--I hope you don't--what were
the other two incidents that happened to you? And then also
maybe if you can contrast the difference between Forest Service
and Park Service.
Ms. Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The other two
incidents, one while I was still working at Grand Canyon, it
was a--I don't remember the exact year--there was an individual
that--between the Park Service and the Forest Service we work
very closely together on wildland fire, you know, incidents,
and so this particular gentlemen worked for the Forest Service,
took pictures of me and put pictures--my pictures up above his
visor in his government vehicle, was quite bold about it and
showed other people that he had pictures of me in his
government vehicle.
One day, alone at my office, the south rim of Grand Canyon,
he was bold enough to enter my office and tried to kiss me, and
I pushed him away, very, very visibly shaken and upset, told a
friend of mine about what had happened, went to his office, the
Forest Service office, and proceeded to confront the
individual. I never had any problems after that, but I did not
feel safe at Grand Canyon.
This particular gentleman had applied for the chief of fire
and aviation job at Grand Canyon, and at that point I proceeded
to notify the deputy superintendent at Grand Canyon at that
time that this particular individual was sexually harassing me.
I do believe that my conversation with the deputy
superintendent most likely prevented that individual from
getting a job at Grand Canyon.
Chairman Chaffetz. And the other incident?
Ms. Martin. The other incident was when, after I left the
National Park Service, I was working for the U.S. Forest
Service and there was a private--it was a work-sponsored
meeting at a private house, and I was sitting next to a
superior of mine in my fire chain of command, was sitting on a
crowded couch, proceeded to run his fingers through my hair. I
immediately got up from the couch to remove myself from the
situation. I talked to my immediate supervisor about it the
following day.
Again, these are very embarrassing situations. It seems so
ubiquitous in our culture, in the wildland fire culture that I
just didn't feel that I could expose that as part of my--
preserving my career. But at one point I did mention it to
upper management in the Forest Service, and the appalling reply
when I told him about it, well, it's his word against yours.
So I think at that point I really began to really believe
that there is a culture of tolerance and acceptance of this
kind of behavior in our workforce. And I have been powerless,
although maybe I could have come forward with more formal
complaints. I did not. I honestly felt that the preservation of
my career and my career status with my peers was more important
than filing a complaint.
Chairman Chaffetz. With some indulgence here, just one more
question. Mr. Reynolds, during your time heading the workforce,
how many people were fired for sexual harassment, sexual
misconduct, or anything in that genre? How many?
Mr. Reynolds. I'd have to look up a number and get it to
you today, but I am not aware that there were that many fired
to be honest with you for those actions that you state.
Chairman Chaffetz. Were there any?
Mr. Reynolds. I'll confirm with you. I don't have any
recollection of any at this point.
Chairman Chaffetz. I guess I would like to know how many
complaints were filed during that time.
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Chairman Chaffetz. Let's take the end of 2013 ----
Mr. Reynolds. Okay.
Chairman Chaffetz.--to present day ----
Mr. Reynolds. Got it.
Chairman Chaffetz.--how many complaints happened at any
level, and how many people were fired?
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
Mr. Reynolds. Thank you.
Chairman Chaffetz. I now recognize the gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
having this hearing.
Mr. Reynolds, you are the deputy director of operations?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes, sir.
Mr. Connolly. So you, in that responsibility, oversee all
of the national parks in some fashion?
Mr. Reynolds. Through their regional directors, yes.
Mr. Connolly. Yes. How long have you been on the job?
Mr. Reynolds. Since August 1.
Mr. Connolly. And why did you get placed in that job on
August 1?
Mr. Reynolds. We had a retirement of my previous boss,
Peggy O'Dell, and the director asked if I would be willing to
be reassigned into that job.
Mr. Connolly. So it wasn't because of some policy shift or
shoring up enforcement or making a statement that now we are
taking it seriously?
Mr. Reynolds. In this case my understanding is they needed
a replacement for ----
Mr. Connolly. Right. Okay.
Mr. Reynolds.--a retirement.
Mr. Connolly. So you were filling in?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. Nothing wrong with that, but I mean ----
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Mr. Connolly.--I just wanted to make sure. We weren't
making a statement trying to deal with what is front of us
here?
Mr. Reynolds. No.
Mr. Connolly. So how long have you been with the Park
Service?
Mr. Reynolds. Thirty years.
