A national park superintendent who was highly valued for her performance and skills has been fired by the National Park Service for refusing to accept a job 500 miles away from her home and family.
While Mary A. Miller, superintendent at Sitka National Historical Park in Alaska, initially was successful in appealing her dismissal, a federal appellate court overturned a decision by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board and Ms. Miller was escorted out of the park by the chief ranger on New Year's Eve.
Park Service officials in Alaska decided in 2010 to shift Superintendent Miller from the historical park to a new position as Alaska Native Affairs Liaison in Anchorage, 500 miles away. When she declined the reassignment, claiming she was not qualified for the role and that it would be a hardship because of her family situation, the Park Service fired her. Ms. Miller then appealed that decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which overturned her dismissal.
In gathering testimony on Ms. Miller's appeal, the Merit Board heard from the Park Service how it "had a high regard for the appellant’s performance as the superintendent in Sitka. Indeed, agency witnesses testified that the agency relied upon the appellant’s strengths and accomplishments as a Superintendent as the basis for directing her reassignment to the Liaison position in Anchorage," the board noted.
Furthermore, it added in its ruling in April 2013, "we find that it did not promote the efficiency of the service to direct the appellant to take the position in Anchorage against her will and to remove her from employment altogether when she declined the position. As a result of the agency’s actions, it lost an apparently valued and successful employee, and created two vacancies that the agency had to fill after her removal."
The federal government's Office of Personnel Management then appealed that ruling to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the Merit Board, holding that the Park Service had legitimate reasons for reassigning Ms. Miller to Anchorage.
Yet the Park Service's determination to transfer Ms. Miller from Sitka was deemed "reprehensible" by U.S. Circuit Judge Evan Wallach. While Judge Wallach agreed with the court's majority that the Merit Systems Protection Board had wrongly approached Ms. Miller's case, he maintained that "it appears obvious to me that the agency’s actions were entirely pretextual and in bad faith."
Specifically, the Circuit judge wrote that the Park Service had crafted the job description for the Alaska Native Affairs Liaison in such a way " ... to obtain the desired result. It is obvious to me that the agency modified the standards and qualifications to make Ms. Miller the only person uniquely qualified, within the pool of employees that were considered for the position; that the agency’s actions were entirely pretextual; and that they were intended solely to present Ms. Miller with an improperly motivated Hobson’s choice. Such conduct by an agency of the United States is reprehensible."
In its ruling, reached in September, the Court of Appeals directed the Merit Systems Protection Board to reverse its decision. A final order supporting Ms. Miller's removal was filed on New Year's Eve and the Park Service appointed Neil Akana as acting superintendent for Sitka.
Comments
wrong. they are not temporary assignments.
Writing articles about personel issues within the government is going to be fraught with the inherent difficulty of only hearing part of the truth. They should be avoided unless very thoughroughly researched. There are layers to this story, the NPS is not without flaws on this issue but they are not what is highlighted. Regardless Park's are about the resource not the people working there, a superitendent may be the best thing since sliced cheese and it is still good for the park for them to leave for a huge variety of reasons. Sitka needs to be able to heal from what has been years of uncertainty.
Some respondants speculate that Superintendent Miller probably deserved her involuntary transfer and the Park Service had ample reason to fire her - even if her official performance evaluations were stellar. I do not personally know Ms Miller, but I have read available reports of the case and am familiar with the process. First, if Superintendent Miller's professional performance and conduct was unsatisfactory the question arises - did she recieve supervisory counciling to correct the problem and was it included in her annual performance evaluation? In other words, is there an official record - as there should be? The "redirected assignment" leaves the door open to speculation that the affected employee is under some type of cloud. Based on available reports, Ms Miller apparently recieved excellent performance evaluations for her work as a park manager. If those evaluations do not reflect the reality of her performance than her immediate superiorers should have been disciplined for failing to adequately deal with whatever problems existed.
The "redirected assignment" process lends itself to abuse by denying the affected employee the opportunity to fully understand whatever performance concerns there may be and to be able to present facts that might counter misunderstandings and provide a clearer picture of the situation. An employee who is forced to leave a given position, particularly one in management, is generally considered to be professionally tainted and unlikely to be selected for future advancement in their chosen career path.
