U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–123 PDF 2017

EXAMINING MISCONDUCT AND MISMANAGEMENT 

AT THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 

Serial No. 114–164 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

ROD BLUM, Iowa 

JODY B. HICE, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

WILL HURD, Texas 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

TED LIEU, California 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

JENNIFER HEMINGWAY, Staff Director 

ANDREW DOCKHAM, General Counsel 

WILLIAM MCGRATH, Interior Subcommittee Staff Director 

MELISSA BEAUMONT, Professional Staff Member 

SHARON CASEY, Deputy Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on September 22, 2016 ..................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Michael Reynolds, Deputy Director for Operations, National Park Service, 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 5 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

Mr. Kelly Martin, Chief of Fire and Aviation Management, Yosemite National 

Park, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14 

Mr. Brian Healy, Fisheries Program Manager, Grand Canyon National Park, 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 23 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 25 

APPENDIX 

Letter of June 16, 2016, Representative Hice to the President re Director 

Jarvis’s Resignation ............................................................................................. 74 

September 22, 2016 Ms. Kearney Congressional Statement submitted by Mr. 

Palmer ................................................................................................................... 76 

Submitted by Ms. Lummis: 

September 21, 2016 Congressional Statement Grand Canyon ..................... 86 

September 22, 2016 Congressional Statement Yosemite .............................. 88 

September 22, 2016 Hester Congressional Statement .................................. 94 

September 22, 2016 Larkin Congressional Statement .................................. 95 

September 20, 2016 Nebel Congressional Statement .................................... 103 

September 22, 2016 Williams Congressional Statement ............................... 105 

September 22, 2016 Brady Congressional Statement ................................... 113 

Response from Mr. Reynolds, NPS, to Questions for the Record ........................ 116 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

EXAMINING MISCONDUCT AND MISMANAGEMENT AT THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Thursday, September 22, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:02 p.m., in Room 2154, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jason Chaffetz [chairman of 

the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Chaffetz, Mica, Walberg, Amash, Gosar, 

Gowdy, Lummis, Meadows, DeSantis, Blum, Hice, Carter, 

Grothman, Palmer, Cummings, Norton, Connolly, Plaskett, Welch, 

and Lujan Grisham. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will come to order. And without objection, the chair 

is authorized to declare a recess at any time. 

We have an important hearing today. It is entitled ‘‘Examining 

Misconduct and Mismanagement at the National Park Service.’’ 

In June, National Park Service Director Jarvis testify before this 

committee about the problems and sexual harassment throughout 

the Park Service. He suggested that things could potentially get 

worse before they got better, and boy, was he right. Things have 

gotten a lot worse. We have certainly been able to illuminate and 

find more problems that unfortunately have been festering and 

been part of the system for far, far too long. 

Since Director Jarvis’ testimony, numerous park employees from 

multiple parks have contacted the committee to describe patterns 

of misconduct at the Park Service, and today, we are here to determine what the Park Service is doing to stop the harassment and 

find out why it keeps happening. There seems to be some patterns 

here that are just not anything that we should come close to tolerating. 

These incidents are happening at our country’s most beloved 

parks. From Yellowstone to Yosemite and the Grand Canyon, these 

are some of the most visited and famous parks literally in the 

world. Unfortunately, they also face serious management challenges and allegations of disturbing misbehavior. 

It is difficult often to have these discussions in an open setting, 

and I warn the parents of young people who may be watching this 

some of this is going to be probably a little touchy and a little inappropriate, but it is what we do in this committee. We illuminate 

things. We shine a light on them. 

We are different in the United States of America, as I have said 

time and time again, in that we are self-critical. And we better 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

come to a reality grip of what is happening because far too often 

the people that are accused of this hideous behavior are simply promoted, maybe they get a bonus, and they just move on. There 

doesn’t seem to be a consequence. 

In Yosemite at least 18 employees, 18, have come forward with 

allegations of harassment, bullying, and a hostile work environment. These employees lay the blame at the top on Dan 

Neubacher, the superintendent of Yosemite. The Park Service law 

enforcement official who investigated the allegation in Yosemite 

concluded this: ‘‘The number of employees interviewed that describe horrific working conditions lead us to believe that the environment is indeed toxic, hostile, repressive, and harassing.’’ I don’t 

know that it could get any worse than that, but that is his conclusion. These are the words of the Park Service’s own internal investigators, not the committee staff, not the Office of the Inspector 

General. Currently, Superintendent Neubacher is still running Yosemite. He is still there. 

If this was the only park suffering from these problems, it would 

be enough of a serious concern, yet recent allegations from America’s first national park, Yellowstone, are truly beyond the pale. 

They include sexual exploitation, intimidation, retaliation, and sexual harassment so depraved that it is disturbing even to discuss. 

With accusations so alarming, you would expect the Washington office to step in immediately and ensure that employees in Yellowstone are safe. 

While I appreciate the decision to call on the inspector general 

for assistance, the Park Service must be more aggressive in protecting public service. We see this time and time again. It is not 

good enough to just say we are going to ask the inspector general 

to do it. The Park Service and the other agencies need to do their 

job and provide immediate relief, not punt it to somebody else to 

start doing it. And it is not good enough to just say we are going 

to do a survey. I am tired of hearing about surveys. There is a 

problem. 

In our June hearing we heard about the serious problems at 

Grand Canyon and Canaveral National Parks. Since then, it was 

reported that the supervisors who allowed misconduct to occur in 

these parks were not just left unpunished, some were even promoted. What in the world does it take to get fired from the Park 

Service? In most of these cases that I have seen it is not just one 

he said/she said. Here is a case that we are going to talk about 

today where we had 18 people, 18, who are talking about this. 

Leaders who fail in their obligations to protect the public or employees, they need to be fired. If they are not going to take action 

and they are not going to protect the employees of the United 

States of America, then they should leave. 

We had hoped our hearing with Director Jarvis would have 

prompted to change. Instead, it seems to have been treated merely 

as a speed bump. Based on what we have seen, the response to the 

crisis has been to require additional training for managers and to 

realign the EEO, the Equal Employment Opportunity office, so it 

reports to Director Jarvis. 

Here is the problem with Director Jarvis, though. Of course this 

is the same director who was removed from overseeing the Park 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

Service’s ethics program because his own integrity failures, including lying to the Secretary of Interior. 

I am glad to see that Director Jarvis has announced his retirement. I think that should have happened quite some time ago, but 

it is kind of stunning that the director of the Park Service is prohibited from administering an ethics program because of his own 

ethical problems. And then we wonder why we have a hard time 

implementing ethical reforms or just implementing things at the 

Park Service. How are employees supposed to trust the EEO process when the person in charge hasn’t followed the rules themselves? Something needs to change and it needs to change fast. 

And I would like to acknowledge we are joined today by two Park 

Service employees testifying in a whistleblower capacity. These 

brave employees have come forward despite the fear of possible retaliation. Now, I have got to tell you, we will have nothing of that. 

Mr. Cummings and I, Democrats, Republicans, we are united in 

the idea that we will go to the ends of the earth to protect and support people who step up as whistleblowers. 

It takes a great deal of guts to come testify before this committee 

in a voluntary situation and explain what you have seen and heard 

firsthand. For that, we are exceptionally grateful. It is a difficult 

thing to do. I can’t imagine you ever imagined in your life that you 

would be in this situation testifying before Congress, but as I said 

before, we take this responsibility very seriously. We can’t fix it if 

we don’t know precisely what it is. We have a pretty good indication of what it is, but to hear from the frontlines what is really 

happening is a pivotal concern to us. 

We want to thank you for your courage, your willingness to step 

forward, and we expect candid answers. And we will do all we can 

to protect you from any sort of reprisals. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. So I would now like to recognize the ranking member, Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I do 

indeed thank you for calling this hearing. 

No employee in Federal civil service should ever feel afraid to 

come to work. This is a simple statement, but it is very, very important. And no employee should ever feel retaliation if she steps 

forward or he steps forward to report misconduct that makes him 

or her feel afraid or uncomfortable. 

I thank Kelly Martin, the chief of fire and aviation management 

at Yosemite national Park; and Brian Healy, the fisheries program 

manager at the Grand Canyon, for being here today. I thank them 

for their courage and their willingness to come forward and share 

with this committee their experiences over decades of work for the 

Federal Government. I also thank you for your service. It should 

not have been necessary for them to be here today to testify. 

A task force convened some 16 years ago commissioned a study 

to examine women in law enforcement occupations in the Park 

Service. Here is what that study found: Some individuals in positions of authority appeared to condone either by their action or inaction sexual harassment and discrimination. The system used for 

handling complaints is not trusted by the employees, nor timely in 

its ability to bring resolution to complaints. That is a major, major 

problem. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

It went on to say that employees feel retaliation of complaints 

are voiced. That was 16 years ago. The task force concluded, ‘‘It is 

critical for the National Park Service to show a sense of urgency 

in ensuring that all employees are working in an environment free 

from unlawful harassment.’’ 

The task force developed a five-year action plan with nearly 30 

recommendations to correct deficiencies with handling complaints, 

recruitment, and retention efforts and sexual harassment prevention. However, the Park Service, by their own admission, few of 

these recommendations were ever implemented. Obviously, they 

did not consider it to be that important. They did not feel a sense 

of urgency. And so that task force report was filed away, put on 

a shelf, gathering dust, ignored. 

Sixteen years later, the inspector general has issued a report 

finding ‘‘evidence of a long-term pattern of sexual harassment and 

hostile workforce environment in the Grand Canyon River District.’’ Sixteen years later, the inspector general has issued a report 

finding ‘‘a pattern of harassment involving a law enforcement supervisor at the Canaveral National Seashore.’’ And 16 years later, 

members of the committee, allegations have been made at Yosemite 

and Yellowstone National Park’s about possible harassment, hostile 

work environments, and even sexual exploitation. 

Today’s hearing will enable us to hear from the Park Service 

with regard to specific measures it has implemented to ensure that 

all employees work in facilities where sexual harassment is not tolerated, and the agency’s culture welcomes and supports a workforce that reflects the diversity of our nation. 

I want to hear about the specific reforms that the Park Service 

has implemented to ensure that all complaints are handled in a 

fair, timely, and thorough and consistent manner. I want to hear 

about the reforms that have been implemented to ensure that the 

disciplinary process yields consistent and fair discipline across all 

Park Service facilities and cannot be abused to retaliate against 

employees who file complaints. 

And I want to hear about the reforms that have been implemented to bring the Park Service’s Equal Employment Opportunity 

program into compliance with the standards of a model program. 

In Ms. Martin’s prepared testimony she wrote, ‘‘With steadfast 

resolve to work together and confront the serious and subtle misconduct issues we currently face, we will set a north star for the 

culture change for the next generation of National Park Service 

employees.’’ 

With the commitment of employees like Ms. Martin and Mr. 

Healy, I am confident that we are on the right course to correct 

longstanding patterns of harassment and retaliation in the Park 

Service. And I thanked them before but I want to thank them 

again because they are not only here about themselves and things 

that they have seen, but they are trying to make sure that the 

Park Service is a place that is welcoming to generations yet unborn. 

However, to make the changes that clearly need to be made, we 

have to hold the Park Service’s feet to the fire. Sixteen years ago, 

there were those who sat in the same chairs and tried to hold feet 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

to the fire, but apparently, the fire was not hot enough. Well, we 

are going to have to do it again. 

It has been 99 days since our last hearing. Our committee should 

continue to hold hearings on the Park Service every 99 days until 

all employees feel safe coming to work and reporting misconduct 

whenever and wherever it occurs. As I have often said from this 

committee during committee hearings, when I see things that are 

not right, I often say we are better than that, and we are better 

than that. And I want to thank our witnesses for coming forward 

to help us get to where we have to go. 

With that, I yield back. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman. 

I will hold the record open for five legislative days for members 

who would like to submit a written statement. 

I will now recognize our panel of witnesses. It starts with Mr. 

Michael Reynolds, deputy director for operations at the National 

Park Service of the United States Department of the Interior. Ms. 

Kelly Martin is the chief of fire and aviation management at Yosemite National Park of the National Park Service, the United 

States Department of Interior; and Mr. Brian Healy, fisheries program manager at the Grand Canyon National Park, the National 

Park Service, in the United States Department of the Interior. 

