| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
cascadeclimber
Member
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1427 | TRs | Pics
|
Many of you know that what started with some upset over the guide services being given preferential access to Mount Rainier during the 2006/7 flood "closure" has gotten to be a much bigger deal for me. The more I pulled on the thread, the more I saw the scope of the mess. It started, for me, with one little thing, but the more I dug the more I realized there is a cronyistic, permissive culture in the upper levels of the NPS that doesn't hold leaders accountable and repeatedly looks the other way, and even promotes perpetrators.
In the spring the director of the NPS was stripped of his responsibility for ethics in the service due to his own ethics violations. How/why he was left employed is baffling to me. Over the summer a sexual harassment cover-up at Grand Canyon finally cost former Rainier Supt. Dave Uberuagua his job (for ignoring it for years), though he was allowed to retired with full benefits at taxpayer expense.
I was in DC for work yesterday and met with a staffer of Sen. Patty Murray to voice my concerns about these and other issues with the NPS. I didn't know that there was a simultaneous meeting of the House Oversight Committee to hear testimony from two whistleblowers and an NPS rep (who was defending leadership behavior). The sexual harassment issue bas been laid bare now as something that is endemic; not just a one-off issue at Grand Canyon, specifics of issues at Yosemite and Yellowstone are now out, as well as previously reported issues at Canaveral Seashore. An investigation was done 16 YEARS ago and the NPS implemented NONE of the recommended steps. Under pressure the NPS rep (Jon Jarvis' deputy director...Jarvis was oddly absent) admitted that as far as he knows the NPS has never fired anyone for sexual harassment.
There are now calls for Jarvis to be fired and not allowed to continue working until his planned retirement in January. I support this. It outrages me that someone who has allowed so much malfeasance (including his own) should be allowed to retire on my tax dollars.
The staffer I met with also requested that those of us who care about such things keep him informed about additional incidents (not just harassment, but also issues like the late-gate tickets, abusive behavior toward visitors, failure to hold public meetings, etc. at Mount Rainier). So if you have issues, please PM me and I will pass along his email address.
I am hopeful that there will, this time, be tangible change and that those responsible will be held fully accountable. Denying public access to parks is one thing. Allowing a widespread culture of sexual harassment and protecting and even promoting perpetrators is disgusting.
Also, I urge you to watch some of the excerpts from the 2+ hour hearing at this link:
https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/examining-misconduct-mismanagement-national-park-service/
Summary articles are here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/22/top-park-service-official-acknowledges-no-one-has-been-fired-for-sexual-misconduct/
http://wildfiretoday.com/2016/09/22/national-park-service-whistleblowers-testify-to-congress-about-sexual-harassment/
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
Ringangleclaw
Member
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 1559 | TRs | Pics
|
Do you have a link or can you give us a quick refresher on the 06/07 Mount Rainier issue?
I fully agree with you that entrenched managment is a major issue. Looking at NOCA and the removal of the rappel bolts on Forbidden makes my blood boil.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cascadeclimber
Member
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1427 | TRs | Pics
|
| Ringangleclaw wrote: | | Do you have a link or can you give us a quick refresher on the 06/07 Mount Rainier issue? |
Severe flooding destroyed part of the road between the entrance and Longmire in November of 2006, resulting in the park being declared closed for the entire winter by the Supt. (unless you wanted to park outside the Longmire entrance and walk all the way in).
However, someone flying over took pictures of vehicles in the Paradise Parking lot and climbers on the snowfield. Some digging led to the discovery that the for-profit guide services and clients were being allowed to drive into the park through a (then) little-known back road/bridge at Longmire. Park management had tried to keep this preferential access a secret.
In the following years, I and others repeatedly noted guide service vehicles in the Paradise parking lot on days when the road above Longmire wasn't opened to the public (we also noted a significant increase in days where the road didn't open or opened very late).
Subsequent to complaints about this preferential access (by me and others), the park superintendent made a pledge to restrict for-profit use to the same level of access as the general public. However, the guided group that died on the Liberty Ridge avalanche two years ago was also given preferential access, being allowed to drive through the locked gate at the park entrance on 410, and on to White River, rather than walking in from the gate. It seems, in retrospect, extremely unlikely that they would have been camped high on Liberty Ridge when the avalanche hit if they'd been obliged to respect the same access privileges as the general public.
But what this really illustrates is a long, pervasive habit of saying one thing and doing another. For those that didn't listen, there was a similar NPS sexual harassment investigation 16 years ago. The NPS said all the right things at the time, and then proceeded to implement NONE of the recommendations, once no one was breathing down their neck.
