Rantings of a Civil War Historian

October 19, 2009

90 Comments »

1. 

   Good grief. He really does need to be removed. This is astounding. He should not be in charge at Gettysburg any longer.
   Thanks for the incredible info,
   Chris

   Comment by Chris Evans — October 19, 2009 @ 9:13 pm

2. 

   How many of us decent folks would love to have this guy’s authority, influence and position? What a privilege this guy had and absolutely blew it!

   Comment by Michael — October 19, 2009 @ 10:20 pm

3. 

   This simply proves what many who work with the man have known for years…he is simply an arrogant s.o.b. He is so full of himself that he believes that is is untouchable. And the sad thing is…he is probably right. Mr. Teflon will slide again. Then Sec. of Interior Dick Kempthorne called Latschar a “national treasure” when the new museum opened in the fall of 2008. Latschar will simply get a slap on the wrist (behind closed doors) and nothing more. He should be so ashamed of his sick behavior that he wouldn’t want to show his face. Instead he will continue merrily along as if nothing happened (because he is conceited enough to think he probably did not wrong). Sick, sick, sick and disgusting!!

   Comment by Andrew — October 19, 2009 @ 11:02 pm

4. 

   Let me begin by saying I know where I am posting . I know Eric is not a fan of Latscher (to be polite about it), and I suspect many (most?) of Eric’s posters hold similar views. My purpose is not to defend Latscher so much as to point out we don’t know enough to condemn him, unless, of course, we are pre-disposed to condemn him.

   There are two issues here:

   (1) Inappropriate use of DOI/NPS computers: It is certainly true that most employers have rules about personal use of company computers. It is also true that, in many cases, there are clauses in the employee handbook that allow for some “minimal” personal use. True story: About 15 years ago, when I was teaching in Alabama, a couple of neo-Confederate yahoos threatened to report me to my employer for my use of university computers to post on CW newsgroups. I was concerned enough that I went to the Office of the Counsel to get an opinion and was told not to worry—this kind of clause was used as an excuse to get rid of folks who were not doing their job. If anyone was concerned, I’d be told to cut back before I would be fired.

   (2) Porn: Pardon the pun, but there is a lot of wiggle room here. Was he downloading images from the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue? From Playboy’s website? Or something more hard-core? It does make a difference—the first two don’t bother me at all, the last one does.

   Now, the “combination effect” is in play here; IOW, lots of employers ignore personal web-surfing, etc., until one hits porn sites. That is a “third rail” kind of thing in many places. So, again, the details matter: What was he looking at? I don’t know, and I have seen no details of this sort.

   Just offered as a contrarian opinion .

   Comment by James F. Epperson — October 20, 2009 @ 9:45 am

5. 

   Hello, Eric,

   You know I agree with you on most things, but I do disagree with your take on this.

   Human frailty is universally recognized condition, but having it exposed to everyone for comment and ridicule has to be excruciating. For that person and those around you.

   If Dr. Latschar has violated any policy he should face the same
   discipline any other member of his organization faces by those who
   have a full understanding of the facts and in accordance with the
   policy for actions.

   Whatever damage these charges do to his personal and professional
   position, he has served as an admirable steward of the field.

   He has my continued support.

   Take Care

   Dennis

   Comment by Dennis Lawrence — October 20, 2009 @ 5:23 pm

6. 

   Yes, but did he really have to observe these controversial things on a government computer? He could have observed them at his own home on his personal computer and he would not be risking trouble by using government property. He deserves to be punished if he was at work looking at these sites.
   Chris

   Comment by Chris Evans — October 20, 2009 @ 5:48 pm

7. 

   Dennis,

   That is, of course, your privilege. However, once the truth comes out about what they found on that computer, I doubt you will continue to support him. I know what they found, and it’s bad. Really bad. As bad as it gets.

   And it speaks volumes for the man’s lack of character.

   Eric

   Comment by The General — October 20, 2009 @ 8:42 pm

8. 

   So, why so mysterious, Eric? If you know, tell us. And how do you know?

   Comment by James F. Epperson — October 20, 2009 @ 8:47 pm

9. 

   Jim,

   I can’t answer your questions, because if I do, I will violate a trust. I was trusted with the information, and I also promised to keep it to myself.

   When the time is right, it will all come out.

   Eric

   Comment by The General — October 20, 2009 @ 8:50 pm

10. 

    Mr. Wittenberg,

    First let me state that I am a fan of your books and will continue to read them. Secondly I admittedly know very little of this story beyond what I just read above. I have no opinion on Mr. Latschar (other to state that I was quite impressed with the new visitor center on a recent visit to Gettysburg), but I know nothing with regards to any allegations or your history with him.

    Porn addiction is just that an addiction that very often destroys lives and families. His downloading porn at work is a self destructive act. I appreciate that the DoI apears to be handling the situation as such. There are measures that employers can take to deny access to sites, to monitor his internet use to assure and protect his coworkers. He should also get counseling for his behavior. Dr. Latschar I am sure is suffering severe pain over his situation. He should be pitied for his affliction.

    Certainly if his actions went beyond downloading porn to criminal behavior, more severe penalties should apply.

    Regards

    Guy Incognito

    Comment by Guy Incognito — October 20, 2009 @ 9:20 pm

11. 

    Poster,

    I appreciate the comment. However, I have only a handful of rules for this site. One of the primary ones, repeated often, is that I don’t permit anonymous comments. Your attempt to circumvent that rule is noted. I think it a real shame that you felt you had to hide behind a made-up name like this, and if it happens again, your posting privileges will be revoked.

    To address the substance of your point. I agree with you down the line. There is no doubt that he needs counseling for the situation. That, however, begs the question. I want to know why the NPS has not terminated his employment for using a government computer on taxpayer time, using taxpayer-funded Internet access to fuel his addiction. From where I sit, THAT is the real issue. I could care less if he thinks buggering goats is sexy so long as it’s not being done on taxpayer time.

    Eric

    Comment by The General — October 20, 2009 @ 9:37 pm

12. 

    Hey maybe my parents had a sense of humor!

    ok for the record the name is Paul Kenny

    If you are going to fire every person who uses work computers for personal purposes, than I would imagine better than half the workers in the country would be out of work.

    We dont have all the facts. If this is his first offense (and not tied into additional behavior), than I would say that he is entitled an opportunity to rectify his behavior.

    Regards

    Paul Kenny

    Comment by Guy Incognito — October 20, 2009 @ 9:46 pm

13. 

    Paul,

    Thank you for coming forward with your real name. I appreciate it, and I welcome you to the site.

    I agree–almost everyone has used their work computers for personal usage, me included. Having said that, though, 3400 pornographic images is a LOT, and it suggests that a great deal of time was spent downloading them. That’s really my issue.

    Eric

    Comment by The General — October 20, 2009 @ 9:51 pm

14. 

    well it depends 3400 over say 5 years of work, really isnt that many (point and click doesnt take much effort). Porn is insidious and the internet makes it extremely accessible. Employers can and should take appropriate measures to prevent access.