We thank you all for being here. Pursuant to committee rules, 

all witnesses are to be sworn before they testify, so if you will 

please rise and raise your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. You may be seated. Let the 

record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

In order to allow time for discussion, we would appreciate your 

limiting your verbal comments to five minutes, but we are going to 

be pretty lenient on that. If you go over, you will be just fine. Your 

entire written record will be submitted as part of the record. 

Mr. Reynolds, you are now recognized. And you have got to make 

sure you turn it on but bring that microphone uncomfortably close 

to your mouth. There you go. Thank you. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL REYNOLDS 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Thank you. Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member 

Cummings, and committee members, thank you for the opportunity 

to update the committee on steps the National Park Service has 

taken to address sexual harassment cases at the Grand Canyon 

National Park and Canaveral National Seashore, as well as the 

broader issue of harassment in the workplace. 

The cases at the Grand Canyon and Canaveral were more than 

a wake-up call for the National Park Service. They presented us 

with clear and undeniable evidence that we, as we begin our second century of service, must extend the same commitment to the 

employees of the National Park Service as we make to the protection of our nation’s most extraordinary places. 

On behalf of the senior leadership of the National Park Service 

and the majority of our 20,000 plus employees who are outVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:01 Jul 31, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26123.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

standing, honorable public servants, I share your disgust with the 

behavior that the inspector general outlined in these reports. 

In response to those situations, the leadership team at the National Park Service has committed to making substantial and longterm culture changes at the agency to prevent sexual harassment 

and to ensure that every employee has a safe and respectful work 

environment. This kind of change is neither easy nor fast. We will 

need to develop trust and support among our employees, visitors, 

and Congress to make the changes that are undeniably necessary. 

This hearing today is one step in that journey. 

Prior to becoming deputy director in August, I worked in many 

parks and regional offices throughout my 30 years with the National Park Service. As the regional director for the Midwest and 

more recently as the associate for Workforce and Inclusion, my 

focus has been accountability and performance management and 

change. 

As the new deputy director, I am personally committed to providing a culture of transparency, inclusion, respect, and accountability and making this a safe place for employees to work. We 

want to become a model agency. We will become a model agency. 

I will start by outlining the specific actions we have taken at the 

Grand Canyon and Canaveral since we last testified here in June. 

Since the June 14 hearing at the Grand Canyon, we have appointed a new superintendent, Christine Lehnertz, closed the River 

District within the canyon for now in terms of the rangers running 

the program, taken actions to hold employees accountable for misconduct, and acted on an 18—18 action-item recommendations in 

response to the OIG report. 

At Canaveral, we have removed the chief ranger accused of sexual harassment from his duties at the park, moved the superintendent into a detail assignment with the regional office, and initiated the process of moving forward with actions to hold employees 

accountable for misconduct. Employees and supervisors at both 

parks have received mandatory sexual harassment prevention reporting and response training sessions. 

Nationally, we are working with the Department of the Interior 

to take steps to eradicate sexual harassment and to change the 

NPS culture. Some of these include mandated online training for 

all managers and employees and distributing new NPS-specific 

guides service-wide; additional focused training for EEO, human 

resources, and employee relations staff to support the workforce, 

the professionals that would support the workforce; new reporting 

options including a hotline and an ombudsman office, which will be 

operational within weeks to serve as an independent and confidential resource for employees; a service-wide workforce harassment 

survey to be conducted later this year; an EEO office that now reports directly to the director and will receive additional support for 

their critical work; updated policies that provide guidance to employees on harassment, equal employment opportunities, discrimination, and diversity; and a mandatory 14-day deadline for completing anti-harassment inquiries. 

These efforts would be insufficient without a long-term plan to 

fundamentally change the culture of the National Park Service. 

Culture change begins with leadership commitment and accountVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:01 Jul 31, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26123.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 

ability and is sustained through ongoing training, education, and 

employee engagement. In our centennial year, NPS leadership has 

refocused on what we want the service to look like in its second 

century and are committed to a transparent process focused on accountability to make the improvements that our employees want 

and deserve. This needs to be done very urgently. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify before you today. I am 

happy to answer any questions that the committee may have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Reynolds follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
8 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 26123.001
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 26123.002
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 26123.003
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 26123.004
12 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

Ms. Martin, you are now recognized. 

STATEMENT OF KELLY MARTIN 

Ms. MARTIN. Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings, 

and members of the committee, I was requested before you today 

to discuss my personal experience with employee misconduct with 

the National Park Service. 

My name is Kelly Martin, and I am the chief of fire and aviation 

management at Yosemite National Park. I have been in my current 

position for over 10 years. Prior to Yosemite, I worked for the Forest Service for 16 years. Between the two agencies, I have 32 years 

of distinguished service to the American people. I am here before 

you today as a citizen and on behalf of many of our public land 

management women leaders. My testimony provided for this hearing focuses on management diligence to address misconduct over 

the course of my career. 

My motivation for this statement is for greatest focus and scrutiny on the culture created when leaders of our organization fail to 

take disciplinary action and to hold perpetrators accountable for 

their actions. 

It is not without note the vast majority of individuals who have 

devoted their life work on working for the National Park Service 

is an honorable and noble profession, myself included. I am here 

before you today to tell you my story but more importantly to provide testimony regarding the dark clouds of misconduct that remains elusive from public view. 

When I began working for the National Park Service as a college 

student in 1984, I was sure I found my dream job living and working in the outdoors with those who share the value of the importance of public lands in improving resources for the American public. 

Imagine for one minute being 20-something again. We have an 

idealistic view of the world that is equitable and just. My idealistic 

view was soon shattered when I became victim of sexual harassment not once but three times. One of my perpetrators was repeatedly caught engaging in voyeuristic behavior, all the while receiving promotions within the National Park Service until his recent 

retirement as deputy superintendent. 

This is very difficult to sit before you today. I am not boastful 

of the history of my sexual harassment experiences. As a matter 

of fact, this is the first time I have come out publicly to describe 

the painful scars of my past in a hopeful effort to eliminate these 

kinds of experiences from happening to young women entering our 

workforce today. 

I did find my own way to push past these experiences and decided to preserve my opportunity for career advancement. My experiences would go unreported until now. This is a highly personal 

decision a woman must make, and it is almost always an embarrassing, arduous situation to endure. What brings me to testify 

today is due to a hostile work environment situation in Yosemite 

National Park where dozens of individuals have come forward with 

personal statements of demoralizing behaviors to include acts of 

bullying, gender bias, and favoritism. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
13 

While not rising to the notoriety of sexual harassment, equally 

damaging behavior patterns that create a hostile work environment are more pervasive than one might think and is unlikely confined to one park like Yosemite, as you will hear today. 

The time has come to recognize hostile work environments affect 

our employees on a day-to-day basis in our agency. All members of 

the team that allow a toxic work environment to persist are 

complicit in the negative effects that resulted in a decrease in employee morale and productivity. The subtle and overt nuances of a 

hostile work environment erodes human dignity and diminishes the 

full potential of our most valued resource, the people who care so 

deeply in the mission of the National Park Service and their desire 

to reach their personal and professional aspirations. We owe this 

to our future generation of women and men leaders who our agency 

desperately needs to guide us through our current human resource 

challenges. 

As I walked through my 33 years of service, I want to leave here 

today with a strong conviction of hope, hope for the future generation of the Park Service conservation leaders that will not know 

what it is like to experience sexual harassment, gender and racial 

discrimination, sexism, and hostile work environments; hope for 

national direction to encourage engagement of women and men at 

the smallest work unit to recognize and thwart negative behavior 

patterns at its insipid stage; hope we can identify misconduct and 

take swift and appropriate action against perpetrators. 

I also recognize our agency has many great men who will come 

forward to be courageous mentors and champions of women’s contributions and encourage and support an equitable work environment. 

As a chief of fire and aviation at Yosemite, I aim to bring courage 

and inspiration to many women I am here representing today who 

are hopeful that my full written testimony would be the catalyst 

that is needed for change in our culture that is accepting of everyone. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share my experiences and concerns as the current situation in the National Park Service is dire 

and needs immediate attention to ensure future generations of employees have access to a workplace free from harassment and hostile work environments. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you have of me at this 

time. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Martin follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 26123.005
15 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 26123.006
16 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 26123.007
17 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 26123.008
18 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 26123.009
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 26123.010
20 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 26123.011
21 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 26123.012
22 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 26123.013
23 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Healy, you are now recognized. 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN HEALY 

Mr. HEALY. Good afternoon, Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings, and members of the committee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to speak to you today. I hope the information that I 

share will provide additional insight into the full scale of the sexual 

harassment and hostile work environment issues that Grand Canyon and the efforts of the National Park Service to address misconduct at the park. 

The vast majority of Grand Canyon employees who believe in the 

NPS mission are hard-working, selfless, and willing to cooperate to 

meet management goals. Nevertheless, as this committee has seen 

in the Office of Inspector General’s report on the previous—pervasive misconduct within the River District, there are exceptions. 

My testimony today may anger some of coworkers and managers. 

Based on my experiences, I feel as if my career, my safety, and the 

safety of other employees at the park maybe at some risk even 

though there are numerous legal protections in place for whistleblowers. Thus, I am using caution in how I characterize these experiences to protect the privacy of individual victims and witnesses. 

I know this committee is particularly interested in the NPS response to the findings of misconduct by the OIG. I can report on 

the progress of 12 of the action items proposed by the Park Service 

and how they’ve impacted operations and employees at the park. 

First, in August, a boat operator that was implicated in many of 

these sexual harassment incidents has been removed from his position. In addition, training sessions were held to address sexual harassment reporting and confidentiality. The training also provided 

recommendations on responding to reference checks on former 

River District employees, and the agency is making progress on the 

development of a hotline for reporting harassment. 

However, some actions did not have their desired impact. By 

shutting down Grand Canyon’s River District and contracting river 

logistical support, we learned that we have very limited ability to 

prohibit problem boat operators from returning to work as contractors on NPS science trips. In addition, innocent employees that 

have worked at the River District may be negatively impacted by 

having their duties changed or, in the case of temporary employees, 

they lost work. We could have avoided this uncomfortable situation 

altogether if employees and supervisors were held accountable for 

their misconduct. 

Accountability is elusive for managers. The deputy superintendent remains in a position in my chain of command, and the 

River District supervisor was assigned to a temporary chief ranger 

position at another park. While only a temporary position, this appeared to be a promotion to Grand Canyon employees. The OIG 

found this individual and the deputy superintendent had distributed confidential information related to victims of sexual harassment to the perpetrators, which is a violation of regulations and 

potentially put the victims’ safety at risk. 

In addition, despite reasonable and cost-effective alternatives, 

the deputy superintendent forced my worker to continue to work 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
24 

with the River District, which had become a hostile work environment in 2015. 

The culture of bullying and harassment is not limited to the 

River District, nor have all the issues been addressed. Beginning 

in 2013, I reported multiple instances of bullying and threatening 

behavior by members of Grand Canyon’s trail crew and the program manager to the superintendent, deputy superintendent, and 

human resources staff. Examples included retaliation by some 

members of the trail crew directed toward an assault victim that 

had reported her assault to law enforcement. The assault victim’s 

confidentiality was breached, and she was labeled with an expletive 

by members of the trail crew, the use of a misogynistic slur in reference to a female senior manager by the trail crew program manager, which was reported by a witness, and the witness was allegedly threatened with violence by the program manager on two occasions. 

According to those involved, it appeared that NPS managers did 

not follow through with appropriate investigations and in some 

cases made excuses for this behavior. An investigation into these 

incidents involving the trail crew, which occurred in 2013 and 

2014, was finally initiated in April 2016 by the Intermountain Region, but the findings have yet to be reviewed five months later. 

Years of unchecked misconduct by the River District and some 

members of the trail crew and the termination of two employees 

that had reported sexual harassment have had a severe impact on 

employee morale, productivity, and perceived workplace safety. 

Witnesses and victims remain fearful. I have heard the term ‘‘I was 

afraid to report harassment because I feared retaliation’’ countless 

times in my seven years at Grand Canyon. 

