Grand Canyon National Park Superintendent Christine Lehnertz/NPS
An investigation has cleared Grand Canyon National Park Superintendent Christine Lehnertz of any wrongdoing in managing the park, but it has placed the National Park Service in a hard-to-defend position by leaving her accusers in the park.
Lehnertz's attorney, Kevin Evans, has said she won't return to the park until the agency ensures that similar unsubstantiated attacks don't follow her return.
“Chris cannot go back to the park right now because she is not safe there,” Denver-based attorney Kevin Evans told Outside Online last week. “We need assurances that she will have protection if these kinds of malicious accusations are filed against her again by subordinates."
The blade does indeed cut both ways.
Employees should be able to anonymously bring matters of concern to higher-ups for investigation. But at the same time, those accused of wrongdoing without any hard, substantial evidence and then cleared of the allegations shouldn't have to endure the same venomous environment.
"It puts you in a 'damned if do, damned if you don't position' where no matter the decision (or lack of it) you are condemned and whistleblowers now can exercise extraordinary power," said Rob Arnbarger, who himself was a superintendent at Grand Canyon during his long Park Service career. "Don't get me wrong. There needs to be an environment where employees have the capacity to stop unethical practices and managers removed when these practices continue. That needs to be encouraged.
"However, the hidden problem with this is that it also creates an environment where some employees use this to their advantage when they, themselves, are the problem and a senior manager moves aggressively to solve that problem only to face an allegation and investigation that may, in fact, clear them ... but in reality hamstrings them from ever solving the problem, or others that rear their ugly head," he added. "You get allegations and investigations that do nothing but handicap a manager from making difficult decisions. It is a nearly impossible situation to be in. The problems at Grand Canyon, and other parks, need to be eliminated by aggressive leaders. But, in doing that, it is obvious that there are people in the right place and time who seek an entirely personal agenda using this against the leader as an opportunity to try to protect themselves. How in the hell can you lead in an environment like this?"
A heads-down atmosphere has enveloped the National Park Service in recent years. Anonymous allegations are too easy to toss around, cause much disruption, and potentially ruin careers while investigators delve into them. Is there substance to the accusations? Or are they just vindictive missives intended as retribution for a bad performance review?
It took more than a little time and much intestinal fortitude -- guts -- for those surrounded for years by the sexual harassment cesspool that enveloped the Grand Canyon's River District to come forward. And it took a letter to then-Interior Secretary Sally Jewell to bring much-needed light and action to the sordid situation. Park Service managers, including the Grand Canyon superintendent at the time, David Uberuaga, and the Intermountain Regional director above him, Sue Masica, were aware of the allegations. And did nothing, according to those on the ground.
A lengthy investigation by Interior Department's Office of the Inspector General found credence in the allegations. It was seen as a pivotal moment in the workplace atmosphere in the park, and even the National Park Service. The River District office was disbanded, Uberuaga headed off into retirement rather than take a reassignment to Washington, and then-National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis promised a zero-tolerance approach for combating sexual harassment. But his words didn't seem to cleanse the agency of discrimination and harassment, as cases continued to crop up across the park system.
Lehnertz arrived at Grand Canyon, as the park's first female superintendent, from Golden Gate National Recreation Area in the midst of all this. Her task was to right the park's moral compass. It wasn't expected to be as an easy task, and it hasn't been.
"The sexual harassment at Grand Canyon National Park and Cape Canaveral National Seashore means that some of our NPS colleagues have suffered immeasurable harm, and the outrageous misconduct of a few park employees has driven dedicated professionals away from federal service," Lehnertz wrote in a 2016 email to announce her departure to her staff at Golden Gate, where she was superintendent. "We can't wait another moment for this to change dramatically, or for the NPS to honestly, directly, and completely address these issues."
In September 2016, shortly after settling in at Grand Canyon, she told me that she had found the park's employees to be "resilient" and committed to the mission at the park.
"Taking care of one another has been a theme that I’ve heard, things like, 'We have a ton of work to do, and we’re serious about it, but we also are concerned about burnout, and I see it in my colleagues,'" she added. "Those kinds of things tell me that folks here aren’t going to sit back with anything. That they’re going to stay engaged, that they want to be the strongest park possible, and so you have to keep a spotlight on things like sexual harassment that are challenges until we’re the best park in the nation preventing sexual harassment.”
One of those employees, at least, apparently didn't buy into his new boss's views or vision, or maybe he just didn't like her gender. Last fall, Lehnertz found herself facing allegations that she was bullying, had created a hostile atmosphere with a brusque management style, and had spent recklessly on housing to be used by a deputy superintendent. She was temporarily reassigned somewhere in the park system, left to wonder what had befallen her.
And then the OIG staff exonerated her of all charges. In doing so, it created a portrait of one of her accusers as determined not to follow her directives and even impede them. Were the allegations a bald-faced attempt to have Lehnertz reassigned or fired? Read the report and draw your own conclusions.
As we said in 2016 after Jarvis announced his zero-tolerance plan, today’s Park Service managers have to follow a plethora of Office of Personnel Management rules, and deal with labor unions, when it comes to disciplining their employees. While those rules were established to protect employees and keep a good employee from being arbitrarily fired or reassigned due to political pressure, they can also impede attempts to discipline or remove employees. Where's the protection for the managers?
When the Traveler reached out to Park Service officials in the agency's Washington, D.C., headquarters to ask what repercussions those who brought the allegations against Lehnertz might face, the question was met with silence.
Though we can only hope, for Lehnertz' sake, that the individual(s) are reassigned to another park, that would only move the problem, not deal with it.
