U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

25–976 WASHINGTON : 2018

S. HRG. 115–35 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR MOVING INTO A SECOND 

CENTURY OF SERVICE: WORKING TO IMPROVE 

THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WORKPLACE 

ENVIRONMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 7, 2017 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

STEVE DAINES, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO 

MIKE LEE 

CORY GARDNER 

LAMAR ALEXANDER 

JOHN HOEVEN 

ROB PORTMAN 

MAZIE K. HIRONO 

BERNARD SANDERS 

DEBBIE STABENOW 

MARTIN HEINRICH 

ANGUS S. KING, JR. 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH 

COLIN HAYES, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

MICHELLE LANE, Professional Staff Member 

ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMANN, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

DAVID BROOKS, Democratic General Counsel 

REBECCA BONNER, Democratic Legislative Aide 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Daines, Hon. Steve, Subcommittee Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Montana ....................................................................................................................... 1 

Hirono, Hon. Mazie K., Subcommittee Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator 

from Hawaii .......................................................................................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Reynolds, Michael T., Acting Director, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior ............................................................................................. 4 

Kendall, Mary L., Deputy Inspector General, U.S. Department of the Interior 10 

Burks, Maria, Executive Council Member, Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks .......................................................................................................... 14 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

Burks, Maria: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 14 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 16 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 45 

Daines, Hon. Steve: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Hirono, Hon. Mazie K.: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 2 

Kendall, Mary L.: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 10 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 12 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 44 

National Treasury Employees Union: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 48 

Pickard, James: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 51 

Reynolds, Michael T.: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 4 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 6 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 36 

(1) 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR MOVING INTO A 

SECOND CENTURY OF SERVICE: 

WORKING TO IMPROVE THE NATIONAL PARK 

SERVICE WORKPLACE ENVIRONMENT 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:39 p.m. in Room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Steve Daines, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator DAINES [presiding]. Thank you. The Subcommittee will 

come to order. 

This is our very first oversight hearing on the National Parks 

Subcommittee this Congress. I look forward to presiding over the 

important work of this Subcommittee and working with you, Ranking Member Hirono. 

I have already had a great experience working with you on other 

issues. I am proud we were able to work together to recognize National Park Week recently and look forward to more great things 

to come. 

I grew up 90 miles away from Yellowstone National Park, that 

is still home for me in Montana, and I know how important our 

parks are to our national heritage and the Montanans I represent. 

I want to thank Chairman Murkowski for this opportunity and 

for her leadership and also prioritizing this critically important 

issue to our national parks. 

The title of our hearing today is Opportunities for Moving Into 

a Second Century of Service: Working to Improve the National 

Park Service Workplace Environment. 

Last year the National Park Service (NPS) celebrated its Centennial. The Centennial was more than just a celebration. It had a 

goal, and it was to create the next generation of national park visitors, supporters, and advocates and ensure that that group represents and looks like the rest of America. And based on the record 

number of visitors to our parks, it appears it was a resounding success. 

But marring the successes of the Centennial that same year was 

the growing number of park service employee complaints about a 
2 

workplace culture where bullying is rampant, sexual harassment 

goes unaddressed, complaints leading then to retribution and top 

employees facing no accountability at some of our most high-profile 

parks, including one of Montana’s crown jewels. I know the Senator 

from Wyoming would probably argue which state gets to claim this 

crown jewel, but it is Yellowstone National Park. 

Senator HIRONO. ——Hawaii. 

Senator DAINES. Well, yes, but I do not think you are going to 

claim Yellowstone. You can, though. It is a great park. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. 

Senator DAINES. At Yellowstone there was an investigation conducted by the Inspector General (IG) which documented a hostile 

work environment that was carried on because of the actions or inactions of supervisors. 

These are not new problems, unfortunately. The Park Service 

has been aware of them for nearly two decades. As a son, a husband, and a father of four, including two young women, this is completely unacceptable. 

Our national parks are what makes our country uniquely American. China may have the Great Wall, Europe has old cathedrals 

and castles, but in America, we have our national parks. And 

frankly, what I have learned about the workplace environment at 

the National Park Service is entirely unworthy of that ideal. 

Concrete steps must be taken to put an end to this outrageous 

behavior in the workplace. While I recognize our witnesses today, 

along with previous and current Administrations, have taken some 

action, it is our duty to demand rigorous accountability. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on how the National Park 

Service can reform and improve. 

I will now turn to the Ranking Member, Senator Hirono. It is 

truly an honor, Senator Hirono, to have you here for your remarks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAZIE K. HIRONO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you very much, Senator Daines, and 

congratulations on becoming the new Chair of this Subcommittee. 

Of course, I am looking forward to working with you on the many 

issues facing our national parks. 

And yes, it was really important that last year we celebrated the 

Centennial of all of our national parks. As part of my observation, 

I went to Haleakala ̄ National Park in Hawaii. We have a very rare 

plant there called the Silver Sword, and I planted Silver Sword 

there at the park with some of the students who have been regular 

visitors and supporters of the park. These are very important 

treasures for our country. 

Business is booming at our national parks, which just set a new 

record for attendance for the third consecutive year. And despite 

the growing number of people who visit every year, our parks face 

serious underinvestment for the value they provide. In addition to 

the well-established $12-billion deferred maintenance backlog, 

record attendance has increased demand for visitor services that 

parks must provide from existing budgets. 

The President’s Fiscal Year 2018 budget reflects neither the tremendous economic impact of our national parks nor the financial 
3 

pressures they face. Instead of investing more in our parks, the 

President proposes to cut funding to NPS by almost $400 million 

and approximately 1,200 people would lose their jobs. 

This budget sends precisely the wrong message to the National 

Park Service employees and the visiting public. By asking NPS employees to do more with fewer resources, the President is placing 

yet another unnecessary strain on these dedicated public servants. 

It is against this backdrop, one of underinvestment, overextended 

staff and failure to prioritize our parks in the face of great public 

interest and support that we meet today to discuss the important 

issue of misconduct and harassment at the NPS. 

The NPS, like any workplace, has a responsibility to provide a 

safe environment that provides adequate training and equitable 

treatment for all of its roughly 22,000 employees and 340,000 volunteers. Unfortunately, as the Chair mentioned, recent reports and 

investigations reveal that the NPS failed to protect its workers 

from sexual harassment and misconduct. 

Since January 2016, the Interior Department’s Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) has released eight investigative reports relating to 

workplace misconduct within the NPS. These reports painted a disturbing pattern of systemic sexual harassment and misconduct in 

parks across the country. Victims of harassment have faced retaliation for coming forward. Others have reported concerns about how 

NPS has dealt with perpetrators, including instances where individuals have been relocated instead of fired, or rehired at a different date. 

Over the past year, the NPS has taken steps to address the issue 

of workplace harassment and misconduct. These actions include releasing a voluntary survey earlier this year to Park Service employees and establishing an ombudsman office. 

In addition, Tammy Duchesne—Tammy, where are you? She’s 

from Hawaii, a Superintendent from Hawaii, and she has been detailed here in DC to serve as NPS’s Sexual Harassment Prevention 

and Response Coordinator. It is good to have you here, Tammy. I 

understand that Tammy is here today to say aloha and mahalo to 

all of us, and mahalo to you, Tammy, for your work to help address 

these important issues within the Park Service. 

As someone who has spent a great deal of time working on how 

to address sexual assault within the military, I recognize that 

changing culture can be challenging and difficult. It is important, 

however, to address this issue head on. We need to identify the 

source of the problem, implement appropriate policy and procedural 

changes, incorporate best practices and establish a culture of transparency and accountability. 

I appreciate that the Subcommittee is having a hearing today on 

this important issue and look forward to hearing what progress the 

NPS has made to address these concerns. It will take us all working together to effect a change in workplace culture within the 

NPS. 

Of course, like the Chair, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses this afternoon on how Congress and this Administration can 

help support our National Park Service through policy, staffing, 

funding, et cetera, that will improve the workplace environment. 
4 

We want our second century of meaningful experiences for both national park visitors and employees, so we are on your side. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Ranking Member Hirono. 

It is now time to hear from our witnesses. Joining us this afternoon are Mr. Michael Reynolds, Acting Director of the National 

Park Service; Ms. Mary Kendall, Deputy Inspector General at the 

Department of the Interior; and Ms. Maria Burks, Executive Council Member at the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks. 

I want to thank you all for being with us here today. 

At the end of the testimony we will begin questions. Your full 

written testimony will be made part of the official hearing record. 

Mr. Reynolds, would you proceed? 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL T. REYNOLDS, ACTING DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, Senators, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the National Park Service’s progress in improving our workplace environment as we begin our second century 

of service on behalf of the American people. I will summarize my 

statement and submit my full statement for the record. 

It is a privilege to represent the nearly 20,000 employees who 

make up our workforce. One of the most rewarding parts of my job 

is hearing from the American people who tell me about the inspiring experiences they had during their trips to national parks. They 

often single out employees who have gone above and beyond the 

call of duty. In my over 30 years of government service employed 

at almost every level of the Park Service, I have been privileged 

to work with the most dedicated, professional and enthusiastic 

workforce imaginable. 

Unfortunately, last year we saw the emergence of several sexual 

harassment and hostile work environment cases. There are park locations where these cases were allowed to fester, where employees 

felt that reporting these conditions would change nothing and invite retaliation. That was a wakeup call that we needed to make 

significant improvements to our workplace environment. 

As a result, the National Park Service leadership is striving to 

bring a culture of transparency, respect, civility and accountability 

back to the organization. We want to ensure that all employees 

have a safe, respectful work environment that allows them to do 

their best. And leading our effort, Secretary Zinke has made it 

clear he demands that all employees work in a climate where any 

form of harassment or discrimination is not tolerated. We are acting as quickly as possible when new cases are brought to our attention, and we are pursuing proactive strategies on multiple fronts. 

First is a workforce survey. We are examining the breadth and 

depth of the problem. To understand the prevalence of harassment 

we developed a Workplace Environment Survey that all permanent 

NPS employees were asked to complete. We anticipate receiving 

those results by the end of summer, by the end of August. We will 

use these results to define specific future goals and further tailor 

our response strategy. Next month we will also issue this survey 

to all—approximately 4,700—of our seasonal employees. 
5 

Second, we established an ombuds office to provide a confidential, independent resource that employees could turn to for advice 

about options available to report harassment or other complaints. 

In just four months the office received more than 1,000 complaints, 

concerns, or recommendations from hundreds of employees. The 

ombuds also provides updates to leadership about the questions 

and concerns they have heard. 

Third, we are improving training aimed at recognizing and addressing harassment. We now require online sexual harassment 

training for all employees and are incorporating anti-harassment 

training into all of our major training curricula. We are also requiring all 4,000 supervisors to take a course called ‘‘Civil Treatment 

for Leaders.’’ This will teach them how to create a welcoming environment where employees feel respected and encouraged to speak 

up and help them understand the responsibilities as it relates to 

harassment. 

Fourth, to more effectively incorporate feedback from employees, 

we have endorsed and supported a range of Employee Resource 

Groups. These groups are made up of employees from all levels and 

locations across the organization who advise and collaborate with 

leadership to identify and implement best practices. They also provide opportunities for career counseling, mentoring and peer support. 

Fifth, we are building stronger procedures for reporting, investigating, tracking and resolving work environment issues. We have 

a team conducting a thorough review of our policies and procedures. This group will recommend updates to ensure that employees have clear and safe reporting avenues without retaliation, investigations are effective and disciplinary actions are applied consistently. We will be working closely with the Offices of the Secretary of the Interior, the Office of the Inspector General and the 

Solicitor’s Office to ensure we achieve these goals. 

And finally, we will continue to hold employees accountable for 

their actions. We need to take all of these actions to restore trust 

and demonstrate to our employees that they are a valued resource 

and that leadership will protect them with the same passion with 

which we protect the parks. This will allow us to continue to attract and retain the best and brightest employees to care for America’s national parks in our second century. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll be happy to answer any questions 

that you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reynolds follows:] 
6 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL T. REYNOLDS, ACTING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SENATE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

NATURAL RESOURCES, ON MOVING INTO A SECOND CENTURY OF SERVICE: 

WORKING TO IMPROVE THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WORKPLACE 

ENVIRONMENT. 

.June 7, 2017 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Hirono, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 

opportunity to discuss the National Park Service's (NPS) progress in improving our workplace 

environment as we begin our second century of service on behalf of the American people. 

As the Acting Director of the National Park Service, it is a privilege to represent the nearly 

20,000 dedicated men and women who make up the National Park Service workforce. One of the 

most rewarding parts of my job is reading the letters and emails that 1 receive from Americans 

who have visited national parks and want to share the life-changing and inspiring experiences 

they had during their trips. More often than not, these thoughtful messages single out individual 

NPS employees who go above and beyond the call of duty to ensure that visitors feel welcome 

and have the best park experience possible. 

In my over 30 years of government service, I have worked at almost every level within this 

organization- field employee, field supervisor, superintendent, regional director, associate 

director, deputy director, and now acting director. I have had the good fortune to work with the 

most dedicated, professional, and enthusiastic workforce imaginable. 

During our Centennial last year, the NPS hosted a record 330 million visitors across the country. 

This was an indicator of both the growing popularity of our national parks and a reminder of the 

need lor an outstanding professional workforce, capable of meeting the challenges of our second 

century of service. 

Unfortunately, last year also saw the emergence of a series of sexual harassment and hostile 

work environment cases. These cases were a wake-up call that we need to make signitkant 

improvements to the NPS workforce environment The issues we face are serious. They did not 

develop overnight and will not be solved overnight. We are facing morale issues with a 

workforce that has been adversely affected by these allegations, even while working hard in a 

time of rising park visitation. There are some NPS locations where sexual harassment and hostile 

work environments were allowed to fester, and where employees felt that reporting these 

conditions would change nothing and invite retaliation. 

