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

22–193 PDF 2017

OVERSIGHT OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 14, 2016 

Serial No. 114–73 

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 


AKING-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 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

BILL MCGRATH, Interior Subcommittee Staff Director 

MELISSA BEAUMONT, Professional Staff Member 

SHARON CASEY, Deputy Chief Clerk 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 14, 2016 ............................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

The Hon. Jonathan Jarvis, Director, National Park Service, U.S. Department 

of the Interior 

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

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Ms. Mary Kendall, Deputy Inspector General, Office of the Inspector General, 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

APPENDIX 

RESPONSE Director Jarvis- QFRs ........................................................................ 54 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE NATIONAL PARK 

SERVICE 

Tuesday, June 14, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m. In Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jason Chaffetz [chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Chaffetz, Mica, Duncan, Jordan, 

Walberg, Amash, Gosar, Massie, Meadows, Buck, Blum, Hice, Carter, Grothman, Hurd, Palmer, Cummings, Maloney, Norton, Lynch, 

Cooper, Connolly, Cartwright, Kelly, Lawrence, Watson Coleman, 

Plaskett, DeSaulnier, Welch, and Lujan Grisham. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Good morning. 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’re going to have a hearing today about the oversight of the 

National Park Service. 2016 represents 100 years since the Park 

Service was founded. It should be a milestone for the Park Service, 

but we instead find an agency in crisis. 

We have a lot of good, hard-working people who do a good service 

for this Nation. They serve. The public is attending the parks at 

record numbers, but we’re still having problems. We should be 

working to increase the visitation and providing recreational opportunities to the American people. 

The mission of the National Park Service is to, ‘‘preserve 

unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the 

National Park Service—Park System for the enjoyment, education, 

and inspiration of this and future generations.’’ But that does not 

work when you have so many multiple cases of serious, longstanding employee misconduct that is distracting the agency from 

its mission. 

There is no doubt that when you hire tens of thousands of people 

to work at the Park Service, there are going to be some bad apples, 

and those bad apples are going to cause untold disruption and 

heartache to a lot of people. But if they’re not dealt with in a swift 

manner, if they’re not dealt with appropriately, the problem becomes worse. And that is the situation, at least from my vantage 

point, that I see. 

During the last few months, the Department of the Interior’s inspector general has issued numerous reports highlighting how the 

agency is failing. Those reports reveal the Park Service is failing 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

to protect its employees, in particular, from a rash of sexual harassment. Even worse, when the employees suffer harassment, they 

are discouraged by management from reporting it and sometimes 

even retaliated against. 

Just yesterday, the inspector general released yet another report 

of sexual harassment showing a pattern of this behavior in yet another park, the Canaveral National Seashore. Across the country, 

sexual harassment at the Grand Canyon River District was so bad 

it took a letter from 13 victims—13 victims—directly to the Secretary of the Interior before any action was taken. Allegedly, this 

behavior had been going on for about a decade. 

Unfortunately, it doesn’t stop there. The superintendent of the 

Grand Canyon himself, David Uberuaga, had a history of inappropriate behavior. In 2008, the inspector general determined that Mr. 

Uberuaga unethically profited on the sale of land to a park concessionaire who he oversaw. He was also found to have made misleading statements related to the sale. At the time, his supervisor 

was then Superintendent Jarvis, who decided that a letter of reprimand was enough of a punishment, just a letter. Sold this home 

for three times the value to somebody who was doing business with 

the Park Service, and a letter was the reprimand. 

When the facts came to light, once again, Director Jarvis was 

there to protect his friend. Instead of firing or doing some negative 

repercussions, he offered him a cushy job in a position in Washington, D.C. 

The Service has also poorly managed its Equal Employment Opportunity program. For over a decade, the Service has failed to 

meet its EEOC requirements. Claims can take years to process, 

and the Service has consistently failed to maintain a functional 

EEO program. In the case of the Grand Canyon, it has taken more 

than 2 years to finalize claims of retaliation from whistleblowers 

who reported harassment, 2 years. Two years. We’re seeing how a 

disregard for the EEO process leads to a culture that tolerates sexual harassment and retaliation. Those failures are multiplied by 

the Park Service’s and, in particular, Director Jarvis’ failure to 

hold management accountable for these transgressions. 

The Service is also failing to adequately oversee its contracts 

and, hopefully, we’ll get into that as well. But perhaps most troubling is the Service suffers from failures to maintain ethical standards at the highest levels. Director Jarvis, who’s appearing before 

us today, was removed from overseeing the Service’s ethics program due to his own ethical failures. Director Jarvis failed to get 

a book deal approved by the ethics office, lied to the Secretary of 

the Interior, and afterwards tried to cover up his tracks. When the 

person in charge isn’t following the rules, we can’t expect anybody 

at the agency as well. 

Something needs to change and it needs to change fast. We can’t 

keep continuing to turn a blind eye to misconduct or discourage 

employees from reporting misconduct. Employee misconduct erodes 

American’s faith in the government. It destroys morale for the vast 

majority of employees who are hard working, they’re dedicated, 

they abide by the rules, and they should not have to go to work 

in a hostile environment. And when they don’t sense that the management has their back, that they’re going to take care of them, 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

they’re going to watch after them, and that they will hold the management responsible, it creates a culture that is hostile, and it 

should not be tolerated. 

There are ethical problems. There are backlogs of projects. 

There’s lack of plans to deal with these backlogs, inconsistency and 

enforcement of the laws and rules, and these are just some of the 

things that plague the Park Service, and that’s why we’re having 

the hearing today. 

I appreciate the witnesses for being here. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. 

Cummings, for his opening statement. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Today’s hearing involves a variety of allegations at the National 

Park Service, unfortunately, spanning several years. And I want to 

thank our witnesses for being here today, including the National 

Park director, Jonathan Jarvis, and the Deputy Inspector General 

Mary Kendall, whose office has issued many of the reports we will 

be discussing today. For example, the Inspector General’s Office 

has identified an instance of contract steering at the Denver Service Center, the unauthorized purchase of automatic weapons at the 

Mojave National Preserve, and the improper use of government 

housing at Yellowstone National Park. 

As a result of the inspector general’s work, we also learned that 

Director Jarvis violated Federal ethics rules when he wrote and 

published a book without clearing it through the department’s ethics office. Although he does not appear to have benefited financially, he showed contempt for the government’s ethics rules when 

he told the Inspector General’s Office that he probably would do 

the same thing again. That is amazing that he would do it again 

today because he has, ‘‘always pushed the envelope.’’ 

You know, the chairman talked about morale. He talked about 

the public’s confidence in government. That kind of attitude is the 

very thing that leads to low morale. It leads to a lack of confidence 

by the public. And so as a result, he—the director has now been 

stripped of his authority over at the National Park Service and is 

undergoing mandatory ethics training himself right now. 

Most troubling of all, however, are the reports from the Inspector 

General’s Office that details, and I quote—and this is very upsetting—and ‘‘a long pattern of sexual harassment and hostile work 

environment.’’ at the Grand Canyon River District. The Grand Canyon’s former superintendent received a report in 2013 documenting 

multiple allegations of sexual harassment, but that report did not 

determine whether further investigations was warranted or whether disciplinary action should be pursued. 

A year later, 13 current and former employees sent their allegations of abusive behavior to the Secretary of the Interior. The secretary referred these allegations to the inspector general for investigation, and the Inspector General’s Office identified 22—22— 

other individuals who, ‘‘reported experiencing or witnessing sexual 

harassment and hostile work environments.’’ The Inspector General’s Office also found that previous reports of sexual harassment, 

‘‘were not properly investigated or reported.’’ 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

In addition, within the last few days, the Inspector General’s Office issued a new report detailing, ‘‘a pattern of sexual harassment,’’ against three female employees by a law enforcement supervisor at the Canaveral National Seashore. 

These reports, obviously, raise very serious issues. Women have 

the right to work anywhere, including our national parks, without 

fear that they may be harassed by fellow employees or ignored or 

even retaliated against by managers when they report these 

abuses. 

The Park Service’s Equal Employment Opportunity program, the 

program directly responsible for handling complaints of harassment 

and retaliation, does not meet some of the most basic standards of 

a model program. These reports demonstrate how critical it is that 

the Senate pass my bill, the Federal Employee Antidiscrimination 

Act, which Chairman Chaffetz cosponsored and which passed the 

House by a vote of 403 to nothing. 

Finally, I want to highlight one more issue that needs urgent attention, and that is the funding for the rehabilitation of the Arlington Memorial Bridge, which was built in 1932 across the Potomac 

River to connect the Lincoln Memorial and the Arlington National 

Cemetery. Unfortunately, an inspection in February found that the 

bridge has severely deteriorated. If a complete overhaul does not 

begin by 2019, the bridge is slated to be shut down within 5 years. 

Rehabilitating the bridge is estimated to cost $250 million, while 

the National Park Service’s entire transportation budget for 2016 

is $268 million. This is an issue that Congress needs to address. 

And I hope our witnesses here today will be able to discuss this as 

well. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I anxiously look forward to the testimony, and I yield back. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman. 

We’ll hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any member 

who would like to submit a written statement. 

We’ll now recognize our witnesses, starting with Mr. Jon Jarvis, 

the director of the National Park Service at the United States Department of the Interior. We also have Ms. Mary Kendall. She’s the 

deputy inspector general of the Office of the Inspector General at 

the United States Department of the Interior. 

We welcome you both. Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses 

are to be sworn before they testify. If you’ll please rise and raise 

your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about 

to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth? 

Thank you. You may be seated. 

Let the record reflect that each of the witnesses answered in the 

affirmative. 

We have your written statements, but in order to allow time for 

vibrant discussion today, we’d appreciate it if you would limit your 

oral testimony to 5 minutes. And, again, your entire written statement will be made part of the record. 

Director Jarvis, you’re now recognized for 5 minutes. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JONATHAN JARVIS 

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

Cummings, and members of the committee. I’m here today to discuss oversight of the National Park Service. I’ll summarize my 

written statements and ask that the complete statement be included in the record. 

The National Park Service manages many of our Nation’s most 

iconic and beloved landscapes, historic sites, and numerous programs and places that offer the American public access to open 

space and preserve our history and culture. We are seeing recordbreaking visitation, more than 300 million last year, and the resulting economic activity created by the parks top 16 billion. We’re 

accomplishing all of this on an annual budget that is less than the 

city of Austin, Texas. 

This year, we are commemorating our 100th anniversary of the 

National Park Service, and we are asking more of our employees 

than ever before as we use this milestone to promote all the work 

we do to inspire new, younger, more diverse audiences. 

The national parks are supported and loved by the American 

public because they are well managed, protected, interpreted, and 

maintained by a professional workforce, employees who take great 

pride in their work and hold themselves to high standards of conduct. But we are an organization of human beings. By our very nature, we make mistakes individually and collectively. We can’t stop 

all wrongdoing, but when we see improper situations, we can respond thoughtfully to implement changes and keep it from happening again. 

I would like to emphasize that the vast majority of the National 

Park Service’s 22,000 employees conduct themselves with great integrity and passion for their work. This makes it all the more disappointing when we find mistakes and wrongdoing in our ranks, 

and sometimes those mistakes happen at the top. 

Last year, I wrote a book to celebrate the National Park Service 

centennial. My goal was to inspire and engage more Americans in 

our national parks. I wrote this book in my personal capacity and 

directed that any book proceeds benefit the NPS through the nonprofit publisher of Eastern National and the congressionally established National Park Foundation. I donated the copyright to the 

NPF and received no personal benefit from the sales of the book. 

That was never my goal. However, I wrote that book without appropriate appreciation and regard for my responsibility to follow established processes, including consulting the department’s ethics 

office. 

As a result of my actions, I received formal reprimand and am 

actively participating in monthly ethics training. Additionally, my 

duties as the National Park Service ethics officer have been removed and transferred to the deputy assistant secretary for fish, 

wildlife, and parks. I was wrong to not seek ethics guidance. I am 

sorry that I failed initially to understand and even accept my mistake. I have apologized to all NPS employees through my memo 

distributed to the field, and I urged them all to learn from my mistake and to ask for ethics guidance when it is needed. I also offer 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

my apology to the American people who have entrusted me with 

leading the National Park Service and upholding the highest 

standards of public service. 

I was held accountable for my mistake. Holding employees accountable is essential to the National Park Service to uphold the 

public trust it enjoys. When mistakes and inappropriate actions are 

identified, we must follow due process and determine appropriate 

response. 

In some cases, the NPS identifies misconduct and refers the case 

to the Office of Inspector General to investigate. We do that to ensure an impartial review. For instance, the NPS referred a case involving the improper purchase of firearms and weapons at the Mojave National Preserve to the OIG. Together, they ensured that the 

situation was thoroughly investigated and those involved were held 

accountable. 

In other cases, reports to the inspector general come from others. 

The National Park Service is committed to cooperating with the Office of the Inspector General and takes its reports very seriously. 

One example, of course, is the recent report on sexual harassment 

at the Grand Canyon River District. The National Park Service 

leadership is extremely disappointed in the situation here, and we 

are acting quickly and thoughtfully to change the conditions that 

allowed this to happen. 

We have zero tolerance for sexual harassment. We are committed 

to fundamentally changing the culture that previously allowed such 

harassment to develop and occur. 