Mr. Connolly. Okay. So it is fair to ask you this question,
I think. I mean, I am looking at the fact that we have got
problems, you know, in the last few years at the Grand Canyon,
Cape Canaveral, Yosemite, Yellowstone. I mean, you know, why
shouldn't the public be led to believe that--now, behind the
redwoods, you know, shenanigans are going on? People are being
harassed or worse and nothing is being done about it because
the culture is a so-what kind of culture frankly. It doesn't
take this seriously, which has lots of ramifications for would-
be employees in terms of the desirability of service, in terms
of the integrity of the National Park Service itself. The
public wouldn't think this is a good idea or tolerate it and it
would be very distressed and is distressed to hear the stories
repeatedly.
So help me understand. Is this a systemic culture that has
to be weeded out in the National Park Service? And secondly,
would you, by way of self-criticism, agree with Ms. Martin that
up until now it has frankly not gotten the serious attention it
deserved?
Mr. Reynolds. I would first like to say that I think the
majority of our employees are some of the best-serving
employees I have ever seen in the Federal workplace, including
folks like these, and they deserve a much, much better culture
that we have. I hope it's not as systemic ----
Mr. Connolly. Wait, wait ----
Mr. Reynolds.--as it appears to be ----
Mr. Connolly. Wait, wait, wait. They deserve a better
culture than they have? That seems to be saying there is
something ----
Mr. Reynolds. We have a problem.
Mr. Connolly.--systemically wrong with our culture.
Mr. Reynolds. I believe we have a problem ----
Mr. Connolly. Okay.
Mr. Reynolds.--and I believe we should be making very
urgent change to that culture.
Mr. Connolly. Is there training or orientation before I put
on that uniform as an employee of the National Park Service?
Mr. Reynolds. There is. There ----
Mr. Connolly. On this subject?
Mr. Reynolds. There is a little on the subject. It needs to
be more.
Mr. Connolly. All right. Tell us the--what is the SOP,
standard operating procedure, when you get a report, whether it
is anonymous--I assume you have a hotline so if I want to
protect my identity--I am Ms. Martin but I don't want to be
fingered because I am on the job surrounded by the people ----
Mr. Reynolds. Right.
Mr. Connolly.--perpetrating ----
Mr. Reynolds. Confidentiality.
Mr. Connolly.--the harassment. So do I have an anonymous
hotline I can call and have it followed up on?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes. To clarify, there is a hotline if you
will, a reporting mechanism, in each region for the EEO
operation. We are establishing a new hotline as well, a third-
party ----
Mr. Connolly. Does that mean that each region has its own
SOP?
Mr. Reynolds. In general, each region has its own offices.
They should be operating from one Park Service-wide SOP, and
that's something we're shoring up as we speak.
Mr. Connolly. So there is a manual that--if I am a regional
director ----
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Mr. Connolly.--and I am new on the job, where do I go to
get guidance on how we handle these things?
Mr. Reynolds. You go right to your EEO officer in the
region. And some parts have EEO collateral duty, which is a
fancy way of saying other duties as assigned, and they often
are in H.R., they might be in some other--depending on the size
of the park ----
Mr. Connolly. Okay.
Mr. Reynolds.--they might actually have a ----
Mr. Connolly. All right. Sticking with SOP for a minute
because I am trying to understand ----
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Mr. Connolly.--what is going on at the National Park
Service. So I am so-and-so and I have been harassed and I go to
my supervisor, I don't do it anonymously, and I report that,
you know, Fire Ranger X has put the hit on me and I am very
comfortable, I shouldn't have to put up with that, it is
degrading, humiliating, I didn't sign up for this and I want
some action, what happens?
Mr. Reynolds. They are referred immediately--if the
supervisor does their job right--to an EEO specialist or to
somebody at the hotline at the place that we were referring to.
Mr. Connolly. But you heard Ms. Martin's testimony. Her
testimony is that when that happened I think to her the answer
was it is your word against his, right? Is that right, Ms.
Martin?
Ms. Martin. That's correct.
Mr. Connolly. So, Mr. Reynolds, going to the EEO person
didn't work.
Mr. Reynolds. Yes. We've got problems that I have to fix
urgently.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Healy, a lot of the complaints focused on
the Grand Canyon, which shocked me. I mean, the Grand Canyon is
so spectacularly beautiful. I can't believe that you are
focused on anything other than beauty, but apparently our Park
Service rangers are. What is going on in the Grand Canyon by
way of trying to address this issue so that it does not recur
and that we have actually shifted the culture at one of the
great icons of the world, the Grand Canyon?