    Regards

    Paul

    Comment by Guy Incognito — October 20, 2009 @ 9:53 pm

15. 

    Eric,

    Setting aside the issue of character, I find this shocking in a half dozen ways. Like you, I am wondering how many witness trees might have been saved, and how many flank markers not paved over, had Mr. Latschar been doing his actual job at work. But more shocking: hasn’t the DOI heard of internet filters? It’s bad enough if Mr. Latcher’s secretary is playing Free Cell all day, but you would think the DOI would have at least put something in place to block porn downloads.

    Chris

    Comment by Chris Van Blargan — October 20, 2009 @ 10:09 pm

16. 

    Chris,

    My point precisely. Like I said, he can fantasize about buggering goats all day long, and surf for goat porn all he wants, but not on taxpayer time.

    Eric

    Comment by The General — October 20, 2009 @ 10:16 pm

17. 

    Too many people are giving this guy a pass. It doesn’t matter how many images he downloaded at work. One pornographic image is too much! And the “everybody does it” argument that some on the web are using is a lame excuse. There are rules and standards and what is considered to be decent behavior in the workplace (especially at govt. sites). Porn is porn. It’s not relative. If you willingly break these rules on the clock, you should suffer the consequences whether you have 1000 pics on your system or 1. And it doesn’t matter what else he did that was positive. This incident reveals a serious dent in this guy’s character. Wrong is wrong. Period.

    Comment by Michael — October 20, 2009 @ 10:51 pm

18. 

    And I’d also like to add that it is NOT the employer’s responsibility to protect their employees from themselves. It’s the employees responsibility to follow the rules.

    Comment by Michael — October 20, 2009 @ 10:52 pm

19. 

    The problem is that Latshar is in a position of trust, supervising dozens of employees, writing evaluations, recommending promotions and dismissals. He, above all others at Gettysburg NMP, needs to obey the NPS rules, and he didn’t. Doesn’t matter over how many years, what sort of porn, etc. He is supposed to be a role model and he had the arrogance or the stupidity to mis-use government property and cheat tax-payers of his time and energy. I could be fired for doing what did and he should be, or better yet, do the right thing and resign.

    Comment by Tom Clemens — October 20, 2009 @ 11:04 pm

20. 

    Well, I was certainly right about the general audience here!

    Having seen the actual text of the DoI/NPS (not sure which) regulations on private use of computers—which is, not surprisingly, very strict compared to (just as an example) the corresponding statement from my employer—he’s potentially in trouble. One wonders why this was not made a bigger issue, in fact. It is possible to speculate ad nauseum as to why, but that is mostly a meaningless exercise until more information comes out.

    I’ll go back to my original post, though. If (big if, I know, and Eric has hinted this is not the case) all he was doing was looking at the Playboy web site, then IMO this is embarrassing but should have minimal professional consequences.

    The technology exists for the IT folks to configure the computers to restrict access to certain kinds of sites. One wonders why this wasn’t done as a matter of routine.

    Comment by James F. Epperson — October 21, 2009 @ 8:06 am

21. 

    I’m sure that to some the ” type” of explicit pictures is important morally, but the violation here is clear-cut regardless. Unfortunately, prescribed punishment is vague and overly broad. Seems to me that this violates two sections of the Department of Interior manual.

    Section 2.6 subsection A: Employees are strictly prohibited from using Government office equipment, at any time, for activities that are illegal (e.g., gambling (5 CFR 735.201)), inappropriate, or offensive to co-workers or the public, such as the use of sexually explicit or discriminatory material or communication that ridicules others on the basis of race, creed, religion, color, gender, disability, age, national origin or sexual orientation.

    Section 2.6 subsection I: Employees are prohibited from installing personally-owned software (including tax preparation programs, computer games) on Government machines. Employees may not, for personal purposes, download, copy, or store any files or programs on Government servers, hard drives, or share drives. Supervisors may approve the storage of small files such as, screensavers, backgrounds, etc., by their employees.

    As for punishment, as I said very broad. :

    2.8 Penalties. Disciplinary action for non-compliance with the policy in this chapter will be administered in accordance with Departmental personnel policies and the DOI’s Personnel Handbook on Charges and Penalty Selection for Disciplinary and Adverse Actions. While supervisors generally should attempt to select the least severe penalty they believe necessary to correct the misconduct and to discourage repetition, supervisors retain full authority to set penalties, as they deem appropriate, based on the particular circumstances and specifications of the offense. Corrective action covers a full range of remedies, which may include oral and/or written warnings or reprimands, suspension without pay, or removal from Federal service. In the case of a serious offense where a formal action may be taken, supervisors should consult with their Human Resources office immediately.

    Comment by J. Avalon — October 21, 2009 @ 9:37 am

22. 

    Dealing with federal employee misconduct is tricky, and all too many of them are quick to file a grievance or lawsuit, either of which is extraordinarily hard for upper management to deal with. One reason is that too few of the latter do a good job of “keeping book” on miscreant employees, so it’s hard to establish a clear-cut case. In this instance the pornography alone ought to have been enough to justify a suspension or demotion. What I found striking in my federal career, however, is how amazingly timorous senior fed managers can be in these situations. Sort of like most Union generals when confronted by Bobby Lee.

    Comment by Ralph Hitchens — October 21, 2009 @ 9:37 am

23. 

    “While supervisors generally should attempt to select the least severe penalty they believe necessary to correct the misconduct and to discourage repetition…” I’m almost surprised this is an option. According to this (thanks, Joe), it is entirely likely he will keep his job, almost regardless of what he was looking at. The possibility of removal exists, of course, but this language suggests that a reprimand + promise of not doing it again + “you will be fired if you repeat this” might be the end of it.

    Comment by James F. Epperson — October 21, 2009 @ 10:06 am

24. 

    Latschar has no plans of resigning or retiring. At a staff meeting yesterday morning, he told his employees of his actions, admited he was wrong, apologized, stated that he had already been reprimanded (what that was he didn’t say) and hoped that all of them would still be willing TO WORK WITH HIM IN THE FUTURE.

    Comment by Andrew — October 21, 2009 @ 3:02 pm

25. 

    Eric,

    You need something better to do with your time other than constantly attack people on here. I sure hope you’re not using work time or other work resources to do any of this, whether actually posting or spending time formulating a response which you later post. If you (hopefully) do indeed not use work time, then I see that you are not really that busy with work, which shows me that you’re not nearly as busy as Dr. Latschar is with his major projects that have huge impacts and define the field — perhaps you should spend more time doing that within your own field?

    I have read your books, I know you try to have an impact that way, so before you say that to me, let me assure you that Dr. Latschar’s influence on people’s understanding of the war is far greater than books (without offense to your books), especially because his initiatives are more likely to gain NEW Civil War students (as opposed to books that cater to those already interested). As you say yourself on your website, Eric Wittenberg “made his first trip to the Gettysburg battlefield as a third-grader. By the end of that trip, he was fully hooked on the Civil War.” So your books and your exposure and profits are from a good visitor experience at Gettysburg that gained a new student of the war.

