A senior official in the National Park Service's Northeast regional office created the appearance of using his position for personal gain when he asked for specific, but unnecessary, design changes to an historic townhouse owned by the agency that he planned to rent, according to an investigation.
Investigators from the Interior Department's Office of Inspector General determined that the unnamed official "asked his subordinate employee to include specific design and construction changes in the renovation proposal for a historic townhouse, which was the park housing unit in which he planned to reside. The changes were included in the final design plans and added approximately $32,000 to the cost of the project, but at the time of our report, the senior official had decided not to move into the unit and NPS had delayed the renovations."
"We also found that some employees and contractors did not agree with the proposed changes, and only one person raised these concerns before the project was awarded. Additionally, we found that members of the Regional Development Advisory Board, whose role was to review and approve the proposed renovation plans, were not aware that the senior official had intended on moving into the unit," the OIG report said.
The report was forwarded to the acting director of the National Park Service for handling.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
You forgot to add the other part of this report summary .....We did not substantiate that the NPS senior official made improper position changes by preselecting staff members, and we found that while the senior official did serve as an NPS liaison for two park partners, his participation did not violate NPS or ethics regulations...."
So what is the deal on this one..sounds like a historic restoration of an old house that had approval at the regional level. The Regional DAB wouldn't know who was occupying the house - it doesn't play any role in their approval process.
Also, sounds like someone just didn't like who was selected for a position and went straight to the OIG.
And what is the deal with headlines of the report...Why doesn't the headline read "NPS Leader Did Not Violate Eithics Regulations nor Gain Personal Benefit from a Project"
Why is it even published like this with that headline - this is a very misleading headline.
The first line in this article contains an incorrect fact. The person investigated is NOT an employee of the Northeast Regional Office. Recent IG reports and associated articles seem to be full of inaccuracies. Kind of disturbing.
Well, unless other information from an official source is available, we have to go with what OIG issues, Really??
https://www.doioig.gov/reports/nps-senior-official-created-appearance-us...
The design of this project was approved by the regional development advisory board. The regional advisory board is the designated body to approve the design and cost. So that means if they approved the design (including the costs) it should negate the claim that this design was "unnecessary" which negates the claim that this official was creating an appearance.
Whether a park staff member or two disagreed with that decision is another matter. So if soneone, or a few employeess disagree with any senior level NPS decision that was made through standard processes in place, all that employee needs to do is call the OIG to investigage and they oblige?
So next time a Chief Ranger orders a new law enforcement vehiicle she/he better not ride in it or they will receive a personal gain. Next time an Administrative Officer orders a new copier for the office they better not make any copies on the machine or they will be receiving a personal gain. We can go on and on.
So there was no apparent violation of any housing management plan. The project was approved by the regional development advisory board. The person didn't move into the house and the project has been delayed. Why is this even an IG investigation?
Let's stop kneecapping NPS leaders with spurious charges and investigations. Here is yet another bizarre and inaccurate charge that amounts to nothing but probably sucked up many months of what could have been productive time for that park, its superintendent, and its staff. And let's look at the outcome: a historic house that was unliveable and needed extensive renovation now remains empty, continuing to deteriorate.
Tired brings up good points. It is a historic house that is demo'd and unlivable. Were the alterations approved by the State Historic Preservation Office? The review is not mentioned.