Among leadership, we take a comprehensive servicewide approach to addressing sexual harassment. We’ll identify and fix the 

conditions that allow harassment to take place, build work environments where everyone is treated with respect and dignity, and hold 

these individuals who engage in sexual harassment accountable, 

that includes senior leaders. The superintendent of Grand Canyon 

retired on June 1, and we’ll be selecting a new superintendent 

soon. 

With the advice and support of Members of Congress, including 

Congressman Niki Tsongas, the National Park Service is learning 

from other large organizations that reduce sexual harassment, including the Department of Defense and the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. We will conduct a unanimous nationwide survey of employees to understand the prevalence of sexual 

harassment, and we’ll use that information to inform our—at every 

level of the organizations. 

We are committed to ensuring that every NPS employee can 

work in a safe and secure environment, and they are treated with 

respect. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my oral statement. 

And I’m happy to answer any questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Jarvis follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 22193.001
8 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 22193.002
9 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 22193.003
10 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

Ms. Kendall, you’re now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MARY KENDALL 

Ms. KENDALL. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cummings, and 

members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today about a series of reports the Office of Inspector General has 

issued regarding misconduct and mismanagement in the National 

Park Service. 

The Office of Inspector General serves the vital role as an independent, objective body to investigate matters that ultimately violate public trust. The OIG has a great deal of experience uncovering ethics and other conduct violations by interior employees, highranking officials, and others whose positions of trust make their 

misconduct particularly detrimental to the operations of the department, the morale of its employees, and the reputation of all 

Federal employees. 

I remain convinced that as a whole, those who engage in wrongdoing are in the minority. Unfortunately, misconduct by those few 

receives notoriety and casts a shadow over the entire department. 

That shadow looms large, especially over NPS following our recent 

release of investigative reports, including those that substantiated 

sexual harassment at Grand Canyon and Canaveral National Seashore, ethics violations by Director Jarvis, and misuse of park 

housing by the chief ranger at Yellowstone. 

Our investigative report on sexual harassment at the Grand 

Canyon provided a glaring example of NPS management failing to 

take proper action when employees reported wrongdoing. 

Similarly, after receiving an investigative report on the chief 

ranger of Yellowstone National Park violating the rules on the use 

of park housing, the chief ranger was transferred to another park 

and named superintendent. 

A recent media article raised concerns about the leadership at 

Cape Canaveral National Seashore. The OIG has issued four reports in 4 years on alleged misconduct and/or mismanagement at 

this park. Three of the four reports substantiated allegations 

against the park’s chief ranger, including violation of Federal procurement rules, conduct unbecoming an NPS law enforcement officer, and sexual harassment. 

Last week, we issued a report to NPS about sexual harassment 

by the same chief ranger who continues to serve in that position 

despite three substantiated allegations against him in less than 2 

years. 

NPS has not had time to respond to this most recent report, but 

with three other reports in 4 years, this is a profound example of 

the leadership problem that NPS has failed to address at multiple 

levels. 

Finally, the same superintendent has been at Canaveral since 

2010, was named as the subject in our 2012 report, and was found 

by the Merit Systems Protection Board to have committed reprisal 

against an NPS whistleblower for contacting the OIG. Yet we have 

no indication that NPS has taken disciplinary action against her. 

The department does not do well in holding accountable those 

employees who engage in mismanagement or misconduct. We see 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
11 

too few examples of senior leaders making the difficult decision to 

impose meaningful corrective action and hold their employees accountable. Often, management avoids discipline altogether and attempts to address misconduct by transferring or counseling offending employees, which is viewed by other employees as condoning 

this behavior. 

NPS, in particular, has a real opportunity to address employee 

misconduct and mismanagement more meaningfully. A pattern and 

practice of accountability must begin at the top. Consistent messaging by senior leadership provides a clear message of what behavior is expected. We have encouraged leadership to demonstrate 

more support for those who serve in gatekeeper roles, such as contracting officers and human resource personnel. But many such 

gatekeepers feel undue pressure from managers to make things 

happen, regardless of rules and regulations, such as that recently 

detailed in our report concerning allegations that the now former 

director of the NPS Denver Service Center improperly directed a 

contract award. 

Working with Interior’s deputy secretary, chief of staff, and Office of the Solicitor, we have witnessed an increased effort to be 

more responsive and decisive in corrective actions regarding employee wrongdoing. We are encouraged by this at the department 

level, but we would like to see the same at the bureau level, taking 

prompt, appropriate disciplinary action in response to OIG reports 

of misconduct. 

This concludes my prepared testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions that members of the subcommittee—of the committee would have. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Kendall follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
12 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 22193.004
13 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 22193.005
14 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 22193.006
15 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 22193.007
16 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. Thank you, both. 

I’ll now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Director Jarvis, I would agree with you that people do make mistakes, but I draw a distinction between mistakes and deception, 

which I view as a whole other category of problems. 

On November—I’m sorry—June 11th of 2015, you wrote a handwritten note to Sally Jewell, the secretary of the Department of the 

Interior. It was four sentences long, barely two paragraphs. Do you 

stand by that? Was there anything wrong or deceptive about that 

handwritten note that you gave the secretary? 

Mr. JARVIS. So I wrote the note to let her know that I had published this book, was, I think, her first awareness of the book. I 

said in that that there were no ethics issues because I had written 

it on my own time. I had asked Eastern National—or I said in the 

note that Eastern National had requested it of me, which is Eastern National does publish a lot of books for the National Park Service, and that all benefits are going to the National Park Foundation. 

When I wrote that note, I thought I was following the ethics 

rules, with the exception that I had not asked permission to 

produce the book. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Why didn’t you ask permission? 

Mr. JARVIS. I felt that the book would be subject to extensive review and probably would not get published in the centennial—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. So you made a conscious decision to not 

ask ethics because you thought that you wouldn’t get the result 

that you ultimately wanted. 

So did Eastern National request that you write the book or did 

you request of Eastern National that you write the book? 

Mr. JARVIS. The facts of the case are that I asked Eastern National if they were interested in the book, and Eastern National responded to say, let me ask you to write the book. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. And they had a multimillion dollar contract 

with the Park Service, correct? 

Mr. JARVIS. No, they have no contract with the National Park 

Service. They are a cooperating association, which means—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. The cooperation requires—results in millions of dollars of business. 

Here’s my problem with what you wrote. It was not true. It was 

deceptive and it was intended to make the appearance to the Secretary of the Interior that there was no ethical problem and that 

you were doing this at the request of Eastern National, neither of 

which were true, correct? 

Mr. JARVIS. I think that it was incorrect. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Why should the secretary trust you? Why 

should we trust you? 

Mr. JARVIS. Because I have served as a public servant for 40 

years, in leadership roles for 25 years with an impeccable record 

of service to the American people. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I don’t know that that—I don’t know that 

I take—I take issue with the idea that it’s impeccable when you 

give a handwritten note to the Secretary of the Interior deceiving 

her on two key points. 

Mr. JARVIS. And I apologized profusely. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
17 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. No. What you said, actually, when you 

were confronted by the inspector general—— 

Ms. Kendall, I want you to weigh into this. With this report— 

you have this. Was it a transcription? Or what was this interview 

with the director? We asked Jarvis whether, looking back, he would 

have done anything differently, and he said—and then it’s quoted 

here. Was that because it was transcribed or was that a recording? 

Ms. KENDALL. I believe we transcribed that. We were recording. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Mr. Jarvis, when you were asked about 

this by the inspector general, this is what you said. I’m going to 

quote, ‘‘Would I have done the same thing? Probably. I think I 

knew going into this there was a certain amount of risk. I’ve never 

been afraid of risk. I’ve gotten my ass in trouble many, many, 

many times by the Park Service. By not necessarily getting permission, I’ve always pushed the envelope.’’ And then you go on from 

there. 

That is your quote, correct? 

Mr. JARVIS. That is my quote. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. And now you’re apologizing because we’re 

essentially having a public hearing. 

Mr. JARVIS. No, I apologized a long time ago, long before this 

hearing. And I apologized directly to the secretary and to the leadership of the National Park Service. And that was a mistake and 

I fully own it. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. And you lied to her, you deceived her, and 

I think it’s wholly inappropriate. 

And now we look at the situation that’s happening in Cape Canaveral—or the Canaveral National Seashore. This chief ranger— 

this is a fairly small park in the big scheme of things, right? Fifty 

or so employees. Is that about right? 

Mr. JARVIS. It’s a small park. I don’t know what the staffing size 

is. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. So Ranger Correa? How do you pronounce 

his name? 

Mr. JARVIS. Correa. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Correa. Three documented cases of sexual 

harassment, procurement problems, conduct unbecoming. Three of 

the four IG reports have been highlighting this, and you, your office, the National Park Service, is handing him out awards, safety 

awards. How does somebody who’s getting, on the one hand, reprimands and highlights in sexual harassment problems—again, 

there’s only 50 people, and they’ve got three documented sexual 

harassment issues. You go to the superintendent, the superintendent had allegations of reprisal that were found by the Merit 

Systems Protection Board and resulted in a settlement. You had to 

go into a settlement with the National Park Service. Those were— 

and the person is still on the job. 

Mr. JARVIS. His commission has been removed, but he is still in 

a—he’s still a Federal employee, but his responsibilities have been 

removed. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. This becomes more than just an isolated incident where somebody makes a mistake. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
18 

Ms. Kendall, you’ve been looking at this. Give us a perspective 

first, if you would, on the note that was written by Director Jarvis 

to the secretary, and then I want to ask you about Canaveral. 

Ms. KENDALL. I would say that the note was—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Sorry. Move the microphone up a little 

tighter there. 

Ms. KENDALL. Sure. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Just pull it up. There you go. 

Ms. KENDALL. I would say that the note was not accurate, and 

I agree with your characterization that it was deceptive. 

Your other question was? 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. How severe is the situation at Canaveral? 

How often do you have to go back and write three reports on the 

same topic? 

Ms. KENDALL. I would hope we would never have to write another report on any of those topics that—at that park again. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Has it been resolved? 

Ms. KENDALL. Not to my knowledge. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. My time has expired. 

Let me go to the ranking member, Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Kendall, you’ve identified, ‘‘evidence of a long-term pattern 

of sexual harassment and hostile work environment in the Grand 

Canyon River District.’’ 

In addition, you had issued a report, just a few days ago, finding 

that a law enforcement supervisor at the Canaveral National Seashore has, ‘‘shown a pattern of sexual harassment.’’ against three 

employees at the seashore. 

Do you believe that these are isolated incidents or are they indicative of more pervasive problems within the Park Service? 

Ms. KENDALL. I cannot take these two examples—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Can you talk a little louder, please? 

Ms. KENDALL. Certainly. I would not take these two examples 

and paint the entire Park Service with that same brush, but it does 

cause concern that there may be a more pervasive problem when 

you’ve got it at two different parks in this kind of level. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So what else is your office doing to try to answer 

this critical question? Because based on what you just said, it 

sounds like you have some questions yourself as to how pervasive 

it might be. And so what do you do to look beyond it? I assume 

that the IG would be interested in that. 

In other words, if you keep seeing these things come up, the 

chairman has mentioned various things and I’m just curious, what 

do you do? 

Ms. KENDALL. Well, by publishing our reports, we’re hoping that 

there is some deterrent effect to that. I do know that the Park 

Service is making some effort to make a determination as to how 

pervasive—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Are they moving fast enough? I guess that’s the 

question. There’s no reason why a woman should—any woman 

should be—or man should come to work—there are people watching us right now and—from the Park Service, and they want to 

know that these issues are being resolved, and I know that you do 

too. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
19 

And so it seems like there is—it seems like there’s a delay. And 

you used some words that were very interesting. You said they— 

they try to avoid discipline altogether, something like that. And 

that—what that says is that—it reminds me of an old-boy system, 

you know, where you say, okay, you know—or a wink, give you a 

wink and you can get away with it and we’ll transfer you and you 

keep doing the same level as the supervisor. I mean, can you help 

us with—the question is, are they moving fast enough? Because it’s 

not—it doesn’t give anybody any relief to know that this stuff just 

goes on. 

And Mr. Jarvis will tell us that he’s doing things, but to be very 

frank with you, I don’t think he’s moving fast enough. But I want 

your opinion on what can be done better. 

Ms. KENDALL. Quite frankly, I don’t know the status of what the 

Park Service has done or is doing right now. I agree with you that 

the people should, in any environment, be able to come to work free 

of sexual harassment and would hope that the Park Service is taking the kind of action, with the survey that they’re talking about, 

to understand the breadth of the problem and then to come up with 

some corrective action. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Jarvis, the same question. What steps is the 

Park Service taking to determine how pervasive sexual harassment 

is at its facilities? 

Mr. JARVIS. So let’s start with the Grand Canyon. There were 18 

specific actions that the inspector general recommended. They had 

due dates of mostly by the 1st of May. Almost every one of those 

have been implemented. There’s a second set that’s coming forward, but they’re—they range from personnel, to change in field 

operations, to training, to communication and, specifically, to disciplinary actions on individuals that were either committed or 

omitted activities related to the Canyon. So we are aggressively 

pursuing that at the Canyon. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Let’s rewind. Staff 

tells me that most of them have not been addressed. 