Reporting is also discouraged. I was told that the deputy superintendent viewed me as a whiner, and my own supervisor was 

pressured to lower my performance rating due to ‘‘Brian’s problems 

with the River District and trail crew.’’ 

In closing, our new superintendent has pledged to improve the 

work environment for all employees. She indicated that we have 

much work to do. This summer, the regional office received almost 

100 complaints or concerns related to workplace issues at Grand 

Canyon. 

Cultural change is difficult and will take time. The retention and 

promotion of managers that are perceived to be implicated in 

wrongdoing may continue, which will discourage future reporting of 

harassment and challenge employee morale and confidence in NPS 

leadership. I sincerely hope that this testimony will lead to continued positive change in the agency. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Healy follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
25 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 26123.014
26 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 26123.015
27 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 26123.016
28 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 26123.017
29 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 26123.018
30 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 26123.019
31 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 26123.020
32 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 26123.021
33 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 26123.022
34 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 26123.023
35 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 26123.024
36 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 26123.025
37 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 26123.026
38 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 26123.027
39 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 26123.028
40 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

I will now recognize the gentlewoman from Wyoming, one of the 

most beautiful States, perhaps second only to Utah, but one of the 

more beautiful ones and the home of one of our most treasured national parks. With that, I would like to recognize Mrs. Lummis for 

five minutes. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We are primarily focused here on Grand Canyon and Yosemite 

National Parks, but it seems that more problems are cropping up 

in the system. Mr. Reynolds, are you aware of allegations by Bob 

Hester of misconduct among employees at Yellowstone National 

Park? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Okay. Well, in an article published in the Montana 

Pioneer just before Labor Day weekend, Mr. Hester alleges that 

there was sexual harassment and exploitation as well as retaliation 

by supervisors at Yellowstone. The article mentions allegations also 

of financial misconduct. Now, who is currently investigating these 

allegations? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. The IG, inspector general. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Have they begun interviewing witnesses? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. The last information, as I understand, is they 

have not, but they have an arrival date of September 27 in the 

park. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. When was the outside investigator scheduled to 

begin interviewing? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I had a first phone call around September 3, and 

I believe the following week, the week of the 5th, Superintendent 

Dan Wenk began to put together the right mechanisms to bring in 

an independent investigation team. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. One of the things that concerns me, Mr. Chairman, 

about this is that in instances where the superintendent of a park 

is not implicated in the charges or the allegations of sexual misconduct and then attempts to investigate it or initiate an investigation quickly, that maybe the IG stops the investigation that is 

going on. 

I think this was the case in Yellowstone where Superintendent 

Wenk was beginning an investigation and bringing in outside investigators to do an independent inquiry and then was prevented 

from doing so because the IG was brought in, thereby delaying the 

opportunity to obtain statements while people’s memories were 

fresh and potentially providing for the opportunity for certain of 

the alleged perpetrators to retire. 

So trying to balance how can we protect employees? How can we 

protect the people who, like Mr. Healy and Ms. Martin, who are 

bringing this information forward and at the same time type make 

sure that these investigations are conducted in a timely manner? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I agree completely with your concerns. One of our 

new policy shifts that I alluded to in my testimony that we’re doing 

with our EEO program is to establish these third-party investigation units that would be able to swiftly go in. I’m going to recommend a 24- to 48-hour turnaround once we have a report. Superintendent Wenk had begun that process. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
41 

I would like to have further conversations with the IG. I think 

they’re doing absolutely their job to come in and do this. I’m not 

sure—they want to have a clean investigation, and so they did ask 

us to stand down a third-party investigator, but I know the superintendent has expressed his dismay to me about how he’s worried 

about the time for that. So we agree. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Okay. Well, in the case of Mr. Wenk, there were 

no allegations against him. There were no allegations to my knowledge that he knew and looked the other way. But what about the 

case where that is not true? What about the case where the superintendent of a national park is implicated? How do you deal with 

that situation? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. It’s very important that we have somebody from 

the outside managing that process so that you don’t have any problems if you will tainting an investigation, right? So our policy is to 

develop—in one example we have a different region, an EEO director from a different regional office of the other park to direct the 

investigation and to work with the regional office. In our chain we 

have seven regions that oversee these different parks. So to bring 

in some sort of third party that way is our current plan and our 

current policy. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Well, and before my time is gone, I want you to 

know that we are going to be watching the National Park Service 

in the way that Ms. Martin is treated and Mr. Healy is treated and 

other whistleblowers are treated as a consequence of their bringing 

these allegations forward and that we are going to be watching the 

National Park Service because this should not be tolerated, it 

should not be unaddressed, and it has been inadequately addressed. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentlelady. 

I will now recognize the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this hearing. 

Mr. Reynolds, we are very grateful for how the National Park 

Service runs most of our neighborhood parks. It is not just the Mall 

but our neighborhood parks are owned by the National Park Service. We have a good relationship with the Park Service. I want to 

know if these two parks where these allegations, these issues have 

come from in the West, are they ours? Are people quartered together? Or are these nationwide problems? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Congresswoman, if I can ask just to clarify. Do 

you mean, in other words, are these unique problems to these 

parks—— 

Ms. NORTON. To the Western part of the United States where 

these large parks where there are cabins. I don’t understand 

whether or not the staff are quartered there instead of going home 

the way my own —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Understood. 

Ms. NORTON.—Park Service rangers do. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Right, we—so 413 units nationwide, very diverse 

system now. As you know —— 

Ms. NORTON. I am talking about those Western units. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
42 

Mr. REYNOLDS. In these two parks—and I would be happy to let 

Ms. Martin and Mr. Healy also comment—things can be exacerbated when you have communities much like a military base living 

and working together. 

Ms. NORTON. Let me ask you both. Do you live in the park where 

you are located in cabins, men and women, or how do you operate 

since the only parks I know are the urban parks? 

Mr. HEALY. At Grand Canyon there is—many employees are 

housed on the south rim, but then there is—there’s times when 

they’re working out of bunk houses in inner canyon in the 

backcountry. Myself, I work in Flagstaff, which is about an hourand-a-half drive away. So it —— 

Ms. NORTON. Ms. Martin? 

Ms. MARTIN. Thank you, Congresswoman. I do live in Yosemite 

Valley in a cabin, and a lot of our seasonal staff that’s on our fire 

crew will be housed in, say, one house or one bunk quarters. There 

are certainly opportunities there that could potentially lead to a 

hostile type of environment, especially with our young folks. So we 

do have close quarters that men and women do live and work in 

on a regular basis. 

Ms. NORTON. Which should caution the National Park Service to 

take such matters into account. 

Mr. Healy, I was reading your testimony. On page 8 you speak 

of a contractor. This doesn’t go specifically to sexual harassment 

but it goes to issues like—you name alcohol abuse, drug use, so I 

am interested in how the policies relate to contractors. I was chair 

of the Employment Opportunity Commission. I wasn’t aware that 

contractors were treated any differently, but I do note that you say 

in your testimony that you were informed that your concerns about 

the misconduct were not considered when the contract was awarded. I suppose I should ask Mr. Reynolds. Why are matters like 

drug abuse of a contractor, alcohol abuse, I take it maybe even sexual harassment are not taken into account when a contract is 

awarded? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. They should be for any on-duty thing, and I’ll be 

happy to investigate what happened in this contracting process. 

Ms. NORTON. I wish you would because it said—Mr. Healy said 

that he was specifically informed that his concerns were not considered, not even considered. That is what caught my eye when the 

contract was awarded. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I would be very concerned about that if that is 

true, and I will be happy to get right back to you —— 

Ms. NORTON. And we would like to know whether or not they are 

considered generally or whether that was an exception, and if you 

would let the chairman knows so that we can —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, certainly, I can tell you —— 

Ms. NORTON.—go back —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS.—and I think Mr. Healy will back me up. For any 

on-duty if you will period of contract, performance, that should be 

standard language in any contract how —— 

Ms. NORTON. I would think so. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. To your point, when you’re living and working 24 

hours a day if you will on the river, that may be where we have 

some issues. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
43 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, but Mr. Healy—there was a similar report 16 

years ago about this systemic harassment of women, and there 

were specific recommendations made. Are you aware of that report? 

I mean, we hear again 16 years later. Are you aware of that task 

force report about similar problems? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. The Women in Law Enforcement report? 

Ms. NORTON. Yes. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, I am. 

Ms. NORTON. When did you become first aware of that report? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I —— 

Ms. NORTON. And were any of its recommendations implemented? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. No, they were not as far as I can ever figure out. 

There were, as the chairman actually mentioned, 30 different recommendations. I think things were worked on during that time 

frame. I wasn’t involved at the time. 

Ms. NORTON. Of course. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. But —— 

Ms. NORTON. How can we be assured that any recommendations 

either from this committee or from similar task forces since— 

worked on but full implementation apparently did not occur so we 

are back here again 16 years later? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, it’s a very regrettable action that did not 

occur. 

Ms. NORTON. Finally, Mr. Chairman, if I could ask, apparently 

in that report 16.3 percent of the Park Service women in law enforcement, park ranger and special agents were women. What is 

the percentage of women in those positions today? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I believe we have about 247 women in law enforcement out of about a force of 1,664 so —— 

Ms. NORTON. So do the math. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I’m not the best in math but about 15 percent or 

so. 

Ms. NORTON. You are going down, not up. One of the first things 

that agencies and private sector does when this problem occurs is 

to of course increase the number of women in law enforcement or 

in the applicable mission. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentlelady. 

I will now recognize the chairman for Michigan, Mr. Walberg. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the 

panel for being here and we hope this is very worthwhile for yourselves but also for the people you serve with. 

Having spent many weeks in national parks, North, South, East, 

and West, as a kid with my family camping, hiking, fishing, and 

then with my family doing the same thing even as I look forward 

to being out in Glacier National Park this next August, impressive 

territories we have, impressive treasures. And in every case, my experience, we have been treated with great respect and professionalism by the staff, so it is concerning to hear some of the behind-the-scenes and though we deal with humans and yet these 

type of things have to be addressed, so thank you for being here. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
44 

Ms. Kelly, can you describe for this committee some of Superintendent Neubacher’s behavior that you observed which prompted 

the investigation? 

Ms. MARTIN. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. Myself 

personally I have been the chief there at Yosemite for the last 10 

years, and the marker point for me was when we had the rim fire 

of 2013 and I happened to be off unit on another fire and returning. My duties have been to act as the agency administrator representative for the superintendent when we have large incidents in 

the park. I returned. I told my supervisor I would be returning and 

I could assume those duties. And for whatever unknown reason, I 

was not allowed to perform those duties that is part of my official 

duties of my job within the park. 

It was for myself personally discrediting my professionalism, and 

it was humiliating for me to not be able to perform that job and 

that function in front of my peers, our interagency wildfire cooperators, and even the—our park internal staff that I was not able to 

provide that leadership. 

Mr. WALBERG. Any rational reason given to you for that? 

Ms. MARTIN. No, sir. 

Mr. WALBERG. Any reason at all? 

Ms. MARTIN. No, sir. 

Mr. WALBERG. So it was just an arbitrary decision that was made 

by Superintendent Neubacher to not allow you to function —— 

Ms. MARTIN. I requested to be able to split the duties between 

myself and I have a very competent deputy fire chief that took over 

two roles, both the agency administrator and he was also in the 

role of incident commander trainee. I’m confounded as to why I was 

not able to truly perform that—in that role. 

Mr. WALBERG. In your testimony you mentioned the fear of retaliation for speaking out about what was happening at the park. Can 

you describe for us this concern and where it stems from? And are 

you aware of other employees that share the same concern? 

Ms. MARTIN. The fear of retaliation, the fear of coming forward 

is not necessarily in our culture to come forward and to describe 

hostile type of situations or a toxic type of environment. Ours is 

certainly dealing more with a hostile work environment. It’s not 

dealing with sexual harassment, so that’s not at issue right here. 

But people do not fear—or they do fear that they are not safe in 

bringing issues to management. And one of the concerns that I’ve 

heard is that within Yosemite National Park we have a superintendent, and our deputy superintendent position has been vacant 

for three years. So unfortunately, there’s a concentration of decision-making within one person and is not necessarily shared within 

the deputy superintendent and the superintendent. 

