A lengthy investigation into allegations that Gettsysburg National Military Park Superintendent John Latschar acted unethically in running the park found no wrongdoing, but it reportedly turned up thousands of instances in which the superintendent's computer was used to access pornographic images.
The report (attached below) by the Interior Department's Office of Inspector General detailed a litany of charges against Superintendent Latschar, ranging from misappropriating park dollars for a hot tub at his home to coercing employees to donate their accumulated leave time to his wife, a park employee. After interviewing more than 45 individuals and reviewing "thousands of pages of public and private documents" the investigators cleared the superintendent of any wrongdoing.
However, while the 24-page report mentioned searching the superintendent's office computer for emails tied to the allegation that he asked employees to donate their unused leave time to his wife, it was silent on the discovery of more than 3,400 Internet searches for sexually explicit content. The Washington Post, however, said that it had obtained an internal memo to then-acting Park Service Director Dan Wenk that mentioned the discovery.
In an article published Monday the newspaper reported that:
An internal Aug. 7 memo from an investigator to Daniel N. Wenk, the acting director of the National Park Service, details the discovery of the images on the computer hard drive that was seized by investigators. But the office of Mary L. Kendall, acting inspector general for the Department of the Interior, omitted details of the computer probe or any mention of the violation from a 24-page report that was released Sept. 17.
"Latschar's inappropriate use of his government computer violates DOI policy," states the memo obtained by The Washington Post. The investigator forwarded the report to Wenk for "whatever actions you deem appropriate."
Wenk, through a spokesman, called the matter a "personnel issue" and would not comment on whether disciplinary action was taken.
Latschar also declined interview requests. He remains in his $145,000-a-year job.
The memo said that Latschar signed a sworn statement acknowledging "that he had viewed inappropriate pictures on his government computer during work hours" and that "he was aware of his wrongdoing while he was doing it."
A call to the National Park Service's Washington headquarters for comment was not immediately returned.
Comments
Well, it's certainly visible now.
Perhaps the new regime could put in some brighter light bulbs in the transparancy viewer.
Suffice to say this is an extremely delicate issue. As a result, some comments were edited for taste, some for clarity.
It must be remembered throughout that the Inspector General's Office cleared Mr. Latschar of all charges of misconduct. As to the instances of surfing the Internet inappropriately, neither Mr. Latschar nor the National Park Service is commented, so we are not privy to all the details.
Kurt, to paraphrase Rick's more tasteful comment, you're the one in charge of the light bulbs in this forum's transparency viewer. We may not be privy to all the details, but the facts as you've presented them paint a dark and creepy picture. I appreciate your effort not to cast an overly rosy light on these issues. I for one like how you try to keep it real, and appreciate the opportunity to participate.
Bat, as the joke in the news business goes, never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Indeed, outwardly this story doesn't look good for Mr. Latschar. Obviously, there are a number of gray areas that need closer investigation by the Park Service, and not just the misuse of a government computer. But let me play devil's advocate for the most damning revelation -- What if someone other than the superintendent used his computer to surf the Internet, but for whatever reason there was just cause in Mr. Latschar's mind that he should take the blame? To firmly jump to the final conclusion, I think we need full disclosure from Mr. Latschar and the Park Service, and both have made it clear they're not going there.
Among the comments, there is also some confusion of the various issues.
[The various Gettysburg projects have been under attack, and Superintendent John Latschar with them, for many years, and apparently with everything that came to the opponent's hand. Almost no one survives such forceful attacks at so many levels for very long, even if the higher-ups completely support the person under attack. Most people do not experience this kind of attack for so many years, 3 times longer than the length of the Civil War, and Superintendent Latschar has handled the pressure better sometimes than some other times. Generally, you move good employees around before they get broken. It might be true that most other, incoming, employees would not even have tried to fix the interpretation at Gettysburg, and if Latschar had left after the normal 5 or so years, the projects would have died. One time, when Senator Santorum of PA was defending the Superintendent to the NPS leadership that wanted to remove him, the Senator said: "You say you want initiative and innovation, but what signal do you send when you pull out the rug from everyone who really tries to solve the problems? The signal you are sending is to sit back, take your salary, and do nothing."]
The issue about the Ethics review relates to the Superintendent retiring to take over the Foundation that runs and constructed the Visitor Center.
That group came into existence as a result of an RFP process run by the NPS. The RFP process was not run by Superintendent Latschar, but nearly everything else was, before and all agreements afterward. Because it is basic to any knowledge of the Ethics rules that you cannot take over an operation run by an organization that has operating agreements with the government agency when you were the key official implementing those agreements, it astonished most everybody that the Regional Director and the Ethics review group would have sanction it.
Yes, in some cases it is OK when you can occasionally simply exempt yourself as the decider for specific conflicts of interests, but when on a day in day out basis you are working within the agreement that previously as a government official you signed off on, that is not possible.
Interestingly, had the Superintendent wanted to support and work for the foundation after retirement, he could have done so if he were willing to accept a role where he is not the signing authority and where he is not the beneficiary of a contract he previously managed.
For example, some NPS people raise funds for Foundations, are not in charge of the foundation, and do not manage one of their prior agreements with the foundation. They just want to work in an area they believe in, but not run it.
-- By the way, on the 'donated leave' issue, everyone is notified when someone is sick and needs donated leave to be paid while under treatment or convalescence. But if you actually donate the leave, that is confidential information and the Superintendent would not actually know who did and who did not donate. So that one seems like a pretty empty charge.
I love the first sentence involving ethics "......found no wrong doing, but..." I guess some guys like to read the news or National Park Traveler when they surf the net and some like to look at porn. I prefer the former.
Correction - He was cleared of any "criminal" misconduct.
Something I do not understand. The superintendent of Yosemite recently retired and took the job of director of the Yosemite Fund. The superintendent of Cuyahoga Valley retired and took the job of director of the Cuyahoga Valley association. Why couldn't Latscher do the same thing? How come they were allowed to do that?