We have set an ambitious agenda to bring a culture of transparency, respect, and accountability 

back to our great organization. The entire NPS senior leadership team has joined me in the el1ort 

to ensure that all employees have a sate, respectful work environment that allows them to do 

their best work. And leading that e!Tort, Secretary Zinke has made it clear he demands that all 

employees work in a climate where any form of harassment or discrimination is not tolerated. 

1 
7 

As many of these sexual harassment cases came to light last year, we realized that we could not 

do this alone. We reached out to other organizations, including the Department of Defense, f(lr 

assistance. They helped us identify efiective actions to address this critical issue. 

We are pursuing proactive strategies on multiple fronts. First, we arc examining the breadth and 

depth of the problems. Second, we are encouraging employees to consult with a newlyestablished Ombuds Office if they encounter workplace problems. Third, we are improving 

training programs aimed at recognizing and addressing harassment. Fourth, we are seeking input 

from employee resource groups. Fifth, we are building stronger procedures for reporting, 

investigating, tracking, and resolving work environment issues. And sixth, we are acting as 

quickly as possible when new cases are brought to our attention. 

Workforce Survey 

ln order to understand the prevalence or harassment that permeated our organization we 

developed a Workplace Environment Survey to give us a better sense of employee experiences 

with sexual harassment and other forms of harassment in the workplace. From January to March 

2017, all permanent NPS employees were asked to complete the survey. 

We do not yet have the final data as it is being compiled and externally peer reviewed, although 

we anticipate receiving it by the end of this summer. I assure you that we arc committed to 

transparency and once we receive the final data, we will share it widely with this subcommittee 

as well as all employees and interested stakeholders. We will use the results to dellne specific 

future goals and metrics, identify additional policy responses, further tailor our response strategy 

to the problems identified in the survey, communicate goals and expectations to employees, and 

begin to implement data-infom1ed actions. 

In addition to this initial survey effort, we will be issuing the survey in July to all 4,700 summer 

seasonal employees to capture the experiences of this important segment of our team. 

Om buds Office 

To respond to employees' immediate needs for support, we established a professional Ombuds 

O!licc in November 2016, which provides employees with a confidentiaL independent resource 

that allows them to discuss their work environments and get impartial advice. Om buds programs 

are well known throughout the public and private sectors. The Om buds are available to all 

employees by phone and email. Unfortunately, we were lacking this critical feedback component 

within the NPS. 

In just four months, the Oms buds received more than 1,000 comments, defined as complaints, 

concerns, or recommendations, from hundreds ofNPS employees. The Om buds tean1 advises 

employees about the options available to them to report harassment or other complaints, 

including resources in the NPS Office of Equal Employment, Ofllce of Employee Relations, and 

the Department of the Interior Office oflnspector General. They also provide general updates to 

NPS senior leadership about the questions and concerns they heard, without sharing any specific 

employees' identifying intonnation. We will continue to support this office as an ongoing part of 

the NPS workforce improvement effort. 

2 
8 

I<~mployee Training 

EtTective training is a cornerstone to any successful organization. We have identified serious 

shortfalls in training consistency across the NPS. We now require mandatory online sexual 

harassment training for all employees- something that had not been required in the past. The 

training provides a clear overview of how to identifY sexual harassment and actions employees 

subjected to sexual harassment can take. There is a separate training course t(Jr supervisors to 

help them better understand their responsibilities when an employee reports sexual harassment. 

Last year, we also required a specific 8-hour training course for all executives to address sexual 

harassment. We are also incorporating anti-harassment training into all of our major NPS 

training curricula, including our new employee orientation, first-line supervisors' training, and 

our superintendents' academy. 

The NPS is requiring all supervisors to take Civil Treatment for Leaders training. This training 

will allow supervisors to learn how to create a welcoming environment where employees feel 

respected and encouraged to speak up and help supervisors understand their responsibilities as it 

relates to harassment. All 4,000 supervisors were notified in April 2017 that they must complete 

this training by the end of 2018. This is the amount of time that is required to arrange and 

schedule this in-person training across the Service. 

Emplovee Resource Groups 

In order to more effectively incorporate feedback from employees, we have endorsed and 

supported a range of Employee Resource Groups, including a Women's Employee Resource 

Group, launched in April. These groups are made up of employees from all levels and locations 

across the organization. They advise and collaborate with NPS leadership to identify and 

implement best practices. They also provide opportunities for career counseling, mentoring, and 

peer support. 

Clear, Safe Procedures for Acting on Incidents 

A primary key to addressing harassment is accountability. We need to have strong procedures in 

place that result in consistent reporting, investigations, tracking, and resolutions to work 

environ1nent issues. 

We determined that we have very unclear reporting and investigative procedures. In some cases, 

contradictory policies and procedures make it difficult for us to achieve consistent results in 

combating harassment issues. A team is conducting a thorough review of our policies and 

procedures and will recommend updates to: I) ensure employees have clear and safe reporting 

avenues when harassment occurs, without retaliation; 2) ensure investigations are effective; and 

3) ensure disciplinary actions arc applied consistently across the organization in substantiated 

harassment cases. This is another area where we're not working alone. We will be working 

closely with offices of the Secretary of the Interior, the Office of Inspector General and the 

Solicitors Ot1ice, to ensure we achieve these goals. 

3 
9 

Working with the NPS Relevancy, Diversity, and Inclusion Program, we will collaborate with 

and engage employees in two-way communications to ensure infonnation related to sexual 

harassment is easily available to all employees on multiple platforms, in formats that are easy to 

understand and use. 

By ensuring that procedures and processes are clearly understood and applied consistently across 

the organization, all employees will know how to report incidents of sexual harassment and all 

supervisors will understand how to re.1pond accordingly and consistently. As we develop and 

finalize new policies, processes, and procedures, we will share them with you. We look at this as 

work in progress, but believe these actions will make our structure clearer, more consistent, and 

improve accountability throughout the organization. 

Additional Workforce Improvement Efforts 

Outside of the realm of harassment, we are seeking to work on initiatives that will more 

effectively onboard new employees, more efflciently use recruitment and retention tools, and 

make better use of our training dollars. I would be happy to provide you more details about these 

initiatives. 

I believe that the steps we are taking will help us not only address the problems our organization 

has with harassment. hut they will also improve our workplace in more fundamental ways. We 

need our front line supervisors and other park and program leaders to really listen and understand 

what is happening in their parks and workplaces, and we need to give them tools to respond to 

sexual harassment, bullying, and other forms of harassment. These tools will support our 

supervisors and enable them to hear and understand what is happening with their employees and 

to address issues in a more expedient manner. Finally, we will continue to hold employees 

accountable for these actions. 

We need to restore trust and demonstrate to our employees that they are a critical and valued 

resource and that NPS leadership will protect them with the same passion with which we protect 

the parks and resources in our care. This will allow us to continue to attract and retain the best 

and brightest employees who can care for America's national parks and the hundreds of millions 

of visitors in the second century. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again lor inviting me to testify before you today. I would be happy to 

answer any questions that you may have. 

4 
10 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Reynolds. 

Ms. Kendall, please proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MARY L. KENDALL, DEPUTY INSPECTOR 

GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Ms. KENDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Ranking Member Hirono and members of the Subcommittee. 

To borrow a well-used axiom, management would be easy if it 

weren’t for the people. And NPS has an enormous challenge to address in the management of its people. 

The work of the Office of Inspector General offers ample evidence 

of this challenge: serious ethics violations and lapses by senior NPS 

officials, including the former NPS Director; little consequence for 

misconduct and poor judgment; an environment where harassment, 

discrimination and reprisal are commonplace; disregard for travel 

and procurement rules; ineffective controls over funds provided to 

NPS from outside partnership and friends groups; and lax fiscal 

governance. 

In the past, NPS leadership has failed to lead by example to take 

action against wrongdoing and to address its ineffective ethics program. Changing this culture will be arduous. NPS has had a legacy 

practice of hiring family and friends. Favoritism and sexism 

abound. NPS’ culture of silence and protecting its own has kept 

harassment, discrimination and retaliation in the shadows. 

NPS is challenged by the independence of park superintendents 

and the influences of partnership, friends and employee groups. 

Changing this culture would be challenging in even the best of 

times, but that challenge is intensified by contemporaneous discussion of drastic reorganization of NPS, its structure and its leadership. 

I can point to some improvements by NPS leadership: Acting Director Reynolds has been responsive to OIG reports and has taken 

prompt corrective action when necessary and appropriate. He recently issued an all-employee memorandum reminding NPS employees of their obligation to serve in a highly ethical, respectful 

and transparent manner. The relatively new Ombuds Program is 

a promising practice, and NPS leadership has improved communications with both the Solicitor’s Office and the Office of Inspector 

General. 

But there is much more that needs to be done. Specifically, NPS 

needs to make immediate changes to its ethics program. It has only 

one full-time ethics counselor, making NPS the bureau with the 

worst ratio in the Department. NPS should change its ethics training requirements to cover all employees, with a focus on conflictof-interest risks, something that pervades the Service. Management 

training for all NPS supervisors and managers needs to go beyond 

dealing with sexual harassment. More transparency in taking corrective action for misconduct would increase accountability and 

serve as a deterrent factor throughout the Service. 

NPS could benefit from an assessment and consequent change of 

hiring practices and selection criteria for seasonal, term and fulltime permanent employees, as well as for promotion. 
11 

A thorough review and analysis of EEO and other grievance settlements should inform NPS of where it needs to focus some of its 

corrective action. 

Controls and safeguards are needed for funds provided by outside 

organizations to the parks, to make this funding transparent to 

NPS leadership and, frankly, to Congress. 

Finally, the ‘‘tone at the top’’ could not be more important for 

NPS and its future. NPS has top-level leadership nationwide. If 

these leaders are not modeling consistently good—indeed exemplary—conduct, NPS cannot expect its rank and file to do so. NPS 

has tolerated, maybe even encouraged, polarizing leadership at 

many levels. Going forward, NPS needs leadership that is not only 

unifying, but also models the upstanding conduct that the Service 

would like to see in all of its employees. NPS needs leaders who 

are not only aware of their ethical obligations but also apply and 

adhere to them and hold others accountable to do the same. 

This concludes my prepared testimony and I’d be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kendall follows:] 
12 

TESTIMONY OF MARY L. KENDALL, 

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

ON MOVING INTO A SECOND CENTURY OF SERVICE: 

WORKING TO IMPROVE THE 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WORKPLACE ENVIRONMENT 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, good afternoon, and thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today on exploring ways in which the National Park Service (NPS) might 

improve its workplace environment. 

To borrow a well-used axiom, management would be easy if it weren't tor the people. 

And N PS has an enormous challenge to address in the management of its people. 

The work of the Office oflnspector General (OIG) offers ample evidence of this 

challenge: serious ethics violations and lapses by senior NPS otficials, including tbe former NPS 

Director: little consequence for misconduct and poor judgment: an environment where 

harassment, discrimination, and reprisal are commonplace: disregard for travel and procurement 

rules; ineffective controls over funds provided to NPS from outside partnership and friends 

groups; ineffective oversight of grant funds; and lax fiscal governance. In the past, NPS 

leadership has failed to lead by example, failed to take action against wrongdoing, and failed to 

address its ineffective ethics program. 

Changing this culture will be arduous. NPS has a legacy practice of hiring family and 

ti·iends. Favoritism and sexism abound. The remote location of many parks limits diversity in 

applicant pools, and often blurs the boundaries between the work and personal lives of park 

employees. NPS' culture of silence and protecting its own has kept harassment, discrimination, 

and retaliation in the shadows. NPS is challenged by the independence of park superintendents 

and the influences of partnership, friends, and employee groups. Changing this culture in a 

historic bureau like NPS would be challenging in the best of times, but that challenge is 

intensified by contemporaneous discussion of drastic reorganization ofNPS, its structure, and its 

leadership. 

I can point to some indications of improvement in NPS' leadership: Acting Director 

Reynolds has been responsive to OIG reports, and has taken prompt corrective action where 

necessary and appropriate. He recently issued an all-employee memorandum, reminding N PS 

employees of their obligation to serve the public and NPS in a highly ethical, respectli.tl, and 

transparent manner. The relatively new Ombuds Program is a promising practice lor the Service 

to accept and address concerns and complaints by NPS employees. We have seen an increased 

involvement in change initiatives by Regional Directors. And NPS leadership has improved 

communications with both the Solicitor's office and the OIG. 

But there is much more that needs to be done to change the culture in NPS. Specifically, 

NPS needs to make immediate changes to its Ethics Program. lt has only one full-time ethics 
13 

counselor, making NPS the bureau with the worst ratio in the Department of the Interior, NPS 

would do well to change its ethics training requirements to cover all employees, or at least all 

employees at a GS-12 level or above. NPS should have a focused emphasis on ethics training 

and oversight for conflict-of-interest risks, risks that pervade the Service. 

Management training for all NPS supervisors and managers needs to go beyond just 

dealing with sexual harassment. Providing the "Civil Treatment for Leaders" training that is 

being rolled out Department-wide, is one positive step. To the extent possible, more transparency 

in taking corrective action for misconduct would increase accountability and serve as a deterrent 

factor throughout the Service. The Service could benefit from an assessment--and consequent 

change in practice---of hiring practices and selection criteria for seasonal, term, and full-time 

permanent employees, as well as for promotions within the NPS. A thorough review and analysis 

of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and other grievance settlements should inform NPS of 

its problem areas, and where it needs to focus some of its corrective attention. Controls and 

safeguards arc needed for funds provided by outside support organizations to the parks, to make 

this funding transparent Service-wide to NPS leadership and. frankly, to Congress. 

