GovernmentExecutive.com

The National Park Service has placed the chief of the Park Police on administrative leave after she made comments to the media about budget and personnel shortfalls at the agency.

The suspension follows a gag order the agency instituted after Chief Teresa Chambers was quoted in a Tuesday Washington Post article. Chambers told the Post that her 620-member force needs as many as 800 additional officers to meet increased demands, faces a $12 million shortfall this fiscal year, and needs up to $8 million more for next fiscal year.

After the article ran, Don Murphy, the Park Service's deputy director, said Chambers' comments broke two federal rules: one barring public comment about ongoing budget discussions, the other prohibiting lobbying by someone in her position.

After a late-day meeting Friday, the Park Service announced that Chambers had been placed on administrative leave and that Deputy Chief Ben Holmes would serve as acting chief. The service did not give any specific reason for the action.

However, Park Service spokesman David Barna acknowledged on Friday the agency was not actually sure if Chambers broke any federal laws, and lawyers are now researching what agency heads can and cannot publicly say.

Some House lawmakers questioned the agency's decision to discipline Chambers for speaking out about budget problems, adding that they know the Park Police faces problems.

Dan Drummond, spokesman for Rep. James Moran, D-Va., said Chambers is a highly respected chief and should be allowed to speak freely about her agency.

"The congressman is not only concerned about the gag order, but also about the staffing levels," Drummond said. "He does not feel that there should be a gag order on her. She should be allowed to speak freely."

Drummond said Moran's office is looking into whether public officials like Chambers can be restricted from talking publicly about budget problems. He added that the office would also examine budget conditions within the Park Police.

An official who specializes in government law said he did not know of any laws that would prohibit an agency chief from publicly talking about budget issues, although there might be administrative policies regarding such actions.

"It sounds like a broad statement that they don't want people to talk about unpleasant things," said the legal expert, who asked not to be identified. "We all are in a world today where we are all keenly aware of the human resource problems in government and are acutely interested in a discussion about them."

Barna acknowledged that the Park Police, and the Park Service overall, face new pressures due to expanding missions and increased homeland security obligations.

"There's no doubt in anybody's mind that things are getting tight, especially in this agency," he said.

The core mission of the Park Police is to guard monuments, Barna said, but responsibilities have increased in recent years to include traffic enforcement and assistance to investigations.

Additionally, the Homeland Security Department ordered more protection around the monuments, leading the Park Police to begin training unarmed guards to stand watch outside the monuments.

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, the Park Service has had to funnel more money toward law enforcement activities, Barna added. When the national threat level was raised from yellow to orange in Sept. 2002, the service spent $2 million on overtime pay, he said.

"We don't have a budget for that," Barna said.

One of the challenges facing the Park Police is whether it should pursue a bigger budget to meet increased obligations, or push for only doing its original mission, according to Barna.

"The real question is, what is their mission and what should they be doing?" he said.

COMMENTS

• Everyone is missing the point here. It is sooo obvious that it is just an excuse that discussing the budget is the reason for her suspension. There is something very wrong here. Isn’t anyone questioning the fact that the punishment seriously doesn’t fit the crime? When they want to “get rid” of someone, they will try and use the lamest excuse to do so. There is much more involved here, it is the tip of the iceberg. “People” wanted her out for a reason. We need to dig to find out what that reason is and who is involved and why. Is there anyone interested in investigating the situation to get to the root? I can promise you this, there IS a big story here, and there are many involved. GovExec.com reader Posted January 2, 2004 9:57 AM
• Having worked with Chief Chambers for nearly 4 years, I would stake my reputation on the fact that she did not intentionally violate any Federal rule or any other rules. I know how she operates, I know her chacter and I know she is incapable of doing what the NPS is trying to accuse her of. Having been in law enforcement myself for over 30 years, 10 of those in top administration, the manner in which she was suspended (under armed guard, taking her weapon, ID and other equipment) is only used in cases where an officer has committed a serious crime or has indicated that he or she is of danger to himself or others. To use this method on Chief Chambers is nothing short of harrassment and humiliation. (they are still looking for the reason) The Administration at the DOI and NPS are not untouchable, and their dirty little secrets are about to be exposed. Right will prevail, I just hope they can recognize it when it comes. They have motivated thousands of individuals from the grassroots level to Congress to become involved in Chief Chambers' plight. Kent Fletcher Posted December 17, 2003 5:18 PM
• The current national leadership group of the NPS has been nothing short of a disaster since day one and this is only the latest example. Both Mainella and Murphy are political appointees who came out of the Florida and California state park systems respectively. What they know about managing national parks, and the National Park Service, could fit on the head of a pin with room left over for the Lord's Prayer. They have nothing but contempt for career employees and you'd have to dig a hole to find the morale in this agency now. They are regarded in the field units as nothing more than dangerous, ignorant jokes and surround themselves with failed field "leaders" who would do just about anything for a high grade and a title. They are a disgrace to what used to be one of the very best government agencies to work for and one that most employees took great pride in their association with. Both should be exposed, publically humiliated and fired. What's good for the goose... God bless Theresa Chambers for telling the truth! GovExec.com reader Posted December 12, 2003 9:09 AM