I have personally experienced this many times dealing with MORA staff; they just don't walk the talk.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ringangleclaw
Member
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 1559 | TRs | Pics
|
I wasn't aware of the special access during 2007. Here is the news release when the road was reopened.
https://www.nps.gov/mora/learn/news/upload/PR20RoadtoParadiseOpensSaturday.pdf
When I have more time I'll check the assessors web site and try to figure out if Uberuaga made much of a profit when he unloaded the property he bought from Whittaker.
I can't remember what year that was, I wonder if that had any part in his transfer.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ski
><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12829 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
 Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:41 pm |
|
|
| Lisa Rein, reporting for The Washington Post wrote: | | "...women in the maintenance division at Yellowstone National Park were subjected for years to sexual harassment by their supervisors, one of whom is alleged to have paid a laborer on the park staff for sex. The allegations were reported this month by Montana Pioneer, which quoted an engineering-equipment operator employed by the park." |
| David S. Lewis, quoting former YNP employee Robert Hester in the Montana Pioneer wrote: | | One female employee, he said, “never did anything … she was (in effect) paid for sex,” having been more or less kept by one of her supervisors for a sexual relationship, according to Hester, while doing little else.
Hester said the situation was well known in the Division, and that the female employee, a laborer, would “drink daily,” essentially being kept inebriated and available for favors for her superior. Hester said at one point he was asked to buy alcohol for the woman, but refused. He said the woman later “had a nervous breakdown,” which he learned from an eyewitness to the event, resulting from her exploitation and due to a conflict with her superior over the way she had been treated. |
Montana Pioneer article of 07/17/16 here.
Sorry, but I'm having a difficult time getting my head wrapped around the idea that providing sex for monetary compensation and liquor in some way constitutes "sexual harassment".
Exploitation, perhaps, but "harassment"?
Why is this incident even being tied in with these other allegations? 
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ski
><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12829 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:44 pm |
|
|
| Ringangleclaw wrote: | | "... if Uberuaga made much of a profit..." |
There are no laws prohibiting making a profit on real estate transactions.
Uberuaga sold the property during a period of over-inflated real estate prices.
Was the land sold for far more than what would have been reasonably considered "fair market value"? Yes.
Has anyone provided any evidence that any laws were broken? No.
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ringangleclaw
Member
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 1559 | TRs | Pics
|
| Ski wrote: | | There are no laws prohibiting making a profit on real estate transactions.
Uberuaga sold the property during a period of over-inflated real estate prices.
Was the land sold for far more than what would have been reasonably considered "fair market value"? Yes.
Has anyone provided any evidence that any laws were broken? No. |
I had some of the details wrong, he sold the house to Whittaker in 2002, for triple what the house was assessed for. I will point out:
1) 2002 was decidedly not during a period of over heated markets
2) By todays metrics, that price does not look too expensive
3) Assessed values do not often reflect market value.
4) Public servants are prohibited from making profits by dint of their profession
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/mount-rainier-park-ex-official-scrutinized-on-land-deal/
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ringangleclaw
Member
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 1559 | TRs | Pics
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cascadeclimber
Member
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1427 | TRs | Pics
|
| Ringangleclaw wrote: | | Ski wrote: | | There are no laws prohibiting making a profit on real estate transactions.
Uberuaga sold the property during a period of over-inflated real estate prices.
Was the land sold for far more than what would have been reasonably considered "fair market value"? Yes.
Has anyone provided any evidence that any laws were broken? No. |
I had some of the details wrong, he sold the house to Whittaker in 2002, for triple what the house was assessed for. I will point out:
1) 2002 was decidedly not during a period of over heated markets
2) By todays metrics, that price does not look too expensive
3) Assessed values do not often reflect market value.
4) Public servants are prohibited from making profits by dint of their profession
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/mount-rainier-park-ex-official-scrutinized-on-land-deal/ |
He sold the house for triple its assessed value to a company that employed his kid and to whom he let contracts. He failed to disclose this on conflict of interest forms, and investigators found that he tried to mislead them.
The case was referred for federal prosecution (they felt there was enough evidence for prosecution, obviously) and then mysteriously dropped. His boss at the time was Jon Jarvis. Jarvis proceeded to promote him to Rainier Supt. and later promoted him to Grand Canyon Supt., where he ignored reports of sexual harassment for years. When it finally caught up to him Jarvis offered him another job or retirement instead of firing him. He chose to retire with full benefits at taxpayer expense.
But let's look at Jarvis' words:
Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis "has made clear to all NPS employees that when incidents of harassment are reported, NPS managers must take the allegations seriously ... and act promptly to ensure the harassment ... does not continue," Barnum said.
If allegations are verified, "disciplinary action will follow," he said.
Apparently his definition of "disciplinary action" is that you get left alone, transferred, promoted, or allowed to retire, as the NPS testified yesterday that they couldn't recall any employee being fired for it.