Mr. Healy. We do have the Park Service response to the OIG.
There's 18 action items. But I think a very positive step was
the assignment of our new superintendent Chris Lehnertz. I
think people at the park feel comfortable with her, and she's--
she called me on her second day on the job. She's definitely
someone that will listen to us and I think has been approaching
our issues directly instead of pretending they aren't there,
you know. She's there to make change, and I think that's a big
positive step for us.
Mr. Connolly. Just a final question because I know my time
is up and I thank my classmate and friend from Wyoming in
indulging me. But, Mr. Healy, would you agree with Mr. Reynolds
that we have got a lot of reform that has to happen in the
culture?
Mr. Healy. Absolutely.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Lummis. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Grothman, is recognized.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
First of all, there was an incident referred to by Chairman
Chaffetz before, and I am going to ask Mr. Reynolds about it, a
situation where at first blush the wife was kind of over the
husband. Is that true?
Mr. Reynolds. In that situation she does not directly
supervise her husband. She's in the regional office, which is
the next level up, sir.
Mr. Grothman. How long did that situation exist?
Mr. Reynolds. I would have to confirm it, but I think it's
been many, many years that they've been in service.
Mr. Grothman. I mean, where she's--okay.
Mr. Reynolds. Long-serving deputy ----
Mr. Grothman. Office ----
Mr. Reynolds.--maybe more than 10 years at least.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. I will give you another general
question, and this to me is just, you know, more evidence why,
no matter how tempting it may seem to my colleagues, you never,
ever, ever want the government to do anything more than they
have to.
Mr. Healy--oh, one more question for Mr. Reynolds. You said
that you never knew since you were they head of H.R. anybody
being fired for sexual harassment, right, you couldn't remember
that ----
Mr. Reynolds. Yes. I am going to follow up for the chairman
on ----
Mr. Grothman. Yes.
Mr. Reynolds.--the data, but it didn't--I was managing
systems and processes.
Mr. Grothman. How long were you head of H.R. in this
region?
Mr. Reynolds. Two years.
Mr. Grothman. Two years? How many people did you have under
you?
Mr. Reynolds. There's about 18,000 permanents, upwards of
20,000 by the time the seasons come in.
Mr. Grothman. So you were the H.R. head of over 18,000
people, right?
Mr. Reynolds. In general. The way our system works is our
regions actually run their own H.R. programs. We have the sort
of the overarching system and process oversight.
Mr. Grothman. Do you know in those two years how many
people were let go, period, for anything?
Mr. Reynolds. We fire quite a few--upwards of at least 100
people a year for various infractions.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. What do they usually do?
Mr. Reynolds. They are often conduct issues. They might be
caught stealing or they might be the normal range of things you
might have happen.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Mr. Healy, thanks for coming by. We
have got to ask you some questions. How pervasive is
retaliation at the Park Service?
Mr. Healy. I'm sorry. Can you repeat that?
Mr. Grothman. How pervasive do you think retaliation is at
the Park Service?
Mr. Healy. You know, I--my experience is limited to Grand
Canyon, and it's--with a couple of the individuals that are
still at the park I think there's a pretty extensive pattern of
that. And that was all described in--by the OIG during their
investigation.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Are you afraid of retaliation for
showing up and talking to us today?
Mr. Healy. Yes, I am somewhat. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. I guess this question is kind of
obvious but do you feel the Park Service has adequately held
managers accountable for their part in allowing harassment to
occur at Grand Canyon?
Mr. Healy. I don't at this time. I'm optimistic for the
future, but, you know, it's been quite a while since the OIG
investigation came out, and the Park Service response to that,
and, you know, we're in September and we still haven't seen
some of the individuals that were implicated by the OIG leave.
Mr. Grothman. Slow-moving. Maybe I will switch back to Mr.
Reynolds. Are any of these managers under any jeopardy of
losing their job for their slow-moving here?
Mr. Reynolds. I--again, as I offered earlier, I'd be happy
to talk to you in person or the chairman ----
Mr. Grothman. Again, are they in jeopardy, I mean, just
poking around here ----
Mr. Reynolds. For many of these actions, as they are found
true, yes, they are in jeopardy.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Mr. Healy, according to your testimony,
a former supervisor at the Grand Canyon district breached
confidentiality victims and was given a temporary promotion to
chief ranger, is that true? What effect does that have on the
morale of the employees when they see the sort of thing going
on?
