GovernmentExecutive.com

A proposed realignment in the National Park Service's headquarters would take control of the U.S. Park Police away from the official who filed charges against former Park Police Chief Teresa Chambers.

The move drew derisive remarks from a whistleblower group that believes it is a demotion for agency Deputy Director for External Affairs Donald Murphy, a claim denied by the agency.

The shuffle would return the Park Service's management structure to its pre-Bush administration status, with the consolidation of park operations, including law enforcement, under a single deputy director and the creation of two associate director positions for business services and human capital. The reorganization does not make any personnel changes in leadership other than changes in titles and responsibilities, and the number of senior executive slots remains unchanged.

If the realignment goes through as planned, Steve Martin, deputy director for internal affairs, who has been with the Park Service for 30 years and is a member of the Senior Executive Service, will gain full control of the Park Service's chief operating functions.

By law, the Park Service must have two deputy directors, one career and another politically appointed. One was intended to be responsible for operations, the second for "other operations assigned to the National Park Service."

Murphy, a political appointee who shares the head of operations job with Martin and was primarily responsible for all agency law enforcement, placed Chambers on administrative leave, ordered her to not speak to the press and proposed to remove her from her position after she told The Washington Post that the police force was understaffed and underfunded in December 2003.

Chambers was fired in July 2004 and has since sued the Interior Department to get her job back even though the Park Service hired her replacement in March.

Murphy would become the deputy director for support services with control over external agency operations, including managing the agency's international affairs, the chief information officer, policy, strategic planning, state and local maintenance programs and special projects. In his new position, Murphy will not be involved directly with the Park Police.

Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, described the move as a reduction in responsibility for mishandling, among other issues, Chambers' dismissal.

"Chief Chambers' case is just one of a series of matters that Murphy mishandled, so this functional demotion is no surprise," Ruch said.

Park Service spokesman David Barna said Ruch's assertion is inaccurate and that with the reorganization, Murphy is moving into a more influential position directing policy and planning as well as a range of other Park Service functions.

"If you're in charge of overall policy, like Murphy will be, then you tell me about who has control," Barna said. "This is not about replacing people. It's about shifting operations around to the way they were 5 or 6 years ago."

The proposed headquarters realignment was laid out in a June 8 letter from P. Lynn Scarlett, the Interior Department's assistant secretary for policy, management and budget, which stated that the realignment will become official within 30 days unless Congress objects.

The letter, addressed to Rep. Norman D. Dicks, D-Wash., ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, was obtained by PEER, along with the agency's current organizational chart and the diagram with the proposed changes.

Scarlett writes that the purpose of the reorganization is to improve communications between the agency's headquarters and the field units by placing park operations under one director.

COMMENTS

• It doesn't matter how much reogranization/alignment takes place the NPS management sytem has so many responsibility loopholes it confuses even the best organization chart makers. How can there be national programs under the Deputy Director for Operations and then the program employees be located under the Deputy Director for Support Services? There is no functional chain of command. Washington staff can direct operations of some programs around the chain of command - so who is responsible? Is it the offical with the program but no employees or is the offical that supervises the employees but has no program authority? Who's on first base? GovExec.com reader Posted June 22, 2005 1:39 PM
• I have yet to figure out why the NPS would continue to keep Don Murphy on board. He has proven himself to be in way over his head. And why keep him in charge of something as important as Planning, and specifically Strategic Planning when he has shown no interest in this in the past? Don Murphy has ruined the careers of other NPS employees besides that of Teresa. There have been several career NPS executives that have moved to privated organizations, academic positions and other agencies and bureau just to get away from the horrible conditions of the NPS. If the Director of the NPS, Fran Mainella, is too busy spending NPS funds to fly around the country, then the President needs to put a stop to this mismanagement, fire both Murphy and Mainella and get some executives in place that actually care about the NPS. Former NPS Manager who moved to another Bureau! GovExec.com reader Posted June 22, 2005 9:44 AM