Finally, although the phrase "tone at the top" is often cited, it could not be more 

important for >IPS and its future. NPS has top-level leadership nationwide, throughout its regions 

and icon parks. If these leaders are not modeling consistently good--indeed exemplaryconduct, l\PS cannot expect its rank and file to do so. NPS has tolerated. maybe even 

encouraged, polarizing leadership at many levels. Going forward, NPS needs leadership that is 

not only unifying, but also models the very conduct that the Service would like to see in all of its 

employees. NPS needs leaders who are not only aware of their ethical obligations, but also apply 

and adhere to them, and hold others accountable to do the same. 

This concludes my prepared testimony. I am happy to answer any questions that the 

subcommittee members may have. 
14 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Ms. Kendall. 

Ms. Burks. 

STATEMENT OF MARIA BURKS, EXECUTIVE COUNCIL MEMBER, COALITION TO PROTECT AMERICA’S NATIONAL PARKS 

Ms. BURKS. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss 

ways to improve the workplace environment of the National Park 

Service. 

I am a member of the Executive Council of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks, having retired in 2012 after a 39- 

year career with the National Park Service. The Coalition is comprised of 1,300 members who collectively have more than 30,000 

years of experience managing and protecting national parks. We 

believe that our parks and public lands represent the very best of 

America and we advocate for their protection. 

Last year, as several of you have mentioned, over 324 million 

people visited our 417 national parks in all 50 states and several 

territories. This record-breaking attendance reflects the value that 

Americans place on their national parks and served as a huge economic driver for communities and businesses that rely on the touring traveler for a critical income stream. It is the dedication of over 

20,000 employees and 300,000 volunteers deeply committed to the 

mission of the service that protects these special places and opens 

them to the public. 

As with any large organization with so many employees and 

places throughout the country—many in remote locations—and despite the dedication and general skill of the workforce, there are 

challenges to maintaining a healthy workplace. And regarding that, 

the coalition has some suggestions. 

Annual Funding: The proposed Fiscal ’18 budget just released by 

the Trump Administration calls for a cut of 13 percent from the 

funding received in the current fiscal year representing a reduction 

of almost $400 million and a loss of another 1,200 positions at a 

time when there are already 2,000 positions vacant. If adopted, this 

budget will result in reduced hours of park operations, more deferred maintenance resulting in rundown facilities, fewer visitor 

services and decreasing morale for employees already stretched to 

the breaking point. These reductions must be resisted. 

Central Oversight: The Administration’s budget includes a proposal to decrease staffing in central and regional offices. With ten 

regions reduced to seven in 1994, the Park Service already struggles to provide legal, technical and regulatory support in coaching 

to parks on complex issues involving maintenance, contracts, partnership fundraising agreements, disciplinary matters, environmental compliance and similar issues. This support is particularly 

needed by small and medium sized parks, a large percentage of the 

NPS’s units which lacks specialized staff in these areas. Failure to 

provide this guidance can lead to expensive and time-consuming infractions, accidents and lawsuits. 

Human Resources and Supervision: We have several specific suggestions to make in this area. First, the service should decentralize 

the human resources function, placing HR specialists in strategic 

locations in the field where they can be readily accessible to super-
15 

visors and managers. Centralizing this function, as happened in 

the 1990s, has cost the Park Service dearly in effective supervisory 

practice. We have all seen painful examples of that recently. 

The Park Service needs to put its money where its mouth is 

about supervisory oversight. A simple example, no supervisor 

should get a satisfactory performance rating, much less a performance award, who has not given each subordinate a set of performance standards and a meaningful performance review. In theory, 

that’s the policy, but it’s often overlooked and it’s devastating to 

morale. 

Training: A critical part of good supervisory practice, as well as 

other specialized job duties, must be improved. We recommend a 

strategic review of existing training needs followed by a funded 

training program with an emphasis, at least in the short run, on 

supervisory and leadership skills. Training should include the opportunity to meet in classroom settings where face-to-face interaction and hands-on mentoring can occur. 

And last, but certainly not least, providing direct support to employees who have been harassed or who feel that they are receiving 

unequal treatment is vital. This issue can be complex and circumstances can vary, but a safe, clear avenue for employees to 

raise concerns is an excellent first step and we applaud the 

Ombuds Program that is currently being developed. 

We would point out, though, that two employees in the Washington Office will never be sufficient to address the needs across 

the service. As well, this program will only be effective if it is part 

of an accompanying major emphasis on overall supervisory hygiene. 

Other suggestions to address employee recognition, equal treatment of employees, the impact of travel restrictions and paperwork 

reductions are included in the longer testimony we submitted to 

the Subcommittee. 

Thank you again for inviting us today. And I’m happy to answer 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Burks follows:] 
16 

Statement of Maria Burks 

Coalition to Protect America's National Parks 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

"Moving into a Second Century of Service: 

Working to Improve the National Park Service Workplace Environment" 

.June 7, 2017 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you Cor the opportunity to appear before 

you today to discuss ways to improve the workplace environment of the National Park Service 

(NPS). 1 am a member of the Executive Council of the Coalition to Protect America's National 

Parks, having retired in 2012 after a 39-year career vvith the Park Service. The Coalition is 

comprised of l ,300 members who collectively have more than 30.000 years of experience 

managing and protecting national parks. We believe that our parks and public lands represent 

the very best of America, and advocate for their protection. 

During the National Park Service's Centennial year in 2016, over 324 million people visited our 

417 national parks in all 50 states and several territories. While this record-breaking attendance 

was no doubt fueled by the Centennial celebration, it also is a rctlection of the importance that 

these significant natural, cultural. and historic places have in the mind of the American public. 

And it is only through the dedication of over 23,000 employees and 400,000 volunteers that the 

National Park Service is able to ensure that these special places are enjoyed by the public 

throughout the year. This dedication to the mission of the National Park Service by its 

employees is reflected annually in surveys of the public expressing high satisfaction with our 

national parks and their visits to them. It also is reflected in employee surveys that show 

employees of the service arc proud of their work and are deeply committed to its mission. 

As with any large organization with so many employees in places throughout the country- many 

in remote locations you will find individuals who make poor decisions and engage in 

misconduct. These situations need to be addressed promptly and decisively. However, these 

instances should not overshadow the work performed every day, year in and year out, by the vast 

majority of the service's employees as they welcome visitors, manage and interpret the resources 

being protected in each of our parks, and carry out the programs Congress established to protect 

our nation's natural and cultural heritage. 

This does not mean there is no room for improvement. In fact, representing many past 

employees who dedicated their careers to the Park Service, we have seen areas where actions can 

be taken to create a better workplace on a daily basis. I will focus on some of these some 

speci fie areas and provide suggestions that will help address shortcomings in the workplace. 

Annual Funding: For employees to be able to perform their jobs and to have our parks 

accessible to the American public, there must be adequate funding from Congress. The proposed 

FY 18 budget just released by the Trump Administration calls for a cut of 13 percent from the 

funding received in the current fiscal year. representing a reduction of almost $400 million and a 
17 

loss of another 1 ,200 positions at a time when there are already 2,000 positions vacant These 

cuts will hit parks, program offices, and central offices, as the budget calls tor further reductions 

beyond those already undertaken in the 1990s when there were fewer parks and program 

responsibilities for the Park Service. And these cuts are coming at a time when we have seen 

visitation rise t!·om 277 million in 2011 to 324 million last year. If adopted, the FY 18 budget 

will result in reduced hours of park operations, more deferred maintenance resulting in run-down 

facilities, inadequate staffing leading to fewer visitor services, and decreasing morale for 

employees already stretched to the breaking point. These reductions must be resisted. 

Central Oversight: The administration's budget proposal to decrease stai1ing in central and 

regional offices will make oversight much worse. In 1994, the NPS reduced central office 

staffing by I ,300 positions and consolidated I 0 regions down to 7 regions. Central and regional 

office oversight is particularly important and valued by small and medium-sized parks, which 

represent a large percentage of our park units and which lack sufficient staff to oversee complex 

issues involving maintenance contracts, partnership fundraising agreements, disciplinary matters, 

environmental compliance, and similar issues. Central and regional offices perform much of this 

work and its unavailability will lead to more investigations and oversight hearings by Congress 

when mistakes are made. 

Additionally, there needs to be a way for central and regional offices to be in tune with changing 

circumstances at parks and programs under their supervision. Requiring a management review at 

each park or program office on a regular basis, through a sampling of employee feedback that is 

protected from disclosure, could allow managers to address issues or challenges prior to them 

becoming unrcsolvable and could keep managers up to date on those things that are needed to 

keep employees engaged in their work. 

Human Resources Functions: While central offices provide valuable assistance lor the areas 

mentioned above, the reorganization of the Human Resources (HR) programs has been a disaster 

for the parks and program ot11ces. This has led to long waits to till open positions because of 

requirements to obtain approval for position descriptions, to advertise the opening, to obtain a list 

of eligible candidates, and to complete hiring. Managers routinely find it takes at least six to 

nine months to fill a position. The recent fi·eeze on hiring by the Trump Administration only 

exacerbates this problem. Seasonal hiring has also been thrown into chaos with a recent policy 

by the Office of Personal Management that disallows a seasonal employee from being rehired at 

more than one park. In a similar manner, disciplining employees has become a never-ending 

process that stymies managers from addressing problems in a timely manner. 

To address these issues, the number of HR specialists needs to be increased in regional offices 

and in parks with larger statTs. This includes specialists who classify positions, deal with labor 

and employee relations, handle training and development opportunities, and address equal 

employment issues. Managers and superintendents cannot easily obtain guidance and advice for 

these processes as there are too few specialists, and it can appear to employees that their 

managers simply do not care about these issues. Additionally, the number of solicitors available 

to review serious discipline cases is insufficient, leading to long waits for final action, which 

Congress has complained about many times. Human Resources processes need to be revamped 

2 
18 

dramatically to address these impediments to maintaining a functioning and effective workforce 

to lead the parks and programs. 

Papcnvork: A large boost to the morale of employees could be obtained by the elimination of 

unnecessary administrative requests. These requests come from a variety of sources that demand 

extensive staft'timc to compile the information. Many of the information requests are '·urgent" 

and require employees to drop everything to provide the information in a timely manner. Once 

the information is gathered and conveyed to the appropriate party, it is often the last time anyone 

hears about the issue, leaving employees wondering why the information was needed and how it 

was used. Often there is no feedback. 

Congress routinely mandates reporting requirements in both authorization and appropriations 

bills. Congress clearly has an oversight role of the Park Service as well as all federal agencies, 

but we urge care in asking for another study or report that will just sit on a shelf. The Office of 

Management and Budget also is constantly asking for justification of many things on a regular 

basis fi·om small items in congressional testimony, to Federal Register notices, to reports being 

transmitted to Congress, and to requiring extensive data for existing programs as it arbitrarily 

decides a program needs to be reexamined. Often the questions being asked arc hard to 

understand, redundant, and demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the programs or issue being 

reviewed. Responding to these requests requires an enormous amount of time, again with no 

obvious purpose or indication how the information will be used. if ever. 

We understand that requests to review materials by officials in the Department of the Interior 

have exploded in the new administration on everything ti·om routine congressional requests to 

tilling open positions. These reviews lead to several questions that require staff time to develop 

a response. It is understandable that new political appointees wish to get up to speed on pending 

issues, but inserting themselves into every routine matter results in members of Congress being 

upset with not getting a response and the public being unable to obtain answers to their concerns. 

These review requests also demonstrate a lack oftrust in the ability of federal employees to do 

their jobs. Employees in parks and program ofticcs spend way too much time on keeping up 

with the paperwork associated with these requests and reviews instead of managing the parks and 

the NPS programs. Some efforts were made to reduce these requirements in the past 

administration, but clearly more can be done. 

Employee Recognition: Efforts need to be made to recognize the value of the service's 

employees. Many employees get a small employee performance cash or time-off award during 

their annual performance reviews. However, those awards have become routine and do not carry 

much value with the employee nor provide wider recognition in the service for exceptional work. 

Park Service and departmental service awards, most of which have no monetary component but 

which spotlight significant achievements, appear to go to those who are the most ''politically 

correct" rather than those who have performed excellent work. The same people receive award 

after award, while many people retire from the Park Service after a career of excellent work 

without ever receiving one service award or other recognition of their contributions. This is 

partially a result of a lack of suppm1 from the Human Resources Otlice, from which there is no 

consistent notification to supervisors about employees eligible for the awards and no consistent 

ability to process the awards. 

3 
19 

Additionally. the leadership of the Park service has not made employee recognition a consistent 

priority of their responsibilities. During the Centennial Celebration, the Park Service focused 

little on the employees of the service and the contributions they have made to our parks and 

programs. The Coalition to Protect America's National Parks honored past employees with its 

Centennial History Project, which collected and posted on its website biographies and oral 

histories of employees who made significant contributions to the service in many ways. This is 

just one example of highlighting the excellence of service employees, which can be pointed to as 

a standard to follow for others entering the workforce. 

Employee Training: Training within the service is inconsistent, inadequate. and unavailable to 

many employees. Managers and supervisors cannot count on training funds being available as 

they are often the first thing cut when appropriations are reduced. Central office training funds 

also are separately allocated from the budget available to parks and program offices, making 

planning difficult. 

To the extent training funds are provided, often they are focused on mandatory recertification 

courses for law enforcement rangers and emergency medical technicians, among other 

specialists. Additionally, much current training time is spent for annual on-line courses, often 

mandated by Congress, such as IT security. protection of personally identifiable information, 

ethics, and a hostile work environment. Employees see these mandatory courses as a waste of 

time, particularly when they arc required each year. On the other hand, employees are left out in 

the cold when training for the jobs they are performing each day is unavailable. 