Mr. Healy. I think it has a severe impact. I think it
really does. I think that was probably a setback for employee
morale in moving forward after this thing. You know, this is a
really, really big deal for employees.
Mr. Grothman. What was his position before and what was he
promoted to?
Mr. Healy. He was supervisory park ranger, I believe, and
his temporary promotion was chief ranger at a park, so the
highest ranger position at another park from what I understand.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Would you feel comfortable saying what
park? I won't make you do that. You probably ----
Mr. Healy. It's Curecanti ----
Mr. Grothman. Curecanti ----
Mr. Healy.--Black Canyon of the Gunnison area. It's in
Colorado.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Okay. Okay. Interesting. I will go back
to Ms. Martin. I will ask you the same question. How common do
you think retaliation is at NPS?
Ms. Martin. Thank you, Congressman, for that. I'm fearful
more of the repercussions. The retaliation I have not been a
victim of. And I think everybody knows that by coming forward,
we are trying to very truly have a stronger conversation about
what sexual harassment is and a hostile work environment is, so
I actually feel somewhat confident that retaliation will not
happen. But there are people that do fear that and will not
come forward with honest statements.
Mr. Grothman. Because retaliation, you mean they feel they
are less likely to be promoted themselves in the future?
Ms. Martin. Yes, I think, you know, people just don't want
to really rock the boat. They don't really want to come forward
for what they really see as going on. So there's a handful of
us that believe that this is an extremely important topic to
bring forward, and so I'm cautiously optimistic, I guess, that
we will not be retaliated against.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Mr. Reynolds, in your past statements
you said you were doing what you can to increase the number of
women in management positions at the Park Service. Could you
elaborate?
Mr. Reynolds. We are beginning to venture into a much more
aggressive recruitment. We've opened a recruitment office that
will--we really have not had--recruitment has been done at the
supervisory management level, so we're trying to begin to
centralize that to focus on both--diversity in all of its
forms.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. I am well over my time so thanks for
being patient with me.
Mrs. Lummis. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Mica is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Mica. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman and ranking
member. I haven't been able to participate; I got waylaid on a
host of other things. But I did stay up last night and read
some of the testimony and a staff report. It was absolutely
appalling to see what took place in some of these instances,
and it also to me is disgraceful that the Federal Government
could be a partner into the abuse of women and employees and
others and let them be subject to this type of activity. I just
was stunned at what is going on.
When we came into the majority in 1995, I was the first
Republican chairman of civil service in 40 years, and I got to
look at the civil service system. And you want a civil service
system--and it was created to protect employees from political
interference, but it wasn't created to protect them when they
abuse their fellow employees, violate laws, protocols, rules,
and that is what I read page after page. It is just stunning.
And then I saw the movement of people within the agency
from department to department. One case, and I am sure it has
been relayed here, where you get promoted after you commit
sexual acts that no one would tolerate in any other form of
employment.
Okay. I have sat here, I have sat through IRS, I have sat
through--I never forget the head of Secret Service. She came to
me after she was brought in, Julia--she went to the University
of Central Florida, was a police officer, eminently qualified,
first female Secret Service director. And after she was there
for a while, she came in and she says this is almost impossible
to control. I need assistance to determine--well, to be able to
hire and fire, hire and fire poor performers, and that is--
whether it is Secret Service, whether it is IRS, whether it is
GSA, FBI, other agencies, we have to--actually some of them are
exempt. There is exempt and un-exempt.
Mr. Reynolds, are your hands tied?
Mr. Reynolds. Congressman, thank you for bringing this up.
It is a complex system that you know better than anybody.
Mr. Mica. It is very complex, and it is very difficult for
you to navigate ----
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Mr. Mica.--and it can take a long time to get rid of these
people.
Mr. Reynolds. I don't want to cop out by saying it's the
process, right ----
Mr. Mica. I would ----
Mr. Reynolds.--we have to be accountable ----
Mr. Mica. I am not copping out either, but I am telling
you, it is the process. We have set up a system where nobody
gets fired. When you do egregious things, you don't get fired.
It is easier to transfer them around. And we have seen
examples. An example, I read it last night, and it didn't let
me sleep well last night.
Mr. Reynolds. There is a GAO report that says it takes us
six months to a year to terminate people at times.