    In general, while Latschar is by no means perfect, people need to relax with the magnifying glasses and trying to knit-pick at everything as if he should be perfect — he’s a human being, he makes mistakes like everyone else. In this case, he’s an adult, so I really don’t care what he did on his computer — not like he put the park or its mission at risk by looking at some pictures.

    I’d like to know how many of those who are loudly criticizing him for viewing pictures have behaved perfectly within the guidelines of their own work places; and at the same time, I’d like to know how many of those same critics have accomplished as much as Dr. Latschar within their own fields/careers.

    Within the government world, I am curious to see how many people have never violated the government computer policy; what Dr. Latschar did is no different. The fact that it was sexual pictures just makes the story juicier, otherwise it wouldn’t be news if he, say, checked his personal email — but the way I see it, since he’s an adult, it really doesn’t matter what the violation is (sex or not), unless it’s a violation that either breaks laws (e.g. dealing drugs online) or hinders the mission of Gettysburg National Military Park or the larger National Park Service (e.g. using the computer to do real estate with historic land).

    Again, I do not say that what he did is right. I just mean that his crime is being blown way out of proportion — by people who frankly have no right to talk trash at all.

    The scrutiny is my point: that it’s unrealistic to expect someone to be perfect, and to get hung up on something that does not in any significant way affect the mission of GNMP or the NPS. Yet, it seems to draw more attention than is proportionate to how it affects the said mission.

    Moreover, the reason GNMP is put in the embarrassing situation is because of this ridiculous scrutiny trying to tear him down. This whole thing began with the anti-Foundation people complaining their heads off about Wilburn, then still complaining when Dr. Latschar was to follow him, so then this led to the investigation wasting the government’s dollar and time — and this turns out incidentally. So in other words, again, while what he did isn’t right, it’s taking up way more resources and attention than is proportionate to the crime and to the mission of GNMP.

    The reason for this is because there are a lot of people in glass houses casting stones — but they just don’t have the scrutiny or oversight to get embarrassed in return.

    I’ll add that how is it different for him to look at these pictures than for others to check personal email on government computers (or wherever it is they work)? Both are legal for adults, and both violate government computer policy. The difference is the scrutiny; the difference is expecting someone to be divinely perfect. The similarity is that ultimately neither detracts significantly from the mission of the NPS at Gettysburg.

    The people in glass houses stand around and mud-sling and overemphasize an insignificant part of his job (as far as affecting the purpose, goal, and mission of the park) in order to tear down and take away from the infinitely more significant (as far as affecting the purpose, goal, and mission of the park) decisions he made and followed through. Let’s not forget the 10 years of bonus funding he managed from Congress too, besides all his preservation work initiatives, the Foundation partnership and visitor center, and so on. These things are not only as important as they obviously seem for the history of the place, but they also help keep us around, which makes visitors have a better experience, which means they return and are more likely to be excited about the place, which means that they are more aware and willing to contribute to its preservation, which means they are more likely to be more aware of battlefields they bulldoze in their own backyard — which ultimately also helps keep historians (public, private, or academic) in jobs — which then helps the perpetuation of the history of the place.

    Yeah, it’s that big. And to get caught up in the pictures (which again do nothing to affect this mission) is nothing other than narrow-minded (envious?) mud-slinging by those who likely have violated policies (not laws) at their own work places and who by the same token likely never have had as much of an impact within their own fields.

    Until these people do so, hope to see y’all on the battlefield, enjoying it with me thanks to the efforts of Dr. Latschar.

    Finally, in the military when something happens like this there would have been what is called non-judicial punishment imposed. Somebody broke the rules and now they are going to be punished but it is not something that is made public, (it is done behind closed doors). The reason why it is done behind closed doors is because you still want to keep this person around because they have done a good job and you believe they will continue to do a good job. You are trying to correct improper behavior. You don’t want to permanently do anything to their reputation that would impede them from continuing to do their job. Apparently the NPS has something like that and punishment was imposed, (I don’t know what and it’s not my business to know), and it wasn’t made made public nor should it have been. When I first read the article I wondered why Eric Uberman was quoted. He has nothing to do with this or the NPS but he has lot to do with opposing GNMP practices and policies over the years. I have a feeling that he may have used the FOIA to dig for some dirt and found something that would have not normally been made public to try to damage Latscher’s reputation, (which has most certainly been done), either to get rid of him or at the very least discredit him in the eyes of the public. Of course, this is all speculation.

    But for you to claim he loses ALL credibility is losing perspective on what he has done in fulfilling the MISSION of the National Park Service. Get a grip, my friend.

    Comment by Raffi — October 21, 2009 @ 8:05 pm

26. 

    One more thing Eric. You may be unhappy he did this on taxpayer time, but don’t forget all the unrecorded overtime hours he puts in also in trying to manage such large projects. Moreover, I disagree with your claim that, “In the private sector, he would have been escorted out of the building by an armed guard with instructions to never set foot in the place again.” I think it depends entirely on the business; I certainly would say though that your are exaggerating by assuming that an armed guard would be there every time this sort of thing happens. Seriously, for your own credibility, try to be more rational instead of using huge over-the-top blanket assumptions. In history and in law, your claim there is what’s called a counter-factual, because you do not have the facts to back up your claim of what would have happened (i.e. a “what if” question) if the contingencies were different.

    Comment by Raffi — October 21, 2009 @ 8:11 pm

27. 

    Raffi,

    I appreciate your taking the time to post. I agree with a lot of what you say, and as much as I dislike John Latschar–I have my reasons, which I won’t bore you with–I have never once said that he is not entitled to credit for the good things that have happened under his watch. He gets full credit for the tree cutting program, which has transformed the battlefield, and which I have publicly supported here and elsewhere. While I don’t personally care for the new VC–I think there is WAY too much wasted space there–the old one needed to go, and if it required making a deal with the devil to make it happen, then I give him credit for getting it done. I do believe that there was a major conflict of interest associated with his attempt to go work for the Foundation that disturbed me a great deal (as a lawyer, I tend to be especially sensitive to conflict of interest situations), and I called him out on it here. Having said that, though, the man deserves a great deal of credit for the accomplishments that have occurred on his watch.

    At the same time, I hope you can and will agree with me that he is a terribly polarizing person. People either love him or hate him. Many think he has cloven hooves.

    As for me, I am self-employed, and I use my own computer. If I am wasting anyone’s time in posting to my blog, it’s my own. If I am using resources to do so, they are my own.

    His actions were done on taxpayer time, using a taxpayer-owned computer, taking advantage of taxpayer funded Internet access. 3400 images are a lot, and it cannot have taken an insignificant amount of time to download them. If it were done at his home on his time and his own computer, I wouldn’t give a damn. What people do in the privacy of their own homes is their business and nobody else’s. However, he didn’t do this in the privacy of his own home, and therein lies the difficulty.