An official descenting from the majority decision in reversing the original finding that Ms Miller was justified in her petition to remain as superintendent of Sitka National Historic Site stated, "It is obvious to me that the agency modified the standards and qualifications to make Ms. Miller the only person uniquely qualified, within the pool of employees that were considered for the position; that the agency's actions were entirely pretextu- al; and that they were intended solely to present Ms. Miller with an improperly motivated Hobson's choice. Such conduct by an agency of the United States is reprehensible."
Superintendent Miller exercised her right to appeal a forced transfer from her management position and requirement that she and her affected family move to a distant community. Her efforts should not be condemned simply out of speculation and rumor - particularly if she had recieved positive performance evaluations for past performance. It is this very rumor mill that grinds up too many employees.
Kurt Repanshek, you might get more information if you posted an email address or look for retirees to talk.
Nice job Kurt.
Current and former SITK "aggreived" staff - there is a different forum for your concerns....when you cannot get on board, you can leave. High school has, in fact, ended.
Bottom line - performance problems have a process that must be followed if you value due process - NPS did not use that process to punish Ms. Miller.
Conduct issues have a process too - NPS did not use that process to punish Ms. Miller.
Instead, NPS used a directed reassignment to punish Ms. Miller, specifically because there were no performance or conduct issues.
Why punish her? "Too hot to handle." Internal politics. Whiney staff didn't like her commitment to good government or change....Insecure leaders desired to make a statement about (their) power in a bureauocracy. Same m.o. as several big cases in the Fran Mainella years, the "reign of terror." MSPB tried to right their initial fumble, but did so in a way the circuit court could not uphold...
In most organizations, Ms. Miller would have received reward and promotion.
The truth will come out - it may take time.
If it is not a rule, it should be. Any job should be based on performance.
Click on the 'contact us' button on the masthead to reach out directly to Kurt.
Did anyone actually click on the link from the 2010 Juneau Empire article? It states that: "Last February, the National Park Service dispatched a team of top officials from the West Coast to review Sitka operations. The review found that the work environment at SNHP was characterized by "very low morale."
The report said 13 of 16 permanent employees had left the park, or were making plans to leave, and that the "mass exodus" had created "severe problems."
The report found that the park had no annual budget process, and that the development of "distrustful if not hostile work relationships negatively impact operations.""
Mary Miller had been a very capable civil engineer in Juneau with the US Forest Service. She had also lived in Anchorage for years, adding in her time in Juneau she had been gone from Sitka for 20 years or more - so much for her family.
Here is another link from Alaska Dispatch News: http://www.adn.com/article/20130405/claiming-discrimination-tlingit-nati... It is unusual, I have never seen the Alaska Federation of Natives go to bat for a Native employee employed by the federal government EVER in the State of Alaska when they were terminated. Various federal agencies in Alaska transfer Alaska Natives around and even terminate them, so why did the Chair and Vice-Chair of Sealaska (an ANCSA regional corporation) take up her cause? Probably because she was politically and personally connected. In Alaska other federal agencies transfer managers around and if you don't want the transfer, you either apply to another job or quit.
While Miller's case was on appeal, she was living in Juneau for the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indians of Alaska (she is Tlingit), headed up by a Sealaska board member. He fired a long-time employee who was also Tlingit with excellent performance in his position so she had a job while on appeal. She could have gone back to the US Forest Service where she was a very capable engineer.
In short, there is a lot behind the scenes but not just with the National Park Service. If you look at the appeals court files, she claimed to have a disability, which was a dry eye condition that she never declared until her termination. She claimed that the dry eye condition would get worse in Anchorage even though she had lived there for years.
I have seen federal agencies give glowing reviews to managers in Alaska who were absolutely horrible and then terminate others who were good managers but not politically connected internally and externally. Given the fact that the National Park Service found problems after a review that I noted in the quote from the Juneau Empire (probably generated by employee complaints), it appears that a lot has not been reported.