Late last October, it was announced that Gettysburg National Military Park Superintendent John Latschar was going to retire to assume the presidency of the Gettysburg Foundation at a major salary increase. I seriously questioned the ethics of this job move in a couple of posts here. Kevin Levin disagreed with me in a comment to his post, finding nothing wrong with the ethics of the situation.
Well, as the following press release from the National Park Service plainly demonstrates, there was something fishy about this situation after all. After being reined in by the NPS ethics people, who finally woke up and realized that there serious conflicts of interest inherent in this situation, Latschar has now reversed field, announced that he won’t take the position with the Gettysburg Foundation, and that he will remain as superintendent of the GNMP:
Latschar to remain in current post as Gettysburg Superintendent
Gettysburg Superintendent John Latschar will remain in his current post, reversing his decision to retire and become president of the Gettysburg Foundation. Latschar made the decision following advice by Department of the Interior ethics officials that would have severely curtailed his ability to work with the park in his new role with the Foundation.
When initially approached to consider heading the Gettysburg Foundation, Superintendent John Latschar did what any responsible federal employee should do, said National Park Service Northeast Regional Director Dennis R. Reidenbach. He contacted National Park Service ethics officials, and he also contacted me as his supervisor.
When initially informed by the Washington office in October 2008 that there was no ethical issue in accepting the position, Latschar announced his retirement. Subsequently, Department of Interior ethics officials issued supplemental guidance because of Latschar’s involvement in developing agreements between the Foundation and the NPS.
“The Foundation obviously would have been honored to have John as its next president,” said Foundation President Robert C. Wilburn. “But we are thrilled that he will continue to facilitate our successful partnership as superintendent of Gettysburg National Military Park.” A search committee to find Wilburn’s successor is in place; Wilburn will postpone his departure from the Foundation until a successor is named.
“I had been looking forward to the challenges of moving to the private sector and working for the Gettysburg Foundation,” said Superintendent John Latschar. “However, I can’t complain about going back to the best job in the National Park Service as Superintendent of Gettysburg NMP and Eisenhower NHS. We’ll now redouble our efforts to make our wonderful partnership with the Gettysburg Foundation the best that the National Park Service has ever seen.”
“The Gettysburg Foundation’s loss is the National Park Service’s gain, and I am happy that John chose to remain as superintendent,” said Reidenbach. “The situation with the ethics guidance was unfortunate, but John Latschar and the Gettysburg Foundation have always maintained the highest ethical standards possible.”
Personally, I’m glad that the ethics people finally woke up and realized that they needed to do something about the huge conflict of interest inherent in this transaction, and that they took steps to stop it. It just never smelled right to me from the very beginning, and I was shocked that they didn’t have the same reaction to what seemed to me to be a very obvious problem.
Thanks for the link Eric, but I am not sure I ever said there was “nothing wrong” with the decision. Perhaps I did, but the post you linked to doesn’t make that claim at all. I spoke out at a time when everything Latschar did was being criticized and in a way which made very little sense to me.
Comment by Kevin — January 28, 2009 @ 10:35 pm
Thank you for pointing that out to me, Kevin. I’ve now corrected the link.
Eric
Comment by The General — January 28, 2009 @ 10:41 pm
The timing of the ethics revision in this instance may be coincidental, but new Interior Secretary Ken Salazar held a news conference Wednesday morning pledging to address what he termed ethics transgressions within the Interior Dept.
The secretary was referring to different incidents, but it seems as though Interior’s ethics climate has changed since the first review of Supt. Laschar’s proposed move to the Foundation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012803517.html
Comment by Dave — January 29, 2009 @ 4:13 am
Thanks Eric.
Comment by Kevin — January 29, 2009 @ 6:37 am
For what its is worth, I heard from sources I consider reliable that Laschar himself requested the ethics review.
Comment by Art Bergeron — January 29, 2009 @ 9:56 am
Dave,
I think the timing is more coincidental than anything else. There’s been a slowly building push in DoI in general with regard to ethics enforcement. There’s been a “you better clean up your act or we will!” attitude from outside agencies for a year and a half now. Somewhat reminiscent of what happened in DoD during the tanker controversy.