Mr. JARVIS. Well—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want—you know, the chairman has already 

made it clear that he has some concerns about you’re being able 

to tell the truth. So I want to remind you, you are under oath. And 

would you answer that question again? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, sir. So I have a summary of actions in response 

to the inspector general’s report as of May 23rd, 2016, that were 

prepared by our intermountain regional director. I cannot go into 

the details of the disciplinary actions in this forum, but I can tell 

you that they are all underway. 

We’ve launched—we’ve closed down the River District. All river 

trips are being done by a third-party provider—private river 

rafters—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Let me—I only have a limited amount of time. 

I want to help you answer my question, because I’m not trying to 

trip you up. 

Director, how many of these action items have been fully completed as of today? You said there were 22, right? 

Mr. JARVIS. 18. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. 18. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
20 

Mr. JARVIS. There were 18—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And how many, Director, have been completed as 

of today? 

Mr. JARVIS. I’d have to count up. Can I count? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yeah. 

Mr. JARVIS. Okay. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You probably would say on average seven. But 

go ahead. 

Mr. JARVIS. There are seven—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Very good. 

Mr. JARVIS. —of the 18 that are completed. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, you just said the majority of them were. 

Isn’t that what you said? Did I miss something? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, seven are completed. There’s one, two, three, 

four, five, six, seven that are actively underway but not finalized. 

Like the disciplinary actions take time to pursue, but they are actively underway. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you agree with that, Ms. Kendall? I know you 

don’t—you said you don’t know everything he’s doing, but just 

based on what he just said, do you agree that—with regard to the 

things that should have been done, that they—that they should 

take all of this time? I guess that’s what I’m getting at. 

Ms. KENDALL. Because I don’t know the details, sir, I can’t opine 

on that. I do know that disciplinary action does take time. I’m 

happy that the National Park Service is actually taking disciplinary action. And my recollection is we only had three or four specific recommendations. So I’m not completely familiar with the 17 

or 18 items that he’s talking about. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Jarvis, my time has run out, but I want you 

to go ahead and tell me what you have done, I think for the benefit 

of the entire committee. Because I’m going to tell you, I’m not sure 

that you need to be in this position, but go ahead. 

Mr. JARVIS. So, servicewide, I think the Grand Canyon is an indicator, as well as Cape Canaveral, that we may have a significant 

problem of sexual harassment in the Service in certain areas. I 

want to say it up front, the vast majority of the employees have 

a safe work environment. 

However, in discussions with the Department of Defense Office 

of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, we engaged their leadership with our leadership to talk about this for over 3 hours at 

our last national leadership council meeting. And General Nichols, 

who leads that office, indicated that if you have this level of pervasion in one place, it’s an indicator you may have it in other 

parts—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And when was that meeting? When was that 

meeting? 

Mr. JARVIS. It was in May. And so we have launched one team 

effort in my office specifically to focus on how we are going to address this servicewide. 

The second is one of the general’s recommendations was that we 

need to do a prevalence survey. That means to look entirely across 

the system anonymously to allow employees to report whether or 

not they have been or are currently being subjected to sexual harassment or a hostile work environment. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
21 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield to the chairman. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Just to quickly follow up on that, the superintendent at Canaveral, has been there since 2010, was named 

in the subject of a report to Director Jarvis in 2012. The report of 

the allegations of misconduct in the 2012 report included allegations of reprisal that were found by the Merit Systems Protection 

Board to be accurate. They had to enter into a settlement. 

What I think you’re telling Mr. Cummings is not a candid response to this problem. It was not some report that showed up on 

your desk in the last 2 weeks. This happened years ago. It was 

last—this is, again, a small group. And what you’re telling Mr. 

Cummings here is that the majority of this has been dealt with. 

But when it was brought to your attention, and there were reprisals for the whistleblowers, you didn’t deal with it. You did not deal 

with it. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I—well, just one last thing. 

You just said you had this meeting in May, but keep in mind 

that the inspector general report goes back to November 16, 2015. 

Why did it take so long? 

Mr. JARVIS. This was the first—this was the first meeting of our 

national leadership council where we get all the senior leaders of 

the National Park Service to specifically address this. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And there are very 

few people for whom I have higher respect than I do for Ranking 

Member Cummings. He has a very difficult task at times in usually 

trying to defend administration witnesses, but it does send a message to Director Jarvis and throughout the Park Service that Mr. 

Cummings did not defend Mr. Jarvis today and instead pointed out 

several different types of problems that have occurred in the Park 

Service. And I’m—I think that’s very significant. 

I spent 22 years, up until about 6 years ago, on the Interior Committee, and now I serve on this committee and another committee. 

But I heard years ago that there was a $4 billion backlog, maintenance backlog and then I heard it was $6 billion and then I heard 

it was $9 billion, and now I get a material here that says the maintenance backlog is 12 billion. 

I have great respect also for people—for education and people 

who get advanced degrees, but I think the Park Service needs to 

stop hiring so many Ph.D.s and master’s degrees and historians 

and archivists and environmental activists and so forth and start 

hiring more laborers to chip away at this maintenance backlog if 

it’s not being exaggerated. I think we have at the Park Service far 

too many chiefs and not nearly enough Indians. 

But I also have been disturbed over the years by seeing that almost all or at least a great many of Federal contracts are awarded 

to companies that hire former, high-ranking Federal employees. We 

see that in the Defense Department. They hire all the retired admirals and generals. This seems to be throughout the Federal Government. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
22 

But I was disturbed, for instance, when I read from the staff that 

the Interior Department’s Solicitor’s Office had concerns when the 

Denver office of the Park Service originally attempted to—it says, 

quote, originally attempted to steer the award to—of this big contract to a construction firm, McDonough Bolyard Peck, even though 

their prize was much higher than other qualified bidders. The Denver Service office then canceled the solicitation for the position and 

later hired the same construction company under a new solicitation 

created with the requirements that only that particular contractor 

could meet. 

Director Jarvis, do you have a system in place to question contracts when they’re not awarded to the—when they’re being awarded to the highest bidders instead of to the low bidders? Or do you 

have a system in place to question contracts that—or to prohibit 

contracts from being awarded to companies that hire former employees of the Park Service? 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you for that question, Congressman. We do 

have an audit program over our contracting officers, because they 

could lose their warrant for awarding contracts in some ways that 

you suggest. 

And we appreciate the audit and investigation by the inspector 

general that has revealed this case. This is new to us, and it is 

something we are going to pursue actively in terms of both discipline and corrective action in terms of ensuring this can’t— 

doesn’t happen again. 

Mr. DUNCAN. And on this book contract that you’ve been asked 

about, I understand that you said it was—that the proceeds were 

to be donated to charity. Can you tell us how much has been donated to charity at this point? 

Mr. JARVIS. I do not know that, how much has been donated. 

Mr. DUNCAN. The staff tells us that none has been donated to 

charity. 

Mr. JARVIS. The book sales—let me clarify. The book is sold by 

Eastern National, which is a cooperating association of the National Park Service, and it is required under its agreement to return to the National Park Service 12 to 17 percent of its annual 

profit. So that funding, whatever profit they get from the book, that 

can come back to the Park Service directly for projects through the 

system. Any addition to that can go to the National Park Foundation, but none of it comes to me. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Let me—my time’s up. Let me just mention one other thing. I represent about half the Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park. That park is being overrun by thousands, many thousands, of feral hogs, and I know that many people 

are antihunting or some in this administration are—don’t like 

hunting, but we’ve got very serious problems that are going to lead 

to very serious disease problems if more—if many more thousands 

of these feral hogs are not gotten out of the Great Smoky Mountains. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Cartwright, for 5 minutes. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
23 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for 

holding this hearing. 

Ms. Kendall, I have some questions for you. And I’m going to ask 

you to pull that microphone really close to your mouth. You’re a 

low talker, and we need to hear you. 

I’m going to ask you about your office’s investigation of the allegations arising from a February 2014 river trip that led to the discipline of two female Grand Canyon term employees, women who 

were accused of inappropriate dancing and the use of a novelty 

drinking straw. They received 14-day suspensions and their contracts for employment with the Park Service were not renewed 

after their terms expired. Both of them alleged retaliation. But 

your investigation concluded that, and I quote, ‘‘We found insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the allegation of retaliation,’’ 

unquote. 

Have I read that correctly? 

Ms. KENDALL. Yes, I believe you read it correctly. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Well, let’s go over some of the facts in your report. Is it true that one of the employees who complained about the 

two women was himself the subject of several prior complaints of 

sexual harassment? 

Ms. KENDALL. That’s correct. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Did your investigation find that former Grand 

Canyon Superintendent Uberuaga had any type of commonly 

known opinion about that person? 

Ms. KENDALL. I don’t know about opinion. I think he had some 

knowledge. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Okay. You want to share that with us? 

Ms. KENDALL. Pardon me? 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Would you share that with us? 

Ms. KENDALL. Well, he launched an investigation himself internally about the conduct that was complained about earlier, sexual 

harassment kind of conduct. And that report never seemed to make 

its way to anyone who could actually do something. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. All right. And your report also notes that the 

supervisor who conducted the internal investigation admitted that 

he did not feel responsible for determining whether the complaints 

against the two women employees were exaggerated or if the allegations against them were in retaliation for their sexual harassment claims. He felt it wasn’t part of his job, and this supervisor 

did not even interview all of the people who were on that February 

14 trip. But this supervisor’s investigation was used as the basis 

of disciplinary action against the two women. 

Ms. Kendall, your investigation found that several Grand Canyon 

employees and managers, including the superintendent, agreed 

that the internal investigation of the allegations against the two 

women employees were insufficient and incomplete. Am I correct 

on that? 

Ms. KENDALL. I believe that’s correct. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Did you find evidence that men who had been 

accused of sexual harassment received less severe disciplinary action than that recommended against these two women? 

Ms. KENDALL. I believe we did. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Would you say that louder? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
24 

Ms. KENDALL. I believe we did. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Ms. Kendall, it’s our understanding, from discussions with the Office of Personnel Management, that term employees have similar protections under the merit system as fulltime employees. Would it be unreasonable for somebody looking at 

the fact pattern here involving discipline against these women to 

conclude that these women did indeed suffer retaliation for their 

claims of harassment? 

Ms. KENDALL. Our office was unable to conclude that they did, 

but I think we were unable to go either way. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. All right. 

Well, Director Jarvis, I want to invite your attention to this matter. I understand that the two women filed EEO complaints against 

the Park Service. Are you aware of that? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, I am aware that they have filed. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. And what is the current status of those complaints that the women filed? 

Mr. JARVIS. I’m not aware of those two specific. There were actually seven filings from women associated with the Grand Canyon 

and this incident. I believe several of them have been settled, but 

I’m not aware of the details. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. My understanding is the National Park Service 

entered into settlement agreements with both of these women last 

week. Were you not aware of that, Director Jarvis? 

Mr. JARVIS. No. This is being managed out of our intermountain 

regional office by our regional director and so I’m not directly involved. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Okay. 

And, Ms. Kendall, were you aware of that settlement last week? 

Ms. KENDALL. I was not. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Well, I’m happy to help. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Would the gentleman yield? Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Yield to Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just one question. Wouldn’t you want to know 

that? I mean, you’ve got—I mean, a settlement, something that’s 

controversial as this? I’m just curious. What kind of management 

is that? 

Mr. JARVIS. I do want to know—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. But you don’t know it today? 

Mr. JARVIS. I don’t know the specifics. I do not—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you know there was a settlement? 

Mr. JARVIS. I knew the settlements were in negotiation, absolutely. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. But you didn’t know the settlement took place? 

Mr. JARVIS. I did not hear that the settlements had been settled, 

no. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks to the panel. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
25 

Director Jarvis, in December of 2011, you issued an NPS memo 

establishing a ban on plastic water bottle sales in the national 

parks. Is it true that most, if not all, of the parks that have implemented the plastic bottled water ban still sell other plastic packaged beverages, soda, enhanced water, juice, et cetera? Is that still 

the case? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, sir, they still do. 

Mr. WALBERG. Do you feel it is safe and healthy to ban the sale 

of bottled water? 

Mr. JARVIS. When the public are provided an ample opportunity 

to get that water from a variety of sources, which we’ve built in, 

that’s a requirement of the policy, they have to have filling stations 

throughout the park in order for them to refill reusable bottles. 

Mr. WALBERG. Can you say with absolute certainty that this ban 

on plastic water bottles has reduced garbage in the national parks? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, with certainty, absolutely. 

Mr. WALBERG. What analysis has been conducted? 

Mr. JARVIS. We collect data on our solid waste management. I 

don’t have that in front of me, but I’d be glad to get back to you 

specifically on the reduction of waste in the waste stream. 

Mr. WALBERG. Well, I’d like to see that on reduced waste. I’d like 

to see it on decreased disposal costs, information on that. I’d like 

to see it on increased recycling since implementation. Those are 

issues I’d like to see. Because, frankly, the question still remains, 

we get rid of the water in bottles and the sales of those water bottles, but we don’t get rid of the sale of pop in the same bottles, energy drinks in the same bottles, juices in the bottles as well. 