    How many witness trees might have been saved if he had been doing his job? How many damaged monuments might have been repaired? Or could it have taken less time than it did to get the obscenities cleaned off the Peace Light?

    Eric

    Comment by The General — October 21, 2009 @ 8:50 pm

28. 

    Eric,

    This is a much more sober and respectable response. My problem is with your more extreme comments about losing all credibility (such an absolute statement fails to acknowledge the positives you just mentioned yourself) and about the guards escorting him (big assumption and blanket statement).

    Now to address your point you just made: I agree with you that what Latschar did is not right, and should be punished properly. However, where I disagree is the amount of attention it deserves (especially considering I think there is some serious mud-sling going on, Eric Uberman? What does he have to do with this?), and that it takes away significantly from the larger mission of the park. Though I see your point about the time it takes for 3400 images, I don’t see the direct connection to how he would directly affect the trees or monuments you refer to by saving the time from the images; once the orders from him are given, its up to his staff to do the work (even if Latschar is looking at images in the meanwhile, haha). As for the Peace Light, I believe the problem was the harshness of the chemicals used and the excessively wet season; trust me, the GNMP folks care greatly for that monument, and they certainly don’t want it to stay vandalized — I think we can all agree that they do indeed care for it and are not somehow trying to denigrate it.

    As for your own time being used for this, my second point in that same paragraph was that Latschar doesn’t have time for the kind of stuff we’re doing here because he’s so busy shaping his field. This ties to another point I made, which is that let’s consider the unrecorded overtime hours he has put in to these projects and the personal toll this has taken on him for over a decade, and the sometimes absurd attacks over the years — none of which he is compensated for, and perhaps this can help us reconcile the difference in time he was paid for surfing the pictures. As for taxpayer funded internet access: that money is paid anyway for access, his picture surfing in no way increases the cost of that internet access.

    I hope this addresses the points you made above in some respectable fashion. Ultimately, as you probably gathered from my first post, I think the attention on this is greater that the proportion of the crime and greater than the proportion of affecting the mission of the NPS (as even you seem to suggest the difference in scale in your response to me). Finally, this has the stench of a slander campaign, for the reasons I articulated in my previous 2 posts — hence the possible explanation of why this is being blown out further than it should be in context to affecting the NPS mission and his job evaluation according to the job description of the Superintendent — I also think this is news because it’s like juicy gossip, because accessing personal email on government time would likely not be on the news (or at least attract this much attention), but sex pictures do, even though both crimes are a violation of the same policy.

    Do my points at least make some sense?

    Comment by Raffi — October 21, 2009 @ 9:26 pm

29. 

    Raffi,

    Yes, you do make sense. I actually will engage in dialogue with anyone who treats me with some common courtesy–I have only two rules for this blog, which are no anonymous comments and I don’t permit people to insult me on my own blog–which you have done, in spite of your very nasty and unpleasant last comment on Kevin Levin’s blog. That Lizzie person–someone I have never heard of before tonight–elected to launch some really vicious attacks on me, and I simply choose not to indulge that, because responding would reward the conduct.

    For some people, it may be a slander campaign. It’s not for me. I actually do have information that I will disclose in the next few days once I am freed from my promise not to disclose that information yet.

    As I said, I have my own reasons for disliking him. Again, I won’t bore you with the details other than to tell you that there are only two unforgivable sins in my world: lying to me and wasting my time, and he has done both. Nobody ever gets a second chance to do either. So, yes, I come at the situation with an obvious and admitted bias. I’ve never denied it.

    Again, I hope you can agree with me that he is a very polarizing person. What seems clear to me is that there are only strong opinions where Dr. Latschar is concerned; nobody seems to be wishy-washy or indifferent with respect to him. Part of that is a result of his perceived arrogance–whether he is indeed arrogant is irrelevant, as it’s the perceptions that matter here–and perceived tendency to bully to get his way. There are a number of people who have communicated to me privately that they view this as karma coming back around to him. I don’t know.

    What I do know is that when one puts oneself out there as a lightning rod, one will take the resulting lightning strikes, and I tend to think that that’s what’s gone on here.

    And, to be clear, my comments about lack of progress on some things, such as cleaning the Peace Light, is not intended to be a slam on the hard-working good people who work for GNMP.

    Eric

    Comment by The General — October 21, 2009 @ 9:42 pm

30. 

    Raffi,

    One other thing I had meant to mention, but forgot….

    I try cases for a living. It’s what I do, and it’s what I am. A classic litigator’s tool is hyperbole, and a classic tool for arguing to a jury is to overstate your case. I acknowledge that I have done so here to some extent, but it was for a purpose.

    Eric

    Comment by The General — October 21, 2009 @ 9:45 pm

31. 

    Eric,

    You make some fair points.

    I think by now it’s clear what we each think, and this disagreement is perfectly fine by me, and I respect the discussion. I do not like the hyperbole attacks, however, and I appreciate you at least acknowledging that you used it. I think though it can be used for a purpose in court, in our discussion it can lose the context of the issue at hand, and possibly hurt the credibility of the person making the claim due to unnecessarily extreme and unsupportable comments.

    I agree that Latschar is a polarizing person. As much as I think he has accomplished a great deal in many aspects, I think his weakest point has been the PR side of things. On this, I try to give him some slack, given sometimes how far his critics go (I’m sure you agree that at least sometimes his critics go way too far in making attacks that are entirely based on speculation and hype). So I think it’s important generally to decipher if an issue that arises is a PR mistake or a more substantive violation. This doesn’t apply in this case, but I am making this as a general comment in regard to your point about the polarization. Also worth considering is that generally those who take on bold initiatives and “rock the boat” so to speak are going to automatically be polarizing, despite even good PR skills, because a lot of people don’t like things changing so quickly. Of course Uberman is unhappy, he has been since his business got hurt due to the VC moving — frankly he cares less about the battlefield (i.e. the VC move) than he does about his own pockets from a phony wax museum. So, my point is, to some extent bold initiatives will inevitably be polarizing. I think the tree cutting opposition by many locals (because they lost their favorite picnic spot) also points to the bold initiatives inevitably polarizing people, despite the PR.

    My final comment on Levin’s blog was not so much to slander you as much as it was to show what I perceived to be an entirely unsubstantiated claim. In other words, I did that to make a point in revealing what I thought to be a bit underhanded and not backed up — it was not intended at the person (you) as much as the person’s argument (your claim).

    So, I apologize if it came off as a personal attack.

    Raffi

    Comment by Raffi — October 21, 2009 @ 10:06 pm

32. 