Mr. Mica. And that would be a speedy termination, and the
alternative is actually that they are moving people into other
positions. And then what kind of message does it send when they
actually get elevated? One of the most troublesome cases was
getting elevated to one of the highest positions, and everybody
knew what was going on. It is disgraceful.
Well, I think that the way to cure this is, again, you want
to protect--we want to protect people--we have thousands and
thousands of wonderful employees of the Federal Government. You
have got them in the Park Service ----
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Mr. Mica.--and I have seen them. They stay there late, they
work extra time, they neglect sometimes their family, but they
serve the public. They are public servants. We have got a few
rotten apples in the barrel, and they are still in the barrel,
and to me it is disgraceful that we haven't fixed the system
that allows you to do your duty to clear the deck of people who
need to be fired, removed, and held accountable. Would you
agree with that?
Mr. Reynolds. I agree.
Mr. Mica. Okay.
Mr. Reynolds. We need to move as fast as we can ----
Mr. Mica. Well, again, Madam Chairman, thank you for
holding this hearing. This is an important hearing. This is to
the core of the problem we have across the spectrum of the
Federal Government.
And I thank you and yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. Lummis. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
I have seven statements that I would like to include in the
record. Without objection, so ordered.
Mrs. Lummis. Mr. Healy, have you ever seen someone, let's
say a problem person, a sexual predator within the National
Park Service, either transferred laterally or promoted?
Mr. Healy. I don't believe so.
Mrs. Lummis. Ms. Martin, have you ever seen someone who was
known to be a problem employee for the reasons we are meeting
today either transferred laterally to a different NPS property
or promoted?
Ms. Martin. If you refer to my testimony regarding my first
sexual harassment incident at Grand Canyon, that is an example
of how an individual was laterally moved and promoted.
Mrs. Lummis. Well, what we have heard today are terms like
toxic work culture, a closed culture. We have heard ``go along
to get along'' culture, and we know that within the National
Park Service there are plum assignments. People will stay
regardless of how long it takes or what they have to put up
with to get to some of those crown jewel properties because
they love their jobs so much.
In some respects that is rewarding loyalty. In other
respects, it can create a toxic work culture. And it appears
that the National Park Service, especially since we have had
reports of this for 16 years and that these matters are not
being adequately addressed, that perhaps promotion from within
has actually hurt the National Park Service from addressing
cultural systemic problems in this area.
So I will be asking the chairman and ranking member of this
committee to prepare memos to the transition teams for both the
Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates to inform
them of what is in the record here about what is going on at
the National Park Service in terms of a toxic work culture and
how maybe it is time to get, as Mr. Mica said, some of the
rotten apples that are still in the barrel out of the barrel.
And maybe that is going to require people who have made
this their career and have been looking forward to being
considered for some of the very highest positions within the
National Park Service to not attain those goals because this
has been tolerated. It has not been swept under the rug and now
some of the people in leadership positions are just finding out
about it. It has been tolerated. And it appears that people
have tolerated this in order to advance their careers into the
highest positions in the National Park Service. It is time to
ferret out that kind of toxic culture. And either new President
is going to be in a position to do that.
So I will ask the chairman of this committee and the
ranking member to prepare memos to the transition teams of the
Democratic and Republican nominees for President and present
them to them so when they are going through transition and
preparing people to go before Senate committees for
confirmation that they know exactly what is going on in the
National Park Service and they are prepared to address these
problems.
I thank you for your testimony today. It builds on
testimony that we have in writing. It builds on reports that we
have had for 16 years that have gone inadequately addressed. It
informs the next President that they better start lawyering up
these agencies with people who are experts in personnel rules
and disciplinary rules because they are going to take a whole
bunch of people through processes that have not been used
enough within the National Park Service.
I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. I want to thank the chairlady for your words,
and I agree that it would be a good idea to get those letters
out to the two transition teams. And I think hopefully it will
have some impact.
To you, Ms. Martin, to you, Mr. Healy, I thank you for
coming forward. This is not easy. It can't be. When I think
about you, Ms. Martin, having left and then come back, and I
was just reading the file of the person who was the peeping
tom, you should not have had to go through that.
You know, I often think about how people come to work every
day. Sometimes they have things that they have to struggle with
at home. All of us do. But no matter what, they get up, they
come to work, and when you have got a job like the ones you all
have, dealing with the public, you have got to put on a good
face and you have got to be the best that you can be.