Jarvis, who sent his minion to the House hearing, and had his ethic responsibilities stripped in May, is also planning to retire in January...also with full benefits.
So yeah, there's a subset of culture in the NPS that ignores serious issues, including malfeasance, lying, and disgusting behavior like voyeurism and physical threats toward employees. It transfers guilty parties and even promotes them in a vacuum of discipline. And it goes right to the top: Jarvis.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ski
><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12829 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
Fri Sep 23, 2016 4:55 pm |
|
|
| Ringangleclaw wrote: | | "1) 2002 was decidedly not during a period of over heated markets." |
That may have been the case where you are located, but it certainly wasn't the case here.
The house two doors down, a twin to my own - built by the same contractor the same year using the same blueprint - was sold in 2002 for more than twice what mine cost, and sold for cash.
Two weeks after the sale, the new owner dumped $18K into it repairing the eaves, replacing the gutters, and what presumably were several walls (the stack of drywall in the garage was about 18 inches thick.)
"Over heated market" would be a gross understatement: a couple years later, my mother and step-father sold their condominium unit in Gig Harbor for over three times what they'd paid for it less than 6 years prior.
Regardless of all the other things about that sale that look sketchy, the selling price was not an issue that should have been part of the story.
| cascadeclimber wrote: | | "He sold the house for triple its assessed value..." |
So? There's nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical about making a profit on a real estate deal. That's the way the game's played. Simple.
So he made a profit on the sale - big deal. It's not an issue.
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cascadeclimber
Member
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1427 | TRs | Pics
|
| Ski wrote: | | So? There's nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical about making a profit on a real estate deal. |
You are incorrect. Federal law bars employees from making such deals without disclosing them. Uberuagua failed to disclose and misled investigators.
Jarvis did the same thing with his book deal.
Rotten to the core.
Edit to add: The house was in Ashford, across from RMI property. I'd love to see some proof of there EVER having been an "overheated" real estate market in Ashford, Washington. Oh, and Uberuagua also FINANCED the deal for them, because they couldn't get a traditional loan due, precisely, to the wildly high sale price. So apparently the banks also agreed that the price was outrageous.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ski
><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12829 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
Fri Sep 23, 2016 5:32 pm |
|
|
| cascadeclimber wrote: | | You are incorrect |
NO, I'm not.
The price of the sale and the disclosure are two separate issues.
You're trying (repeatedly, I might add, for over five years now) to try to make a big deal about the selling price.
The selling price has nothing to do with any of the other issues and in itself is a non-issue.
If some fool wants to pay three times what something's worth, there's no law to prevent that from happening, and the seller isn't doing anything "illegal".
What part of that are you having a hard time understanding?
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ski
><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12829 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
Fri Sep 23, 2016 5:36 pm |
|
|
... and what does the "Jarvis book deal" have to do with "sexual harassment" at National Parks?
or is this just another "let's drag everything out we can from under the rug" thing?
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contour5
Member
Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 2963 | TRs | Pics
|
|
contour5
Member
|
Fri Sep 23, 2016 6:18 pm |
|
|
| Quote: | | Sorry, but I'm having a difficult time getting my head wrapped around the idea that providing sex for monetary compensation and liquor in some way constitutes "sexual harassment".
Exploitation, perhaps, but "harassment"?
Why is this incident even being tied in with these other allegations? |
Gotta wonder if we read the same story. To me it sounds like female employees are routinely being coerced into providing sexual "favors" in exchange for being allowed to keep their jobs. This is a gross violation of basic human rights and a total abuse of power by management-level government employees.
The cozy real estate deal stinks too.
And preferential access for big money enterprises during a closure? Not a good precedent. Seems like a foot in the door for all kinds of dirty business.
I'm confident we can do better...
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ski
><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12829 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
Fri Sep 23, 2016 6:43 pm |
|
|
Not a clue. I read the two stories cited above. The URL for the Montana Pioneer article is cited above, from which I quoted:
| David S. Lewis, quoting former YNP employee Robert Hester in the Montana Pioneer wrote: | | One female employee, he said, “never did anything … she was (in effect) paid for sex,” having been more or less kept by one of her supervisors for a sexual relationship, according to Hester, while doing little else. |
Sounds to me like one employee who was kept on the payroll, according to Hester, specifically for the purpose of providing sexual favors.
I'm not seeing any evidence in either of the articles of anything more than allegations, none of which any of us here have details about.
As for Uberuaga's real estate deal:
The price he sold the property for has nothing to do with any other issues.
You can continue to insist that it does, but that doesn't make it so.
If there was something illegal about what Uberuaga was doing, why did the prosecutor's office not pursue the case?
Or is the new norm now "Guilty until proven innocent"??
And what does Uberuaga's real estate deal have to do with "sexual harassment"?
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s). |