Part of this can be addressed by having the Park Service invest in live video communications 

technology so that peers can participate in real time job-related skills training directly at their 

desks in a ·'virtual classroom." An example is a workshop in curatorial skills for pottery led by a 

live trainer at the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training "attended" by 

curators and curatorial assistants across the country who interact and learn from each other and 

who arc guided by the trainer. Courses such as these can help at a time when travel budgets are 

tight or non-existent for such on-the-job training courses. 

Leadership training also is sorely lacking. with only small steps being made to provide new 

superintendents and other managers with the basics that they need to do their jobs. This includes 

leaders being able to set a good example for their employees, to deal fairly with employees, to 

recognize high-quality pcrf<.wmance, to handle disciplinary issues well, and to provide empathy 

and understanding to employee concerns. 

There arc many superintendents and program managers who do not have a basic understanding 

of law, regulation, and policy, which is astonishing considering the responsibilities they are 

asked to undertake. For example, NPS managers are being strongly encouraged to engage in 

more philanthropic activities. but often do not have adequate training or guidance. They also 

have little exposure to case studies to take advantage of lessons learned and to help translate 

those lessons imo practical application in a park or program setting. 

4 
20 

The Park Service needs to require its leaders to get the necessary training to meet their 

responsibilities. The number receiving leadership training now is very small compared to the 

number in leadership or management positions. Retirees fi·om the service can be a source of 

assistance to help develop leadership skill sets by mentoring upcoming employees and through 

their participation in training courses provided by the service. 

Travel: Much has been made of federal employee travel over the years and it has become an 

easy target, often tor political purposes. With a worktorce scattered among the fifty states and 

several territories, the inability to travel for training, conference. and development purposes has 

sent a clear message to employees that no one cares about investing in them and their careers. 

There are few opportunities to exchange views in person on professional subjects, on best 

practices, and on common ways to pertorm the demanding duties required of park employees. 

Travel budgets for many parks and program offices has been cut by more than half since the 

1990s, making it almost unavailable for many employees when inflation is factored in. When 

the message is relayed from management that it cares little tor developing its employees, how 

can employees be expected to perform at the highest !eve]') 

Equal treatment of employees: Unequal treatment of employees is pervasive in the service. 

As an example, there arc couples who both work for the Park Service. Some are hired for jobs in 

the same park and arc able to transfer ti·om one to another together easily. Other couples are not 

treated as well and find themselves frequently living great distances apart for most of their 

careers. Additionally, some employees arc given the opportunity to work remotely to 

accommodate a personal need while others are not given this choice when the circumstances are 

similar. These results are often a matter of who the individuals know. instead of an even 

application of policy. 

There also is inadequate support for employees who undergo personal or professional challenges 

that af'tect their performance. Some who run into issues arc severely disciplined, while others 

receive a slap on the wrist. There cases require equitable treatment of all employees. 

When it comes to serious misconduct issues involving senior supervisors or superintendents, 

their treatment should be commensurate with the seriousness of the infraction. Too often in the 

past the solution has been to reassign the person instead of addressing the misconduct. Many 

times this has just transferred the problem to another location and the effect on employee morale 

is devastating while sending a message that managers arc not going to be held accountable. 

The new Om buds program holds promise lor allowing employees to repmi problems in parks 

and program offices. However, it appears unreasonable to expect a couple of people in the 

Washington Office to ensure all of the problems brought to its attention are addressed. 

Consideration needs to be given to expanding the resources of this program so that parks in each 

region can guarantee timely follow-up. We have to remember, though, that the overwhelming 

majority of the NPS workforce is composed of dedicated, hardworking individuals and we urge 

caution in convicting employees of misconduct bef(,re the facts are investigated and verified. 

Along with the Ombuds program, particular attention needs to be paid to supporting new and 

younger female employees in the service. This can be implemented through a defined process of 

5 
21 

communication between female employees and their supervisors that provides a message they 

will be treated fairly, respectfully, and with empathy. This communication should also include 

assurances that female employees will be treated equally when it comes to training, detail 

assignments. and career promotion. 

Several of the ideas discussed above can be implemented now through existing processes and 

programs. Others might require a reallocation of resources with a commitment to following 

through to ensure their implementation. The vast majority of Park Service employees are 

dedicated to their jobs and the mission of the service. But inadequate annual appropriations and 

a lack of support from Congress will signal to them that their work is not important or valued. 

\Ve urge members of the subcommittee to do all that they can to follow the request from Director 

Horace Albright in his 1933 retirement letter to the National Park Service where he counseled. 

''Do not let the service become 'just another Government bureau;' keep it youthful, vigorous, 

clean and strong." 

That completes my statement to the subcommittee. I would be glad to respond to any questions 

you may have. 

6 
22 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Ms. Burks. 

I am going to start off. 

Mr. Reynolds, thank you for your service to the National Parks. 

I was in Glacier National Park on Friday and had a chance to take 

Senator Roberts there, who actually served as a waiter at Lake 

McDonald Lodge in 1955. You do the quick math, that was a long 

time ago. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yeah. 

Senator DAINES. It was his first time back since 1955. We had 

a great experience. Superintendent Jeff Mow did a wonderful job 

and his Deputy, Eric Smith, top notch, as we had a great experience. 

I do appreciate the steps you have been taking to address this 

challenging issue for employees. However, as I have looked through 

the reports, I am absolutely convinced we must do more. I spent 

28 years in the private sector attacking these issues in the workplace with a Fortune 20 company, with a small, family-owned business, as well as a medium-sized cloud computing startup. 

The Service issued a survey in 2000 in response to many hostile 

work environment and sexual harassment issues. Here we are 16 

years later—that survey was back in 2000, nearly 17 years actually—and there are more hostile and harassment work environment claims than there were in 2000. The question is, can you 

truly say that a survey will give any guidance to improvement? 

Couldn’t you just say that you already know there is a problem and 

let’s focus our efforts on addressing it? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yeah. Thank you, Senator. 

And I’m aware of the survey that you were mentioning from 2000 

was in and around the Grand Canyon, and I’m sorry that it did not 

come to the fruition that it should have. 

The survey that we have put together was well thought out and 

we went out this time, into the private sector, to hire the right kind 

of folks to help us really delve into a number of different issues. 

So this survey is not simply the presence of, but it is to help us 

understand deeply with, not only prevalence, but how this might 

work in the kinds of locations that we have. 

So, for example, we have very isolated staff, as we had in the 

Grand Canyon as an example, and we’re—what the survey is trying to delve into is getting employees to answer appropriate questions that help us understand how to apply our resources best strategically ahead. How we would actually help employees feel safe in 

reporting one of the things we found was it wasn’t just how managers misbehave, as it were, but it was that employees felt they 

were not safe to report. 

And so, this survey is designed to do that. And it was a survey 

to help us understand the kinds of harassment, if you will, without 

going into detail, but the categories that they might be experiencing so we can focus on our employees best. 

Senator DAINES. There is a statement that Ms. Kendall made 

that struck me. She talked about the importance of the ‘‘tone at the 

top,’’ and I really could not agree more. Organizations will flex depending on how the leadership is directing the organization. 

I also saw there was online training as something that was being 

done. As somebody who came from the technology world, using on-
23 

line training mechanisms and tools can be very effective, but I 

don’t think it is any substitute for having, as an example, superintendents actively engage, personally, in face-to-face training and 

engagement. I do believe more is caught than taught at the end of 

the day when we think about how we learn and how it is modeled. 

What role do the superintendents have today? We have 417 national parks. I am doing some quick math here on the spreadsheet. 

Thirteen of those 417, have greater than 200 employees. Most of 

these are pretty small organizations and even the biggest ones, I 

realize you have seasonal employees, but it is a manageable group 

here that we can effectively, I think, transform a culture with 

which I think is the root cause involved in these problems, is the 

culture in the workplace. 

What role does the superintendent have, do you believe, in actively being involved in leading from the top? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Thank you, Senator. 

I couldn’t agree more. Our superintendents are, symbolically and 

otherwise, the tip of our spear, our front-line managers. We’re having direct conversations with them, with their seven regional directors, that they’re going to have to be actively involved, that they 

will be held accountable at whatever level goes on in their park. 

But at the same time, they can set a tone from the top by actively engaging in employee empowerment, for example. So if they 

had Employee Resource Groups, I mentioned in my testimony, I 

would like those superintendents to interact with the members of 

that group. There’s a Women’s Employees Resource Group forming 

in the service they would get to know and, for example, interact 

with that group on a daily basis. They’re going to be actively engaged in some training requirements of themselves and then we 

will expect them to be meeting their employees. 

Yeah, in Yosemite the acting superintendent now has taken a 

lesson from what happened in the IG investigation. There’s a weekly, if not monthly, report on what’s going on in the park. They’re 

meeting with the employer relations people about certain issues 

going on at the park. 

Senator DAINES. Mr. Reynolds, I am running out of time and I 

want to get a question to Ms. Kendall here on that. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yup. 

Senator DAINES. We will come back to you. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. We agree. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you. 

In your opinion, moving forward, Ms. Kendall, how do you think 

leadership should be held accountable for workplace misconduct by 

their employees? 

Ms. KENDALL. I believe, personally and I can say this from the 

organization, that accountability needs to be across the board. Oftentimes we see that, say, a wrongdoer is corrected or punished but 

if wrongdoing goes on under the management or auspices of a supervisor, we have as an organization started to look up the chain 

in our investigations. And I think that in any organization supervisors whose employees misbehave need to also be held accountable. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Ms. Kendall. 

Ranking Member Hirono. 
24 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I do commend the National Park Service for undertaking some 

pretty basic kinds of steps to put in place training, including a very 

needed ethics training. Better late than never really. I know that 

you have new challenges ahead of you. 

Now the Ombuds office has two Ombudsmen and one is stationed 

in DC and the other in California. We’re talking about over 20,000 

employees, considering you’ve already received over 1,000 comments in just four months from some 300 employees. So clearly it 

does not seem that having only two staff to undertake this change 

in how you operate is enough. 

How are you going to reach out to your very many employees? 

Are you asking for more resources? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Thank you, Senator. 

Yes, we are focused on that. To be honest with you, we wanted 

to see how the Ombuds program worked. It was a first-time effort 

for the National Park Service. It is clearly growing in its success. 

It seems to be well regarded, so we are going to be pursuing how 

to grow the staffing needs for this. They’re contracting ombuds to 

us right now so we have the flexibility to grow that. 

Senator HIRONO. You have the flexibility, but do you have the 

money to put more employees to that effort? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I’d have to get back on that. We will be focusing 

resources to invest in our employees. That is a top priority. 

Senator HIRONO. This is in light of, though, in the context of the 

pretty massive cuts to NPS as reflected in the President’s budget. 

I think it is going to be a major challenge for you all to provide 

all the kind of necessary resources that you need to really change 

the culture, which is one of the hardest things to do having to work 

on that with regard to our service components. 

The survey—I’m curious about it. Who developed the survey and, 

in this area of sexual harassment, is there a model that you are 

using? Are there best practices from other agencies or other departments that you are looking to for help? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Short answer, Senator, is we didn’t find too many 

other models out there other than we did meet with the military 

early on when this crisis was evolving. The military helped us very 

much understand why a very specialized survey would work. 

A company named CFI, which is a contractor to the Department 

of the Interior, who then, I believe, subcontracted very specialized 

folks with doctor degrees and others are the folks that put together 

this survey. I have a diversity and inclusion manager that helped 

to run it. And then, as you mentioned earlier, we brought a superintendent from Hawaii, Tammy, to come in and help us coordinate 

this with our employees. 

Senator HIRONO. So is a major portion of the survey to find out 

how extensive the sexual harassment and retaliation is, how deeply 

that goes? Is that part of what you want to do? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. That’s correct. It’s a multilayered survey that 

asks, not only prevalence but, as I mentioned earlier, the kinds of 

harassment they may be experiencing, how the environment, where 

the environments are that this is occurring in, those kinds of 

things. 
25 

Senator HIRONO. I know that many of your employees are in remote areas. How are you going to make sure that the kinds of 

changes and cultural changes that you want to have effected, how 

will you make sure that this is happening in areas where your supervisory capability may not be all that strong? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I agree and those are some of our most vulnerable populations so we have turned to the EEOC, the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, to get advice on where the highrisk factors are for these kinds of things, very much focus on those 

parks. And we’re asking the regional directors to work with their 

superintendents to personally engage, as I said to Senator Daines, 

on assuring that these kinds of investments in our people are happening. 

Senator HIRONO. Well clearly this is not something that is going 

to change overnight, so obviously we are going to continue our 

oversight inquiries as to how you are doing, what further resources 

you need. 

And especially I would say in these remote areas where retaliation could occur, you may never hear about it—and that certainly 

occurs in the military side—so that’s an area that I am very interested in finding out about. 

Also the definition of, what kind of retaliation for the few people 

who may report sexual harassment within your employee base. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. We would really enjoy working with you further 

on that and we appreciate the oversight on this. 

Senator HIRONO. What is the morale like within the Park Service 

now with all of this going on? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Well, I would probably have a jaundiced view sitting in Washington, but I try to keep up weekly on what’s going 

on. I’m very concerned about our employee viewpoint survey results 

that still indicate folks having concerns about the resources that 

they have available, their engagement, sometimes their feeling of 

senior leaders. So we’re talking about that at every opportunity 

that I can get the senior team together. 

I think, as you get out to the front line, our employees love serving the American people. They have some of the highest scores in 

the employee viewpoint survey in government about dedication to 

a mission: 98 percent feel they’re dedicated to their jobs; and 86 

percent enjoy the job they have in terms of the purpose of the job. 

The level of commitment in the National Park Service is higher 

than most agencies, but it is then very low in how folks feel treated 

and we’re very focused on that. 

Senator HIRONO. Good. I think that is an appropriate focus. 

If I can, Mr. Chair? 