But the idea that you come to work and you have got people
who place you in a position of discomfort, knowing that they
could have not only an impact on your career but on your way of
life and then to be able to function at your maximum with all
of that over your head, that is quite a bit. And then to
seemingly have an administration at the Park Service that
through neglect or just a sheer sense of lack of urgency, does
not back you up, that is a problem.
The other thing that I guess that goes through my head is
what I said a little bit earlier. You have been bold enough to
come here to give your testimony and the idea that you might
not have the impact that you wanted to have and to go back and
get hurt because you have stepped forward is the worst thing
that could happen.
So I want to vow to you and I am sure everybody on this
committee feels the same way--and let me send the message to
all of those who are thinking about, thinking about, thinking
about retaliating or bringing harm that we will come after you
with everything we have got. There is no way that we will
correct this culture if you have to be in fear and if they have
the position that they can do whatever they want and get away
with it.
And to those who feel that way, that feel that they want to
retaliate, I would invite them to leave the Park Service. Go do
something else because we want our employees to be able to be
content. We want them to have a normal employee/employer
existence, normal. This is not normal. It is not. It has got to
be stressful every day watching your back. Who is going to hurt
you? Who is going to block your path? What is going to happen
when you come up for promotion? Who is going to be whispering
things, oh, she is not this or he is not that? And when you
don't even know who did it. So all of that, that has got to be
stressful.
And then I go back to what you said, Ms. Martin, with
regard to doing the whole balancing thing. Do I tell or do I be
quiet? Do I say something? Because if I say something, my
career may be ruined. And then what am I going to do? How am I
going to feed my family? Those are real, real decisions.
And so, you know, I know there is a survey coming out, Mr.
Reynolds, but the thing that struck me is that 16 years ago a
similar survey came out, is that right? And when folks were
asked about sexual harassment, they were asked this question,
``have you personally experienced sexual harassment'' 52
percent, hello, 52 percent of the respondent females in law
enforcement positions in the Park Service said yes, and an
astounding 76 percent of the respondent females in the United
States Park Service answered yes.
What is that about? And did you see that? Did you see those
things when you were there? You know, we talked about these
incidents. When you held the position that you held, head of
H.R., whatever you called it, did you see some of this?
Mr. Reynolds. I did see instances come through in terms of
cases, not--we haven't had the data to understand that the way
that survey describes, which is why we want to do a second--you
know, this new survey and to do it right this time.
Mr. Cummings. But this was 16 years ago?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. All right. We have got problems ----
Mr. Reynolds. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cummings.--and we have got to correct them.
Mr. Reynolds. And I would like to say that I will
personally ensure--and you may hold me absolutely accountable--
that these people will be protected with their careers and
their lives.
Mr. Cummings. And see, they know the names. They know the
names. They know the names. But you know what? You can know the
information and know the names, but when you have got this
culture, even giving up--just the mere giving up the names
would cause them stress, am I right, Ms. Martin?
Ms. Martin. Without a doubt. I know that I have--I'll be
probably more--I'll be facing serious repercussions, but I just
have to go on record to tell you that I have a tremendous
amount of support of women behind me that could not do this,
but the other important thing is that there's men that want to
see our culture change, too.
Mr. Cummings. That leads me to my last statement, and I am
so glad you said that. I am so glad you said that. And I want
to say this to all the people that you just talked about, the
ones that back you up, the ones that care, the ones that
support you ----
Ms. Martin. Absolutely.
Mr. Cummings.--they have got to understand that they are
the solution. They really are. They have to be that critical
mass. They have got to stand up, they have got to back you up,
and then hopefully more and more will come forward. And if
changes need to be made at the top, they need to be made, but
they have to help us change it because they are there. You are
on the ground. They are the witnesses, okay?
I have often said through our pain must come our passion to
do our purpose. Your pain has allowed you to come here with a
passion, and that passion has allowed you to do your purpose.
And hopefully, we will be able--that purpose will be about
bringing a new day to the Park Service by shining a bright
light on its problems.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Mrs. Lummis. I thank the ranking member.
The tone is set at the top, so the tone has to change going
forward.
I want to thank our witnesses. Mr. Healy, thank you for
coming here and for your bold statements. Ms. Martin, thank you
for your testimony today and for representing other people
within the National Park Service who are similarly situated,
but your ability to speak on their behalf is deeply appreciated
by this committee. Mr. Reynolds, thank you for your testimony
today. You have got your hands full. I hope you are up to the
task.
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Mrs. Lummis. You know, God bless you in your work there.
With that, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:18 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]