GovernmentExecutive.com

A federal judge recently turned down the Interior Department's motion to dismiss one of several lawsuits filed by the former chief of the Park Police in opposition to her 2004 firing.

The suit alleged that the department violated the Privacy Act by declining to grant access to performance evaluation documents that lawyers for Teresa Chambers, the former head of the Park Police, argue are critical to her case. 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. She was fired formally in July 2004.

The department filed a motion to dismiss the Privacy Act suit. In turning it down, Judge James Robertson of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., said the Interior Department's withholding of documents from Chambers "appears to have been improper." But it remains unclear whether her performance evaluation will be made public, he said in his Sept. 28 decision.

The former Park Police chief said that, despite the court's ruling against the Interior Department motion, she remains frustrated that the performance evaluation she has sought for years has not yet been made public. She said that if it exists -- and multiple department and Park Police officials have testified that it does -- it will exonerate her and allow for her reinstatement.

"You can't get blood from a turnip," Chambers said. She contests that she was dismissed because she gave the interview criticizing the Park Police. Agency officials claim she was fired for misconduct.

The performance documents could help resolve the dispute. In 2004, National Park Service Deputy Director Donald Murphy said he prepared an evaluation that covered the time period where misconduct was alleged. Last year, he recanted that statement.

"For the purposes of this lawsuit, it no longer matters which version of Donald Murphy's widely varying accounts under oath is accurate - either way, the government is liable," said Richard Condit, who represents Chambers on behalf of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

All three of Chambers' cases have been gaining momentum. A second ongoing suit seeks $2.2 million for lost salary, emotional distress and damage to her reputation. Last month, after a lengthy delay, the Merit Systems Protection Board rejected the third case. Her attorneys can still pursue that case in federal court, and they plan to do so.

"We are working on that this week," Chambers said. She has until late November to file.

COMMENTS

• Yes, performance appraisals are repeatedly used as a weapon against federal employees that dare blow the whistle, file an EEO complaint or engage in protected activity. Yep these daring employees automatically become poor performers with brand new issues of misconduct. It never fails. Read some federal employees cases. Before I engaged in protected activity I received three consecutive outstanding performance appraisals, I maintained an exceptional 23-year federal and military performance and conduct record. Immediately after I engaged in protected activity I received an oral and written reprimand, three annual performance appraisals within a two-month period, two totally unacceptable and one successful, but with negative comments on it. One appraisal that I received was from a supervisor who I never worked for, but he stated that he appraised me based on the way he “felt” that I performed. This is an emotional performance appraisal. I was investigated and suspended for an incident that I complained of. And, I was terminated for unproven insubordination. What makes it even worse is that I was terminated the next working day after I fell on the concrete floor broke/cracked my teeth, injured my shoulder/arm. Although I have repeatedly begged for my performance appraisals for several periods, I have been refused and tax dollars had to be spent because I had to file a costly EEO complaint to get my appraisals but I still have not received my appraisals. I have even repeatedly asked what the insubordinate act was but to date they remain hushed. Hey Taxpayer, Murphy is not the only lying manager. Many of your tax dollars are wasted not only by the lies but the fact that most get away with it and do it over and over and over and over and over again, they get free legal representation at the taxpayers’ expense. GovExec.com reader Posted October 7, 2006 11:01 PM
• Ms. Chambers has had performance evaluations that she hasn't been given access to? I always thought that the purpose of the Privacy Act was to protect the individuals to which the information pertained, not the person's "superiors." The actions of the Interior Department imply that evaluations are weapons rather than tools and makes me wonder about the purpose of going to "pay-for-performance," which uses performance evaluations as the central tool for evaluating performance (always subjective, of course, but come on, you know who the better performers are in your group). Maybe the folks in the GS system aren't as paranoid as I thought they were about going to the new personnel system. I have always been at least been given access to my evaluations (when the evaluation is presented to me I am asked to sign it, not to imply that I necessarily agree but only to indicate that I have reviewed it with my supervisor) and have been given the right and opportunity to protest any evaluation I may have believed to be inaccurate. Naive in America GovExec.com reader Posted October 5, 2006 11:54 AM
• "In 2004, National Park Service Deputy Director Donald Murphy said he prepared an evaluation that covered the time period where misconduct was alleged. Last year, he recanted that statement" This means that Murphy lied! This is a typical problem throughout the Bush administration. While this may be true for most administrations, the Bush administration gets caught more than others. Also, the Bush lies cost many lives and this case is an example - as is the outing of the CIA spy and the invasion of Iraq. Bush should get rid of Murphy immediately! What Chambers said turned out true and the firing gave Interior a chance to promote their inside choice for the job to reward their friends. Taxpayer Posted October 4, 2006 7:48 AM