Mr. WALBERG. Has that been done for a purpose, keeping the vacancy there? 

Ms. MARTIN. I’m unaware of why that would remain vacant for 

the last three years. 

Mr. WALBERG. Do you believe Superintendent Neubacher’s actions to be an isolated incident or are they reflective of a larger cultural problem within the National Park Service? 

Ms. MARTIN. It’s hard for me to address the larger cultural—I 

have reason to believe that it probably is a larger cultural type of 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
45 

issue. I do believe that it is important for the image to be in-house 

and for us to kind of take care of things in-house and not be able 

to share these types of issues publicly, but I think it’s very, very 

important for the women that are—that have left, the women that 

are currently there at Yosemite to really understand and daylight 

what it is, what the behaviors that are exhibited that really truly 

cost people’s integrity and a reduction in morale. 

Mr. WALBERG. Well, thank you for your testimony, and I yield 

back. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. The gentleman yields. I have just a followup to that. 

Mr. Reynolds, there are two things the committee would like to 

see. You have been unwilling so far to give us the expedited inquiry 

into the Yosemite situation. Is that something you will provide to 

the committee? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, we did give your staff—I think 

they call it an on-camera—I’m not sure what that means but —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. In camera, yes. Yes. 

Mr. REYNOLDS.—in camera, you know, visibile—and I know 

you’re concerned about it. I know we’ve had some exchanging correspondence. I’ll continue to work with our folks on it. It is an active investigation I guess is the short answer that I could give you. 

I am not unwilling to share with you data when I can. I just don’t 

want to infringe on —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. It is something in your possession in Congress would like to see it, so can you name anything that we 

shouldn’t able to see? Is there anything classified in there? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. No. And I don’t disagree with your ability to get 

that. I’m just hampered a little bit —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Wait, wait, wait —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS.—by the process —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ.—don’t disagree with my—you won’t give it 

to us. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. At the moment we’re having conversations about 

how to do that —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. What is the conversation? What is the hesitation? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. To keep—to be candid with you, sir, to keep the 

investigative process as clean as we can while we’re getting into it. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. So you don’t trust Congress? Is that what 

you are saying? It would make it dirty? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. No, that’s not what I mean. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Well, you said you are trying to keep it 

clean and you won’t give it to Congress so —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS. It’s just for public data purposes during an investigation, but I would—I will pledge to you to continue to work —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. No, I want you to pledge to give it to Congress. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I understand that, sir. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Do you need a subpoena? What do you 

need? Who makes this decision? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. It will be a decision that I will talk over with our 

solicitors predominantly. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
46 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I would also like to see anybody who has 

been fired, dismissed, or retired from Yellowstone since 2013. Is 

that something you can give to us? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, I can. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. When will you give that to us? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I will give it to you within 48 hours. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Fair enough. Thank you. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I will now recognize the gentleman from 

Maryland, Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to pick up where the gentleman left off 

a few minutes ago, this whole thing of retaliation. And as I was 

listening to you, Ms. Martin, I cannot help but think about the 

question of how do you tackle a culture? It is not easy. 

In the Baltimore City Police Department I had asked for patternor-practice investigation. And the reason why I asked for it is because we had people in the department, good policeman, who knew 

that things were going bad and wrong but they do not feel comfortable talking about it because they were worried that they would 

be retaliated against. Their comrades would do some things that 

may be harmful to them. And when we got that pattern-or-practice 

report, it was 10 times worse, 10 times, probably 20 than I ever 

imagined with regard to African-American men and the way they 

were being treated by police. 

So, Mr. Healy, you said something that really kind of struck me. 

You said, ‘‘I feel as if my career and possibly my safety and the 

safety of other Grand Canyon employees may be at some risk.’’ 

That is a hell of a statement and it is one that I feel pain that you 

even have to even think it, let alone say it. And the mere fact that 

you have said it in a public forum puts you even, I would assume, 

in even more jeopardy. It is one thing to think it, it is another 

thing to say it, it is another thing to say it in a public forum. 

What can we do to help? Because, as I see it, the culture that 

I talked about before and I think that Ms. Martin is alluding to 

and probably you, too, is one that is—I mean, you almost have to 

dig deep and pry out probably a lot of folks and almost start over 

again. And so I am trying to figure out what is your hope? I mean, 

I am sure you have thought about this, said to yourself, you know, 

there has got to be a better way. I mean, how do you see that way? 

Because let me tell you something. The reason I am raising this 

is because, you know, in my opening I talked about 16 years ago. 

Guess what? Most of these people weren’t even—none of them, 

none of these people were here 16 years ago except me. They 

weren’t even here. So another group of Congress people were addressing this supposedly, and yet it has not been corrected and the 

culture grows and metastasizes and gets worse. 

And you come here and I want you all to be effective and efficient. See, not only do I—I mean, I know that you have your concerns about retaliation, about your comrades being all upset, but 

it will be a damn shame if you came here, you gave your testimony—and this is my great fear—and it was not effective and efficient and what you drive it to do. But that is a lose-lose all the way 

around. You go back and they said why did you do that? And then 

it gets worse. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
47 

And so help me in looking at what you have seen. I think Ms. 

Norton said one thing, Ms. Martin. She talked about having more 

women in key positions in law enforcement and supervisory positions. But what do you see? I mean, how would you like to see us 

try to break this culture? And do you have confidence—you made 

some complementary statements, Mr. Healy, about some of the 

things you have seen being done but then you came right back and 

talked about the negative impact of some of the positive things that 

were supposedly happening. So help us. Help us help you. 

Mr. HEALY. Thank you. I think what would help is that if we can 

ensure that these people that have come forward to me to ask for 

assistance in reporting things are protected to the same extent that 

I am. And I think, you know, in preparing for this testimony, I 

went back to some of these individuals that had bad experiences 

at the park and I asked them to help me deliver that message here. 

And I heard a lot of fear from those people, you know? And there’s 

individuals at the park that have, you know, as I mentioned in my 

testimony, threatened people with violence and they’re still there. 

And I think account—holding those people accountable is a really 

good step. And I’m not really sure how Congress can assist the 

Park Service in doing that, but that would be a good first step. 

And then the other thing you mentioned was you alluded to 

the—shutting down the River District and the river contracting. 

Those decisions were made—I’m not sure who made the decisions, 

but there was definitely no consultation with folks on the ground 

that are doing the work like myself or my coworkers that have experience and understand the risks and making some of those decisions. And I think if the Park Service leadership were to more effectively engage its employees in developing solutions for these 

problems, we would—it will go a long way. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. What about you, Ms. Martin? 

Ms. MARTIN. Thank you, Mr. Cummings. I believe that we really 

have to start with the awareness of the culture that’s been created 

over the years, and we have to—like you said, we have to root it 

out. We have to really understand what’s at the root of this type 

of culture and this type of behavior that then supports sexual harassment and hostile work environments. I think that’s truly our 

first step is awareness of the issues of how those behaviors actually 

ascend to these types of situations. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, Ms. Martin, I have been on the Naval 

Academy Board of Visitors for about 10 years now, and one of the 

things—we had a major sexual harassment problem, and what we 

found is that a lot of the midshipmen—I am going to something 

you just said to make sure I am clear. A lot of the midshipmen 

were doing things that were harassment and they claim—and some 

of them—I believe some of them—I am not sure about. So they 

didn’t even know I was harassed. I mean, can you comment on 

that? You say you just talked about awareness. Go ahead. 

Ms. MARTIN. At some point we have to create an environment 

that’s open and transparent with our leadership to really be able 

to talk about these hard issues. And until we get there, we’re going 

to continue to have these misunderstandings between management 

and employees as to he said/she said. And until we get to that 

point that we can then provide this transparency and really expose 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
48 

it for what it is, we need to really talk about the behaviors and be 

able to communicate that. 

Right now, there’s so much fear in being able to communicate 

what that is, and so I see that as, number one, the awareness and 

the culture that we’ve created and then being able to communicate 

what it is that creates these types of situations. Then —— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I am sorry. Please. 

Ms. MARTIN. And then at that point how do we then best educate 

our employees so that we don’t have these kinds of—we don’t have 

these kinds of hearings 16 years from now or five years from now. 

We just—we’ve got to think about things differently in terms of 

how we can be more communicative, you know, with our senior 

leaders. Right now, that’s not happening. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And now that you have heard what they just 

said, Mr. Reynolds, can you tell us how, you know—you know, I get 

frustrated because, you know, I know we are going to hear—you 

say a lot of nice things about what you are going to do and, you 

know, but convince us that you get it and that your folks get it because I am telling you, after these lights go out, they have got to 

go back. They have got to go back. I mean, how do you assure them 

and people coming into the service or want to come into the service 

or people that are there that they don’t have to go through this 

crap? This is crazy. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And unacceptable. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. First off, I will join you in protecting my colleagues —— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, how are you going to do that? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Well, the first thing I’ll do is we really need to 

dive into the cultural issues, as well as, if you will, the fundamentals of —— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, what about the person who is watching us 

right now who is sitting there laughing and just—I mean, just like 

can’t wait till they get back. I got something for them. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I am going to hurt them. I’m going to do something to them. How do you deal with that person, those people? Because apparently, there are quite a few. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. We can’t let those lights go off. We have to not 

have any darkness, right? It has to be very transparent from here 

forward. There has to be an accountability that everybody can see 

and touch. 

They’re also—with our culture we’re trying to pull together some 

parts of our organization. So, for example, we’ve never really had 

affinity groups in the National Park Service, women’s groups or 

other employee groups that might come together, and we’re trying 

to attempt to do that in order for there to be a cohort that can be 

another protective kind of place that people—a safe place if you 

will to be—also for management then to be required to listen to 

those groups and to those employees about what the concerns 

might be. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. Thank you very much. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
49 

Mr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, based on the actions of Director Jarvis, I think further 

oversight of the National Park Service is desperately needed. 

This is actually my third hearing on this matter. As a part of 

Oversight, we of course were here in June but also but also Natural Resources Subcommittee. We were with Director Jarvis in 

May. 

And I want to thank Ms. Martin, Mr. Healy for your testimony 

this afternoon and what you have endured. 

Director Reynolds, let me start with you. Based on your testimony, I know that you are aware of the sexual harassment cases 

specifically at Cape Canaveral, the operation there. Can you tell 

me just how many total complaints came from there even, you 

know, those that are ongoing or resolved cases? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, Congressman. I believe there’s about three 

complaints, but I believe there might be a few more IG reports that 

I’ll follow-up in a confirmation with you on that. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. There has actually been four. And in fact, the 

Washington Post reported in early July that four investigations 

there since 2012 is an unusually high number, they said, for such 

a small operation of the National Park Service. And, as you just 

mentioned, these are just the ones that we know about. As has 

been testified to today, people are scared. Who knows how many 

other cases have been swept under the rug because of the culture 

of fear. 

During the time of these investigations since 2012, who was the 

superintendent in charge? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. In 2012 I believe it was Superintendent Palfrey. 

Mr. HICE. That is correct. And I don’t represent the good people 

of Florida, but just yesterday came across an article in the Florida 

Today, and they reported, like I said, just yesterday that Superintendent Palfrey was promoted to the position of special assistant 

to the Southeast regional director. Are you aware of that? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. And as she has been promoted, she gets to work at home, she gets a comfortable $116,000 salary. And you mentioned in your testimony a few moments ago that the chief ranger 

at Cape Canaveral was no longer at the location there, but you 

failed to mention that the superintendent has received a promotion 

to the Southeast regional director. Do you know where the Southeast regional director office is located? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. It’s in Atlanta. And if I could offer, sir, that —— 

Mr. HICE. No, let me go on. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Okay. 

Mr. HICE. It is in Atlanta, and that is in my backyard. And that 

raises a great deal of concern for me personally. You are also aware 

that Director Jarvis testified here in Congress over a book deal 

where he failed to secure proper permission for that book. You are 

aware of that? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. 