    One more thing I’ll add is that though you are self-employed, I guess one can argue that “imagine how many more cases you can argue and how many more people you can therefore help if you were taking more time to do that instead of posting so much on here.” I’m not saying that’s necessarily right, but my point is that we should be careful in our evaluations to be consistent. Again, of course what Latschar did is not right, and he should pay the price for it with the prescribed punishment, but the public reaction to it should be tempered by considering that nobody is perfect — people do make mistakes. And nobody is a work machine, we’re human beings!

    Comment by Raffi — October 21, 2009 @ 10:12 pm

33. 

    Raffi,

    Apology accepted. Let us speak no more of it.

    You are correct that discussion is good. I learn from it, and I’m not beyond being persuaded to change my positions on things. As I said, I have my own personal axe to grind, and that unquestionably plays into my perception of the situation. Rational dialogue like this helps. Had that Lizzie person approached me differently, I would have answered her concerns, but I wasn’t about to reward her rudeness by doing so.

    You are also correct about Uberman, and I think you’re right about his weakness in the PR area. That comes back to my point, which is that if one wants to be a lightning rod, one had best be prepared to take those lightning strikes when they come.

    One final point that I will make: the one thing that continues to nag me about this situation is to ask the question of whether Dr. Latschar got special treatment or a weaker punishment because of his position as park superintendent. Had this been someone else lower on the food chain, I can’t help but wonder if he or she wouldn’t have gotten fired. I obviously don’t know, since nobody has said what the disciplinary action was, but I think that it is a fair concern.

    Eric

    Comment by The General — October 21, 2009 @ 10:15 pm

34. 

    Raffi,

    For sure, and I concede your point. I only do this stuff during the day time to take a break–I have a pretty bad case of ADD and need distractions to be able to focus–or if I don’t have something else to do. Obviously, the clients’ needs have to come first, and I don’t lose sight of that. I can only hope that Dr. Latschar approached the situation from the same perspective.

    One other thing that is playing in here. Recently, on the Gettysburg Discussion Group, there was some mention that Dr. Latschar had fired a pregnant female employee for blogging on company time. I have no personal knowledge of that, but if it’s true, I hope you can agree with me that it would certainly smack of irony at the very least and perhaps even of hypocrisy if it is true and he didn’t suffer the same fate.

    Eric

    Comment by The General — October 21, 2009 @ 10:17 pm

35. 

    Mr. Wittenberg,

    I wanted to apologize to you for the way I attacked you personally on Kevin Levin’s blog. It was uncalled for and incredibly inappropriate. I suppose some of your comments ignited a fury that prevented me from thinking before speaking (or writing, if you will).

    Though I still do not agree with some of what you say, I myself should have approached and responded to your comments as a mature adult instead of the way that I did. And I am very sorry for that.

    Best,
    Lizzie

    Comment by Lizzie — October 21, 2009 @ 10:46 pm

36. 

    Lizzie,

    Apology accepted. The reason why I elected not to respond to you is that doing so would have rewarded the behavior, and that was the last thing I wanted to do.

    If you read the comments above yours, I believe that you will find that I have engaged in a very calm, rational, and productive dialogue with Raffi. Had you approached me the same way, I would have responded to you. Let’s speak no more of it and move on.

    If you read the dialogue with Raffi, I believe you will find that I have answered some of your questions there. If there’s anything else you want to know, please ask. Please know, though, that I have to be up way too early tomorrow morning and am about to shut down and go upstairs to watch the rest of my beloved Philadelphia Phillies’ game with the Dodgers. Consequently, that means it’s unlikely that you will get a response from me before tomorrow. I regret that, and if I didn’t have to be out of the house by 6:45 tomorrow morning, I would probably respond yet tonight. I trust that you understand.

    Eric

    Comment by The General — October 21, 2009 @ 10:53 pm

37. 

    Eric,

    I agree with you that it would be pretty bad if the pregnant female blogger story is true. But my initial reaction is to say that is just an invented rumor. I have a few reasons for this:

    1) I don’t think the Superintendent has the power to fire somebody that easily. Permanent federal government employees have very strong job security, and to fire them is very difficult, and especially risky with the threat of a discrimination suit (particularly if regarding a pregnant female).

    2) It seems to me that Latschar is more focused on meeting with Congressmen and other leaders, and focused on projects and initiatives rather than closely supervising employees who are not his immediate supervisees. I’m sure others have been found to do improper things on company time, and paid the price for it, and that price likely did not include losing a job — I don’t see how, for example, checking personal email or reading ESPN is different than blogging, so why should the latter warrant firing more so than the former two behaviors? Plus, what they do on the computer has to do with the person in charge of granting technology access and that person is who monitors and takes subsequent disciplinary actions. So in sum, for my point #2: it’s not really Latschar’s place nor immediate concern.

    3) The story even sounds like a sap story to get a reaction of “HOW COULD HE DO THAT?!” sort of thing since the person involved in blogging is such a perceived vulnerable person as a pregnant woman. Note that the pregnancy of the woman has nothing to do with being fired for blogging, so why is the pregnant part relevant in the story? My guess is to get the precise reaction I just described. Ultimately, this can play into the perception of Latschar as cold-hearted and inhuman in some sense.

    4) I question how this person on the discussion group could have such knowledge.

    Given your position, I’m sure you know plenty of folks who work at GNMP. Ask them if there is any truth to this story. This certainly is the first I have ever heard of it. It reminds me of the random accusations once that Latschar’s new pool (or tub or whatever it was) was paid for by federal funds instead of his paycheck — just because some people saw it in his yard. Some of the irrational critics just make stuff up, unfortunately.

    Raffi

    Comment by Raffi — October 21, 2009 @ 11:12 pm

38. 

    The truth came out in today’s Hanover Sun newspaper. They found evidence of bestiality and group sex, among other things, on the computer. I had been sitting on that, waiting for permission to discuss it. As of Monday, he has been removed as superintendent.

    I think that’s a fitting punishment and see nothing further to discuss about this.

    Comment by The General — October 22, 2009 @ 6:44 am

39. 

    Interesting, thanks for pointing that out since I was not aware. Obviously that’s not right, but I don’t see why the type of sexual pictures he looked at affects the degree of the violation of the policy (groups sex or bestiality or whatever else, the violation remains the same) — though certainly the type of pictures seen affects the image of the NPS. So whatever the appropriate level of punishment may be for viewing sexually explicit images, I don’t see why it should be influenced by whether he was looking at couple or at a group. The only proper justification it based on the image of the NPS rather than the actual concrete violation, the way I see it.

    Still, it doesn’t mean the pregnant lady blogger claim is true, so I don’t think this new development affect the point of my last post.

    Neither of these points are meant to disagree with your last post, just a couple final thoughts on my mind.

    Comment by Raffi — October 22, 2009 @ 8:12 am

40. 