I was very astounded to learn that there is a lot of hiring of relatives, et cetera, and I hope that that is another area that you are 

going to clean up and provide some guidance so that we are not 

perpetrating people who really should not be in the positions that 

they are in. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I understand that, Senator. 

We have unique relationships with dual career couples in very 

remote areas that are appropriate. We need to clean up our accountability on that to be very transparent in our hiring practices. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. 
26 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Ranking Member Hirono. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Congratulations on your chairmanship and thank you for using 

this as the focus of our first hearing under your leadership. I think 

it is very important, and I appreciate you calling this hearing to 

examine ways to improve the workplace environment in the National Park Service during its second century. 

Yellowstone National Park, our nation’s first national park, is 

often held as an example of what the park system should be. It is 

filled with beautiful and amazing springs, geysers and wildlife. Yellowstone, as well as its neighbor, Grand Teton National Park, 

draws millions of people to Wyoming each year who would not otherwise possibly come to our great state. 

Mr. Chairman, you made a comment about the location. I would 

just say if you Google the official website it would point out that 

it is located mostly in Wyoming. It goes on to say the park spreads 

into parts of Montana and Idaho too. 

Senator DAINES. Senator Barrasso, I have no response. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, the 

seriousness of the Committee, of what we are discussing here because unfortunately what we have seen is there have been a number of allegations. That is why it is so critical that we discuss the 

issue today of sexual harassment, workplace misconduct and the 

hostile work environments. We all agree that this is absolutely unacceptable. 

So following the allegations of sexual and workplace misconduct, 

it was reported first in a Montana newspaper last September, the 

Department of the Interior, the Office of Inspector General began 

this investigation. The final report found that park supervisors in 

one division had created a negative work environment for their female colleagues and that supervisors had failed to respond correctly. 

All of us are disturbed at the volume of the reports that have 

emerged over the past year, but I am encouraged that Secretary 

Zinke has expressed his desire to address the problem head on. 

Preventing future harassment and misconduct will require radical, 

immediate and lasting changes at both the National Park Service 

and the Department of the Interior as a whole. 

Mr. Reynolds, I appreciate you outlining the Department’s approach to changing the culture of the National Park Service. I 

think it is important. You indicated all park employees must now 

complete sexual harassment training. I think Senator Hirono mentioned this is now, it is online training, as the Chairman, something that had not previously been required. 

But in her testimony Ms. Burks suggested that employees could 

see mandatory online courses, is what I think is a waste of time, 

particularly when they are required every year. 

What are your thoughts on how the Park Service employees will 

view the training and are there plans to gather additional employee feedback on the effectiveness of the courses? 
27 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Thank you, Senator, and thanks for your comment. 

We are starting, I guess you’d say, with the online to make sure 

with a very dispersed organization. When I get up in the mornings 

I remember I have American Samoa all the way to Maine. And we 

have to be cost efficient. We have to be effective with what we’re 

doing with resources. So we wanted to move fast this year which 

is why we moved to an online format so we could report to our various oversight that we’ve reached all employees. 

We do believe in face-to-face. We do also believe that we can empower employees through a chain reaction of training and certification, if you’ll allow me to use that word, for some organizations 

that we have in the service called ‘‘Allies for Inclusion’’ that help 

with empowerment conversations and dealing with difficult subjects, and the Employee Resource Groups, I believe, could be an 

ally in that. 

Senator BARRASSO. You indicated and Senator Hirono asked 

about the Ombuds Office. I think you said you received more than 

1,000 comments in the four months following its establishment. 

Can you talk about how many of these are new allegations of misconduct? I am not sure what kind of things would come in 1,000 

comments. How many of these are actually new allegations of misconduct and any of the new reports being handled differently than 

might have been reported or done, handled, last year? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Right. I would be happy, Senator, to follow up 

with more detailed statistics to your staff. 

But in a nutshell, there weren’t as—the level of the sexual harassment new cases has dropped significantly, but we have seen an 

uptick still in complaints and concerns around hostile workplace 

and then around other harassing behaviors that give us great 

pause. And that’s part of what our culture change, part of what our 

organization is now investing in. 

Senator BARRASSO. Ms. Kendall, did the Inspector General’s process for evaluating and investigating these claims change after the 

development of the Ombuds Office? 

Ms. KENDALL. We meet regularly with the Ombuds person with 

the Park Service, so I can’t say that our process has changed dramatically but we do have a direct line of communication. 

Senator BARRASSO. Great. 

Ms. Burks, anything else you would like to offer? 

Ms. BURKS. Yes, thank you for the opportunity. 

I’d just like to say that it’s important to understand, sometimes 

online training is useful, but I think when you’re talking about 

changing an organizational culture, you need to make a different 

kind of investment. And when I look at the kinds of cuts that have 

been taken in the Park Service since back in the ’90s, when ten regions were reduced to seven and you now have regional directors 

with spans of control that are 30, 40, 50 superintendents and under 

them are a variety of layers of subsequent supervision. 

To change a culture, you really have to have exposure to new 

role models and that exposure really needs to be in person. We 

used to have conferences we attended that made a big difference. 

We realize that travel and training funds are highly constrained 

and we would suggest, as Senator Hirono is, I think, hinting at, 
28 

perhaps, that the budgets that are proposed for Fiscal ’18 will 

make it much more difficult for the Park Service to take the right 

kinds of steps to respond to these issues. 

If training can’t be conducted in really effective ways and if it 

can’t be reinforced on a regular basis with regular personal conduct, I think that it’s going to be very challenging for the Service. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

Ms. Burks, thanks for those comments. I share your perspective 

there as well. This, unfortunately, is not a new problem. It has 

been pervasive around organizations all over our country, around 

the world. But it is a solvable problem, and the online training, I 

would submit, is part of the solution but it is not sufficient. My experience has been sometimes online training is thrown out, as a 

way to check a box saying we did something, instead of getting 

back to the cultural change needed here which, I think, still the 

‘‘tone at the top,’’ as Ms. Kendall said, is so important. 

Speaking of that too, I know Secretary Zinke is addressing this 

problem as he is coming into his new role as Secretary of the Interior. I know he wants to tackle this issue head on. I have known 

the Secretary for 38 years when we were both Boy Staters in 1979 

in Montana. He grew up in the shadows of Glacier National Park. 

I grew up in the shadows of—Senator Barrasso seems to think that 

Yellowstone Park is only in Wyoming—but anyway, in the shadows 

of Yellowstone National Park. 

Mr. Reynolds, in the six OIG reports of the past year there were 

many perpetrators given what seems to be more of a slap on the 

wrist or they are being allowed to retire with full benefits. My 

question is how are these punishments equitable to the actions? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. We are deeply diving in to how to be transparent 

and accountable in a system that also values privacy, both in terms 

of law and practice. There’s a way to fire employees in the Federal 

Government. It can be done and you need to take it on and we 

need to do it when it is appropriate, but there is a due process set 

of procedures that you have to make sure you’re also defensible in 

how you do that. We also cannot help when people in the midst of 

an investigation or an HR process do choose to retire or resign. 

But I get it in terms of how this impacts morale and we understand the perception problem. And we are working very hard to 

make sure that we up our accountability as the IG has informed 

us, now numerous times, that we need to do. 

Senator DAINES. I had the Committee staff run a report for me 

yesterday that just stack ranked all 417 of our national parks by 

size of FTEs, full-time employees. I just wanted to get a sense of 

the organization size, kind of the command and control spans in 

layers. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Right. 

Senator DAINES. As you look at trying to address a problem, 

again having spent 28 years in leading organizations and looking 

at organization design, it is a place to start. 

One thing I also asked the staff to do was seeing, out of 417 of 

our national parks—just curious—how many of our superintendents are female? According to the Park Service, 37 percent of the 
29 

superintendents are female. After the incidents at Grand Canyon 

National Park, a female superintendent was hired. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yeah. 

Senator DAINES. I am going to direct this question to Ms. Burks, 

actually. Do you believe that putting more women in leadership positions, and I recognize sexual harassment occurs with both genders, but would this make a difference and do you think there 

should be more women in leadership roles? 

Ms. BURKS. Well, thank you for the question. 

You know, I’d like to see gender equity in the superintendents’ 

roster. I’d like to see 50, 51 percent I think would actually be equity. Having spent 39 years in the Park Service, I can say that getting to 37 percent is a big accomplishment. This has been a maledominated organization for a long time, and the service has made 

great strides. But yes, I do believe it would help. I believe it would 

make a difference. I’d like to see the Service be able to move more 

quickly in that direction, yes. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you. 

These are going to be some panel-wide questions to open up some 

discussion. The question, in each of your views, is how can the 

Park Service shift from a reactionary response to harassment 

issues to more of a preventive and preemptive strategy as a new 

approach to lowering the incidence of misconduct? And we will take 

volunteers. Who wants to go first? 

Mr. Reynolds, thank you. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Senator, thank you. 

In our view in the leadership representing the voice of leadership 

right now, we have been collectively deciding that we need to make 

this a year plus more of our people and to focus very much, the last 

hundred years has been about protecting our parks. We need to 

now focus and protect and invest in our people, would be a very 

good start because it would then drive investment, as you know as 

a business person. 

Ms. KENDALL. I would also say that the civil treatment for leaders training that the Park Service is going to be implementing, is 

a very good step. All of their leaders are going to be expected to 

take this training. We just finished in the OIG training all of our 

managers and supervisors. 

It is a good awareness program, and hopefully it will settle in. 

There’s some practical things that the Park Service could do to follow up with that training, but it is a very good first step. 

Senator DAINES. Ms. Burks? 

Ms. BURKS. I’d like to build on what Mr. Reynolds said. You 

know, this is a situation where mold thrives in darkness, if you 

will. Supervisors are not held accountable in the Park Service, and 

they haven’t been for some time. There are a lot of reasons for that, 

not necessarily having to do with intended malfeasance or anything 

of the sort. There are so many pressures on superintendents and 

on regional directors to respond to constituency issues and to resource problems and budget issues and employee and visitor injuries and you name it. 

And the Park Service, because I think so many employees are 

dedicated and believe in service, have put family last. And what 

needs to happen now is what Director Reynolds said, is family has 
30 

to come first. There needs to be a major, major investment in increased transparency and time spent on working directly with supervisors to find out what they’re doing and how well they’re doing 

it. That has not happened recently. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Ms. Burks. 

Ranking Member Hirono. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. 

Issues surrounding sexual harassment, I think, are particularly 

egregious kinds of experiences for anyone to have. I am wondering, 

Mr. Reynolds—there are 22,000 or so employees. Do they all know 

that they are encouraged to report these kinds of experiences to 

you or to somebody? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. 

Senator, within—the policy is this—within 60 days of coming on 

board we give them a No FEAR Act training, and we tell them that 

they have to report these things, that they are protected from retaliation, and that we will not tolerate it. 

Senator HIRONO. Are they given some kind of material, a sheet 

of paper that describes what—— 

Mr. REYNOLDS. They are, but I will tell you that I am, admittedly, wanting to invest and make sure that we are really focused 

on doing that in a much broader way. So we’re talking very much 

about how to onboard and talk to our employees as they come on, 

particularly seasonal employees as well. There’s a lack of consistency in that, but we are aware of it and we are trying to figure 

out how to best make sure it really happens. 

Senator HIRONO. I think that in this area prevention is really important so there are any number of things that you can do, but a 

large part of prevention is that people need to know when their 

rights are being infringed upon and that there are very clear steps 

that can be taken—— 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Right. 

Senator HIRONO. ——to report. 

I did look at your website regarding your Ombudsman. As far as 

I can see there is nothing that leaps out at me that this particular 

problem of sexual harassment is something that you are, particularly, interested in preventing. So am I wrong in my view that this 

is very general, all of this material, and you have to go through a 

lot of it to figure out what you are supposed to do? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Well, I’ll take your observation and critique seriously, Senator, and we’ll make sure that we are very serious about 

this. This is really job one at this point, so we need to probably figure out our marketing materials. 

The one thing I will say with our Ombuds we asked them to do 

is they’re also there, we thought this year, to just answer lots of 

employee concerns and to give them a chain, or excuse me, access 

around the chain of command. This is a very new practice for us, 

so we’re learning and we will put forward a better strategy on that 

communication. 

Senator HIRONO. While I think it is great that your employees 

are now being able to report various kinds of workplace concerns 

that they have, sexual harassment and mistreatment, that is a 

very—how should I say?—very sensitive, underreported, kind of be-
31 

havior, and especially if you are talking about co-workers or people 

who have supervisory power over you. 

This is a very unique kind of a crime, if you will. I think that 

I would suggest that you spend some time to think about how you 

can ferret out the extent of the problem, how to prevent it and, of 

course, once the report is made because I am sure there is underreporting going on in the area of sexual harassment—and sexual 

assault even. Then there has to be investigation that follows and 

appropriate actions taken, including prosecution. 

So this is one of the ways that you prevent and then you deter. 

It is one of the ways that, I think, looking at what the military has 

had to go through over the last several years, that particularly the 

members of the Senate Armed Services Committee have focused on, 

the need for the military to finally put into place what they claim 

to have been a zero-tolerance policy for sexual assault in the military, sexual trauma in the military and nothing much had been 

happening for decades and decades. I would hate for your Park 

Service to have that kind of experience. We need to get to the bottom of this. 

I thank all of our witnesses and especially you, Ms. Burks, for 

your very practical-minded concerns. And yes, I think it is very 

clear that this program is under-resourced for what you are needing to do. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DAINES. Senator King, you are up, if you would like. 

Senator KING. I apologize. If you have further questions? 

Senator DAINES. I will ask a question then I will turn to you. 

Senator KING. Thank you. 