Mr. HICE. And, Mr. Chairman, you know, my point in all of this 

is the pattern that is clearly unfolding before us. Obviously, under 

the direction of Director Jarvis there is unaccountability, there is 

poor management, unsafe work environment, and that has perVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:01 Jul 31, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26123.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
50 

meated throughout the National Park Service. And what is the consequence for Director Jarvis? Again, he gets a mere slap on the 

wrist. He has to go through some silly monthly ethics training once 

a month, watch a video or something for the duration of his time. 

And so here is what people are getting at the Park Service: these 

type of slaps on the wrist and/or promotions. You know, this is just 

insane. This is absolute insanity. 

And, Mr. Chairman, on June 16 I wrote a letter to the President, 

President Obama, asking for the resignation of Director Jarvis. 

And I actually have a copy of that letter here that I would like to 

go in the record. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. He is asking unanimous consent. Without 

objection, so ordered. 

Mr. HICE. And while I understand Director Jarvis is going to retire in January, what we have heard yet again here today and 

what continues to be prevalent in National Park Service I just 

want it on record that I stand by my position in requesting the immediate resignation of Director Jarvis. 

And with that, sir, I yield back. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. The gentleman yields back. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Welch, for five 

minutes. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you very much. 

You know, the National Park Service is a great treasure. It is unbelievable. We have all been to the national parks and I go to one 

every year, so it is pretty sad to hear about this. And my experience as a visitor, as a hiker is one of just enormous appreciation 

for the staff that I meet from the bottom on up. It is really quite 

wonderful. And my sense is that in general there is just an enormous appreciation for the work that people do. 

My sense, too, is that the people who work there, it is a way of 

life for them. They love the outdoors, they love nature, they love 

the history and tradition. So it is very sad that also part of it is 

a situation that you all have been describing, but I want to take 

all three of you actually for the work you have done and for coming 

forward. 

I will start with you, Mr. Reynolds. You know, the culture on this 

has got to be in a way zero tolerance, and the culture and how employees are expected to work does come from the top, and that has 

to imbued from the top down and then reinforced in every way. So 

what concrete steps can you take to do that? If the leadership 

doesn’t take this deadly seriously, then no one else will. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. We have to get this right. This has to be our top 

priority. One of the first things that I would like to do—I’m in day 

52 here in this new job, so I’m just—I found the bathroom, so now 

we need to get going on some very big focus through the chains of 

command. We’ll be meeting next week with some of the field leadership, and I would like to be able to tell them at that point what 

we plan to do with a diversity and inclusion outfit that would be 

tied to my office —— 

Mr. WELCH. You know —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS.—and that can start working on the cultural 

issues because you’re right, it is —— 

Mr. WELCH. Well —— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
51 

Mr. REYNOLDS. We have some of the most outstanding public employees, as these two represent —— 

Mr. WELCH. You do, but you know what —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS.—and we have to give them that kind of management. 

Mr. WELCH. Yes, but I don’t quite know what that means, what 

you just said. I don’t think it takes a big meeting. It is like, look, 

folks, any unwanted advances just aren’t allowed. I mean, how 

complicated is that? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. We have put out quite a bit of extensive refresher 

if you will and reminder and zero tolerance policy. But I agree with 

you and I think it needs to be a step further, which is actions. Actions will be louder than words in this in terms of the accountability. 

Mr. WELCH. The action is I think—all the people in management 

have to meet with their staff and they have to have a discussion 

and basically say it. It is not complicated. They have to say it and 

mean it. 

And then on the other hand and we also want to get more 

women into leadership positions as well. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Right. 

Mr. WELCH. All right. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. WELCH. I will. Yes, go ahead. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Mr. Reynolds, what was your job before 

this job? What were you doing at the Park Service? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I was the associate director for workforce —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Yes, so you are in charge of H.R. Don’t lead 

Mr. Welch to believe that you are in day 54 and, hey, I am the new 

kid on the block. You have been running the H.R. department at 

the Park Service since 2014, so your words are little bit hollow in 

here, hey, well, you know, we have got to do some refresher. And 

can you give me a single instance where you have—you said you 

have a zero tolerance policy. Are you kidding me? Show me an example of zero tolerance. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Well, you know, first off, I understand your perception, and I’ve been dealing with revamping the whole systems 

and process of workforce, haven’t gotten there yet. We have the 

zero tolerance policy, and I guess my point is —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Wait a second. 

Mr. REYNOLDS.—putting it into action. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. It is Mr. Welch’s time, but you haven’t gotten there yet. You had the job—when did you first take on that job 

in human resources? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Two years ago. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I know, but give me a month in 2014. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. April of ’14. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Okay. Sorry. It is your time but —— 

Mr. WELCH. No, I appreciate your questions. 

You know, here is my view on this. We can have personnel policies and we can write down the this’s and the that’s and it can be 

10 pages or 500 pages. None of it means anything other than what 

is the culture that people in that environment are expected to live 

by? And people respond much more to a reinforced culture because 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
52 

it is the way it is, and that comes with a pride. It comes with a 

mutual respect. 

So, you know, give me all the policies in the world, but employees are not going to be thinking at the time they may want to do 

something that they shouldn’t be doing whether this is a violation 

of subsection 4 of article 5 in chapter 2. It is just going to be—we 

don’t do that around here. And that I really do think is a top-down 

responsibility. It is just every single day in every way. 

And the reason I got a little nervous about your answer is that 

it suggested to me or this is the implication I have which may not 

be true, but that if we write the right policy, that will take care 

of it. And, you know what, we don’t have to write anything and we 

can take care of it by having management make it clear that any 

unwanted advance is totally out of line. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I’m sorry if I misled—misunderstood —— 

Mr. WELCH. You didn’t mislead —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS.—Congressman, but I agree with you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. If the gentleman would yield just for one second, 

I know you don’t have much time. 

I just had one question. When you were running H.R., what does 

zero tolerance—what did that mean? Because I hope it is not about 

writing a memo to do a refresher course because let me tell you 

something. The people watching this at the Park Service, when 

they hear you say that, they say, oh, boy, we are in great shape. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Nothing is going to happen, and we will keep 

doing what we have been doing. I am just telling you. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Right. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So tell us, define for all of us so that other people 

when they ask their questions will know what you meant when you 

were zero-tolerancing. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Well, we need to have a much better fundamental set of professionals —— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. But what did it mean when you were doing the 

job? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. It should mean that we have —— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. No, no, no, no, no, no. I am asking you, you were 

head of H.R., am I right? Come on now. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. The Workforce Directorate, yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. All I am asking you—the chairman 

talked about zero tolerance. That was your thing. All I am asking 

you is what did that mean? The reason why I am asking you this 

is because I am trying to predict your future. I am trying to figure 

out how you are going to act in this position because they have got 

to go back. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And it seems listening to you say I am going to 

write a little memo, I am going to send them a refresher course, 

those guys are laughing at you like you are a big joke. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Right. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And you know what happens? They get screwed. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. What it means to me is to make —— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
53 

Mr. CUMMINGS. What it meant to you. What did it mean? And 

then tell me what it means now. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. It meant to me to make the safest place we can 

for our employees. It meant that they would have the ability to report, that they would be protected. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, you failed. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, we have, so far. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Sitting here —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS. We have. 

Mr. CUMMINGS.—failed. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. We have. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I now recognize the gentleman from South 

Carolina, Mr. Gowdy. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Reynolds, I want to you tell you. You have managed to do 

something that I have not seen done in the five years I have been 

here. Peter Welch is one of the more level-headed, reasonableminded, one of the more decent human beings that you will meet 

in public service. You have managed to even get him upset. Getting 

Mr. Cummings and I upset is not as much of a challenge. Getting 

Peter Welch upset is. 

And I think what upsets him is when you have a fact pattern of 

someone spying on another person while they are taking a shower, 

you don’t need a policy change and you don’t need a new memo. 

You need handcuffs and a trip to the sex offender registry. That is 

what you need. 

So, Ms. Martin, you said a couple of things in your statement 

that resonated with me. You said, ‘‘It is a deep, conflicted, and 

risky decision for me to come forward and speak up today.’’ And 

you said, many women ‘‘feel shame and fear of coming forward to 

report misconduct’’ and cannot bring themselves ‘‘to be the ones 

who have the difficult and painful task of speaking up.’’ Here is 

what I want you to help me do. I want the fear and the difficulty 

and the pain to belong to the perpetrator, not the victim. So I want 

you to tell us as much about your fact pattern, your story, and I 

want you to stop and cite all those instances where something more 

could have been and should have been done, and do it on behalf 

of the women who maybe don’t have the ability to speak up like 

you do. 

Ms. MARTIN. Thank you, Congressman, for this opportunity. It is 

a very painful and conflicted position that I’m in right now. This 

happened. I was a victim of a peeping tom at Grand Canyon in 

1987. It was a very difficult and painful experience for me. I reported it to two supervisors immediately that first day that I was 

able to positively identify a park ranger in uniform that was 

peering through my bathroom window. I reported it to two supervisors. Visibly shaken, it was very, very difficult for me to do. It 

was very embarrassing. I didn’t think anybody would actually even 

believe me that something like this had happened to me. 

I was given options. I could say nothing and move on. I could file 

an EEO complaint or a criminal complaint. I had to think about 

that for a couple of days as to how I wanted to proceed. I was just 

starting my career in the Federal service in my early 20s, and I 

just did not want to make this an issue. I just did not want to come 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
54 

forward in admitting a complaint like this this early in my career 

and be labeled as a troublemaker. 

In the end, what I agreed to was a conference or a sit-down with 

the two supervisors that I reported this to, along with the perpetrator. He apologized to me. He assured me that this had never 

happened before and that it’ll never happen again. 

And so for me this has been with me my entire career, and so 

when I think of zero tolerance, I think this is where this was the 

hardest part for me is to—it just did not feel like zero tolerance for 

me. I’ve had to live with this a long time. This particular individual 

continued to be moved through the Park Service and just recently 

retired. 

So for me I believe that this was the tipping point for me to come 

forward and tell my story that this is why I could no longer remain 

silent. There’s a lot of other women out there that I represent that 

these very same things have happened or very similar things, and 

they just fear that management will not take action and then we 

become victims again for coming forward. 

Mr. GOWDY. So the perpetrator went on and finished his career 

with the Park Service and is now enjoying the perks of his retirement? 

Ms. MARTIN. That’s my understanding. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, I will just say this. You should never have to 

choose between your career and justice ever. You should be able to 

pursue both of them with all the vigor in the world, so I am sorry 

it happened to you and I appreciate the courage it takes to come 

and share your story. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman. 

I will now recognize Ms. Plaskett. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

being here this afternoon and sharing this somewhat uncomfortable discussion with us here. 

We all know that there is an urgent need to stem sexual harassment, discrimination by increasing female representation in the 

workforce and particularly at senior leadership positions and individuals having a say in how these policies are done. 

Ms. Martin, you wrote in your prepared statements—I am going 

to quote—‘‘The jewels of the Park Service heavily favor men in the 

most powerful positions of superintendents, deputy superintendents, fire, and law enforcement.’’ Mr. Reynolds, how many national 

parks are there, and how many park superintendents are women? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. We have 413 parks, and as you know, Congresswoman, there is not a superintendent necessarily in every park. 

And I believe—I’m going to find the actual number for you, but I 

think it’s around 258 superintendents —— 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. 

Mr. REYNOLDS.—and I believe about 127 are women. If you just 

give me a minute —— 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. 

Mr. REYNOLDS.—I’ll find the right number. 

Ms. PLASKETT. That would be good. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. It’s about a 60/40—slightly under 40 percent. 

Ms. PLASKETT. So 60 percent are? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Men. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
55 

Ms. PLASKETT. Men. And then those positions below that at the 

deputy superintendent level? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Deputy superintendents, I have 58 percent men, 

42 percent female —— 

Ms. PLASKETT. And —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS.—and I will clarify for you, 62 percent men, 38 female on superintendents. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. And the parks that the women are superintendents over, are they the same size and scope in terms of geographic size, as well as personnel, as the men that are superintendents —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS. You know, I’d have to —— 

Ms. PLASKETT.—because there are different kinds of superintendents. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Correct. I think it’s pretty evenly distributed. We 

could look at that more carefully, but I have not heard a concern 

on that level other than our demographic numbers. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. I know that there are two initiatives to expand the presence of women in the Park Service. So you said that 

it seems to be evenly distributed. I mean, it is not exactly what the 

demographics of our country are but it seems evenly distributed as 

much as wouldn’t seem askew. What are the initiatives that you 

are doing to increase the number of women in that workforce? So 

we have the same number level at leadership, so you have a 60/ 

40 split. Do you have a 60/40 in terms of at middle management 

and then in terms of the workers that are in the park? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I’d have to pull out exact numbers, but I think 

it tracks fairly close to that. We do have women now scattered 

through in our senior leadership as well, in our regional director 

ranks, for example, and in our associate director ranks. 