My concern is that—I mean, we know that we need water. I’ve 

hiked enough of the national parks all across this Nation to know 

that that’s important, and the fact of the costs of putting in water 

filling stations leaves me a concern that there are contractual 

issues that we ought to be concerned with as opposed to simply letting the sales take place to people who need the water. 

And, again, I’m not certain at this time that the necessary studies have been done to show that we’ve had an impact, other than 

stopping the sale of water bottles, water in water bottles, in the 

State parks for whatever reason—the national parks, whatever 

reason that may be. I think there certainly ought to be questions 

that are raised about that subsequent to the needs of our visitors 

as well as contracting issues. 

Let me go to another issue. An inspector general’s report found 

that Yellowstone’s chief ranger breached the terms of an occupancy 

agreement with NPS by failing to live full time, as agreed in the 

contract, full time in an apartment on Yellowstone’s grounds. 

Why is it important that the chief ranger of Yellowstone live in 

the park and not somewhere off the grounds? 

Mr. JARVIS. So in many of our national parks, we have what’s 

known as required occupancy. So a certain portion of park housing 

were constructed by the Federal Government and provided, though 

the employees pay rent, so that there can be quick response for 

emergency situations, fire, emergency medical, and the chief ranger 

leads that effort at Yellowstone. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
26 

Mr. WALBERG. So there’s a potential of a loss of security, safety 

to park visitors as well as staff without the head ranger living onsite? 

Mr. JARVIS. According to the superintendent, the chief ranger 

lived in a private quarters that still allowed him to have rapid response. It was right on the park boundary but outside the park. 

Mr. WALBERG. I understand that he—that he didn’t rent out, but 

he allowed outside visitors to live in that apartment instead of himself. Is that true? 

Mr. JARVIS. That is correct. 

Mr. WALBERG. Let me ask, what kind of discipline or reprimand 

did the ranger receive? 

Mr. JARVIS. He did receive specific discipline. Again, I can’t talk 

about individual discipline in a public forum, but I’d be glad to 

come to your office and talk to you specifically about it. But he was 

disciplined in this case. 

Mr. WALBERG. Is he still in the same place? 

Mr. JARVIS. He is not. He is a superintendent at Devils Tower, 

which was a demotion. 

Mr. WALBERG. Okay. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Director Jarvis, you are not inhibited in 

your ability to give an answer about specific discipline on a case 

that’s asked in this forum. So your holding back and not providing 

an answer to Mr. Walberg, there’s no encumbrance here. If we ask 

you a question, we need you to answer it. So if you know the answer to that question, I need you to answer it. 

Mr. JARVIS. Chairman, I’ve been told by my solicitors, and I 

would ask that they—that specific disciplinary actions are Privacy 

Act issues. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. We will follow up, for the record, with you 

on that to make sure, Mr. Walberg, that you get the answer to that 

question. 

We’ll now recognize Ms. Kelly of Illinois for 5 minutes. 

Ms. KELLY. Director Jarvis, first and foremost, I just want to say 

thank you for all of your help with Pullman. I really, really appreciate it. 

We’ve talked about 18 action items dealing with Grand Canyon. 

Why has the implementation of some of these action items been delayed? 

Mr. JARVIS. I don’t believe that any of these actions have been 

delayed. As—in the disciplinary aspect of taking specific discipline 

on employees, that is a slow process. There are laws established by 

the Congress that are specific to Federal employees. Title V, the 

Merit System Promotion Board, the Douglas Factors, all have to be 

applied in the disciplinary pieces, and so that’s why they have not 

yet been totally executed but are absolutely in process. But they all 

have to be reviewed at a variety of levels before we can actually 

take the disciplinary action. All the others, there are no delays in 

the other actions. 

Ms. KELLY. What about some of your self-imposed deadlines? 

Have you met those? 

Mr. JARVIS. I believe we have, yes. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
27 

Ms. KELLY. Okay. While all of these action items are important, 

several are particularly critical to ensure that the perpetrators of 

sexual harassment are not able to harass anyone else at the national parks. One action item states, and I quote, The OIG report 

highlights that the majority of the incidents described by the complainants involve four employees of the River District at Grand 

Canyon. One of those four individuals remains an employee. In 

light of the OIG report, it is appropriate to take appropriate disciplinary or personnel action to remove this individual from specific 

work environment of the River District. What is the status of the 

fourth individual? 

Mr. JARVIS. The fourth individual still is an employee of the National Park Service at the Grand Canyon but has no involvement 

whatsoever with the River District operations and is in no position 

to continue any harassment. He is just being held in a position 

with his rights as a Federal employee and will be subject to discipline. 

Ms. KELLY. So that’s why he’s still there, because you’re just following a process? 

Mr. JARVIS. But he’s been removed from any role that he might 

play on the Canyon. 

Ms. KELLY. And besides being removed, has any disciplinary action been taken yet? 

Mr. JARVIS. I’m sorry. Could you say that again? 

Ms. KELLY. I know he was removed and put into another position, but has any disciplinary action been taken yet? 

Mr. JARVIS. Not yet. No, we’re still working on that. 

Ms. KELLY. Okay. Director Jarvis, another action item involved 

contracting out for, ‘‘logistical support of nonpatrol river trips involving park staff.’’ Has this item been completed? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes. So the regional director for the Intermountain 

Region has taken very specific actions at the park, one of which 

was essentially elimination of the River District, and commercial 

river rafters are now providing the river access for the kind of activities that the rangers were doing before. 

Ms. KELLY. So how will contracting out the staff of river trips ensure that this won’t happen again? 

Mr. JARVIS. We are meeting and providing training to those commercial operators who’ve been providing services on the river. They 

are all under contract with the National Park Service to provide 

these services and we can hold them accountable through those 

contracts. 

Ms. KELLY. And how can we be ensured that the employees that 

did perpetrate this not be hired again? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, I can assure you, they will not be hired again. 

This will be retained as a part of their record and the disciplinary 

actions will become part of their official files. 

Ms. KELLY. Even if they come through contractors you can ensure that? 

Mr. JARVIS. There actually has been discussion about that specifically, so we’re talking specifically to the contractors that they 

cannot hire these individuals. 

Ms. KELLY. Okay. The inspector general also found that the 

Grand Canyon engaged an individual as a volunteer who had preVerDate Sep 11 2014 11:40 Jan 09, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\22193.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
28 

viously worked at the park and resigned after being suspended for 

sexual misconduct on a river trip. What are you doing to ensure 

that boatmen who engage in harassment who have left the Park 

Service employment cannot be rehired by or volunteer in any national park? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, again, I think it’s up—to float the river requires a permit from the National Park Service for any—whether 

they are volunteer, they’re a contractor, other Federal agency. I 

think now that we are very, very aware of that the river trip creates the potential for this kind of harassment, we are actively engaged in training, oversight, regular communications, and post-trip 

evaluations so that folks that are coming off of these trips are 

interviewed within 7 days to determine whether or not there were 

any issues. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you. 

And I’m out of time. I yield back. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentlelady. 

I will now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mica, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Director Jarvis, you have 22,000 employees. Is that correct? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA. And I’m told you have over 400 sites that you manage, 

entrust for the American people. I don’t have a national park in my 

district anymore. I did have St. Augustine. I have to tell the members and Mr. Jarvis that we have—well, at least my experience has 

been we have some incredibly dedicated, hardworking individuals 

with the Park Service who day in and day out and weekends, sometimes 24/7, do a wonderful job. And we appreciate their service, 

and they’re doing it sometimes with limited resources and with a 

great crew of volunteers too. 

So we have a list that’s a pretty tough indictment of people who 

abused their responsibility, and I think you started to tell some of 

the problem. And I’ve sat through—today we have the National 

Park Service. We’ve had EPA. We had IRS. We’ve had Secret Service. We’ve had GSA. The list goes on and on. And we hear the same 

thing. You just said that you have a process that you must go 

through for discipline. It’s almost impossible to fire a Federal employee. I don’t know if you would agree with that, but it’s very, 

very difficult, isn’t it, Director Jarvis? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, sir, I would agree with that very much so. I’ve 

done it a few times in my 40 years. 

Mr. MICA. But it’s very, very difficult. 

Mr. JARVIS. It’s very difficult. 

Mr. MICA. I chaired civil service for 4 years. I found it almost impossible, and that’s part of the problem we face. Civil service was 

set up as a protection against political manipulation or misuse of 

authority over legitimate working civil servants. And it’s gone far 

beyond that in providing cover for people who don’t do a good job 

and it puts barriers in the way. 

You could probably go through these cases and cite all of the 

compliance that you had to do, the due diligence required by Title 

5, by other regulations, by other laws that constrain you from taking immediate action. Is that correct? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
29 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Mr. MICA. Okay. It’s hard sometimes. We can’t get agency directors to come forward, but do you have any suggestions for anything 

that might speed up or improve the process to get rid of these poor 

performance or malfeasance employees? 

Mr. JARVIS. Specifically, no. But I would certainly appreciate the 

willingness of the committee to work with us on some reform in 

this area, because I do think it is a significant problem for us to 

be able to deal effectively. If we do not follow the rules throughout 

the process, there’s a high likelihood that the individual can be reinstated. 

Mr. MICA. But again, we hear this. You’re not the only agency 

with these personnel problems. 

Ms. Kendall, okay, you have management—do you see a lack of 

management or do you see a similar pattern that we described or 

both with what you have observed with some of these cases? 

Ms. KENDALL. I would say both, sir. I perhaps disagree somewhat with you in terms of—— 

Mr. MICA. Go ahead. 

Ms. KENDALL. —difficulty by which to remove employees. I think 

the failure comes in the unwillingness to take progressive discipline and document. 

Mr. MICA. I like that, ‘‘progressive discipline.’’ Maybe I could— 

I’ll have a new liberal approach to getting rid of people who are 

poor performers. I actually gave a certificate in Transportation. I 

called for the firing of Metro incompetent personnel and then the 

new director came to the second meeting, he fired 20 people the 

day before. I presented him with a certificate of appreciation because I never hear of anybody firing poor performers. He did it. 

But you say it’s a lack of progressive—— 

Ms. KENDALL. Progressive discipline and documentation. 

Mr. MICA. Okay. Maybe I could do a bill—act for progressive discipline and documentation. But you think that could be something 

that we could do to get a better handle on this? 

Ms. KENDALL. I think it’s something that good managers do do, 

if they’ve got both problem employees—— 

Mr. MICA. Maybe an executive order to that effect might help. 

Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman. 

I now recognize the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, Ms. 

Plaskett, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning everyone. 

Thank you, first, Director Jarvis, for the work that the Park is 

doing. I had a meeting with you and some other members about 

the reports and books that you’ve been putting out regarding reconstruction, the underground railroad, and for the work that you 

have for opening the parks to young people, the fourth-grade initiative. That’s very important, I think, in the communities that the 

Park is enlisted to be around. 

One of the concerns that I have and I think that is an underlying 

issue with the Park is not just the misconduct of its employees, but 

the misconduct from the employee’s perspective is really related to 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
30 

a disregard, I think, for individuals that are not in senior management potentially or not even necessarily part of the Park Service 

itself. In the Virgin Islands, as you know, the Park plays an integral role in our community. It takes up large masses of land, particularly on the island of St. John, the entire Buck Island, the waterways surrounding the Virgin Islands abut—or are incorporated 

by the National Park Service. And so the relationship that we have 

with the Park is very, very important. 

And one of the things that I hear continually from my constituents is a pervasive disregard and notable disconnect between the 

Park and its local employees, as well as the local government, and 

in fact, the people of the Virgin Islands. And I wanted to talk with 

you about that. I’ve had some very substantive conversations with 

the regional director, Stan Austin. I think that he’s making 

headways in some of this regard, but I can’t miss an opportunity 

with you being here to address some of these and maybe you can 

speak as well to this. 

First of all, you know, the National Park receives funding for 

Youth Conservation Corps, YCC, which is a source of income for 

the children in those communities, it is an opportunity for young 

people to learn about the park, and potentially train them to be excited about careers that involve the National Park. And this would 

then create a relationship between the park and its local people. 

And another reason why this is so important is because of the enabling legislation here in Congress that created the Virgin Islands 

National Parks. 

And one of the main components of that that I continually hear 

from my constituents is language that says that the secretary, 

meaning Secretary of the Interior, is authorized and directed to the 

maximum extent feasible, to employ and train residents of the Virgin Islands to develop, maintain, and administer the Virgin Islands 

National Parks. 

I don’t know if you’re aware of this particular piece of language. 

Are you aware of it, Director Jarvis? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, but not in any—not how it’s been implemented, 

but I am aware of it. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And reading that particular language, how do 

you, to the extent feasible, employ individuals and direct them to 

develop, maintain, and administer the Virgin IslandsNational Park 

if individuals that are from the Virgin Islands who are not part of 

the closed National Park system can’t apply for employment within 

the national parks? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, fortunately, Congress has given us a couple of 

new hiring authorities most recently that give us a much greater 

ability to do direct hire at the local level and to permanent employment. For a long time, it has been very difficult for local hires to 

sort of break into Federal service. But recently, Office of Personnel 

Management, the Public Land Corps legislation has allowed us 

that young people working as seasonals for the National Park Service, which is a fairly easy bar to get in because we hire about 8,000 

seasonals a year, or if you serve in a Youth Conservation Corps position like a Public Land Corps you can attain essentially career 

status, noncompetitive status. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
31 

Ms. PLASKETT. So that’s an interesting point that you raise about 

the Youth Conservation Corps, because the Virgin Islands has used 

that in the past. And on the island of St. Croix it’s an active engagement. But on St. John where the relationship with the Park 

is much more intrinsic and much more involved, there has not been 

an active Youth Conservation Corps. Although they have received 

the funding for it for a number of years, they have stopped, in fact, 

utilizing this for the local kids that are there on the island of St. 