Comments
Fairly evident when you read beyond the lines that this Superintendent was sent into Grand Canyon to create an environment that would very much target and create an environment that could be seen as hostile towards men. Of course, the NPS won't ever admit that in their review, so of course they will try and cover their tracks. Creating a toxic matriarchy to counter a toxic patriarchy now seems to be the answer that extreme liberal feminists and their beta male orbiter subordinates use as a tactic, however, many innocent men get caught in the crossfire of this dangerous ideology that is making people not want to work in these type of environments. The problem with this philosophy is they seem to assume that any man is the enemy, and must be subdued, emasculated, and feminized. There will one day be a massive rejection to this philosophy and it will not play well.
Must also add that if this Lenhertz is so afraid of one employee that has a beef with her, then she is not fit for the job. She cries victim over one complaint? That is serious passive agressive beta female mentality going on here where she's now playing "victim" in order to seek revenge on her employee that filed a complaint, that seemed to have some legitimacy to it..
This reminds me of the recent issue that went on in Grand Canyon where the park housed a unanium bucket in a museum and the safety manager at the park called it out because he didn't want to risk his reputation, and instead of the managers owning the mistake, they instead blamed the safety coordinator. The government is broken, and bad managers fueled by immoral and unethical policies that they use to write new rules to cover their incompetence plague the system.
She cries foul over being removed for FIVE MONTHS from her position, for calling out someone who happens to be male for not doing his job. FIVE MONTHS of not being allowed to do the work she is good at. Which could have been easily fixed by him apologizing, accepting appropriate fairly mild discipline, and doing his job. You are reading WAY in to this situation.
I agree with what your saying, unfortunately the rejection is already rearing it's ugly head, that's how we got Trump.
I am reading way into it, because it's more than likely the truth. Seems that since this "new agenda" came into play at the Grand Canyon, there's a lot of cases where male managers that voice concerns all the sudden are harrassed and intimidated. I see this tactic of her crying victim that can't play with her coworkers as another intimidation tactic. A real leader brushes it off, gets back to the office, shows leadership and gets people to follow her/him/it. Unfortunately, if you do find a work environment that is progressive and a great place to work because the leadership is solid, it never lasts long. Sounds like the Grand Canyon is more Detroit Lions than New England Patriots.
Do you consider being removed from your job for FIVE MONTHS something you didn't do as something to "brush off"? Do you think a manager - of any gender - who refuses to do basic tasks of the job should not be disciplined ever-so-slightly in order to get them to do their work? Do you think that filing a harassment claim that gets your boss removed for five months, because you didn't want to do your work, is o.k.? Because it's all there in the OIG report. I understand you have an axe to grind and there are certainly situations where your concerns apply, but read the facts of the OIG report.
As for the football metaphors I do not know this football you speak of, as it relates to "a work environment that is progressive and a great place to work" for everyone, INCLUDING women. But, reading behind your words, I think I detect someone who doesn't think girls should get to play, or at least, when they play they shouldn't complain when the boys break the rules.
Once again, like a tool you take the mantra of the report and fail to see that certain motives behind that very report can be construed by the political influences that are trying to enforce the "new guidelines". As was pointed out in this article - in her farewell email, she pretty much went charging into the job at the Grand Canyon with a "tame them bad males" agenda. I could very well undertand how a feminst trained in SF's Golden Gate could have a few men not want to be emasculated in the rugged red country of Arizona. I also am appaled as a tax payer on the amount spent to refurbish a house for a deputy superintendent. Get them a tent, a monthly supply of rice, beans, and a shower every few days and they should be proud to be serving in such a place.
As I mentioned, the Grand Canyon has quite a few incidents of late, where men have been harassed and intimidated by women. I'm going to assume you work in the park, and are a female, hence your defensive nature about this subject. I read the report, but like the 911 comission report, it sure does leave quite a lot of questions.
I have not heard this fellows side directly, but would like to hear his account, as well as the Safety manager that tipped off people about the uranium ore that was in the bucket sitting for years on the floor of the museum. That gentlemen also seem to face harassment from the same sort of management group. So before making some broad decision to accept the NPS mantra, I would wait to hear little more on this. And no, a progressive environment doesn't have one sex favored over the other. Sex doesn't matter. It should be even freakin' steven. Women and men working together as a team, not being forced to accept gender idenity politics that then attempts to segregate and seperate sexes to subdue, harrass, or intimidate one another. It's how you do your job and the quality of the work. I have worked in such an environment, but like I said change in management can always cause a place to go from the New England Patriots to the Detroit Lions. But, then again, us private sector employees understand that, while government lackies tend to focus on gender politics and political infighting. Makes you wonder if they are actually spending any real time protecting the park. So get to work and do what we are supposedly paying you for. I'm starting to see a continual pattern that so many working environments in the National Parks Service seem pretty hostile to many types of people, whether female or men. Seems like the culture needs a serious change.
What I am about to say may not be the right platform for this problem at the Grand Canyon and many other parks around the US. Yes! Being a civil servant in these "Last Days is a cruel place to be. How about someone from Region or HQ's call a meeting of all those who feel that the world is against them and sit down at a "neutral place" take out God's Holy Word and read aloud "Mark 12: 29-31" Have a brief devotion how could "I" might apply these verses with my coworkers? Then end the meeting holding hands and having prayer. If your heart is pricked "Hug thy neighbor" and depart ways. That worked for this ol' former NPS Park Ranger and I departed and went to East Africa for some twenty years to use my Ranger experiences as a "Servant" No fancy title. Now I have more joy than my years with the NPS.