I think in Lashar’s case, we are simply seeing that after much wrangling internally, DoI has finally given the ethics officials enough power to say what needs to be said.
Or alternatively, the Hon. Sec. Salazar reads Eric’s blog….
Comment by Craig Swain — January 29, 2009 @ 10:03 am
Eric:
I agree with your assessment regarding the ethics questions surrounding the move and I’m glad to see this change. Personally, I’d probably prefer that Latschar be in neither position, but that’s just me.
Randy
Comment by Randy — January 29, 2009 @ 12:10 pm
Dave,
Thanks for the article link. I think that has much to do with it.
Comment by Jared Frederick — January 29, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
I always thought it was smarmy……..probably perfectly ‘legal’, but I always thought it was slick as owl shit.
I support the guys efforts on rehabbing the field 100%, (though I can nit pick Colt Park and Stevens Knoll.)….but personally, I thought it was tremendously ballsy to publically defend a 387K gig with the Foundation and then slip seamlessly into the job yourself? Whatever the truth may be seems almost irrelevant…..it just looks bad, and you know what they say about perception.
Sounds like somebody in DC came to the same conclusion.
Comment by Rick Allen — January 29, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
That’s going to make for a mighty uncomfortable break room.
Comment by Mannie Gentile — January 29, 2009 @ 6:15 pm
Mannie, that be the most accurate thing I have heard yet……….LOL
Comment by Rick Allen — January 29, 2009 @ 6:57 pm
I’m probably off-base, but I can’t help but wonder whether this development has something to do with there being a new sheriff in town, so to speak, who has shown a tendency to insist on ethics in government. It’s not hard to believe that the Bush administration folks told Latschar that everything was okay, but people like Eric and me – who have to take courses in ethics constantly in order to maintain our bar membership – saw a huge problem with Latschar’s proposed move.
If Latschar did call for the review, good for him, but perhaps it was simply because he didn’t want to run the risk of getting that call, a few months after making the switch, telling him that he was going to have to resign from his new position.
Comment by Sean Dail — January 30, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
Sean,
Either way it reflects positively on Latschar.
Comment by Kevin — January 30, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
The Gettysburg Times has an article (http://www.gettysburgtimes.com/articles/2009/01/30/news/local/doc4982ed904da8a778227251.txt) quoting the not-retiring-quite-yet superintendent that the change in presidential administrations has nothing to do with the revised ethics decision preventing his move to the Foundation.
But just-in-case transition planning began long before Election Night, and given the earlier scandals at Interior, you had to imagine that department was destined for some extra ethics-related scrutiny during the transition. And when the news of the proposed Laschar move to the Foundation came out in October, it was likely added to the list of items the incoming administration wanted to review as soon as it could.
Comment by Dave — January 30, 2009 @ 8:05 pm
PS – Sorry about the ugly link in the earlier comment.
Comment by Dave — January 30, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
Rumor I have heard within the NPS credits the “new sheriff in town theory” but nothing solid. I’m with youEric, never liked “the deal” in the first place. Even if somebody judged it ethical, it didn’t pass the sniff test with me.
Comment by Tom Clemens — January 31, 2009 @ 12:01 am
Kevin,
As Tom notes, the deal never passed the “sniff” test. If the only reason Latschar requested the review was to save himself from being unemployed a few months down the road, I don’t see how you can say that reflects positively on Latschar – other than to demonstrate that he is politically astute and could see the writing on the wall. And I don’t think any of us every questioned whether he was smart – the question is whether he has a good sense of ethics.
To be honest, when you study ethics in the context of law and government, things are not always clear. But one of the things you always strive for is to avoid “even the appearance of impropriety.” This deal never passed that test, and it should have been obvious to Mr. Latschar from the beginning that it did not. He has been in government service for a very long time.
Comment by Sean Dail — January 31, 2009 @ 8:21 pm