TOPICS
TOPICS
Merit board rejects appeal of ex-Park Police chief's firing
The Merit Systems Protection Board on Thursday rejected the former chief of the Park Police's appeal of her 2004 firing, but that denial has paved the way for her attorneys to take the case to a federal court.
Teresa Chambers was placed on administrative leave in late 2003, after she gave an interview that criticized the Park Police's ability to maintain staffing levels, and was fired formally in July 2004. Her initial protest was rejected in October 2004, and she filed an appeal that December. After more than a year and a half, the MSPB issued this week's split decision upholding her removal.
On Friday, National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley said the decision "serves the public poorly and undermines the congressional intent evident in the Whistleblower Protection Act, particularly with respect to matters impacting public health and safety."
But despite the loss, both Chambers and her attorneys said they look forward to the opportunity to take their case before a federal judge.
"This is what we've been waiting on, to get [the appeal] before a federal court," Chambers said, adding that she was surprised at the "exceptionally long period of time" that lapsed between her filing of the appeal and MSPB's decision.
When Chambers does take her appeal to a federal court - she has 60 days to do so - it will become her third separate court filing against the Park Police. She is also suing the agency for $2.2 million for lost salary, emotional distress and damage to her reputation.
Another suit seeks access to a performance evaluation that attorneys want to use as evidence in both of the other cases.
The Park Police did not return calls seeking comment.
The release of Chambers' still-missing performance evaluation "would significantly affect the outcome of the other cases," said Richard Condit, a Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility attorney who is representing the former Park Police chief. Along with the performance document itself, Chambers is suing for unspecified damages stemming from the agency's failure to produce it.
In seeking new jobs, Chambers would be "impaired by the fact that she lacks [an evaluative] record," Condit said.
Though the evaluation is not public, Terrie Fajardo, a former human resources chief for the National Park Service, said in a sworn deposition that Chambers' performance was satisfactory.
Fajardo, in her testimony, said she was asked to prepare the evaluation and that she asked Chambers' supervisor about the former chief's performance so she could complete the report. Fajardo said she was told that Chambers' work was "fine."
COMMENTS
- The MSPB rarely votes for the complainant. How do you think all the vets get screwed when they file complaints about vets preference laws, etc. The MSPB prides itself on taking care of the government; not the employee (or former one). Scan through their rulings on the Web and you will see what I mean. The whole system is a scam from start to finish. Charlie Posted September 28, 2006 10:38 PM
- I have been following this since the original posting years ago. I always find it disturbing that the government (in this case the MSPB) apparently has an undetermined amount of time to respond, yet an employee (in this case Ms. Chambers) has a set amount of time to accomplish filings and dates. The government simply can keep spending taxpayers’ money to draw out the case until the employee can no longer afford to go on with the case. They also can change the venue to another remote location which causes an additional expense which the employee can't afford. In reading Ms. Fajardo's deposition, it indicates Mr. Murphy, when asked about Ms. Chambers’ work, only responded "she's doing fine." Mr. Murphy's comment is not an adequate response to be given to Ms. Fajardo who is required to write a performance evaluation. I hope the attorney for Ms. Chambers makes inquiries to the Park Service IM department concerning where Ms. Chamber's computer is, how it came to be removed and whether the computer hard drive was cleansed prior to disposal (if disposed of). It is clear that depositions of other office personnel are needed. This is so typical of government dealings -- cover up and mistreatment of whistleblowers. GovExec.com reader Posted September 26, 2006 10:57 AM