John. What’s the reason for that? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, I think it’s a mistake. And I have talked to Regional Director Austin specifically about it. And you know, Congresswoman, it’s an issue in San Juan, Puerto Rico. It’s an issue, 

as you’ve mentioned, in the Virgin Islands. It’s an issue in Alaska 

with native Alaskans, and it’s also an issue in the West in working 

with young people. So I—— 

Ms. PLASKETT. You know, I—excuse me, if you would allow my 

indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I don’t care that it’s a mistake. It’s a 

mistake that has had very severe consequences to the people of St. 

John. 

On the island of St. Croix you’re employing 18 to 20, sometimes 

more students a year. On St. John you have hired no one for a 

number of years on the island of St. John where this park is very 

important. That then affects the individuals who are at the park. 

The superintendent on St. John as well has had changes made to 

the National Park in terms of access to land, construction plans, 

closure of fishing boundaries without community input and proper 

notification of the people of St. John, or the local government as 

well. 

Is this a mistake as well? And why are the people of the Virgin 

Islands being subjected to these continued mistakes by the park? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, it is something that we are addressing very 

specifically. And I apologize to you for that. It is not our intent to 

disregard in any way, shape, or form the people of St. John or any 

of the islands. We think that they know the islands better than we 

do. They know the resources. They know the history. They’ve lived 

it, and we need them to be a part of the National Park Service and 

this is something that we are addressing aggressively through the 

Southeast region. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chairman, just so you’re aware, and I would 

love to hold the record open. When I talked about lack of access to 

private properties, since 1989, with Hurricane Hugo, from 1989 individuals living on the island of St. John have not had access to 

their own private property because that access is landlocked by the 

National Parks. And repeated requests by our local legislature, our 

government, and individuals have not afforded them the ability to 

even visit the land that they live on because they have not, the 

parks, the management of the park, the superintendent, have not 

thought it’s a priority to allow them to have public access to that. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. You have a great deal of sympathy from 

me, and we have similar issues out West. And I thank the gentlewoman for her passion and perspective on this. 

We’ll now recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. GOSAR. Thank you, Chairman. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
32 

Director Jarvis, my State of Arizona is no stranger to national 

parks. In fact, we’re talking about one today. We’re the home of 22 

National Park units, including monuments, historical sites, parks, 

and more. As a result of the outsized impact national parks and 

monuments have on the land management, economy, and everyday 

lives of my constituents in Arizona, the seemingly careless nature 

of the National Park Service management of the deferred maintenance backlog really troubles me. 

It is reported that the growing tally of backlog infrastructure 

needs within the Park Service, such as roads, bridges, visitor centers, and campgrounds, which need significant maintenance or repair has reached nearly $11.5 billion. Is that number correct? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Mr. GOSAR. So one of the most significant projects in that backlog is the Arlington Memorial Bridge, just a few steps away from 

the National Park Service headquarters right here in Washington, 

D.C. That bridge is in need of a $250 million overhaul. Is that correct? 

Mr. JARVIS. That’s correct. 

Mr. GOSAR. Yet the National Park Service officials who knew 

how dire the bridge situation was dropped the ball and nearly lost 

out on significant Department of Transportation funding assistance 

because it couldn’t get their application paperwork on time. That’s 

flat embarrassing. Now, the National Park Service can’t even manage what it has in its own front yard in Washington, D.C., yet it 

expects the American people to trust that it can manage hundreds 

of millions of acres spread across the furthest and farflung reaches 

of the American continent. 

On top of this $11.5 billion heap of mismanagement and neglect, 

the administration continues to pile on millions of more acres of 

lands to the problem through the National Monument Declarations 

using the Antiquities Act. 

Certain special interest groups have been pushing for the President to circumvent Congress and to move 1.7 million acres in 

Northern Arizona out of successful management agreements by 

other Federal, State and private entities and into the Park Service’s service as the Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument. 

Their intentions are clear. They want this designation in order to 

prevent hunting, mining, timber harvesting, and grazing on this 

massive swath of land, even if it means heaping more acres onto 

the queue of mismanaged projects within the National Park Service. 

Now, Director Jarvis, do you think it is wise to be adding millions of additional acres to the Park Service’s already burdened 

management structure when such lands are currently successfully 

overseen by other State and Federal agencies? 

Mr. JARVIS. I think that the Park Service in its history has always grown both by act of Congress and by the act of the President. I am a fiscal conservative and I do not like taking on new 

responsibilities to the National Park Service that impact our financial house. 

Mr. GOSAR. Well, then, let’s get specific then. So is the administration currently working on designating a new national monument 

in Arizona? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
33 

Mr. JARVIS. That is a power of the White House. That is not part 

of my responsibility. 

Mr. GOSAR. Well, let’s get down to the dirties here. So let’s be 

more specific. Have you been approached in regards to the Grand 

Canyon Watershed National Monument by the administration? 

Mr. JARVIS. Not by the administration. Advocates have approached me on it, yes. 

Mr. GOSAR. Okay. Any other areas in Arizona? 

Mr. JARVIS. No, not that I remember. 

Mr. GOSAR. Okay. Let me be more specific. How about the 

Sonoran and Southeast and Western Arizona? 

Mr. JARVIS. No. 

Mr. GOSAR. How about Sedona? 

Mr. JARVIS. No. 

Mr. GOSAR. Okay. 

Mr. JARVIS. No, sir. 

Mr. GOSAR. My office currently has a FOIA request at the Department of Interior regarding this proposal and the coordination 

between land agencies and environmental groups. Will that request 

collaborate the information you shared here today? 

Mr. JARVIS. It will for the National Park Service. I cannot speak 

for the rest of the department. 

Mr. GOSAR. Okay. Director Jarvis, you and your agency mismanaged funding opportunities already right in front of you. You 

can’t even maintain the infrastructure in your own backyard. The 

Arlington Memorial Bridge is only 2,000 feet long and it’s falling 

apart. You should not be handed over millions of more acres via 

the Antiquities Act just to lock up in your agency’s abysmal management. You may think that the National Park has the capacity 

to control even more public land, but I have a list of 11.5 billion 

reasons why you are wrong. 

Now, you said you were a conservative in that regards. You 

know, going back to the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, doesn’t 

your appropriation process, doesn’t it show a lack of leadership by 

making sure that the proper processes are appropriated and funded? 

Mr. JARVIS. No, sir. We make a request every year for appropriations to meet our needs and we get about half of what’s—— 

Mr. GOSAR. Oh, no, no, no. Let’s go back. I mean, the gentlelady 

actually said the money actually went to those areas and they go 

to the West. Why aren’t they being appropriated to the proper protocols and having the proper oversight? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, I’m not aware specifically. We’re talking about 

YCC money versus maintenance backlog funding? Sir, we have an 

$11 billion backlog in maintenance because we only get about half 

annually what we need to keep up. 

Mr. GOSAR. And you tell me that there’s no inadequacies within 

your process of oversight in adjudication of those moneys? 

Mr. JARVIS. We are putting every dollar we have as a priority 

into our maintenance backlog, including our roads and bridges, 

through the Federal transportation bill, but we did not receive adequate funding in the Federal transportation bill to address the 

backlogs of even one bridge, the Arlington Bridge. 

Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
34 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman. 

I will now recognize the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton, for 5 minutes. 

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

hearing. 

I do want to say, especially considering that I’m a former chair 

of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it distresses 

me to hear that the Park Service has what appears to be a systemic problem of sexual harassment. It does seem to me it calls for 

action at the highest level, not simply to process complaints and 

make sure they are handled fairly. And I hope you will take that 

as your mission. 

It’s interesting that my colleague asks about the Arlington national bridge—I was certainly going to ask you about that—and 

then chastises you for not funding. I mean, how can Congress really do this? The Park Service—the bridge, the Arlington Memorial 

Bridge, that is used to go to Arlington Cemetery. It is also the gateway from the south. That bridge alone needs to be rebuilt. The cost 

will be $250 million. Everybody in this region is trying to get that 

money, $250 million, and yet the Park Service has appropriated by 

this Congress in the FAST act, the last bill, $268 million for 4,500 

miles of unpaved roads, 1,400 bridges, and I haven’t exhausted the 

list. 

It is time that Congress stopped beating up on agencies when the Congress itself is at the root of the problem. You put $268 million 

in for the entire country and then you beat the Park Service about 

the head and shoulders for not keeping the Memorial Bridge up. 

My goodness, it takes a lot of nerve not to look at ourselves and 

see where the problem also is. The Arlington Memorial Bridge is 

not a case of mismanagement. It’s a case of no funds to rebuild it. 

Now, Mr. Jarvis, the Federal Highway Administration says it’s 

going to close this bridge that leads to the Arlington Cemetery 

within 5 years if it’s not rebuilt. Do you think it will last 5 years? 

It gives you 5 years to rebuild the bridge. You’ve already shut down 

some traffic on the bridge. How much longer does this bridge—is 

it one of the older of the busiest bridges in your inventory? 

Mr. JARVIS. We have a lot of old bridges throughout our inventory, but this is the most expensive and most complicated and highest-use bridge in the National Park System, so it is our number one 

priority. It was our number one priority in the reauthorization to 

the transportation bill in terms of request for funds for these kinds 

of high-profile projects that are in serious condition. 

Based on the Federal Highway Administration’s engineering assessment, which was being done regularly, that the bridge is subject to imminent closure in 2021, but we did do some emergency 

stabilization on it with Federal Highway so it will last until 2021. 

Ms. NORTON. Director Jarvis, with a lot of work with the Senators from this region, we were able to get an application in. Will 

that fully fund the bridge, and if not, where will the money come 

from? 

Mr. JARVIS. So we are—thank you, it was the District of Columbia that cosigned our application. That was a requirement and that 

was really what all of the effort was, was to get either the Commonwealth of Virginia or the District of Columbia to cosign—— 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
35 

Ms. NORTON. And mind you, this is a Virginia bridge, but go 

ahead. 

Mr. JARVIS. I’ll let you debate that with the Virginia Congressman. 

Ms. NORTON. And Senator Warner was very helpful. 

Mr. JARVIS. And you’re all very helpful. And ultimately, we did 

get an application in and we are currently discussing with the Federal Highway Administration a schedule for repair to this bridge 

that we’ll—— 

Ms. NORTON. Where will the rest—how much funds—there’s an 

application in to the Park Service. What will that fund and will 

that take care of it; and if not, where will the rest come from? 

Mr. JARVIS. I do not know how much the Federal Highway is 

willing to put up for this bridge. There are various scenarios based 

on how much they can put up annually. There’s a lot of applications out there for this money all across the country with a lot of 

bridges. As you know, the infrastructure in our Nation has a lot 

of challenges. So there’s a lot of competition, but I do think we 

have a very strong commitment from the Federal Highway Administration to work with us to come up with a schedule that will repair the bridge and minimize the impact of traffic. But I don’t have 

the hard numbers yet. They haven’t made the decision. 

Ms. NORTON. I wish you would get this committee, please, Mr. 

Jarvis, the latest numbers on the funds, where they will come 

from, and whether there will be any shortfall. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think it’s clear that the National Park Service, certainly under 

the direction and action of Director Jarvis, is desperately in need 

of some oversight. Being a member of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, we actually had a 

hearing last month on this very subject. And I want to thank Ms. 

Kendall for being a part of that and for being back here today. 

Director Jarvis, in your testimony you stated that you were held 

accountable for the book deal where you wrote it without approval 

from the Ethics Office. And your punishment is, as I understand 

it, monthly ethics training for the remainder of your duration. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, sir, that’s one component. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. I think that’s—personally, I don’t think that 

goes far enough, but that’s not going to be the point of my questions here. You stated that you have been held accountable for the 

book debacle. But we also have seen, in the hearing today, other 

problems throughout the National Park Service in Yellowstone, in 

the Canaveral Seashore, in Grand Canyon River District, sexual 

harassment and other issues. And these individuals were allowed 

to retire or they were transferred. 

You stated the need for people to be held accountable for their 

actions. Do you believe that these people have been held accountable for their actions? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
36 

Mr. JARVIS. I believe we are following the regulations related to 

Federal employees and we are applying appropriate discipline. If 

they are eligible to retire, then they can do that at their—— 

Mr. HICE. So you think it’s appropriate discipline? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, sir, I do. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. Ms. Kendall, let me ask you, do you believe it’s 

appropriate discipline? 

Ms. KENDALL. It’s hard to say whether it’s appropriate. I think 

it’s more the appearance. I would use as an example, the chief 

ranger who was then demoted, as I understand it, in terms of 

grade, but took the position of superintendent, which by appearances anyway, seems to look like it was more promotion than demotion. 

Mr. HICE. All right. Yeah, I mean, we’ve got people who, I mean, 

egregious behavior, sexual harassment, for example. Would you say 

that this is a pattern in the National Park Service? 