    Raffi,

    Several times, you have attempted to disassociate the content of the downloads from DOI computer use restrictions, stating that the content just makes the story “spicier.” Like Eric, I could care less what he does at home. But I have to assume you have not litigated sexual harassment suits, where the employer’s principle lines of defense are: lack of actual or constructive knowledge of harassment or conditions conducive to, or which encourage harassment; implementation of effective anti-harassment policies; and strict enforcement of those policies. The fact that the key administrator at the park engaged in conduct which can be portrayed as conducive to, or encouraging harassment, derails the first defense. And if the DOI failed to enforce a zero tolerance policy just because of Latschar’s standing, such selective enforcement should be enough to allow plaintiffs in future suits to avoid summary judgment and increase, which would increase the DOI’s liability potential exposure exponentially.

    Chris

    Comment by Chris — October 22, 2009 @ 8:35 am

41. 

    Chris,

    I respect your opinion, but I want to make clear I never said I support selective punishment. I am simply trying to go by the letter of the law, so to speak, in order to say that the violation of the rule is the violation of the rule, regardless of the actual content of the violation. With that in mind, as far as I know, nobody has been fired for personal viewing on government computers (whether on government time or during lunch hours), and I do know a couple people who have been reprimanded for such a violation (without losing their jobs). As I said above, the pregnant lady story has no reason to be believed at this point — and it has the stench of falsehood to me. Also to address your point, I don’t think sexual harassment applies here, because we are not talking about a victim and the affects on the victim based on the degree of sexual harassment.

    Your distinction is a good one insofar as the image of the NPS is concerned, as I just said above. But as far as the degree of violation, I think whether he is looking at single women or couples, animals or groups, the violation of looking at porn is the violation of looking at porn — at least that was what I said in my last post.

    The earlier point, which you might also be referring to, is that violating computer use policy by looking at personal things on company time is the same, regardless of checking email, checking sports, or checking explicit pictures — again no personal victim is involved. Had he been caught for viewing email or sports, it probably wouldn’t cause the same splash it did — right or wrong, I think this is the case.

    Again, as I said in my last post above, the way I see it, the only solid justification for relieving Latschar because of this is from the image it projects about GNMP — not because of the degree of the violation, because again there is no direct victim so there is no degree of harm measurable, besides measuring the violation of the rule, which is the same rule and the same violation regardless of exactly what you look at (or, assuming that one looks at pornography, certainly the same violation regardless of the TYPE of legal pornography the person looks at).

    Finally, recall that as even Eric suggested in one of the recent responses, lawyer’s tactics don’t always apply to this type of discussion (i.e. see our discussion on hyperbole).

    I’m pretty tired out, haha, no offense to you Chris, but I think if you look again at the discussion between Eric and I you’ll find the answers to some of your concerns.

    On an unrelated note, I think it’s tragic to see one of the most ambitious leaders in the battlefield’s history to go out this way, but of course such is the case. I hope, for the sake of the treasure that is Gettysburg, the replacement person continues to carry out his projects successfully (i.e. tree cutting, …) and then turns to continuing with the same type of strong initiatives as well as keen ability to secure funding from Congress.

    I enjoyed the discussion gents. I hope this non-lawyer historian put up some worthy points for y’all to consider.

    Comment by Raffi — October 22, 2009 @ 8:56 am

42. 

    p.s. I don’t mean to say the justification based on image (that I articulate above) is one that is not worthy, hence my terms “proper justification” and “solid justification” — to make it clear.

    Comment by Raffi — October 22, 2009 @ 9:07 am

43. 

    Raffi,

    I certainly did appreciate the dialogue and I certainly did appreciate your input.

    Eric

    Comment by The General — October 22, 2009 @ 9:24 am

44. 

    For the record, in case anyone cares, my source for this information, which I had been sitting on, is a former employee of the Park Service who was interviewed during the investigation and who also spoke with the WP reporter. It was good, solid information, but I was sworn to keep it to myself until we had a copy of the actual report in hand.

    Now that it’s come out, I can talk about it.

    Comment by The General — October 22, 2009 @ 9:25 am

45. 

    James,
    I have worked in the IT profession supporting mostly government organizations, counting my uniformed time, about twenty years. In short, most of my adult life.

    I appreciate the hypothetical scenarios you have brought forward. Yes, there may be some subjective questions about what is or is not porn, or what is or is not proper use of the equipment.

    However, in the three dozen or so cases that I have been asked to provide evidence for, the government representative (be that HR, an IG, legal, or other) have done their homework. They do NOT offer charges, allegations, or the semblance there of unless they have a clearly, non-refutable mountain of evidence.

    Second, we must abstract this from a man simply indulging in a temptation. His subordinates are subject to the same rule. Some of them have been disciplined due to violations of those same rules. Thus it goes beyond just ethics, but into leadership and fitness thereof.

    Third, I would note that while the NPS is not a place where great national secrets are stored (generally), the network has sensitive data (contracts, personnel information, etc.). And lets face it, the places where the “pictures” such as these are posted are far more likely to have malicious files. And gee…. a park superintendent’s computer is FAR more likely to have the mentioned sensitive data! So this goes to judgment.

    Lastly, can we build some IT solution that blocks all those terrible sites in a work environment? Well yes, and I have on multiple occasions. Then shortly after that, management asks me to roll back the settings due to complaints (I’ve heard Freedom of Speech most often cited in the formal complaints, for what it is worth). It all boils down a simple policy statement and the individual’s integrity when they agree to properly use the equipment. In this case, that integrity is suspect now (if it was not before).

    My opinion, given the evidence presented from news releases and news articles, is this affair erases any good that Mr. Latschar has done for Gettysburg during his watch.

    Comment by Craig Swain — October 22, 2009 @ 3:57 pm

46. 

    Latest info:

    Following the leak of a federal document that said he spent time at work searching for and viewing sexually explicit material, the 15-year steward of the Gettysburg Battlefield has been reassigned to a desk job within the National Park Service.

    The Inspector General’s investigation that ultimately led to the discovery of the images on Latschar’s computer was prompted by the allegations of an anonymous complainant.

    However, the 24-page report – which explored everything from Latschar’s dealings with the private Gettysburg Foundation to an allegation that he used park money to buy a hot tub – never mentioned the sexually explicit images.

    That’s the way it should have remained, Latschar said. Government policy is to keep such matters private as personnel issues.

    “One of the ironies here is that now it’s public because somebody else violated the … policy,” Latschar said.

    That’s what would have happened, he said, if another Park Service employee had committed the same violations at Gettysburg and if it had been his decision how to handle the situation.

    “We would have protected that employee’s personal life,” he said.

    http://ydr.inyork.com/ci_13616417

    Tom

    Comment by Tom Thompson — October 22, 2009 @ 4:17 pm

47. 

    Craig: embarrassing yes, wrong yes, and all the points you mention are fine in the poor judgment etc. But erasing any good is too far: we are still left with the (incomplete) results of the landscape rehabilitation, we are still left with the visitor center (and the moving of the old one and, hopefully soon, the Cyclorama), and we still benefited from the earmark he secured over a 10-year period. I agree with the issues you point out, but I am simply saying don’t get carried away with saying it “erases” what he did — even if he ends his Superintendent career in shame, it doesn’t change the good things that happened before (just like it doesn’t change the bad things that happened before this too).