We have some initiatives in general to diversify the Park Service. 

We also have strong majority numbers of our employees, and so 

we’re working across the board. We’ve set up a new recruitment office to begin to focus the H.R. community on that very topic. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. I know that you have the Women’s Employee Resource Group, the Fire Management Leadership Board. 

How are they bringing benefit to the Park Service? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Well, I think they’re a start. I don’t think they’re 

fully achieving their goals, but they bring us some tools and some 

awareness and some requirement on our leadership to be considering these things in the recruitment process —— 

Ms. PLASKETT. What are the goals of those initiatives? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Well, the Employee Resource Group, there’s a 

number of them that we’re trying to form to give people, again, a 

safe place to have a cohort to bring forward, for example, if it’s the 

women’s—we call them ERGs, Employee Resource Group. Then 

they can bring forward issues important to women in the service. 

They can represent a voice. They can be a defense place if they 

need it, that kind of thing. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And I would be remiss without asking—I know 

we were talking about sexual harassment against women, but how 

many people of color do you have as superintendent of the parks? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
56 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I don’t know the answer to that. I can quickly get 

it to you, though. But I will tell you that our workforce is generally 

80 percent white across the board. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Across the board? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. But I would like to know how many men, 

women of color are superintendents and deputy superintendents 

—— Mr. REYNOLDS. I would be happy to get that to you. 

Ms. PLASKETT.—of the parks. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentlewoman. 

I will now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, 

for five minutes. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Reynolds, what steps has the National Park Service taken in 

response to the findings of the Grand Canyon’s OIG report? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, thank you, Congressman. We have about 18 

steps that the OIG asked us to endeavor on, and this included everything from some of the training and awareness kinds of programs that we talked about to disciplinary action. 

Mr. PALMER. One of the action items outlined by the Park Service in response to the OIG report is that managers who failed to 

properly report all allegations of sexual harassment would be held 

responsible and that appropriate disciplinary action would be taken 

by May of 2016. To date, what if any disciplinary action has the 

Park Service taken against these managers? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I believe everybody in the canyon—and Mr. 

Healy can back me up on this—have been removed from the job 

that they had. The boatman has been removed from the park and 

is undergoing a disciplinary process as we speak. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, as I was listening to testimony earlier, it 

seemed to me that Mr. Healy felt like some of the action was taken 

was more in the context of a promotion than disciplinary action. 

Did I misunderstand that or did I hear that correctly? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I’m not aware of any —— 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Healy? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I’m sorry. 

Mr. HEALY. Thank you. Yes, the supervisor of the River—former 

River District was given a temporary promotion to another park. 

Mr. PALMER. Do you think that was appropriate? 

Mr. HEALY. I don’t, and a lot of employees at the park feel the 

same way. 

Mr. PALMER. Let me read something to you that I find particularly troubling. It is a quote from the National Park Service expedited investigation, and it is from two trained investigators who 

interviewed some of the victims. And it says, ‘‘It is difficult to articulate in words the emotions that exuded from those interviewed.’’ It says that ‘‘It is apparent that these employees have suffered in their positions and are traumatized by the harassment 

they are subjected to. During the interviews, the emotions ranged 

from inconsolable tears, anger, frustration, helplessness, and regret.’’ In that regard, Mr. Reynolds, do you think appropriate actions have been taken? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I believe —— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
57 

Mr. PALMER. Your microphone, please. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Sorry. I believe what you are reading from, sir, 

is the Yosemite expedited inquiry or is —— 

Mr. PALMER. Well, I mean, it seems that there is a pattern across 

here that women were intimidated, other people were intimidated, 

they were traumatized —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. 

Mr. PALMER.—and you gave one guy a temporary promotion. Has 

anyone been fired? Has that question been asked, Mr. Chairman? 

Has anyone been fired? Has anyone terminated? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. No one has been fired yet, no. 

Mr. PALMER. That seems to be a pattern —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS. A disciplinary action is—are underway. And the 

one thing that I —— 

Mr. PALMER. Let me go on and ask you a couple of other questions. In November 2015 the OIG found that the deputy superintendent and other managers of Grand Canyon improperly shared 

personal information of the women who wrote to Secretary Jewell 

reporting the egregious sexual harassment in the Grand Canyon 

River District. 

One former Grand Canyon employee who submitted a statement 

for the record stated that, ‘‘Given the culture of retaliation and hostility towards the victims within the Grand Canyon River District, 

I, along with the other victims of Diane Chalfant’s negligence, am 

rightly terrified that the alleged perpetrators will contact us directly to retaliate against us.’’ I would like to enter that statement 

in the record. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. PALMER. What actions has the Park Service taken in response to the disclosure of this personal information? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. The actions that we’ve taken to date is to recognize that there was inappropriate actions for the EEO process —— 

Mr. PALMER. Well, that is great that you recognize it, but I want 

to know, has anyone been fired? Has anyone been demoted? I mean 

—— 

Mr. REYNOLDS. No, what I can do under the interest of the Privacy Act for these kinds of things is to personally debrief with you 

on what we’re doing with disciplinary actions. I can assure you that 

they’re underway. 

Mr. PALMER. All right. And I just wonder, given all of this, how 

any Park Service employees can trust that managers will keep 

their information confidential, that any Park Service employees can 

be confident that if they are harassed in any way that they will be 

listened to and that action will be taken to protect them? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. The—this has —— 

Mr. PALMER. It is disconcerting to me, Mr. Chairman, that we 

have had hearings with other agencies and it just seems that this 

goes on and on and on and no real punitive action is taken. And 

as long as we have that stance, as long as no real punitive action 

is taken, these types of things are going to continue to happen. 

My time is expired. I yield back. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman. 

I will now recognize myself here. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
58 

Let me go back to the expedited investigation at Yosemite. It is 

our understanding of the 21 people the investigators interviewed, 

every single one of them with one exception described Yosemite as 

a hostile work environment as a result of the behavior and conduct 

of the park’s superintendent. Why isn’t there immediate relief? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. We—I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman, that was to me? 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Yes. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. We are actively engaged. The regional director, 

who’s in San Francisco —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Wait, wait. Let’s explore the relationship 

between Yosemite and the region. Is there a problem with that 

chain of command there? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. The regional office that oversees Yosemite is in 

San Francisco. We have a regional director. We had the —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. What about the deputy? Who is that person? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. We have three deputy regional directors. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Yes. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. And one is in Seattle and two are in San Francisco, along with the regional director. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Come on. You know what I am getting at. 

What is the —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS. One of the deputies is the wife of the superintendent at Yosemite —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. So —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS.—and we have—and if I may, Mr. Chairman, we 

have consciously stovepiped that by having a third party in the 

Midwest region, our EEO manager, help run the investigative process. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Okay. But here is the problem. These 

things didn’t just spring up overnight, right? This has been a longstanding pattern. You have somebody who is essentially protected 

and empowered by his wife. I mean, people are afraid of actually 

coming forward and filing a complaint. I mean, one of the complaints is that the complaints get back to the superintendent. And 

so when your chain of command and your ability to tell supervisors 

is impeded by the fact that they are husband and wife, how do you 

let that happen? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. It’s even more important why this investigation 

is important to me to understand if the allegations are true —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. How long has it been going on? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I am not sure, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. What you mean you are not sure? You are 

the head of the workforce and then you got a promotion so —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, I don’t know in terms of what the timescale 

has been, but that is what I am asking the investigative teams to 

look into. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Who did the—you mean the inspector general? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. The inspector general now is involved. We were 

going to be doing our own —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Okay. Ms. Martin, can you shine some 

light on this ongoing problem? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
59 

Ms. MARTIN. The expedited inquiry took place about the first 

part of August, so I can appreciate the fact that there—the investigation is now turned over to the IG but with substantial credible 

evidence of a hostile work environment. There was a number of us 

that did fear that the superintendent did release or did have a list 

of names when the regional director came out with the expedited 

inquiry looking for individuals that would be willing to make statements either in person or written about their perception of a hostile work environment at Yosemite. 

So there was a number of us that feared that the superintendent 

probably got our names. We don’t know how. Maybe it was through 

the regional office. We don’t know, but I—there are people that felt 

that they were not going to come forward and provide a statement 

based upon this expedited inquiry because the superintendent had 

a list of names ahead of time. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Were there any repercussions for that? I 

mean, are you aware of anybody who had any sort of retaliation 

against them because they had stepped forward and made a statement about the reality of what was going on? 

Ms. MARTIN. Not at this point. There—because it still is under 

investigation, we don’t have—we’re not hearing about any—no 

names have been shared. We only have an informal network of individuals that have come forward, but we—this is the first time I’m 

actually hearing what some of the additional allegations are in 

this—in the statements that have been made. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Can you share with us any of your other 

personal experience? You mentioned that you had been the victim 

three times, and you were very candid in what happened in the 

1980s. But when you came back to the Park Service, what was 

your experience? 

Ms. MARTIN. I came back to the Park Service after working for 

the Forest Service for 16 years. When I came back in 2006, I was 

very excited that my career was coming back to the Park Service. 

I really enjoy working for the Park Service. But I am—experienced 

the culture that’s very closed in terms of being able to talk about 

these difficult issues. 

And when I came back to the Park Service, my fear was is that 

the first individual that was the perpetrator for my first sexual 

harassment was still working for the Park Service, and indeed he 

was. And it was up until just recently that I—this is why I made 

the decision to come forward is that I really felt that it was important to shine light on the fact that this was the tipping point for 

me and for so many other women that needed to have this heard. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. And this was a person who was arrested in 

the year 2000, a high-ranking national park official accused of 

peeping at naked women at a YMCA. Then, there is another incident report in 2001. They were having voyeurism issues. A police 

officer was sent; this person was found to be behind a home or a 

building in a highly suspicious behavior in that situation. And 

again, nothing happens. It seems to be a little bit of a pattern. 

These are just the one that they caught. 

So if you don’t mind my asking—I hope you don’t—what were the 

other two incidents that happened to you? And then also maybe if 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
60 

you can contrast the difference between Forest Service and Park 

Service. 

Ms. MARTIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The other two incidents, 

one while I was still working at Grand Canyon, it was a—I don’t 

remember the exact year—there was an individual that—between 

the Park Service and the Forest Service we work very closely together on wildland fire, you know, incidents, and so this particular 

gentlemen worked for the Forest Service, took pictures of me and 

put pictures—my pictures up above his visor in his government vehicle, was quite bold about it and showed other people that he had 

pictures of me in his government vehicle. 

One day, alone at my office, the south rim of Grand Canyon, he 

was bold enough to enter my office and tried to kiss me, and I 

pushed him away, very, very visibly shaken and upset, told a 

friend of mine about what had happened, went to his office, the 

Forest Service office, and proceeded to confront the individual. I 

never had any problems after that, but I did not feel safe at Grand 

Canyon. 

This particular gentleman had applied for the chief of fire and 

aviation job at Grand Canyon, and at that point I proceeded to notify the deputy superintendent at Grand Canyon at that time that 

this particular individual was sexually harassing me. I do believe 

that my conversation with the deputy superintendent most likely 

prevented that individual from getting a job at Grand Canyon. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. And the other incident? 

Ms. MARTIN. The other incident was when, after I left the National Park Service, I was working for the U.S. Forest Service and 

there was a private—it was a work-sponsored meeting at a private 

house, and I was sitting next to a superior of mine in my fire chain 

of command, was sitting on a crowded couch, proceeded to run his 

fingers through my hair. I immediately got up from the couch to 

remove myself from the situation. I talked to my immediate supervisor about it the following day. 