Senator DAINES. One of the other areas I wanted to discuss is the 

seasonal employees we have in our national parks and the challenge that may present here as we attack this issue. I was looking 

at the numbers, kind of going back to my hometown park, Glacier 

National Park: there are 140 permanent, year-rounds, but there 

are 310 seasonal, on average; Yellowstone National Park, 227 permanent year-rounds, but 570 seasonal. 

Growing up again literally in the shadows of going through my 

grade school, high school, college years, I get it, in terms of we 

have a lot of young people come oftentimes, but all ages will come 

to our national parks to be seasonal employees. We have a lot of 

good friends in my hometown of Bozeman where they met at Yellowstone National Park from the various areas of our country, 

came to work at Yellowstone Park and they are married and living 

in Bozeman. 

How does that affect the culture and how do we address the nature that you have short-term, seasonal employees here as you are 

trying to change a culture in our national parks? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Well, Senator, you’re correct. We really, truly rely 

and the parks operate thanks to our seasonal employees. And 

many of them, as you know and describe, work for many years for 

us. It’s almost a second career for some people depending on what 

else they do with their life. Some are brand new and some of them 

are students and are interns. 

We need to very much have a better consistency about how we 

onboard, how we let them know, as I was speaking with Senator 
32 

Hirono about what their rights are. And so, those are the kinds of 

part of the process and system improvements that we’re now making because of this experience that we’ve been having the last two 

years. 

The other thing that we really want to do with seasonals is make 

sure that we’re getting their voice. So we will put out, not only the 

sexual harassment survey, but we need to be figuring out ways 

that match the calendar time of year because remember, we have 

seasonals year-round, really, in the National Park System. But how 

we interface with them so that they’re not ever treated as a secondclass employee. 

Senator DAINES. Alright, thank you. 

Senator King. 

Senator KING. I apologize for my tardiness. As the Senators 

know, there is no effort to coordinate schedules around here and 

I was at another hearing this afternoon. 

This is a bit off-topic of the central purpose of this hearing, 

which I think is a very serious concern, and I assume your testimony has been that you are going to work seriously to confront this 

issue in our National Park Service. Is that correct? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. 

Senator KING. Yes, thank you. 

The question I wanted to ask is a recent order that I find puzzling that suspends the Advisory Commission meetings of something like 200 Advisory Commissions. I do not get that. Can you 

explain why that order was issued? The Acadia National Park Advisory Commission is established by statute. I just wonder what 

the motivation is, what the purpose is, because this is a very important voice for the community around our national parks. What 

is going on? Why? And what are the prospects for getting these Advisory Commissions back to work? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, thank you, Senator King. 

I can tell you first off that Secretary Zinke is very focused in a 

very positive way on the National Park Service. I’ve been told personally by the Secretary how much he’s focused on and interested 

in the Park Service and how it operates. He’s also very much trying 

to lead the Department through making sure we’re as efficient as 

possible. 

And my understanding is that the Department as a whole, I don’t know my numbers, to be honest with you, we spent about $15 

million on Advisory Commissions and different committees across 

the different bureaus. And the Secretary had simply asked to put 

a pause on those and ask those groups to put a form of reporting 

into him, I believe a two-page report, this next few weeks and 

months to just see what they’ve been accomplishing, what their 

mission is and why they’re there. 

I know the Acadia organization very well, Senator. I’ve been up 

there and had to work in that part of the world. So—— 

Senator KING. You did not ‘‘have’’ to work there, you were ‘‘privileged.’’ 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yeah, thank you. 

But we will keep a close eye on it. I think that their work will 

be well received by this review at this point, and we’ll make sure 

we keep a close eye on it. 
33 

Senator KING. I hope so because I do think it is very important 

for any national lands, but particularly national parks, for the area 

to have a voice in the activities and to provide information to the 

National Park Service and to the local park. 

I know that the Acadia Park Advisory Commission has been very 

important in the local community and so I hope that this pause, 

as you characterize it, will be a short one and that we can get our 

advisory commission/committee back up and running. 

Thank you. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I will focus with the Department on that. Thank 

you. 

Senator KING. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Senator King. 

Ranking Member Hirono. 

Senator HIRONO. I have one follow-up question for Ms. Kendall. 

Thank you for the work that you have done in exposing some of 

the challenges facing our National Park Service. 

In your opinion, what are the three most urgent actions that the 

Park Service can take or needs to take to change the workplace 

culture? 

Ms. KENDALL. Certainly getting the training and the word out to 

their employees that reporting misbehaviors, harassment or retaliation, discrimination, anything like that, that they can do this 

without fear of retribution or any kind of retaliation. I think that’s 

probably number one to get that word out. 

Number two, I would go back to what Senator Daines focused on 

and that is the ‘‘tone at the top.’’ I think that working with their 

folks at headquarters—their superintendents, their regional directors—they’re the people that are going to have to model the behavior in a very transparent and I would say, upfront and almost an 

aggressive way, to let their folks know in the field that they’re serious about this. 

And then finally, having a vehicle like the Ombuds to receive 

and coordinate complaints and other concerns with offices like 

mine, where we conduct, as you know, quite a few investigations. 

And we rely on getting information directly from organizations like 

the Park Service. And we do have very good communication, both 

with Director Reynolds directly, as well as many people in the Park 

Service. 

Senator HIRONO. Mr. Reynolds and Ms. Burks, would you pretty 

much agree with these priority areas that Ms. Kendall outlined for 

us? Yes? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, I do agree. I would maybe add something in 

there about revamping our policies and procedures, but I think 

that’s buried in Ms. Kendall’s statement. 

Ms. BURKS. Yes, I think what she said was exactly right. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Ranking Member Hirono. 

I too, very much concur as we think about the next steps going 

forward, which there will be many, is back to this ‘‘tone at the top,’’ 

taking from Ms. Kendall’s original testimony that I just would like 

to see the superintendents personally involved in some form or 

fashion here, early on, employee onboarding. 
34 

I recall when I was a young employee in organizations when the 

big boss came in, it meant a lot. They can set the expectation. They 

will model it by being present and talking about this up front. I 

think that is real important to setting the cultural tone going forward here. It is what needs to be changing here, the culture. 

Something else I learned after 20 years of business is that if you 

aim at nothing you will hit it. 

[Laughter.] 

My last question, then we will conclude the hearing unless Senator King has additional questions or the Ranking Member, but I 

will end with this question. How exactly should the Park Service 

measure improvement in the workplace? What are the one or two 

metrics that we should be looking at here that we will set as key 

goals and measure over time to make sure we are actually making 

progress? And I would like to get opinion from all three, if you have 

one. We will start with you, Mr. Reynolds. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I think progress and changes through things like 

the employee viewpoint survey or other surveys would be good data 

marks. I also think that some sort of oversight reporting that we 

should be doing that ties to performance of our people would be another way of seeing how performance changes with that. 

Senator DAINES. Ms. Kendall? 

Ms. KENDALL. And if we saw a reduction in complaints it would 

be an indicator, I believe. 

Senator DAINES. Okay. 

Ms. Burks? 

Ms. BURKS. Yes, I think a reduction in complaints would be one 

metric. I’d also suggest a very simple, practical step of formal review of performance standards and performance appraisals to see 

that they are actually being done and the supervisors are actually 

carrying out their training and mentoring responsibilities. I think 

that would make a big difference right up the line. 

Senator DAINES. Well, my experience—I mean, I agree—as we do 

these odyssey surveys, they give you a nice big, fancy report and 

you have a one-time power point presentation. Then they are quietly put on a shelf and they collect dust until somebody asks a question, perhaps ten years later, and it is a real challenge. So action 

is needed. 

If there are no more questions for today, members may also submit follow-up, written questions for the record. The hearing record 

will be open for two weeks. 

I want to thank the witnesses for their time and testimony today. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 
(35) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
36 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on National Parks 

June 7, 2017 Hearing: Opportunities for Moving into a Second Century of Service: 

Working to Improve the National Park Service Workplace Environment 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Mr. Michael T. Reynolds, Acting Director, National Park Service 

Question from Senator John Barrasso 

Question: You indicated the new Ombuds office has received more than 1,000 comments in 

the four months following its establishment. How many of those are new allegations of 

misconduct, and are any new reports being handled differently than those reported last 

year? 

Response: Ombuds do not receive formal reports of misconduct or initiate investigations. They 

provide confidential assistance to employees with identifying appropriate avenues for formally 

raising matters, such as filing complaints with the Office of Human Resources, Equal 

Employment Opportunity counselors, the Inspector General hotline, or senior officials. The 

Ombuds can report aggregate numbers of each tupe of comment they receive, but because they 

guarantee anonymity, it is not possible to know how many of the comments received by the 

Ombuds lead to new formal allegations of misconduct. 

Separately, the National Park Service (NPS) is creating a tracking system that will help with 

measuring the number of official reports of misconduct over time. Until recently, the NPS did 

not have a consistent method to track the instances of misconduct or document the penalties for 

such misconduct nationally. Documentation of misconduct may have been gathered at the park 

or regional level, but national data was not compiled or analyzed. Beginning in March 2017, the 

NPS began tracking data related to allegations of employee misconduct in a consistent format on 

a monthly basis and submitting to the Department of the Interior (Department). In the future, the 

NPS will have more precise data on reports of misconduct. 

Questions from Senator Mazie K. Hirono 

Question 1: In your testimony you note the voluntary survey that the Park Service has 

circulated to permanent employees and plans to circulate with seasonal employees next 

month and how the results of this survey will assist the Park Service in understanding the 

scope of the sexual harassment and other workplace environment issues across the service. 

Do you feel that the survey is adequate? Once you assess the scope of the problem, how will 

you monitor and evaluate steps taken to address sexual harassment to make sure that they 

are effective and producing results? Going forward, what will be the Park Service's formal 

procedure for responding to and addressing sexual harassment reports, including the 

process and criteria for disciplining employees that have committed sexual harassment, 

and ensuring that these procedures are communicated to all employees? 
37 

Response: 

Adequacy of the survey- The survey will be adequate to provide the information we need to lay a 

foundation for a comprehensive, effective plan to combat sexual harassment and hostile work 

environments. The survey was rigorously designed and goes beyond basic harassment prevalence 

surveys. It will give us a clear understanding of the type of employee who is most likely to be 

harassed, the particular type of environment where harassment is occurring (e.g. office 

environment, remote location), when employees are harassed for the first time in their career 

and by whom (e.g., supervisor, coworker), the likelihood of a person intervening if they witness 

harassment, and whether employees are likely to report harassment and if they are not willing to 

report, why not. 

Monitoring and evaluation- Survey data will drive the interventions we design and implement. 

We will monitor our progress by comparing the 2017 baseline survey results with the results of 

future surveys and the total numbers of misconduct allegations. As we assess our progress, we 

will make adjustments to our interventions and tailor our actions to ensure we are addressing the 

issues effectively and efficiently. In the near term, we expect to see an increase in reporting and 

total numbers of cases because employees and managers are actually reporting harassment that 

they might not have reported in the past. An increase in complaints may occur as employees 

have increased evidence that management will take appropriate action and employees are 

protected from retaliation. When cases of misconduct are more consistently reported, we are in a 

much better position to hold employees accountable and ensure safe environments for all 

employees. 

Responding to sexual harassment reports - The Secretary has been very clear that he has a zero 

tolerance policy for sexual harassment and has begun a process to clarify and update NPS' 

training and processes. Once updated, we look forward to their swift implementation .. 

Criteria and process for disciplining employees - Managers are required to follow Office of 

Personnel Management guidelines to ensure the laws passed by Congress are upheld. That 

includes allowing employees due process, providing them with written notice of the charges and 

access to any supporting documentation, and allowing employees to give oral and written 

responses to the charges. Managers consider the circumstances surrounding the event, the table 

of penalties, and the Douglas Factors (https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight!employeerelations/reference-materials/douglas-factors.pdfl when taking disciplinary actions related to 

misconduct. Managers are held accountable for addressing misconduct of their subordinates 

through their annual performance plans. The NPS will seek to enhance the skills of our front-line 

managers so that they are more skillful and confident when addressing employee misconduct 

through improved supervisory training. 

Communicating to employees- We are taking several steps to ensure that procedures are 

communicated to all employees: 

1) Improving our internal intranet site, so that online resources for employees are easy to 

find and understand. 

2 
38 

2) Including explanations of policies and procedures related to sexual harassment and 

hostile work environments in our on boarding of new staff. 

3) Requiring Civil Treatment for Leaders training for all supervisors, which includes 

sessions on the managers' duty to act when allegations of harassment have been brought 

to their attention. 

4) Including information about how to report and respond to allegations of misconduct, 

and integrating anti-harassment training into existing training programs. 

5) Continuing to require Prohibited Personnel Practices and Whistleblower Training, 

which includes a section for managers on managers' duties related to hiring and to 

whistleblower protections. 

6) Continuing to have the Ombuds disseminate information to employees about resources 

available to resolve workplace problems through emails and phone calls with individuals, 

and through site visits. 

7) Planning for providing training to all employees so that they know how to report 

harassment and managers know how to promptly and properly respond to allegations; we 

will conduct this training after the personnel bulletin on reporting and investigating 

harassment has been finalized and NPS standard operating procedures are in place. 

Question 2: The National Park Service director is one of 442 Senate confirmable positions 

that has yet to receive a nominee from this administration. What are the challenges the 

Park Service faces in setting a tone for the workplace environment without a director? 

Response: The entire NPS senior leadership is demonstrating to employees in multiple ways that 

we are determined to bring about a culture change that will end sexual harassment and hostile 

work environments. We anticipate that a Senate-confirmed director will reinforce that message, 

especially since Secretary Zinke has made clear through numerous statements and actions that 

harassment and hostile workplace environments will not be tolerated. 