    Tom: thanks for the update. Honestly, I think one can easily argue that he should even get to keep a desk job with the NPS. If he violated the policy as Superintendent, he can do so at his new job too. If he did this on company time at GNMP, he can do so at his new desk job too. I suppose it’s possibly because of what I was saying above: the issue is the image it projects (so thus they took him out of the spotlight position), not the violation by itself that warrants a punishment as severe as firing (according to the standard procedure of what happens when somebody uses a government computer for legal personal use). I think he got fired because it went public — which is a fine justification, but a distinction worth making. Funny enough though, Latschar’s comments sound like what I have been saying above — that there was some violation somewhere by this going public (normally this is indeed dealt with within the staff, just like I know my friends to have been while at NPS jobs, though certainly not for porn!). Still, while I think that the public leak should not have happened (based on what I know about the standard procedure), the fact is that it did go public, so we can’t change what has been done — we can only react to what has already been done. Well, given that it has already leaked and it can’t be undone, the proper thing to do for the image of GNMP is indeed to get him out of his position at GNMP (though again I point out, apparently the NPS didn’t kick him off its payrolls for the offense, it just took him out of the position where he represents GNMP, thus suggesting my emphasis of this whole thing being about the image, not the violation per se).

    Comment by Raffi — October 22, 2009 @ 4:56 pm

48. 

    Also worth noting from the Evening Sun story:
    “Latschar said the federal investigators – who seized the superintendent’s hard drive as part of a broader investigation that ultimately exonerated Latschar of other alleged wrongdoings – counted every image that resulted from an Internet search. That includes the bestiality and group-sex images Latschar said he neither sought nor viewed.”

    2 things: the part about exoneration seems to be ignored by some of his fiercest critics and supports some of what I said above about some of the irrational folks, including that questionable pregnant woman story (I am not implying anyone on here is one of them, to be clear)… and second, it is worth considering that it might be true that the bestiality and group sex pictures (and the total number of pictures) can be overplayed by the fact that they are counting search results (which are countless and varied) rather than just what he downloaded. Still that doesn’t justify what he did, but I’m just saying it’s worth the caveat in our minds that perhaps the 3400 number is a bit deceiving (as can the extremeness of the content he viewed) — still the violation is the violation, of course, and the public leak happened and cannot be changed.

    Comment by Raffi — October 22, 2009 @ 5:11 pm

49. 

    A pregnant Eastern National employee was indeed terminated for blogging during work hours, and her situation was part of the recent investigation into Latschar’s activities. She admitted, however, that Latschar was not part of the termination (at least from her knowledge).

    See the story at the link here:
    http://www.eveningsun.com/ci_13447379?source=most_emailed

    Comment by J David Petruzzi — October 22, 2009 @ 6:56 pm

50. 

    Re: >>She [the pregnant employee] admitted, however, that Latschar was not part of the termination (at least from her knowledge).<<

    That's good to hear. Hopefully he won't turn out to be part of the pregnancy.

    dw

    Comment by David Woodbury — October 22, 2009 @ 7:13 pm

51. 

    That is indeed key, that Latschar was not part of firing her; as I suspected the claim in the Gettysburg Discussion Group is not true. Note also I mentioned above the difficulty of firing a federal employee — Eastern National is of course not part of the NPS. The accusation to Latschar on this was, as I suspected, a jump to conclusions to make him more of a punching bag by those who did not have evidence (nor knowledge of how the park runs, apparently, since Latschar is not the one who decides what happens with Eastern National employees).

    It’s worth noting that the woman’s crimes also went beyond just blogging on company time, but doing so during that time to write poorly of her employers (never a good idea to do publicly):
    “The content of her writings included disparaging remarks about both Latschar and her employer, Eastern National.”

    This might have played a role too.

    Comment by Raffi — October 22, 2009 @ 7:39 pm

52. 

    Raffi, I don’t think you understand the department’s policies on issues like this, nor the severity of the situation. The actions outlined in the articles and disclosed thus far are indeed serious. To say we should just brush them all away is nonsense.

    Comment by Craig — October 22, 2009 @ 8:15 pm

53. 

    Craig, if you read my posts closely you will see that I did not say we should brush anything off — and in fact I even said that reassigning Latschar was the thing to do. So I am not sure why you think I should brush them off. If you are talking about my last post, that goes back to the false accusation about the pregnant woman, which is not related to the explicit images infractions of late. I am simply saying that as wrong as his actions were, it doesn’t erase the impact that we still see on the battlefield: be it the landscape, the visitor center, and even the Journey Through Hallowed Ground recognition in one of the articles (note the Journey is not part of the NPS). It doesn’t erase the accomplishments that got him the award from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The violations do a lot of negative things, but “erasing” the impact of the projects (i.e. visitors experiencing the new landscape) is impossible, just like erasing the impact of the negatives is impossible (i.e. we will never how his term as Superintendent ended). You can’t selectively argue it one way — it’s a two way street, and I am acknowledging both, while you are acknowledging only one.

    Comment by Raffi — October 22, 2009 @ 8:54 pm

54. 

    Raffi,

    I say Latschar was simply the man at the wheel when the changes were made, not some great visionary who drove the changes. Did he come to the table with some grand plan and vision? Or did he simply put his spin on proposals and projects introduced by both the service, department, and other outside agencies? I say the later. What he accomplished that was good could well have been done by any other qualified individual, AND with less friction. That HAS been done at other parks I could name (Manassas…. Shiloh…. Chickamauga….)

    Comment by Craig Swain — October 23, 2009 @ 10:22 am

55. 

    To the best of my knowledge, which is non-trivial, the tree lines at Shiloh are nothing like they were in 1862.

    Comment by James F. Epperson — October 23, 2009 @ 11:17 am

56. 

    Come now James, I didn’t say Shiloh was cutting trees now did I? What I said was that other parks (Shiloh for instance) have had similar over arching projects for improvements that have been accomplished with less splash.

    Comment by Craig Swain — October 23, 2009 @ 12:12 pm

57. 

    Precisely what you were saying was unclear to me, hence my comment.

    Generally, Shiloh has been tolerably well-managed (IMO) but underfunded. But no one there has suggested restoring the tree lines to what they were like in 1862 (that I know of). I think that would be a good thing, but it would take money, which Shiloh doesn’t have. (Hell, they have a road that’s been closed for safety reasons for at least 15 years … ) Getting the money to do what is needed sometimes takes an individual manager who is able to cajole or manipulate or do whatever it takes to get the funding. For all his flaws, Latschar was able to do that. I think he did a lot of good, and I am not convinced that “just anyone else” would have done as well. I know people had issues with him even before this final scandal. But on balance I think his stewardship of the Park has been outstanding.

    Comment by James F. Epperson — October 23, 2009 @ 2:11 pm

58. 