Ms. KENDALL. I don’t have the data to say it’s a pattern, but it’s 

certainly a concern. 

Mr. HICE. Back to you, Mr. Jarvis. When we hear that employees 

who engage in misconduct or mismanagement are not held accountable, and that is precisely what we hear, when we hear that, it 

sounds like leadership actually condones misbehavior at the Park 

Services. How do you think this affects morale? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, actually, I think the fact that I am being disciplined sends a message that no one is exempt in this agency. And 

I think that employees are being disciplined. Appropriate action, in 

accordance with the rules and regulations that govern Federal employees, are being applied appropriately throughout the system. 

Mr. HICE. Discipline and punishment is one thing. Hand slapping is another. I would hardly call what’s taking place as discipline. 

Ms. Kendall, back to you. In recent cases of misconduct that 

you’ve investigated, how many people have been fired? 

Ms. KENDALL. I’m not aware of—I’m not aware of any that have 

been fired, sir. 

Mr. HICE. All right. So they are retired, perhaps, but not fired? 

Ms. KENDALL. Perhaps. 

Mr. HICE. Perhaps. But you’re not aware of any who have been 

fired. 

Director Jarvis, do you find this disturbing? 

Mr. JARVIS. I find that it’s—it is the system in which we live. Firing a Federal employee is very, very difficult. 

Mr. HICE. That’s not my question. That’s not my question. Is it 

disturbing that people who are engaged in this type of misbehavior, 

is it disturbing to you that they’re not being fired? 

Mr. JARVIS. Their behavior is extraordinarily disturbing to me, 

but I am a Federal employee. And I understand the rules and regulations that apply to them and, frankly, I don’t have the power, in 

most cases, to fire these employees. 

Mr. HICE. All right. You still didn’t answer my question. It’s disturbing to us, too, the behavior, but it’s also disturbing that they’re 

not being fired. 

Real quickly, is there—Ms. Kendall, are you aware of NPS employees who are afraid to report misconduct? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
37 

Ms. KENDALL. I’m not specifically aware of precise NPS employees that are afraid of reporting misconduct, but I do believe that 

across the Park Service and throughout the department there is 

some fear by employees to report misconduct. 

Mr. HICE. Why would people be fearful, Director Jarvis? And I’ll 

close with this. 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, I think that it’s—I don’t believe it’s fear. I believe that they don’t think action will be taken. And I think that 

what you’re seeing today with these reports—and I appreciate the 

reports from the Office of Inspector General—and the actions that 

we’re going to take and are taking, we are going to see more reporting. Actually, I think we’re going to get more people to be willing to step up because they’re seeing management actually taking 

action. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Will the gentleman yield before he yields 

back with the indulgence here? 

Mr. HICE. I’d be happy to yield. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Mr. Uberuaga, what happened to him? Did 

you discipline him? 

Mr. JARVIS. Mr. Uberuaga was going to be subject to discipline. 

We were preparing a disciplinary action for Mr. Uberuaga for his 

omission of action based on the reporting in 2013. In consultation 

with the regional director for the Intermountain Region, who is his 

line supervisor, and the deputy director for operations here in 

Washington, who’s the line supervisor for the Intermountain Region, the three of us unanimously agreed the Grand Canyon needed 

new leadership immediately, that Mr. Uberuaga was incapable. 

Even though he has performed well on other issues, he was incapable of leading the change we needed in the Grand Canyon. 

So as a senior executive, he is subject to being transferred, and 

I told him I was transferring him out of the Grand Canyon immediately and he chose to retire. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. So you did offer him a position, another position? 

Mr. JARVIS. I did. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Okay. The gentleman yields back. I will 

now recognize the gentlewoman from New Jersey, Mrs. Watson 

Coleman, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really don’t 

know where to begin here because the picture that seems to be 

painted from the discussion and from the questions and answers is 

that this is a dysfunctional organization with very little accountability and not very good leadership. 

I want to ask you a couple of questions regarding the Park Service as an employer. What percentage of women and minorities do 

you have employed in the Park Service? You have 22,000 employees, I think you said? What percentage of them are minorities and 

what percentage of them are women? 

Mr. JARVIS. I don’t have that data in front of me. I’d be glad to 

get it to you. I would say in terms of women—I’m just roughing it 

here, I don’t know specifically off the top of my head—but we’re 

probably 55 percent male, 45 women. And I think in terms of representative minorities, we are significantly low. We do not repVerDate Sep 11 2014 11:40 Jan 09, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\22193.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
38 

resent the demographic of the Nation. And I will be glad to get you 

the hard statistics, though. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. So you’re the director. Is that your title? 

What is your title exactly? 

Mr. JARVIS. Director. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Director. And under you are there a series of deputy directors or assistant directors? 

Mr. JARVIS. There are two deputies. Both of them are women. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. And under them? 

Mr. JARVIS. There are seven regional directors that serve in the 

field and that—and then we have associate directors here in Washington for specific programs. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Are you familiar with the requirements 

of EEOC in terms of the development of a plan and the responsibility and accountability for the implementation of that plan? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, ma’am. I am very familiar with both the recommendations of EEOC in terms of a model program and how to 

implement it. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Who in your organization is responsible 

for that? 

Mr. JARVIS. Our associate director of human resources. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. And to whom does that person report. 

Mr. JARVIS. To the deputy director for operations. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. So is that in violation of the guidance 

from EEOC? Is that not supposed to be a function that reports directly to the director? 

Mr. JARVIS. The EEOC model program definitely recommends 

that the EEO office report directly to the director. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. And so why is that not the case with 

you? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, when I came on in 2009, it was actually buried 

three levels below that. We moved it up to directly report. But I 

agree with you, that I think that it should be moved to report directly to the director of the National Park Service. And that’s an 

action we’re going to take. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. What kind of training and management 

development do your—does your staff generally and routinely get? 

How do they get informed about the laws? How do they get informed about creating culture that would discourage sexual harassment or any other kind of discrimination? What is it that’s done 

proactively, routinely, and sustainably that would help to create a 

better climate there? 

Mr. JARVIS. So when I came on in 2009, I actually created the 

first program for relevancy, diversity, and inclusion in the history 

of the National Park Service. I specifically gathered individuals 

through the organization that represent the diversity of our Nation, 

creating the Allies for Inclusion. And they have been working directly with the leadership of the National Park Service to help us 

create an inclusive workforce, one that reflects the diversity of the 

Nation and has a work environment that is supportive of diversity, 

that being ethnic diversity, sexual orientation, women, young people, you know, the whole range. And so we use that information 

both to communicate. I’ve done a number of Web chats, specific videos out to the field on EEO, on inclusion, and diversity as well. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
39 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you. Director Jarvis, the information that I have is that the EEOC function or functionary still reports three levels below you. So when did you actually—did you 

change that reporting level and when? 

Mr. JARVIS. I moved it up. No, it does move—it has been moved 

up. But I agree with you, and this is an issue that I’ve discussed 

with our HR, that I believe that in order to really meet the standards expected of us in EEOC, and particularly in light of these new 

issues that have come out, that clearly there is the potential for 

sexual harassment to occur in other pockets in the National Park 

Service. I think EEOC—or the EEO office needs to report directly 

to me, and to meet the standards which are regular reporting to 

me and to the leadership, having advocates that represent the diversity of the Nation, and a regular understanding at the senior 

leadership about these issues. So I think there’s change afoot. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. All right. May I just bring something? 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Sure, go ahead. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. The report that was submitted for 2015 

indicates that the—each region has an EEO manager that reports 

to a regional director and that the EEO director is under the thirdlevel reporting structure. So I think that maybe there’s a lack of 

communication within your organization as to who reports where, 

which is sort of a red flag that we have some serious problems with 

accountability and responsibility there. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentlewoman. 

I will now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hurd, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. HURD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The national parks are awesome. I have the pleasure of representing seven. I get to represent Big Bend National Park, which 

is headed by an amazing superintendent and she really is a treasure for the Federal Government. You all have a hard task to make 

sure that these jewels of our Nation are around for future generations and that future generations continue to interact with them in 

the ways that past generations have. 

It’s been a real pleasure, over the last 17 months that I’ve been 

in Congress, when I crisscross the district and talk, you know, 

throughout the country about encouraging Americans to find their 

park or his or her park. This is an important resource for our country. It’s unfortunate that we’re here today talking about sexual harassment, poor culture of management. And my question, my first 

question to you, Director Jarvis, is—and it’s to piggyback on what 

my friend and colleague from New Jersey has been talking about. 

What steps are being taken to ensure there’s zero tolerance for sexual harassment within the National Park Service? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, clearly, zero tolerance was not the standard at 

the Grand Canyon or at Cape Canaveral—Canaveral National Seashore, and that’s just unacceptable. We at the senior leadership, a 

discussion that I led in May, and this is the regional directors, the 

associate directors, and the senior superintendents of the organization, had a very open and emotional discussion about zero tolerance 

and why this agency has tolerated it. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
40 

Mr. HURD. So what are you doing? What are you doing right 

now? What steps, what concrete steps have been taken to ensure 

this culture changes? 

Mr. JARVIS. So the first thing that we feel, as recommended by 

the Department of Defense, is a prevalent survey. And that is to 

get baseline understanding of whether or not or how much harassment is occurring in the workplace in the Service. So getting that 

survey done. We’ve committed to doing that by a third party as 

soon as possible. I can’t give you a specific date because we have 

to go through a contracting process to get there. But that’s the first 

step to—we have reinforced a message to the field on zero tolerance 

and I think we’re making very public the actions we’re taking at 

the Grand Canyon, in particular about disciplinary actions and expectations of behavior to meet the zero tolerance policy. 

Mr. HURD. So, Director Jarvis, in your opinion—I know you’re 

getting ready to do a survey—in your opinion, what allowed this 

kind of culture to seep in in these two parks that we’ve been talking about today? 

Mr. JARVIS. I think one was the conditions of the particular activity create an environment that vulnerable individuals can be 

preyed upon, so this is an area that the Department of Defense has 

made some—within Defense, they have sort of a special unit. In the 

Park Service, we have what we would call special units: River Districts, fire crews, trail crews. These are places where individuals 

are thrown together in a tough environment and the potential is 

there. 

So this is an area we’re focusing on particularly right now. And 

we’ve made management aware across the system that these are 

areas that you need special attention. We have to create an ombudsman, an individual that—individuals that are subject to this 

harassment can call safely. I mean, if it’s your supervisor that is 

harassing you, that’s a bad reporting chain if you have to report 

this to the person that’s actually harassing you. 

So we’ve created the opportunity for, outside of that, to be able 

to report this issue so that we can get to—and if we find it, we’re 

reporting it to the IG and saying, we need to go in and investigate. 

Mr. HURD. Well, you mentioned the fire crews. I also represent 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park. I know that’s a place where 

you served with over, at one point, over 14,000 acres on fire. And 

what those fire crews are doing is heroic work. 

And, Ms. Kendall, my last 30 seconds to you, what types of steps 

should be taken by the National Park Service to address the poor 

culture of management and the lack of accountability and leadership? 

Ms. KENDALL. Well, I think holding individuals accountable for 

misconduct. Mr. Jarvis is correct in that you cannot always make 

public how discipline is imposed, but doing that, doing it regularly—I mentioned progressive discipline, documentation. It’s something that can be done and if it’s done properly, it’s very effective. 

Mr. HURD. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman. 

I will now go to the gentlewoman from Michigan, Mrs. Lawrence, 

for 5 minutes. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
41 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Cummings. The deputy—this question is to you, Director Jarvis. The Deputy Secretary of the Interior reviewed the IG’s finding 

and issued a memo concluding, and I quote, ‘‘The Department has 

reviewed the report of investigation carefully and come to the conclusion that Director Jarvis did violate Federal employee ethics 

standards.’’ 

Do you agree with that statement? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, ma’am, I do. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. When asked by the inspector general, ‘‘if,’’ looking back, you, ‘‘would have done—would you have done anything 

differently?’’ You replied, ‘‘Would I have done the same thing? 

Probably. I think I knew going in that there was a certain amount 

of risk.’’ 

Why would you say that? That makes it look like you didn’t care 

about the ethic rules. 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, let me apologize for that. I was absolutely 

wrong in that statement. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. On May 27, you sent an email to all Park Service employees that said, and I quote, ‘‘I failed to initially understand and accept my mistake. That was wrong.’’ 

What part of the mistake did you initially fail to understand, and 

what happened between your interview with the IG when you said 

you would probably do the same thing again and then on May 27 

in your email that you stated that you were caused to accept that 

you had made a mistake. Can you walk me through that? What 

changed? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, one of the requirements under my disciplinary 

action is that I receive ethics training. And I have been spending 

that time with the departmental ethics office. And I have to say 

that I’ve developed a much deeper understanding and respect for 

and appreciation for the work of the office of the department of ethics. And I think that has resulted in me reconsidering and rethinking my position on this and saying that I was completely wrong 

and in doing so, violated the ethics standards for the Department 

of Interior, and I apologize for that. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Sir, how long have you been the director? 

Mr. JARVIS. Since 2009. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. And are you saying on the record today that 

from 2009 until your ethics training, you were unaware of the requirements, the ethical requirements of your job? 

