Grand Canyon Superintendent Christine Lehnertz has been cleared of any wrongdoing as is returning to the park/NPS
Grand Canyon National Park Superintendent Christine Lehnertz, who was removed from her job last fall after undisclosed allegations were made against her, has been cleared of any wrongdoing and is returning to the park.
In an email to Grand Canyon staff, acting National Park Service Director Dan Smith on Thursday said an investigation into the allegations concluded they lacked credence.
"The investigation has been completed and I am extremely pleased to let you know the allegations were determined by OIG to be wholly unfounded," Smith wrote. "Chris has been fully exonerated of all allegations. Chris will be returning to the park soon to join all of you and assume her duties as superintendent. As we work out the details of her return, she asked me to send her appreciation to you for the work that you have done over the past several months in her absence."
When the investigation into the superintendent began last October, she was moved to an unspecified position in the Park Service.
Lehnertz had moved from Golden Gate National Recreation Area to the Grand Canyon in July 2016 to help the park overcome a long-running episode of sexual harassment,
In January 2016, a report released by the Interior Department's Office of Inspector General said that for roughly 15 years life deep in the Inner Gorge of the Grand Canyon at times reflected rowdy, sexually charged scenes from a frat party for some park employees, with male employees pawing and propositioning female workers, some of who at times exhibited their own risqué behavior.
While Lehnertz was brought in to help end harassment at Grand Canyon, another episode was reported in 2017, according to an OIG investigation into a park manager alleged to have harassed an intern.
The incident ran for several months in 2017, according to the OIG report. The manager, who was not identified by name or position, resigned from the National Park Service in October of that year, about a month after he was interviewed by the OIG's staff.
In welcoming Lehnertz back to Grand Canyon, Smith called her "a talented and dedicated executive of the National Park Service and her commitment to building a respectful and inclusive workplace is sincere, broadly demonstrated, and widely respected. Together, you all have worked tirelessly to change the culture at Grand Canyon National Park. I thank all of you for the progress you have made at the park and for your contributions to the greater culture change within the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service. Your continuing commitment to these changes is crucial."
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
I want whatever punishment the accused would have faced for the offense to be suffered by the accuser that cannot prove their accusations. It's just basic fairness. If the accuser just made an honest mistake that should go unpunished. Lying in accusations should be punished.
You do understand there's a basic issue that historically those in power have abused that power and used their position to threaten anyone who dared lodge an accusation by "burying" them? I don't know what happened here and I'm pretty sure you don't know either. Your post was only about "consquences". That's not how it works - that there are consequences or not. Basic fairness should allow someone to make an accusation in good faith and not worry about how the powerful will destroy them in retribution.
She's been cleared, and I hope that she can let it go without the kind of retribution you seem to think is appropriate.
Key words there y_p_W - "in good faith". I think Bill would agree with you there but there have been too many recent examples of accusations (not necessarily NPS) that weren't in good faith that have gone without consequences. You are correct we don't know all the details here. Perhpas we should. But the wording "wholly unfounded" does make one wonder.
There's clearly whistleblower protection in the Dept of the Interior and across the entire federal government. I don't know if this was a misunderstanding or perhaps something where the Superintendent was falsely accused. But we have protections in place for whistleblowers. The basic premise is that it's better to protect accusers rather than give real abuses a pass on the basis of accusers being afraid of retribution. And part of that protection includes confidentiality.
"Basic fairness should allow someone to make an accusation in good faith and not worry about how the powerful will destroy them in retribution." I agree. Basic fairness should also punish those that make false accusations against the powerful as well as the powerless so that the accused doesn't have to worry about false accussers False accusers become very powerful when there are no consequences for false accusations. The accused remains tainted by the accusation. It's a fundamental failure of the United States justice system that the powerful state can accuse, arrest , and put you on trial and if the Governement fails to prove the case, your reputation and finances may be ruined even though you are aquitted. Perhaps we need a law like this: "The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst" https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+19%3A18-19&vers...
I agree that we should know the details. "Wholly unfounded" makes me think that if was a false accusation and that the accuser should be punished.
Yours is a system where people basically get away with crimes and or other bad behavior because the powerful can afford attorneys. Yours is a system where whistleblowers fear being railroaded.
Two-edged-sword...
The same confidentiality that protects victims in precarious positions, also allows the nefarious to scurry in the darkness and spread vileness and defilement.
Thank a metaphorical GOD, or otherwise, to be afforded the former and protected from the later.
Chris, you go, sister.
thx