Again, these are very embarrassing situations. It seems so ubiquitous in our culture, in the wildland fire culture that I just didn’t 

feel that I could expose that as part of my—preserving my career. 

But at one point I did mention it to upper management in the Forest Service, and the appalling reply when I told him about it, well, 

it’s his word against yours. 

So I think at that point I really began to really believe that there 

is a culture of tolerance and acceptance of this kind of behavior in 

our workforce. And I have been powerless, although maybe I could 

have come forward with more formal complaints. I did not. I honestly felt that the preservation of my career and my career status 

with my peers was more important than filing a complaint. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. With some indulgence here, just one more 

question. Mr. Reynolds, during your time heading the workforce, 

how many people were fired for sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, or anything in that genre? How many? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I’d have to look up a number and get it to you 

today, but I am not aware that there were that many fired to be 

honest with you for those actions that you state. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Were there any? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
61 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I’ll confirm with you. I don’t have any recollection 

of any at this point. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I guess I would like to know how many 

complaints were filed during that time. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Let’s take the end of 2013 —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Okay. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ.—to present day —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Got it. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ.—how many complaints happened at any 

level, and how many people were fired? 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Thank you. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

having this hearing. 

Mr. Reynolds, you are the deputy director of operations? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So you, in that responsibility, oversee all of the 

national parks in some fashion? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Through their regional directors, yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes. How long have you been on the job? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Since August 1. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And why did you get placed in that job on August 

1? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. We had a retirement of my previous boss, Peggy 

O’Dell, and the director asked if I would be willing to be reassigned 

into that job. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So it wasn’t because of some policy shift or shoring up enforcement or making a statement that now we are taking 

it seriously? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. In this case my understanding is they needed a 

replacement for —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right. Okay. 

Mr. REYNOLDS.—a retirement. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So you were filling in? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Nothing wrong with that, but I mean —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY.—I just wanted to make sure. We weren’t making 

a statement trying to deal with what is front of us here? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. No. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So how long have you been with the Park Service? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Thirty years. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. So it is fair to ask you this question, I 

think. I mean, I am looking at the fact that we have got problems, 

you know, in the last few years at the Grand Canyon, Cape Canaveral, Yosemite, Yellowstone. I mean, you know, why shouldn’t the 

public be led to believe that—now, behind the redwoods, you know, 

shenanigans are going on? People are being harassed or worse and 

nothing is being done about it because the culture is a so-what 

kind of culture frankly. It doesn’t take this seriously, which has 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
62 

lots of ramifications for would-be employees in terms of the desirability of service, in terms of the integrity of the National Park 

Service itself. The public wouldn’t think this is a good idea or tolerate it and it would be very distressed and is distressed to hear 

the stories repeatedly. 

So help me understand. Is this a systemic culture that has to be 

weeded out in the National Park Service? And secondly, would you, 

by way of self-criticism, agree with Ms. Martin that up until now 

it has frankly not gotten the serious attention it deserved? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I would first like to say that I think the majority 

of our employees are some of the best-serving employees I have 

ever seen in the Federal workplace, including folks like these, and 

they deserve a much, much better culture that we have. I hope it’s 

not as systemic —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Wait, wait —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS.—as it appears to be —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Wait, wait, wait. They deserve a better culture 

than they have? That seems to be saying there is something —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS. We have a problem. 

Mr. CONNOLLY.—systemically wrong with our culture. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I believe we have a problem —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. 

Mr. REYNOLDS.—and I believe we should be making very urgent 

change to that culture. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Is there training or orientation before I put on 

that uniform as an employee of the National Park Service? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. There is. There —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. On this subject? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. There is a little on the subject. It needs to be 

more. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. All right. Tell us the—what is the SOP, standard 

operating procedure, when you get a report, whether it is anonymous—I assume you have a hotline so if I want to protect my identity—I am Ms. Martin but I don’t want to be fingered because I am 

on the job surrounded by the people —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Right. 

Mr. CONNOLLY.—perpetrating —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Confidentiality. 

Mr. CONNOLLY.—the harassment. So do I have an anonymous 

hotline I can call and have it followed up on? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. To clarify, there is a hotline if you will, a 

reporting mechanism, in each region for the EEO operation. We are 

establishing a new hotline as well, a third-party —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Does that mean that each region has its own 

SOP? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. In general, each region has its own offices. They 

should be operating from one Park Service-wide SOP, and that’s 

something we’re shoring up as we speak. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So there is a manual that—if I am a regional director —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY.—and I am new on the job, where do I go to get 

guidance on how we handle these things? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
63 

Mr. REYNOLDS. You go right to your EEO officer in the region. 

And some parts have EEO collateral duty, which is a fancy way of 

saying other duties as assigned, and they often are in H.R., they 

might be in some other—depending on the size of the park —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. 

Mr. REYNOLDS.—they might actually have a —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. All right. Sticking with SOP for a minute because I am trying to understand —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY.—what is going on at the National Park Service. 

So I am so-and-so and I have been harassed and I go to my supervisor, I don’t do it anonymously, and I report that, you know, Fire 

Ranger X has put the hit on me and I am very comfortable, I 

shouldn’t have to put up with that, it is degrading, humiliating, I 

didn’t sign up for this and I want some action, what happens? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. They are referred immediately—if the supervisor 

does their job right—to an EEO specialist or to somebody at the 

hotline at the place that we were referring to. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. But you heard Ms. Martin’s testimony. Her testimony is that when that happened I think to her the answer was 

it is your word against his, right? Is that right, Ms. Martin? 

Ms. MARTIN. That’s correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So, Mr. Reynolds, going to the EEO person didn’t 

work. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. We’ve got problems that I have to fix urgently. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Healy, a lot of the complaints focused on the 

Grand Canyon, which shocked me. I mean, the Grand Canyon is 

so spectacularly beautiful. I can’t believe that you are focused on 

anything other than beauty, but apparently our Park Service rangers are. What is going on in the Grand Canyon by way of trying 

to address this issue so that it does not recur and that we have actually shifted the culture at one of the great icons of the world, the 

Grand Canyon? 

Mr. HEALY. We do have the Park Service response to the OIG. 

There’s 18 action items. But I think a very positive step was the 

assignment of our new superintendent Chris Lehnertz. I think people at the park feel comfortable with her, and she’s—she called me 

on her second day on the job. She’s definitely someone that will listen to us and I think has been approaching our issues directly instead of pretending they aren’t there, you know. She’s there to 

make change, and I think that’s a big positive step for us. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Just a final question because I know my time is 

up and I thank my classmate and friend from Wyoming in indulging me. But, Mr. Healy, would you agree with Mr. Reynolds that 

we have got a lot of reform that has to happen in the culture? 

Mr. HEALY. Absolutely. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Grothman, is recognized. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Thank you. 

First of all, there was an incident referred to by Chairman 

Chaffetz before, and I am going to ask Mr. Reynolds about it, a sitVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:01 Jul 31, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26123.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
64 

uation where at first blush the wife was kind of over the husband. 

Is that true? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. In that situation she does not directly supervise 

her husband. She’s in the regional office, which is the next level 

up, sir. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. How long did that situation exist? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I would have to confirm it, but I think it’s been 

many, many years that they’ve been in service. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. I mean, where she’s—okay. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Long-serving deputy —— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Office —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS.—maybe more than 10 years at least. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. I will give you another general question, 

and this to me is just, you know, more evidence why, no matter 

how tempting it may seem to my colleagues, you never, ever, ever 

want the government to do anything more than they have to. 

Mr. Healy—oh, one more question for Mr. Reynolds. You said 

that you never knew since you were they head of H.R. anybody 

being fired for sexual harassment, right, you couldn’t remember 

that —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. I am going to follow up for the chairman on —— Mr. GROTHMAN. Yes. 

Mr. REYNOLDS.—the data, but it didn’t—I was managing systems 

and processes. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. How long were you head of H.R. in this region? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Two years. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Two years? How many people did you have 

under you? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. There’s about 18,000 permanents, upwards of 

20,000 by the time the seasons come in. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. So you were the H.R. head of over 18,000 people, 

right? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. In general. The way our system works is our regions actually run their own H.R. programs. We have the sort of 

the overarching system and process oversight. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Do you know in those two years how many people were let go, period, for anything? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. We fire quite a few—upwards of at least 100 people a year for various infractions. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. What do they usually do? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. They are often conduct issues. They might be 

caught stealing or they might be the normal range of things you 

might have happen. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Mr. Healy, thanks for coming by. We have 

got to ask you some questions. How pervasive is retaliation at the 

Park Service? 

Mr. HEALY. I’m sorry. Can you repeat that? 

Mr. GROTHMAN. How pervasive do you think retaliation is at the 

Park Service? 

Mr. HEALY. You know, I—my experience is limited to Grand 

Canyon, and it’s—with a couple of the individuals that are still at 

the park I think there’s a pretty extensive pattern of that. And that 

was all described in—by the OIG during their investigation. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
65 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Are you afraid of retaliation for showing 

up and talking to us today? 

Mr. HEALY. Yes, I am somewhat. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. I guess this question is kind of obvious 

but do you feel the Park Service has adequately held managers accountable for their part in allowing harassment to occur at Grand 

Canyon? 

Mr. HEALY. I don’t at this time. I’m optimistic for the future, but, 

you know, it’s been quite a while since the OIG investigation came 

out, and the Park Service response to that, and, you know, we’re 

in September and we still haven’t seen some of the individuals that 

were implicated by the OIG leave. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Slow-moving. Maybe I will switch back to Mr. 

Reynolds. Are any of these managers under any jeopardy of losing 

their job for their slow-moving here? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I—again, as I offered earlier, I’d be happy to talk 

to you in person or the chairman —— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Again, are they in jeopardy, I mean, just poking 

around here —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS. For many of these actions, as they are found 

true, yes, they are in jeopardy. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Mr. Healy, according to your testimony, a 

former supervisor at the Grand Canyon district breached confidentiality victims and was given a temporary promotion to chief ranger, is that true? What effect does that have on the morale of the 

employees when they see the sort of thing going on? 

Mr. HEALY. I think it has a severe impact. I think it really does. 

I think that was probably a setback for employee morale in moving 

forward after this thing. You know, this is a really, really big deal 

for employees. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. What was his position before and what was he 

promoted to? 

Mr. HEALY. He was supervisory park ranger, I believe, and his 

temporary promotion was chief ranger at a park, so the highest 

ranger position at another park from what I understand. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Would you feel comfortable saying what 

park? I won’t make you do that. You probably —— 

Mr. HEALY. It’s Curecanti —— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Curecanti —— 

Mr. HEALY.—Black Canyon of the Gunnison area. It’s in Colorado. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Okay. Okay. Interesting. I will go back to 

Ms. Martin. I will ask you the same question. How common do you 

think retaliation is at NPS? 

Ms. MARTIN. Thank you, Congressman, for that. I’m fearful more 

of the repercussions. The retaliation I have not been a victim of. 

And I think everybody knows that by coming forward, we are trying to very truly have a stronger conversation about what sexual 

harassment is and a hostile work environment is, so I actually feel 

somewhat confident that retaliation will not happen. But there are 

people that do fear that and will not come forward with honest 

statements. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Because retaliation, you mean they feel they are 

less likely to be promoted themselves in the future? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
66 

Ms. MARTIN. Yes, I think, you know, people just don’t want to 

really rock the boat. They don’t really want to come forward for 

what they really see as going on. So there’s a handful of us that 

believe that this is an extremely important topic to bring forward, 

and so I’m cautiously optimistic, I guess, that we will not be retaliated against. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Mr. Reynolds, in your past statements you 

said you were doing what you can to increase the number of 

women in management positions at the Park Service. Could you 

elaborate? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. We are beginning to venture into a much more 

aggressive recruitment. We’ve opened a recruitment office that 

will—we really have not had—recruitment has been done at the supervisory management level, so we’re trying to begin to centralize 

that to focus on both—diversity in all of its forms. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. I am well over my time so thanks for 

being patient with me. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Mica is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman and ranking member. I haven’t been able to participate; I got waylaid on a host of 

other things. But I did stay up last night and read some of the testimony and a staff report. It was absolutely appalling to see what 

took place in some of these instances, and it also to me is disgraceful that the Federal Government could be a partner into the abuse 

of women and employees and others and let them be subject to this 

type of activity. I just was stunned at what is going on. 