Mr. JARVIS. No, ma’am. I served as the National Park Service 

ethics officer and I was well aware, but not at the level of detail 

that I have now. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. That’s a very hard pill to swallow. If you’re 

training others and you’re not aware of what your ethical responsibilities were, how could you train others and be responsible for 

it and not be personally aware? 

Mr. JARVIS. So in the execution of the book, I thought I was following all of the ethical standards that are required of me. I was 

using a source that the Park Service normally uses. I was not personally benefiting. I was doing it on my own time. All of those were 

the ethics requirements. What I did not do was seek the advice of 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
42 

the ethics office, which would have clarified my mistakes right up 

front. And that was the ethics issue. 

And I think that that—the discipline that I have received is appropriate to the action. And I think I’ve been open about my mistakes to everyone that has been involved. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. We all are human and make mistakes, but we 

are also hired to do a job that requires us, especially in leadership 

positions, to set an example. I’m disappointed that your understanding, especially based on your previous requirements in this 

Federal agency, did not allow you the depth of understanding and 

your failure to meet the ethical requirements. 

I yield back my time. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Before the gentlewoman yields back, would 

she yield to me for a second? 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Yes, sir. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Director Jarvis, the problem I have with 

the answer that you think you were dealing with the highest of 

ethics in this particular—with the book deal, is the documentation 

shows the opposite. You sent a letter or an email to the person that 

would be the publisher. There’s a followup email asking for the 

conversation because, essentially, you knew that you had to have 

them ask you to do it as opposed to what really happened was you 

told them that you wanted to publish the book. And you compounded the problem ethically by writing a handwritten note to the 

secretary assuring her that it was of the highest ethical standards 

by saying it was reviewed by ethics and that they had asked you 

to do it, which was a lie. 

This wasn’t an innocent mistake. It was a pattern. It was deceptive, and I think you knew that you were creating an ethical problem. And as you said, I think candidly to the IG, I’m willing to take 

that risk. I many, many, many times have had these types of problems. I believe you when you write that. But the pattern, the documentation that Ms. Lawrence is talking about is clear. You asked 

them to do this. They sell millions of dollars worth of stuff through 

the parks. They need you. You had a telephone conversation and 

then they sent you a letter saying, oh, yes, this is what we need 

from you. That’s a pattern and it’s unethical. 

I yield back. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chair. Well, forgive me if I have a 

dissenting voice here. I’m not quite sure what the tempest is in the 

teapot with respect to the book. 

Ms. Kendall, so Director Jarvis wanted to surreptitiously publish 

a book and benefit from it. Is that correct? 

Ms. KENDALL. That’s my understanding, yes, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Surreptitiously benefit? 

Ms. KENDALL. Oh, I’m sorry. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Please speak up. We can’t hear you. 

Ms. KENDALL. I’m sorry. What was your question? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. My question was, your finding is Director Jarvis 

deliberately and surreptitiously engineered the publication of a 

book that he surreptitiously wrote in order to benefit surreptitiously personally. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
43 

Ms. KENDALL. I don’t believe that we concluded that he would 

benefit personally. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. No, you didn’t. He benefited not at all. 

Ms. KENDALL. That’s correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. His motivation was to help the Park Service on 

its centennial. Is that correct? 

Ms. KENDALL. I believe so. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, what a crime. What a terrible thing for the 

head of the Park Service to want to promote the Park Service on 

its 100th anniversary. And ethically, we are going to what? Burn 

him at the stake and destroy his reputation? Because, all right, 

some rules were put aside. They were put aside, if I understand it 

correctly, because there was a deadline we were approaching and 

he had some legitimate concern about that deadline, that if we 

didn’t kind of expedite it, it wasn’t going to happen, because no one 

else was doing it. Fair enough? 

Ms. KENDALL. It was a self-imposed deadline, if it was a deadline. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, the centennial is not a self-imposed deadline. What’s a centennial? 

Ms. KENDALL. You’re right. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right. That’s what was on his mind. He wasn’t 

going to benefit from this. The proceeds, he dedicated to the Park 

Foundation. You know, I must say to my colleagues, it’s—we might 

walk a little humbly in the face of the Lord when we’re a body 

that’s been accused individually of sexual harassment. We’ve had 

charges brought against members, including of this committee. 

We’ve had people involved in book deals. Brought down two Speakers. Doesn’t make it right. Of course, everyone should follow the 

strict letter of the law. 

But I will say, my own experience in this body dealing with an 

Ethics Committee is rules can be very arbitrary. And there are two 

approaches to life. One is a commonsense kind of work-it-through 

approach, and the other is a very juridical, law-driven, rule-driven 

approach to life and religion and politics. The latter may be a comfortable fit for some, but it’s not really a practical approach to life. 

Sexual harassment’s a different matter. But I have to say with 

respect to the book thing, shame on everybody for making it such 

a big issue. I don’t think it is. 

And, Director Jarvis, I’m sorry you have to even put up with 

that, frankly. Maybe you made some mistakes, maybe you cut some 

corners, but the motivation, to me, was to try to help the Park 

Service. And I don’t share my colleagues’ outrage or faux outrage 

about it. 

Now, sexual harassment’s a different matter. And I’ve got to ask 

you, Director Jarvis, when did you become aware of the fact there 

was a problem with sexual harassment at Canaveral and at Grand 

Canyon? 

Mr. JARVIS. So in the Canyon case, I became aware upon the letter that was sent to the Secretary of the Interior that initiated 

the—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. You were unaware of any problem prior to that? 

Mr. JARVIS. Absolutely unaware. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
44 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And when was that? Give me just a date. Quickly. 

Mr. JARVIS. I forget the exact. It was 2014. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay, 2014. Was that before or after Superintendent David Uberuaga was appointed the superintendent of the 

Grand Canyon? 

Mr. JARVIS. It was after. He’d been there for about 4 years. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. All right. So that was the sequence. You confirmed that, Ms. Kendall? 

Ms. KENDALL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And, Ms. Kendall, when it was brought to Director Jarvis’ attention there was a problem, did he take action? Did 

he ignore it? Did he punish whistleblowers? Did he punish alleged 

victims? 

Ms. KENDALL. We received a request directly from the secretary 

in response to those letters and we undertook the investigation at 

the secretary’s request. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. But was there any—I’m asking a different question. Was there any evidence that Director Jarvis covered up, was 

complicit, turned a blind eye, ignored these allegations? 

Ms. KENDALL. No, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. None. I thank you. My time is up. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. We’ll go to the second round. I’m now going 

to recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Director Jarvis, you write in your testimony and you’ve said that 

you have zero tolerance for sexual harassment. What does that 

mean, ‘‘zero tolerance’’? 

Mr. JARVIS. It means that when sexual harassment is identified 

within the organization at any level, that there is an immediate response not only to the perpetrators, but also to the victims of it; 

that we—that zero means zero. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Does it mean you recommend that people 

be fired? 

Mr. JARVIS. Again, Chairman, these are Federal employees, and 

jumping to firing is not an option that I have under the current 

laws of civil service. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. You can make the recommendation. You 

can push for it. You can—can you not? 

Mr. JARVIS. I’m subject to those same laws just like any other 

manager. I can’t say ‘‘fire that employee,’’ because that violates the 

whole Title 5 rights. There’s a process we have to go through. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I understand they need to go through a 

process, but your recommendation does have some weight, does it 

not? 

Mr. JARVIS. It definitely has weight in terms of that we have zero 

tolerance and that disciplinary action—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. So what does that mean, zero tolerance? It 

doesn’t sound like it means anything. We’re not going to tolerate 

that. Just don’t keep doing it. 

So when you have an allegation of multiple sexual harassment 

issues happening, I want to know what you’re doing about it. 

Mr. JARVIS. We are aggressively pursuing appropriate disciplinary action. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
45 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I want to know what you think appropriate 

disciplinary action is for sexual harassment. 

Mr. JARVIS. I think removal is one of those very much possible 

options, and it is definitely on the plate. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. So when did you make those recommendations, either in the case of the Grand Canyon or in the Canaveral 

situation? Did you make any of those recommendations? 

Mr. JARVIS. I have not made those recommendations as yet. I 

have not been—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. How many women does it take? I mean, 

we’ve got dozens. So at what point do you make a recommendation 

that somebody be fired? How many times does somebody have to 

be sexually harassed for it to get on your radar screen to say, you 

know, enough is enough. Now we’re going to recommend firing? 

Mr. JARVIS. When the line supervisor for these employees brings 

to me the details of their proposed disciplinary action, I will at that 

time make my recommendation on what should be done. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. In none of the cases regarding sexual harassment in these two scenarios did you ever recommend somebody 

be fired? 

Mr. JARVIS. The process for their discipline is incomplete at this 

point, so I have not made a recommendation that anyone be fired. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. And that’s the heart of the problem. That’s 

the heart of the problem. 

Let me go back to this. I want to read this. This is from the testimony from Ms. Kendall, okay, the inspector general. We’re talking 

about the Canaveral National Seashore. 

‘‘The chief ranger was disciplined for the procurement violation, 

but of particular concern was that in 2015, the chief ranger publicly disputed the media story about a former Canaveral Park employee who had provided information to the OIG about allegations 

of improper hiring and procurement irregularities. We had substantiated those allegations and we reported our findings to Director Jarvis in 2012, but he is yet to respond to our office. To date, 

National Park Service has also taken no action to address the chief 

ranger’s unbecoming conduct.’’ 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Is that true or false? 

Mr. JARVIS. You’re asking me? 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Yeah, to you. You’re the director, yes. 

Mr. JARVIS. Sorry. I thought you were asking—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. No. She wrote. I mean, I’m reading what 

she wrote, is that they provided you the findings in 2012 and has 

yet to respond to her office. 

Mr. JARVIS. These local park issues are referred to the regional 

director. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. So when you get an OIG report and you’re 

referring it down to the person who created the problem, the chief 

ranger and the superintendent, right? 

Mr. JARVIS. No. To the regional director, not to the park superintendent. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Okay. So you give it to the regional director, kind of wash your hands of it, but there’s no response. Doesn’t 

that get on your radar? Isn’t that something you’re worried about 

that? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
46 

Mr. JARVIS. I’m worried about that. I don’t know why there was 

no response. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. But they got no response. 

Did you get a response, Ms. Kendall? 

Ms. KENDALL. To my knowledge, no. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. So you don’t even respond to it. 

Let me go on. Last week, again, we, being Ms. Kendall, issued 

a report to the National Park Service on a pattern and practice of 

sexual harassment by the same chief ranger who continues to serve 

in that position despite three substantiated allegations against him 

in less than 2 years. 

She says: The National Park Service has not had time to respond 

to this most recent report, but with three other reports in 4 years, 

this is a profound example of leadership problem that the National 

Park Service has failed to address at multiple levels. 

What would you disagree with in her assessment there? 

Mr. JARVIS. We have taken action on the individual at Cape Canaveral. His commission has been removed and he’s been removed 

from the position of chief ranger. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. When did that happen? 

Mr. JARVIS. I do not know the exact date. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I mean, has it been in the last couple of 

weeks? 

Mr. JARVIS. No. I don’t know, honestly. I can get back to you, but 

I do not have that—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. We’re having a hearing about this. I mean, 

it’s in her written testimony. You don’t know the disposition of this 

person? 

Mr. JARVIS. I know that his commission’s been removed. That’s 

all I know. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. When his commission’s removed, does he 

still work there? 

Mr. JARVIS. He is still employed. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Where? 

Mr. JARVIS. At Canaveral. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. So there’s—how many sexual harassments 

does it take to fire a Federal worker or even at—get to your point 

where you can recommend somebody being fired? 

This is a group of 50 people. There’s three substantiated allegations and he still works there. The guy should be arrested. He 

should probably be in jail. He should at least be fired and you 

should at least try to fire him, but you don’t do any of that. 

What does that say to the women there? How would you look 

them in the eye? Hey, I got two daughters about to enter the workforce. I got a daughter and a daughter-in-law entering the workforce, and I don’t want them to go and deal with the scum that is 

in your department and your agency, because that sexual harassment as a percentage of the workforce is so detrimental. And I put 

it on your shoulders to hold those people accountable and at least 

try, at least go down fighting. At least let them know, you know 

what, I’ve got your back. Because sexual harassment, it ain’t going 

to stand in my department and my agency. But I don’t see any of 

it. Like, I don’t know. I have no idea. And you’ve had dozens of situations and you’ve made no recommendations to try to do that. So 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
47 

don’t complain that the system is failing you. You’re failing the system. Your leadership is lacking. 

My time’s expired. 

I recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, I want to just go back for a moment to my friend, Mr. 

Connolly’s comments. And I want—I don’t want you to misunderstand—and I was hoping that he would stay around for minute. I 

know he has another hearing. 

The problem is not so much the book. You know, my pastor has 

a saying. He says: It’s not what you do, it’s what you do says about 

you. And it seems to me that you really had an utter disregard for 

the ethics rules. It’s not so—you know, I can understand you’re trying to get the book out, but when you talk about, you know, you 

don’t mind taking the risk, and that’s how you—I mean, I think 

you kind of laid it out very nicely. This is how you operate. You 

say you take a risk, you—and you’d do it again. 