Question 3: Seeing as you have spent over 30 years in government and worked at almost 

every level within the National Park Service, I'm sure you have noticed some trends over 

that period of time. With visitation increasing and the National Park Service budget being 

cut simultaneously, have you noticed these factors impacting workplace morale? 

Response: Many factors contribute to the morale of the workforce in any government agency 

and private sector workplaces. Some of the factors are within our control and some are beyond 

our control. We cannot equate the morale of the workforce solely to the budget. 

We are very committed to addressing morale issues and going forward we are going to need to 

listen better and understand our workforce needs. 

3 
39 

Question 4: In Ms. Burks' testimony she notes that "Training within the service is 

inconsistent, inadequate, and unavailable to many employees" and that "Managers and 

supervisors cannot count on training funds being available as they are often the first thing 

cut when appropriations are reduced." 

You note in your testimony that the Park Service has identified serious shortfalls in 

training consistency across the NPS. However, do you agree with Ms. Burks that training 

funds are not consistently available for managers and supervisors? If so, how has the Park 

Service ensured that employee training will not suffer in the time of reduced 

appropriations, especially given the President's budget proposal for FY 18? 

Response: As with every other area of the budget, the NPS often has to make hard choices when 

it comes to allocating limited funding for staff training and development. The NPS prioritizes 

training funds to meet the legal requirements for training superintendents and new managers so 

they can lead by example, but we are also working hard to make the most effective use of 

training funds for all employees. To deliver training to employees more cost effectively, the NPS 

Office of Learning and Development is developing a Learning and Performance Ecosystem 

(LPE) strategy, an industry model which "enhances individual and organization effectiveness by 

connecting people, and supporting them with a broad range of content, processes and 

technologies to drive performance." The LPE supports employees through six components: 

structured learning, knowledge management, social networking/learning, performance support, 

talent management, and asking experts. 

Additionally, through the new NPS Common Learning Portal (CLP), staff connects in real time 

to find courses, internal experts, training opportunities, and best practices. The CLP is a crucial 

.tool to connect the over 22,000 staff across the country and it increases opportunities to connect 

beyond in-person learning and development activities. 

Question 5: Do you agree with Ms. Kendall that having only one full-time ethics counselor 

within the Park Service is inadequate? What is the current training requirement for NPS 

employees and roughly what percentage of NPS employees in leadership or management 

positions receive adequate leadership training? Do you agree with Ms. Kendall that NPS 

should require ethics training for all employees? 

Response: The NPS has received recommendations about the ethics program from the 

Department's ethics counselor. It would be desirable to have more than one NPS ethics 

counselor. We are currently prioritizing the recommendations among the multiple needs of the 

organization. Our resources are being directed first to the almost 300 park superintendents who 

set the tone and example for the employees under them and who also tend to deal with these 

ethical issues more than other employees. One of our current efforts is the development of ethics 

training for superintendents on how to work properly with partners on fundraising activities. 

All new employees are required to take ethics training within 90 days of beginning work as part 

of their onboarding. Notices reminding all NPS staff of ethics policies are sent out annually. In 

addition, certain categories of employees including Senior Executive Service employees, 

4 
40 

political appointees, contracting officers, and other employees who are required to submit 

financial disclosure reports, are required to complete ethics training annually. 

All new managers are expected to participate in the New Supervisor Development Program 

during their first 12 months as a supervisor. This program includes supervisory ethics. 

Question 6: Ms. Kendall notes in her testimony that the Park Service has developed a 

"culture of silence and protecting its own." 

What is your response to her criticism of the Park Service's "culture of silence," and what 

specific steps do you plan to take to address the conditions that have created this culture? 

Response: We appreciate the hard work that Ms. Kendall and the staff of the Office of the 

Inspector General have done to ferret out wrongdoing and bring to our attention some serious 

workplace issues. However, characterizing the culture of the NPS with such a sweeping 

generalization is unfair to the thousands of conscientious men and women of the NPS, including 

the majority of managers, who are fair and respectful to their fellow employees. The comment 

fails to recognize the determined effort that the NPS leadership is making to assure employees 

who come forward with complaints that they will not be ignored or face retaliation. 

NPS leaders are making it easier and safer for employees to report misconduct and are taking 

appropriate and swift disciplinary action in cases of confirmed wrongdoing. Employees are 

seeing that misconduct is not being tolerated. To the extent that the culture characterized by Ms. 

Kendall exists in any part of the NPS, we are making every effort to change that. 

Questions from Senator Angus S. King. Jr. 

Question 1: While additional training and new programs to expedite handling of 

complaints is an important start, these proposed responses won't rectify systemic problems 

without an effective and timely disciplinary process. 

To that end, what concrete steps do you plan to take in order to dismiss consistently 

problematic employees from the NPS? Is there a formula you can develop, such as first 

identifying the most frequent offenders, and work from there? And along those lines, what 

steps can you take to replace the managers who have turned a blind eye to the recurring 

problems? Can you look to any other federal agencies besides the Department of Defenseor even private industry- for assistance? 

Response: 

Dismissing consistently problematic employees and identifYing the most frequent offenders- The 

NPS is committed to addressing misconduct and poor performance to regain the public's trust 

and our employees' confidence. Employees can be removed for both conduct and performance 

reasons, but each basis has its own set of procedural due process, as established by Congress. 

5 
41 

The agency must take care that a decision to remove an employee is factually and legally 

supported to ensure that the removal is not overturned if appealed by the employee. 

In March 2017, the Department of the Interior asked all bureaus to begin tracking data related to 

allegations of employee misconduct in a consistent format and submitting to the Department. 

This means cases of misconduct are now able to be reviewed and tracked at the regional and 

national level across bureaus to ensure cases are being addressed and resolved. 

To address problem employees, managers work closely with Employee Relations specialists to 

learn about an employee's past work history so they can understand if they have any previous 

cases of misconduct. Managers have also been instructed to more consistently conduct reference 

checks on candidates to determine if a candidate has an existing disciplinary record. By 

understanding an employee's past conduct, managers can weigh a variety of factors when 

determining disciplinary actions. If employees continue to act inappropriately, managers can use 

progressive discipline and can assign a more serious penalty for each infraction including up to 

removal from government service. 

Replacing managers who ignore problems - Secretary Zinke has adopted a zero-tolerance policy 

for misconduct related to sexual harassment. Under this policy, employees may be removed from 

Federal service for a single, egregious offense. Additionally, the Department is reviewing new 

policies that will provide managers options to hold employees accountable for harassing conduct 

that is inappropriate but falls short of the legal definition of harassment under Title VII. This 

will enable the NPS to address misconduct before it rises to the level of illegal harassment. It is 

essential for every manager to be accountable for his or her performance in addressing employee 

misconduct. All managers have a critical element on their performance plan in which they are 

rated on their effectiveness in supervising their employees. Managers who fail to hold their 

employees accountable for performance or misconduct can receive a negative performance 

evaluation, be placed on an employee performance improvement plan, and if performance does 

not improve, may themselves be removed or demoted from a supervisory position. 

External assistance - In addition to earlier engagement with the Department of Defense, the NPS 

has sought other outside expertise to help us understand and address the issue of sexual 

harassment and incivility. Two recent examples: (1) The NPS convened a "Creating Employees 

First NPS" workshop on June 19-20. Seven highly regarded experts in the fields of 

organizational behavior, industrial psychology, sociology, communications, women's studies, 

and human resources helped us understand how we might be able to change our culture by 

increasing the level of respect in the workplace and preventing instances of harassment and 

incivility. (2) The NPS Women's Employee Resource Group in partnership with the Office of 

Learning & Development, the Peace Corps Office of Safety and Security, and US Park Police 

jointly developed a webinar on Bystander Intervention that was delivered on July 12. The Peace 

Corps has documented over 1600 occurrences in which Peace Corps members have used 

bystander intervention skills since they began offering their Bystander Intervention training in 

2011. 

Question 2: The Mount Desert Island community that surrounds Acadia National Park is 

very concerned about the suspension of the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission, a 

6 
42 

Commission established by law that serves as an important forum for communication 

between the local communities and the Park Service. Formal meetings of the Commission 

operate to make valuable suggestions and recommendations to the Park Service on the 

management and operation of Acadia National Park that benefit the Park, visitors to the 

Park and residents of the region and state. The suspension of this important Commission, 

especially in light of critical Commission meetings set to take place this year, negatively 

impacts Acadia National Park management and the local communities. 

What specific actions will the National Park Service take to ensure that the Acadia 

National Park Advisory Commission can get back to work so that they can formally meet 

for their scheduled meeting in September of this year? 

Response: The Acadia National Park Advisory Commission has been a strong partner to the 

NPS, ensuring coordination and consultation at the local level. In order to make sure all 

commissions are giving local communities adequate opportunities to comment on park 

management decisions, the Department is reviewing the more than 200 boards, committees, and 

commissions under its responsibility. This review is scheduled to be completed later this year so 

that commissions can get back to work. 

Question 3: What steps does the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission need to go 

through in order to ensure that they can be relieved of the suspension of activities as soon 

as possible? 

Response: The NPS has submitted all necessary paperwork to the Department to complete its 

review of the Acadia commission. No additional steps need to be taken at this time. 

Question 4: Will there be a first round or tier of Advisory Commissions that will be 

released from the freeze? 

Response: No information is available on the exact timing of when individual commissions can 

begin meeting again. 

Question 5: What are the standards that an Advisory Commission would need to meet in 

order to be release from the suspension of formal activities as soon as possible? 

Response: The Department is reviewing committee charters, evaluating committee memberships 

to ensure there is adequate local representation, assessing benefits and services provided by the 

committees, and analyzing costs. One important requirement is that there are an adequate 

number of members on each commission to represent the local community's interests. 

Questions from Senator Tammy Duckworth 

Question 1: During your June 7th hearing before the National Park Service Subcommittee, 

you highlighted the important work of two new ombudsmen employees at the National 

Park Service (NPS). As you continue implementing this new avenue of outreach for NPS's 

7 
43 

23,000 employees, what is your vision and long-term goals for this program? Please share 

any metrics you are using to evaluate the program's effectiveness. 

Response: The mission of the NPS Ombuds program is to help reinforce a workplace culture 

that focuses on ethics, respect, teamwork, fairness, civility, responsibility, and accountability. 

The vision is to provide resources to the NPS to explore resolution of individual and systemic 

problems affecting the workforce. As we work on defining the long-term goals and role for the 

NPS Ombuds, we will evaluate the program's effectiveness and make changes, as needed, to best 

serve the workforce. 

We are taking several actions simultaneously to better understand the NPS workplace 

environment and improve conditions for employees, so it is difficult to attribute changes 

specifically to the Ombuds program. However, the number of employee contacts, and the 

quantity and types of comments received, are metrics which indicate the extent to which 

employees are using the service. 

Question 2: Given your stated goal of creating an open and safe atmosphere at NPS and the 

more than 1,000 comments, complaints and recommendations already received, how many 

ombudsmen employees are needed to fully and effectively address the concerns of all 23,000 

of your employees? How do you plan to increase the public facing visibility of this office? 

Response: As part of the evaluation of the program's effectiveness, we will assess the Ombuds 

workload, employee interest, and the value to leaders in order to make recommendations about 

Ombuds staffing needs and implementation strategy. The Ombuds guarantee the anonymity of 

the employees who use their services. Their primary roles are to assist employees with 

identifying appropriate pathways for resolving workplace issues and advising senior leaders 

about the trends in comments from employees. As such, it is an internal program and we do not 

have plans to share more than general information about the program with the public. 

8 
44 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on National Parks 

.June 7, 2017 Hearing: Opportunities for Moving into a Second Century of Service: 

Working to Improve the National Park Service Workplace Environment 

Question for the Record Submitted to Ms. Mary L. Kendall 

Question from Senator Mazie K. Hirono 

Question: You note that "tone at the top" is very important for NPS and its future. 

What impact does a vacant scat for NPS Director currently have on setting a ·'tone at the top" at 

the bureau0 Aside from the all-employee memorandum that was submitted by Acting Director 

Reynolds, how has the Park Service brought together NPS top-level leaders to unify consistent 

exemplary conduct and ensure that it trickles down the chain of command? 

The vacancy for a permanent NPS Director hinders the ·'tone at the top" from being set in NPS. 

While I have considerable personal respect for Acting Director Reynolds, he is in a no-win 

situation of having responsibility for this crisis of culture but little power to correct it. Although I 

have no direct knowledge, I have anecdotal information to suggest that the NPS leadership team 

views Mr. Reynolds as a lame-duck (he is rumored not to be in the running for the permanent 

Director) and they have actually opposed Reynolds' efforts to increase the presence and 

professionalism of ethics officers throughout the Service. This is not a great harbinger of a 

culture change. 

As the Secretary and the White House evaluate candidates for permanent NPS Director, they 

would be well-advised to consider integrity, honor, demeanor, character. and leadership skills 

that will model the kind of behavior they would like to see reflected throughout the NPS, as 

would members of this subcommittee in examining a candidate for confirmation to this position. 
45 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on National Parks 

June 7, 2017 Hearing: Opportunities for Moving into a Second Century of Service: 

Working to Improve the National Park Service Workplace Environment 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Maria Burks 

Questions from Senator Mazie K. Hirono 

Question 1: You mention your concerns about the administration's proposed budget for FY 18 

and its impact on the parks and programs of the service. 

Can you give us some idea of the impact that these cuts will have on employee morale. visitation 

to the parks, and dealing with the maintenance backlog'' 

Answer: Cuts of the magnitude proposed will have serious both long- and short-term 

impacts. Already strained by years of tight budgets. park staffs will be forced to cut back 

operations. especially in the high season. Exact impacts will vary by park, but will be highly 

visible. Campgrounds, life-guarded beaches, seasonal visitor centers, emergency services and 

ranger-led programs will be reduced or eliminated. Some parks might not be able to open at all. 