When we came into the majority in 1995, I was the first Republican chairman of civil service in 40 years, and I got to look at the 

civil service system. And you want a civil service system—and it 

was created to protect employees from political interference, but it 

wasn’t created to protect them when they abuse their fellow employees, violate laws, protocols, rules, and that is what I read page 

after page. It is just stunning. 

And then I saw the movement of people within the agency from 

department to department. One case, and I am sure it has been relayed here, where you get promoted after you commit sexual acts 

that no one would tolerate in any other form of employment. 

Okay. I have sat here, I have sat through IRS, I have sat 

through—I never forget the head of Secret Service. She came to me 

after she was brought in, Julia—she went to the University of Central Florida, was a police officer, eminently qualified, first female 

Secret Service director. And after she was there for a while, she 

came in and she says this is almost impossible to control. I need 

assistance to determine—well, to be able to hire and fire, hire and 

fire poor performers, and that is—whether it is Secret Service, 

whether it is IRS, whether it is GSA, FBI, other agencies, we have 

to—actually some of them are exempt. There is exempt and un-exempt. 

Mr. Reynolds, are your hands tied? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Congressman, thank you for bringing this up. It 

is a complex system that you know better than anybody. 

Mr. MICA. It is very complex, and it is very difficult for you to 

navigate —— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
67 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. 

Mr. MICA.—and it can take a long time to get rid of these people. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I don’t want to cop out by saying it’s the process, 

right —— 

Mr. MICA. I would —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS.—we have to be accountable —— 

Mr. MICA. I am not copping out either, but I am telling you, it 

is the process. We have set up a system where nobody gets fired. 

When you do egregious things, you don’t get fired. It is easier to 

transfer them around. And we have seen examples. An example, I 

read it last night, and it didn’t let me sleep well last night. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. There is a GAO report that says it takes us six 

months to a year to terminate people at times. 

Mr. MICA. And that would be a speedy termination, and the alternative is actually that they are moving people into other positions. And then what kind of message does it send when they actually get elevated? One of the most troublesome cases was getting 

elevated to one of the highest positions, and everybody knew what 

was going on. It is disgraceful. 

Well, I think that the way to cure this is, again, you want to protect—we want to protect people—we have thousands and thousands of wonderful employees of the Federal Government. You 

have got them in the Park Service —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. 

Mr. MICA.—and I have seen them. They stay there late, they 

work extra time, they neglect sometimes their family, but they 

serve the public. They are public servants. We have got a few rotten apples in the barrel, and they are still in the barrel, and to me 

it is disgraceful that we haven’t fixed the system that allows you 

to do your duty to clear the deck of people who need to be fired, 

removed, and held accountable. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I agree. 

Mr. MICA. Okay. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. We need to move as fast as we can —— 

Mr. MICA. Well, again, Madam Chairman, thank you for holding 

this hearing. This is an important hearing. This is to the core of 

the problem we have across the spectrum of the Federal Government. 

And I thank you and yield back the balance of my time. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman from Florida. 

I have seven statements that I would like to include in the 

record. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Healy, have you ever seen someone, let’s say 

a problem person, a sexual predator within the National Park Service, either transferred laterally or promoted? 

Mr. HEALY. I don’t believe so. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Ms. Martin, have you ever seen someone who was 

known to be a problem employee for the reasons we are meeting 

today either transferred laterally to a different NPS property or 

promoted? 

Ms. MARTIN. If you refer to my testimony regarding my first sexual harassment incident at Grand Canyon, that is an example of 

how an individual was laterally moved and promoted. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
68 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Well, what we have heard today are terms like 

toxic work culture, a closed culture. We have heard ‘‘go along to get 

along’’ culture, and we know that within the National Park Service 

there are plum assignments. People will stay regardless of how 

long it takes or what they have to put up with to get to some of 

those crown jewel properties because they love their jobs so much. 

In some respects that is rewarding loyalty. In other respects, it 

can create a toxic work culture. And it appears that the National 

Park Service, especially since we have had reports of this for 16 

years and that these matters are not being adequately addressed, 

that perhaps promotion from within has actually hurt the National 

Park Service from addressing cultural systemic problems in this 

area. 

So I will be asking the chairman and ranking member of this 

committee to prepare memos to the transition teams for both the 

Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates to inform them 

of what is in the record here about what is going on at the National 

Park Service in terms of a toxic work culture and how maybe it is 

time to get, as Mr. Mica said, some of the rotten apples that are 

still in the barrel out of the barrel. 

And maybe that is going to require people who have made this 

their career and have been looking forward to being considered for 

some of the very highest positions within the National Park Service 

to not attain those goals because this has been tolerated. It has not 

been swept under the rug and now some of the people in leadership 

positions are just finding out about it. It has been tolerated. And 

it appears that people have tolerated this in order to advance their 

careers into the highest positions in the National Park Service. It 

is time to ferret out that kind of toxic culture. And either new 

President is going to be in a position to do that. 

So I will ask the chairman of this committee and the ranking 

member to prepare memos to the transition teams of the Democratic and Republican nominees for President and present them to 

them so when they are going through transition and preparing people to go before Senate committees for confirmation that they know 

exactly what is going on in the National Park Service and they are 

prepared to address these problems. 

I thank you for your testimony today. It builds on testimony that 

we have in writing. It builds on reports that we have had for 16 

years that have gone inadequately addressed. It informs the next 

President that they better start lawyering up these agencies with 

people who are experts in personnel rules and disciplinary rules because they are going to take a whole bunch of people through processes that have not been used enough within the National Park 

Service. 

I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank the chairlady for your words, 

and I agree that it would be a good idea to get those letters out 

to the two transition teams. And I think hopefully it will have some 

impact. 

To you, Ms. Martin, to you, Mr. Healy, I thank you for coming 

forward. This is not easy. It can’t be. When I think about you, Ms. 

Martin, having left and then come back, and I was just reading the 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
69 

file of the person who was the peeping tom, you should not have 

had to go through that. 

You know, I often think about how people come to work every 

day. Sometimes they have things that they have to struggle with 

at home. All of us do. But no matter what, they get up, they come 

to work, and when you have got a job like the ones you all have, 

dealing with the public, you have got to put on a good face and you 

have got to be the best that you can be. 

But the idea that you come to work and you have got people who 

place you in a position of discomfort, knowing that they could have 

not only an impact on your career but on your way of life and then 

to be able to function at your maximum with all of that over your 

head, that is quite a bit. And then to seemingly have an administration at the Park Service that through neglect or just a sheer 

sense of lack of urgency, does not back you up, that is a problem. 

The other thing that I guess that goes through my head is what 

I said a little bit earlier. You have been bold enough to come here 

to give your testimony and the idea that you might not have the 

impact that you wanted to have and to go back and get hurt because you have stepped forward is the worst thing that could happen. 

So I want to vow to you and I am sure everybody on this committee feels the same way—and let me send the message to all of 

those who are thinking about, thinking about, thinking about retaliating or bringing harm that we will come after you with everything we have got. There is no way that we will correct this culture 

if you have to be in fear and if they have the position that they 

can do whatever they want and get away with it. 

And to those who feel that way, that feel that they want to retaliate, I would invite them to leave the Park Service. Go do something else because we want our employees to be able to be content. 

We want them to have a normal employee/employer existence, normal. This is not normal. It is not. It has got to be stressful every 

day watching your back. Who is going to hurt you? Who is going 

to block your path? What is going to happen when you come up for 

promotion? Who is going to be whispering things, oh, she is not 

this or he is not that? And when you don’t even know who did it. 

So all of that, that has got to be stressful. 

And then I go back to what you said, Ms. Martin, with regard 

to doing the whole balancing thing. Do I tell or do I be quiet? Do 

I say something? Because if I say something, my career may be ruined. And then what am I going to do? How am I going to feed my 

family? Those are real, real decisions. 

And so, you know, I know there is a survey coming out, Mr. Reynolds, but the thing that struck me is that 16 years ago a similar 

survey came out, is that right? And when folks were asked about 

sexual harassment, they were asked this question, ‘‘have you personally experienced sexual harassment’’ 52 percent, hello, 52 percent of the respondent females in law enforcement positions in the 

Park Service said yes, and an astounding 76 percent of the respondent females in the United States Park Service answered yes. 

What is that about? And did you see that? Did you see those 

things when you were there? You know, we talked about these inciVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:01 Jul 31, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26123.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
70 

dents. When you held the position that you held, head of H.R., 

whatever you called it, did you see some of this? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I did see instances come through in terms of 

cases, not—we haven’t had the data to understand that the way 

that survey describes, which is why we want to do a second—you 

know, this new survey and to do it right this time. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. But this was 16 years ago? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. We have got problems —— 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS.—and we have got to correct them. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. And I would like to say that I will personally ensure—and you may hold me absolutely accountable—that these 

people will be protected with their careers and their lives. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And see, they know the names. They know the 

names. They know the names. But you know what? You can know 

the information and know the names, but when you have got this 

culture, even giving up—just the mere giving up the names would 

cause them stress, am I right, Ms. Martin? 

Ms. MARTIN. Without a doubt. I know that I have—I’ll be probably more—I’ll be facing serious repercussions, but I just have to 

go on record to tell you that I have a tremendous amount of support of women behind me that could not do this, but the other important thing is that there’s men that want to see our culture 

change, too. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. That leads me to my last statement, and I am 

so glad you said that. I am so glad you said that. And I want to 

say this to all the people that you just talked about, the ones that 

back you up, the ones that care, the ones that support you —— 

Ms. MARTIN. Absolutely. 

Mr. CUMMINGS.—they have got to understand that they are the 

solution. They really are. They have to be that critical mass. They 

have got to stand up, they have got to back you up, and then hopefully more and more will come forward. And if changes need to be 

made at the top, they need to be made, but they have to help us 

change it because they are there. You are on the ground. They are 

the witnesses, okay? 

I have often said through our pain must come our passion to do 

our purpose. Your pain has allowed you to come here with a passion, and that passion has allowed you to do your purpose. And 

hopefully, we will be able—that purpose will be about bringing a 

new day to the Park Service by shining a bright light on its problems. 

With that, Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the ranking member. 

The tone is set at the top, so the tone has to change going forward. 

I want to thank our witnesses. Mr. Healy, thank you for coming 

here and for your bold statements. Ms. Martin, thank you for your 

testimony today and for representing other people within the National Park Service who are similarly situated, but your ability to 

speak on their behalf is deeply appreciated by this committee. Mr. 

Reynolds, thank you for your testimony today. You have got your 

hands full. I hope you are up to the task. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
71 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. You know, God bless you in your work there. 

With that, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:18 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(73) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
74 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 26123.029
75 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 26123.030
76 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 26123.031
77 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 26123.032
78 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 26123.033
79 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 26123.034
80 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 26123.035
81 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 26123.036
82 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 26123.037
83 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 26123.038
84 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 26123.039
85 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 26123.040
86 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 26123.041
87 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 26123.042
88 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 26123.043
89 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 44 here 26123.044
90 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 45 here 26123.045
91 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 46 here 26123.046
92 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 47 here 26123.047
93 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 48 here 26123.048
94 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 49 here 26123.049
95 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 50 here 26123.050
96 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 51 here 26123.051
97 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 52 here 26123.052
98 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 53 here 26123.053
99 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 54 here 26123.054
100 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 55 here 26123.055
101 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 56 here 26123.056
102 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 57 here 26123.057
103 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 58 here 26123.058
104 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 59 here 26123.059
105 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 60 here 26123.060
106 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 61 here 26123.061
107 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 62 here 26123.062
108 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 63 here 26123.063
109 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 64 here 26123.064
110 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 65 here 26123.065
111 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 66 here 26123.066
112 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 67 here 26123.067
113 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 68 here 26123.068
114 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 69 here 26123.069
115 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 70 here 26123.070
116 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 71 here 26123.071
117 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 72 here 26123.072
118 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 73 here 26123.073
119 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 74 here 26123.074