And what—and I know you’ve come in and apologized this morning, and you apologized to your employees over and over again. But 

what do you think that says to employees? And there probably is 

a link when they see the top person in the agency, the very person 

who is supposed to be making sure they do the right things, and 

when they see you not doing the right thing, I mean, that has to 

affect morale. Would you agree? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, let’s—I think my employees know who I am 

and have emailed me hundreds of emails of support, because they 

look at me as a human being that makes mistakes, that I have 

owned up to my mistake. I’ve openly apologized and admitted that 

I was wrong. And I’m being disciplined openly, no hiding of that 

discipline to anyone, and that is being applied appropriately. So I 

think that it may affect some people from a morale standpoint, but 

I think that this is—I’m doing what I need to do as the director 

of the National Park Service to own up to my mistakes and apologize for them. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You know, in my other life before I became a 

congressman, one of the things that I did was I counseled and I 

worked with lawyers in disciplinary—when they had disciplinary 

problems. And we had lawyers who had stellar careers, stellar, and 

did one thing and got disbarred, never to practice law forever. 

So when you talk about employees knowing you and what a great 

guy you are, you know, but when you say things like, I think I 

knew going into this there was a certain amount of risk, I’ve never 

been afraid of the risk. I’ve gotten my ass in trouble many, many, 

many—you got three manys—times in the Park Service by necessarily—by necessarily getting—by not—listen to what you said, 

by not necessarily getting permission. 

I mean, it’s like—it’s—and I’m trying—I’m really, really, really 

bending over backwards trying to, you know, give you the benefit 

of the doubt. But when somebody says, it’s, basically, screw you. 

This is how I—this is how I operate. And then it makes me wonder, 

these people doing the sexual harassing—you said something else 

that really got the guy next to me, you said: It’s not that the 

women are afraid. Their concern is that something will not be done 

about the harassment. Is that what you said? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
48 

Mr. JARVIS. That’s part of it, yes. I do believe—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, if a young lady is sitting there watching 

this right now, and she’s thinking about coming into the Park Service, and she knows that what—this pattern, she knows that the top 

guy takes an attitude of, it’s rules, what the hell, and doesn’t see 

much happening, and she sees that happening over and over and 

over and over again, I mean, what does that say to them? I mean, 

if it was your daughter, I’m just curious, would you feel comfortable 

sending her to the Park Service? 

Mr. JARVIS. I think that—I do have a daughter who works on 

public health for women in Africa, and she is a very strong individual and probably watching this as we speak. And I think she 

would say that she would work for the Park Service because we are 

aggressively addressing this issue. This issue has come out, and it’s 

incredibly disturbing to me that we have tolerated sexual harassment within our—within our organization. 

But I’ll tell you this, the senior leadership, the senior women of 

our organization, are committed to rooting this out. It’s not going 

to be easy and it’s not going to be overnight. And, frankly, as we 

take this on aggressively, you’re going to see more, more are going 

to come out. That’s exactly what the Department of Defense told 

us, is that you’re going to—as we aggressively pursue it, and 

women that have been harassed who have not been willing to 

speak out in the past will suddenly speak out and probably we’ll 

be back in here saying, how come you’ve got now six cases or eight 

cases of harassment in the organization, and that’s because we are 

aggressively pursuing it and individuals are finally feeling empowered and protected and willing to speak. 

And that’s a commitment that I’m making and the senior part 

of my organization is also making, backing me up on this, that we 

are going to root this out of the National Park Service. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Ms. Kendall—and this is my last question—he 

just said that we’re going to probably hear more cases because 

women are going to feel more empowered. Can you tell us, to your 

knowledge, whether you have confidence, based on what you know, 

that that would likely be the case? 

Ms. KENDALL. I don’t really have any basis to say yes or no, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And your recommendations are what right now? 

Ms. KENDALL. We did not make specific recommendations. We 

usually don’t with our reports of investigation, except for two 

things that we did provide to the secretary and to Mr. Jarvis. One 

was to be careful about backgrounds of people that they hire, because they did hire back—or allowed back one of the perpetrators 

as a volunteer. The other was to handle internal sexual harassment investigations properly, which was part of the problem in the 

Grand Canyon cases. The initial investigation that they conducted 

internally did not—it did not proceed properly, and it was also handled improperly because it was allowed to be distributed to more 

individuals than needed to know about it. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Jarvis, you know, assuming you stay in the 

position, what can we do to hold your feet to the fire? What would 

you suggest? Because we’ve got a problem here. We’ve got—we 

have women who want to be treated properly. I don’t want the 

norm to be you come in and you get harassed. That shouldn’t be 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
49 

the norm. It seems like we’re moving towards that, if we’re not already there, from what you’ve described to me. You said there are 

more cases probably coming up. 

Well, how would you hold your feet to the fire? Because I think, 

you know, we have a duty too to our constituents to protect them. 

And, I mean, you’re a nice guy but, you know, if people are coming 

into the workplace feeling threatened, I don’t see how they can do 

their job properly if they’re sitting there feeling afraid that somebody’s going to say something improper to them or force them into 

a position that they don’t want to be in. 

Mr. JARVIS. Sir—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So how do we hold your feet to the fire? 

Mr. JARVIS. Sir, I think that you hold my feet to the fire by requiring me to come back up here and meet with any individuals 

or group of individuals from this committee or any of the other 

committees that have jurisdiction and report to you specific actions 

that we are taking, both a timeline, individual actions and response through the rest of this year and the coming years. 

I mean, we have been getting, I think, excellent advice from the 

Department of Defense and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Have you been taking it? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, absolutely we have been taking it. We are actively engaged with them on this process. And I think you need to 

hold me accountable. You need to hold the agency accountable 

that—and we owe it to the women and the men of the organization 

that we create an inclusive workforce, a respectful and supportive 

and safe workplace for all of our employees. And we are absolutely 

committed to that and you should hold me accountable. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you have a plan? You have a plan, right? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, we do have a plan. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Mr. Jarvis, Director, the IG, dealing with 

the chief ranger at Canaveral, sent you a report in 2012. I guess 

I just fundamentally don’t understand why you can just dismiss 

that, send that off to your regional person to deal with. There’s a 

reason why we have the inspectors general give them directly to either directors or cabinet secretaries so it could be on their radar 

screen, so they can take care of it. 

Let me read to you another thing that Ms. Kendall wrote in her 

testimony: Finally—this is, again, talking about Canaveral—the 

same superintendent, not the chief ranger but this time the superintendent, has been at Canaveral since 2010 and was named a subject in our 2012 report to Director Jarvis. 

Are you familiar with that report? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, I am. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Did you read it when you got it in 2012? 

Mr. JARVIS. I don’t remember. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Your employee that reported the allegations of misconduct, in her 2012 report, made additional allegations 

of reprisal that were founded by the Merit Systems Protection 

Board and resulted in a settlement with the National Park Service. 

The Merit Systems Protection Board noted that the superintendent 

was aware of the employee’s allegations of procurement and misVerDate Sep 11 2014 11:40 Jan 09, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\22193.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
50 

conduct, did nothing to address the issue and then failed to process 

an administrative request made by the whistleblower as a reprisal 

against her for contacting the inspector general. 

Additionally, based on our report, the Merit Systems Protection 

Board noted that the superintendent showed, quote, ‘‘a lack of candor,’’ when responding to investigators and the highlighted action 

she took to obstruct the investigation. Yet we have no indication 

that National Park Service has taken any disciplinary action 

against her. 

Did you take any disciplinary action against her? 

Mr. JARVIS. I don’t know. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. How do you not know that? You know, Mr. 

Cummings is asking if you get it, if you’re responding, if you’re 

paying attention, if you’re learning, if you’re—you’ve got an outside 

inspector general who comes in and says, there’s a problem here. 

There’s a reprisal. And I tell you what, whistleblowers who step up 

and do the difficult thing of saying, hey, there’s a problem here, 

we’ll go to the mat for those people. And you know what, that happened in this case. And she’s telling you that they had a lack of 

candor. They weren’t candid about this, so much so that it cost the 

American taxpayers—I don’t know how much we had to pay this 

person to get them right and whole, but that person still works 

there. Correct? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, sir. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. And you didn’t do anything about it. So 

why do we believe that you will actually do something in the future? We have multiple reports going to you. Years—those are 

years old. You purposefully, intentionally mislead the secretary. 

You’ve got IG reports that you don’t respond to. You have more 

than a dozen—2 dozen sexual harassment cases. You say there’s 

zero tolerance, but not one time did you recommend that somebody 

actually be fired. And guess what, nobody was fired. 

If you are going to—you’ve done a lot of good things in your service, I’m sure. But if you want a new direction, if you want there 

to be the type of Park Service that you claim that you want, it’s 

going to require new leadership, and it isn’t going to happen with 

you. You’ve had more than 7 years to get this right, and it’s getting 

worse, not better. 

Only later do we actually see all these things percolate up to the 

top. But I’ve got to tell you, if we’re going to do right by Federal 

employees, we’re gonna have to have a different change, and we’re 

gonna have to have a change. You say in your written testimony, 

the thing you gave us last night, you’ve got zero tolerance, and 

then you just told Mr. Cummings a few minutes ago, it’s unbelievable to me that we’ve tolerated this for so long. It does no tolerance. Recommend these people be fired. Talk to the prosecutors so 

that there can be action. That’s the kind of government that I want 

to see. That’s what I think the employees of the Park Service, of 

which I’ve got two parks in my district, that’s what they want to 

see. Because you know what, management is treated a whole lot 

different than that rank-and-file person, and that cannot stand. I 

think it’s been deception. I don’t think it’s been a mistake. 

I yield back, and I recognize the ranking member, Mr. Cummings. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
51 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just one last thing. 

There were some ladies that were dancing, and they got 14 days 

suspension. Is that right? 

Mr. JARVIS. That’s correct. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Can you tell us about that a little bit? 

Mr. JARVIS. So the situation at the Grand Canyon, once the information about harassment on the River District was made aware to 

the management at the park level, this would be Superintendent 

Uberuaga and his deputy, they instituted some specific policies 

about behavior. They eliminated alcohol use on the river trips and 

they met with the river rangers and the staff as they went down 

the—before they went down the river and said, this kind of suggestive behavior, harassment, will not be tolerated. And then there 

was an incident on the river that involved a number of individuals, 

including the two women. 

So that’s when the management at the park imposed a disciplinary action on the women. And, frankly, I think this was an enormous mistake. It was wrong. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And why do you say that? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, zero tolerance is zero tolerance. It’s not to be 

reinterpreted by the park superintendent in a way of setting new 

standards for behavior. It’s—he did not take action on, when he 

was made aware, that this was going on in the park. He instituted 

a new set of policies to try to prevent it and it didn’t prevent, and 

then he took action on the two women. They have filed EEO complaints with the National Park Service, which are being adjudicated—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You know, as I listen to you, you know, it comes 

back to some of the things the chairman has been saying. You 

know, I’m sitting here and I’m listening to you, and you told untrue 

statements to those above you and those looking into this, but yet, 

still, you’re sitting there and you’re talking all of this strong talk. 

But when it comes to you, it’s a whole different thing. Why is that? 

Why should that be? 

Mr. JARVIS. I think I have been appropriately disciplined myself, 

and I have apologized for that. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Say that again. 

Mr. JARVIS. I said that in the—if I understand your question 

about holding myself accountable—is that the question? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yeah. Yeah. 

Mr. JARVIS. I believe that for the ethics violation that I did in 

production of the book, I have been held accountable by the Department of the Interior, by my superiors. I have been—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Basically, you got a reprimand and told that you 

had to have some ethics training. 

Mr. JARVIS. That’s correct. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And then the interesting thing was that you 

were an ethics officer, you told us, but you had to go back and get 

the ethics training. 

Mr. JARVIS. That’s correct. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Last thing. Let me tell you something, one of the 

most important—and, Mr. Chairman, I think this is part of the 

problem. One of the most important things, one of them—you said 

many, Ms. Kendall, and it goes back to what you asked, Mr. ChairVerDate Sep 11 2014 11:40 Jan 09, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\22193.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
52 

man. You said, Ms. Kendall, that the leadership tries to avoid, 

avoid, taking disciplinary actions altogether. That’s—I’m paraphrasing what you said. So are you capable of doing what the 

chairman asked, yeah, of taking appropriate disciplinary actions? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, I am. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. Thank you. I’m finished. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. The committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:26 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(53) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
54 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 22193.008
55 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 22193.009
56 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 22193.010
57 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 22193.011
58 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 22193.012
59 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 22193.013
60 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 22193.014
61 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 22193.015
62 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 22193.016
63 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 22193.017
64 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 22193.018
65 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 22193.019
66 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 22193.020
67 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 22193.021
68 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 22193.022
69 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 22193.023
70 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 22193.024
71 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 22193.025
72 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 22193.026
73 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 22193.027
74 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 22193.028
75 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 22193.029
76 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 22193.030
77 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 22193.031
78 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 22193.032
79 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 22193.033
80 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 22193.034
81 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 22193.035
82 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 22193.036
83 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 22193.037
84 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 22193.038
85 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 22193.039
86 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 22193.040
87 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 22193.041
88 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 22193.042
89 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 22193.043
90 

Æ 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 44 here 22193.044