Visitation during the Centennial in 2016 was record breaking at most of our nation's parks and it 

appears that trend is continuing this year. meaning that many more visitors will be 

disappointed. The impact of this will also hit hard in gateway communities ncar parks. 

The effect on employee morale will be equally devastating. Employees of the National Park 

Service have always met the call of duty even with funding not keeping pace with increasing 

demands. However, many are already discouraged, struggling with limited resources. The 

proposed cuts would greatly exacerbate that problem, essentially telling employees their work is 

not important and making it difficult for them to succeed, while demanding continued 

performance. 

Insuf1icicnt funding also will result in the continued growth of the maintenance backlog as more 

buildings and facilities fall into greater disrepair. There are many deferred maintenance projects 

in every state and the only thing lacking is funding to complete them. It will be nearly 

impossible for park staff to continue to maintain the resources entrusted by Congress for the 

benefit of the American public without sufTicient funding. 

Question 2: You note that employees spend a lot of time taking mandatory online training 

courses for IT security, ethics, etc. but cannot find training for job-related responsibilities such as 

natural, cultural, or historic resource protection. 

Do you think that the training courses within the Park Service need an overhaul and if so, what 

should be the primary focus? 

Answer: There is a place for certain mandatory on-line training courses, but for courses focusing 

on leadership and management skills, natural and cultural resources management, maintenance 

and project management, and other professional development, in-person training at a designated 

training facility offers much greater benefits. Resides learning specific skills relevant to that 

employee's job, there are numerous intangible elements gained from in-person training, 
46 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on National Parks 

.June 7, 2017 Hearing: Opportunities for Moving into a Second Century of Service: 

Working to Improve the National Park Service Wot·kplace Environment 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Maria Burks 

including opportunities to bring up problems needing resolution, ways to effectively deal with 

employee perfmmance issues, as well as identifying mentors for new employees, and engaging 

in networking with other park and program staff. Arti ticial travel and other restrictions hinder 

employees' participation in these training courses and should be removed to allow participation 

when funding is available. In pm-ticular, we recommend an initial strong focus on leadership and 

supervisory skills, where one-on-one mentoring and direct exposure to appropriate role models 

can make a big difference. 

Question 3: I know that Secretary Zinke has mentioned on numerous occasions his desire to 

reorganize the Department of Interior. One idea that I understand the Secretary is exploring is to 

put all Interior Department bureaus within a region under one regional director. So, under this 

model, the Park Service would head one region, the BLM another, and the USGS another. 

In your opinion, what would the impact of such a model have on the work of the Park Service 

within a given region? Do you agree with Ms. Kendall that drastic reorganization ofthc Park 

Service will amplify the challenge of changing the NPS workplace culture? 

Answer: Reorganizing the department in the manner described would be extremely difficult 

considering the diverse missions of the various bureaus. It is impossible to expect one person to 

provide leadership for such difTerent and competing missions. Such a plan would require the 

designated regional director to become an expert in the mandates, programs, and personnel of 

multiple bureaus without any obvious benefit to the department. Additionally, the cost involved 

in moving employees would be tremendous, and such a reorganization would create another 

level of bureaucracy that is unneeded and wastefuL It is much better to encourage field 

managers of the various bureaus to work together to find efficiencies and to resolve problems. 

This model has worked well for a number of years within the department. 

Additionally, this proposed model would further delay addressing the workplace issues identified 

in the Park Service by the Inspector GeneraL This only signals to employees that management 

does not take their concerns seriously. 

Question 4: What would be your recommendation to ensure that there is equal treatment for all 

employees? Can you describe the impact that merely moving employees from one location to 

another instead of addressing misconduct has had on employee morale? 

Answer: Providing effective training for supervisors and managers is critical for ensuring equal 

treatment of employees. Additionally, holding supervisors accountable for the management of 

their employees as part of their annual performance will go a long way toward guaranteeing 

equal treatment. Supervisors need to understand that merely moving employees with 

disciplinary issues from one park to another is unacceptable. When employees see that their 

managers support employees when issues arise, that leadership will demonstrate the expectations 

of the supervisors and the consequences tor unacceptable behavior and performance. 
47 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on National Parks 

June 7, 2017 Hearing: Opportunities for Moving into a Second Century of Service: 

Working to Improve the National Park Service Workplace Environment 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Maria Burks 

Question 5: Your testimony notes a lack of support from the Human Resources Office. 

In your opinion, what is needed to help managers and supervisors improve the management of 

their human resources matters? 

Answer: The centralization of the Human Resources office has resulted in long delays in filling 

open positions, and little assistance in dealing with performance and disciplinary issues. 

Returning these functions to the regional and park levels will provide resources closer to the 

place of need and allow greater interaction between HR and park or program sta!Tto resolve any 

problems that delay hiring or hinder timely disciplinary action. Consideration needs to be given 

to the size of the workforce being served so that parks or programs with a larger workforce can 

be served on-site, while regional and central ollices provide assistance to smaller parks or 

oftices. 
48 

u 

Statement for the Record 

Anthony M. Reardon 

National President, National Treasury Employees Union 

For the 

U.S. Senate 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on National Parks 

"Moving into a Second Century of Service: Working to Improve the National 

Park Service Workplace Environment" 

June 7, 2017 
49 

Chairman Daines and Ranking Member Hirono, 

Thank you for the opportunity to share our thoughts on ways to improve the workplace at 

the National Park Service (NPS). As :-Jational President of the National Treasury Employee 

Union (NTEU), I represent over 150,000 federal employees in 31 different agencies, including 

the NPS. Our purpose is "To organize federal employees to work together to ensure that every 

federal employee is treated with dignity and respect." We know there have been times when the 

Park Service may have not performed well in that aspect, but I can assure you that frontline 

employees know that we are available to help them in situations that require remediation. 

How docs an organization improve its workplace environment? In my meetings with our 

NPS members. one solution is immediately raised time and time again- increase funding to a 

reasonable level. There is simply not enough funding available to keep our parks functioning. 

As you may know. there have been severe starting shortages at NPS for years. In fact, many 

parks used to have twice the number of employees than they have on board now. However, it is 

important to recognize that the workload does not change. NPS has previously changed 

workers' shifts because of a lack of funds. For instance, for the last few years, when it snows, 

parks in the DC metro area have required employees to work overnight shifts instead of their day 

shifts, because the roads needed plowing and the parks wanted to limit overtime pay. This is 

only one example of an agency that is already operating on a shoestring. Let me add that this 

change was in violation of current statute, and NTEU took action to assure that improper and 

sudden disruption from regular work hours won't happen again. 

Although the NPS budget was announced with great timfare by Secretary Zinke, saying 

''President Trump and I are absolutely committed to repairing our treasured national parks and 

making sure the American people have a world class experience when they visit our parks, and 

this budget ret1ccts that", the document itself tells a very different story: 

• The Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 budget request is over 10 percent less than the FY 17 

Continuing Resolution. It requests 6.4 percent fewer tulltimc equivalent employees. 

The proposed budget for National Recreation and Preservation is scheduled for a 

reduction of $25.5 million. The document explains why this kind of reduction makes no 

sense: many parks have already implemented strategies to reduce costs and many other 

parks cannot achieve additional savings because they do not have periods of lower 

visitation or a way to limit public access. As a result, at the proposed budget levels many 

parks would be required to institute further reductions to services, operating hours, and to 

the number of full-time and seasonal employees. Service-wide, these adjustments could 

include the elimination of thousands of seasonal employees, leaving vacancies for key 

positions unfilled, all of which translate into an immediate problem for individuals 

visiting our nation's parks. 
50 

Since FY 2011, the NPS workforce has decreased by more than 11 percent, at a time 

when visitors to the parks have increased by 17 percent. As one of our chapter leaders 

put it, "We've gone from doing more with less. to doing less with Jess." 

Maintenance is currently deferred because there arc no funds. You may recall that the 

Washington Monument was in the news several times last year, when people were getting 

stuck in the elevator. When our union tried to have the elevator closed for a needed 

overhaul, management authorized a quick fix that did not last. However, we don't regard 

this as management's fault- for so long, the Park Service has been forced to MacGyver 

its maintenance problems because of a lack of adequate funding. Ultimately, we 

persuaded NPS to close the elevator and replace it because it posed a clear occupational 

health and safety problem for visitors and employees, and it is now getting the attention 

needed. 

• The proposed NPS budget would have tangible impacts to the visiting public that include: 

reduced hours of park operations; reduced Visitor Center hours: closing some Visitor 

Centers at parks that have multiple Centers; fewer ranger-led talks; decreased ability to 

conduct Search and Rescue operations for lost or injured visitors; increased maintenance 

backlogs leading to accidents in areas where sidewalks and other structures may go 

without repair or replacement; and, forced overtime for maintenance staff during the 

summer months because of serious staff sh011ages. 

T recognize that this Committee takes its task in overseeing the Park Service very 

seriously. Likewise, NTEU seriously takes its task of representing employees, and sharing the 

perspectives of these experienced and knowledgeable individuals, who have chosen careers 

dedicated to the upkeep of our parks for the public. Our union does its best to make sure that all 

NPS employees come to work in a safe and respected environment. But improving the 

workplace takes more than vigilance. It takes funds. Funding the parks at a level where workers 

feel they are given what they need to be able to do the job is the place to start. Our members 

love being Park Service employees. They are dedicated to the mission and if s frustrating to 

them to not be in a position to give the American public the experience our members want them 

to have. As one of our members said, "Parks cannot be automated. They don't run themselves. 

You can't set up an automatic check-in or checkout line for nature, not without forfeiting the 

opportunity to briefly engage every single visitor and impart to them the basic things they need 

to keep in mind to have a satisfying and safe visit.'' Please help to improve the NPS workplace, 

and the public's parks, by rejecting the Administration's proposed FY 2018 NPS budget, and 

properly fund them instead. Thank you (or taking our views into consideration. 
51 

To: US Senate Committee on Natural Resources 

From: James Pickard 

Subject: My dismissal ti-om federal service based on my disability 

I'm writing to you today to ask for yom heqJ regarding my dismissal from the National 

Park Service. 1 believe that my di<>missal was based on having a speech disability. Below 

i<; a backgrmmd about my situation. 

I was employed by the National Park Service as a Law Enforcement Park Ranger in a 

pennancnt status since October of 2009. I completed my one year probationary period 

therefore, I was considered as a career status federal employee. After I completed my 

training at the tederal law enforcement training center, I was sent to a duty station in 

North Carolina for my Field Training and Evaluation period. While in field training I 

began to have difficulties with my field training instructors. 1bey apparently felt that my 

speech issues would affect my ability to pertom1 as a law enforcement olllccr. 

While in training, my head field trainer recommended tor my removal because of alleged 

perfonnance deficiencies and not meeting the standards of the field training program. I 

have a speech disability and have had it for many years. During my training, I made the 

National Park Service aware of my speech disability. I requested a reasonable 

accommodation related to my disability and I was denied. I had a review board hearing. 

During thi<> hearing, I represented myselt: I explained my speech di<>ability to the board 

and previously to my trainers. I also requested a training transfer and they denied my 

request based on lack of timds. 

The board ruled against me and I was removed from the field trammg pro;,>ram I 

rctmncd to my duty station in New Orleans, Lonisiana. I was given a choice to either 

resign or be fired. I uhimate ly resigned. I then contacted the National Park Service Equal 

Employment Opportw1ity right bef(Jre Christmas. I thought that I needed all of my 

documentation in the case before I could proceed fmther with my EEO. I was finally 

contact by the NPS EEO. 

During fhe next couple of months I participated through the EEO process. The National 

Park Service training director Don Usher relilsed to work through Alternative Dispute 

Resolution. All that I got out of the EEO process was a thirty minute phone call with Don 

Usher, were Mr. Usher told me that I did a great job dwing the academy training. Mr. 

Usher also told me that he was not going to overrule the field training staff even though I 

felt the disability rights were violated. Last week I notified the NPS EEO Office that I 

want to have a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. 

1he following are the two civil rights violations that I'm citing: I'm a federal employee 

covered under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which I receive the same protections as the 

Americans with Disability Act. My trainer used the speech disability as bases for my bad 

perfonnance evaluations. Specifically, when I was graded lilldcr the topics of Command 

Presence, Voice ControL keep dispatch advised, and relationship with public. I believe 
52 

that my speech disability was used as the sole bases for the performance evaluations. 

Specifically tbey would ruake comments lil'e "Does not speak clear•· or" uses 

tmlS,uhs,ohs''. One traffic stop I was given a failing grade fur not controlling a suspect 

movement because I did not yell loud enough into a PA siren. It turned out the suspect 

was a non English driver. 

Second, my due process civil rights w-ere denied. When I had my removal hearing I was 

not allowed access to a lawyer which violates my 61

h amendment right to counsel. Wben J 

told the board that l was being denied my right to counsel they acted as if they did not 

care. l also told tbem that my 51

h amendment right to due process was at~o '~olated. 

Because I was a career status employee I was entitled to a !Wl human resource board of 

review. 'Ibis board of review was supposed to have my chief ranger, my park 

superintendent, my park human resource officer, and a lav.;yer. None of this was given to 

me. 

In 2013 l entered a Settlement Agreement ''~h the National Park Sen~e. I accepted a 

monetary ammmt of money and a promise that the National Park Service would not give 

negative reierenee about me. Fast forward to April 2017, I was reviewing a docurnent of 

my last federal backgrmmd for another Department of Interior Law Enforcement 

position. I read \vere my former NPS Law Enforcement Super\~or told the background 

investigator all alleged negative things I did. This was a complete violation of the 

settlement 

The most heart-breaking thing is that I'm now banned for life !rom ever being a 

National Park Service Law En!orcement Ranger. 

I look forward to hearing back from you. 

James Pickard. 

0