    Actually there is a clearing project at Shiloh, but it is being managed with what I’d consider a higher degree of QC than at Gettysburg, and at a slower pace (the funding you mention). The road I think you are recalling, passed through the Indian Mounds, and that has been reopened. The only closed road I know of is to the landing itself, as bluff stabilization is ongoing. Over the last decade or so, the most visible changes, IMO, are adjustments of the park roads to conform with some of the historical lines. Several of the old concrete road beds were removed, particularly the old state highway feed into the park. In short, much was done within the resources they had, but without a lot of fuss and friction.

    I really think you are empowering Latschar with some elevated qualities when you say not just anyone could have done what he accomplished. The NPS is a quality organization, and staffed well. I dare say there are plenty of qualified individuals in the service today who could have done so without the controversy Latshar brought.

    Comment by Craig Swain — October 23, 2009 @ 3:29 pm

59. 

    I did not know the road past the Indian Mounds had been re-opened—that is the closed road I was thinking of, as the bluff erosion that undercut it in the first place began when we lived in the area, in the 1990s. The last time I asked about that road when visiting the park, there were no plans to re-open it, as it would cost too much to stabilize the bluff. (The Indian Mounds are just about my wife’s favorite part of the Park.)

    I didn’t mean to suggest JL was “indispensible” (sp?), simply that the amount and scale of projects he did get done was such that I do think it is a stretch to suggest that it would have been simple and easy to find someone else to have done them. He did receive a preservation award recently, which I presume means that someone of stature thinks he did an exceptional job.

    Comment by James F. Epperson — October 23, 2009 @ 3:59 pm

60. 

    Craig,

    If what you are saying is true, then why wasn’t it done for decades? And also what is done at these other parks is nothing to the scale of GNMP. And, I personally know people at some of these parks, and they hold GNMP as the model, in fact, for that type of project. The scale of the visitor center project (arguably the best Civil War museum in the country, as recognized by many major publications), the scale of the tree project, the Journey Through Hallowed Ground stuff, and so on.

    Unfortunately, I think your claim is lacking evidence. I don’t think you can point to me who it was in those other entities you mention that accomplished this. You are speculating; and you are using a counter-factual as to what would have happened with some other qualified individual. Let me remind you, too, that much of the bonus funding he secured from the Congress was the result of his own work, not the NPS, which consistently does not give nearly enough money to GNMP to do the projects it does (though the Foundation partnership, which Latschar has a lot to do with, did provide GNMP with such funding to the tune of $100 plus that the NPS cannot afford).

    Why don’t you ask the Supervisory Historian or Chief Ranger at GNMP, or the National Trust for Historic Preservation, or the Civil War Preservation Trust, in order to see who deserves the credit for the initiative?

    Please consider finding more concrete evidence for your claims instead of speculating, and please consider asking those involved with the projects who they credit.

    Comment by Raffi — October 23, 2009 @ 8:02 pm

61. 

    Pardon my intrusion into your conversation (and for my anonymity) but I just wanted to chime in with my agreement that Latschar should not have gotten off so freely with misusing government property while on the taxpayer dime. Personally, if the NPS or Interior Dept continues to lack the cajones to fire him, then perhaps the federal prosecutor whose jurisdiction covers Gettysburg will consider stepping in with some criminal charges for the misuse of the computers and/or for theft of honest services.

    Either fire him or charge him, but Latschar is a disgrace to the gray & green.

    Comment by sauerkraut — October 23, 2009 @ 11:32 pm

62. 

    Raffi,

    Somebody mentioned to me that they thought that you are a seasonal ranger at GNMP. Is that true?

    Eric

    Comment by The General — October 23, 2009 @ 11:41 pm

63. 

    I think many people have thoroughly addressed your points at different times with various opinions, so read the above for response I (or others) gave to the issues you raise. You’ll see my mixed opinion above, but remember that the rules aren’t based on what you think should or should not be the punishment — they are what they are. Your claim of “criminal charges” seems too far, given he didn’t break the law, though he did break the policy. You’re welcome to believe whatever you like, but the comment about the cajones of the NPS is misguided because it fails to acknowledge that the policy is not based on what you think should be done — and the “cajones” of the NPS are determined by the policy, not by your opinion, so it’s important to distinguish that before attacking the NPS.

    Comment by Raffi — October 23, 2009 @ 11:59 pm

64. 

    Eric,

    Ha, I didn’t know I was famous, haha.

    Indeed it is true — I am a graduate student in History as well as Historic Preservation at UGA during the school year. I however did not want to mention that here when expressing my opinions because I do not in any way represent the opinions of the GNMP or NPS or anyone else on this issue. I am speaking on behalf of myself, and not anyone else. All views expressed are my own.

    Here I am giving a battlewalk in 2008! (shameless self-promotion)
    http://www.gettysburgdaily.com/?p=234

    Anyway, also please realize that I am not saying anything I did because I was employed by NPS in the summer — I am not blindly partisan just because of my place of summer employment. I try to be fair, and I suppose part of my opinion is indeed influenced by working there: partly because I know how things work better than many who assume things from the outside (such as how computer violations are dealt with, and so on, as my references above can suggest).

    Look for me if you come by in the summers!

    Comment by Raffi — October 24, 2009 @ 12:04 am

65. 

    Raffi,

    i suppose famous is better than infamous.

    Actually, I’m pleased to hear it, for a variety of reasons. It’s good to know that there are talented young historians coming up through the ranks, and I appreciate your insight. I do not think that your opinions reflect those of the NPS, but the insight helps to flesh things out.

    If you’ve worked at the park, then I assume you’re familiar with my work. I have a lifelong love affair with the Battle of Gettyburg, and I have devoted a great deal of space in my work to the campaign and battle. As I have said repeatedly, I have my own reasons for having an axe to grind against John Latschar, and I have never made a secret of that fact. In fact, I have been debating whether to share the story here, so that people understand my perspective. If people want me to do so, then I will.

    In any event, while we may have gotten off to a slightly rocky start, I very much appreciate your time and insight.

    Eric

    Comment by The General — October 24, 2009 @ 7:41 am

66. 

    Raffi and Craig:

    Thanks for the insights. I have a question. Most of my NPS contact is a result of my climbing habit and is therefore with folks at places like Grand Teton, Rocky Mountain, Glacier, North Cascades, the Tower, and Yosemite. It strikes me that some of the funding needs at those facilities are strikingly different from the needs at, say, the military parks (other than the things they have in common, like roads and enforcement). I think the revegetation/clearing projects at Gettysburg and Shiloh are highly worthwhile. i’m guessing that they also take a distant backseat to maintenance, law enforcement, rescue and similar requirements which are common to nearly all of the NPS parks. GTNP needs seasonal climbing rangers and naturalists. GNMP needs historians. How is the money allocated? I’ve always thought that the different categories of park/facility should be under different management, myself.

    Comment by John Foskett — October 24, 2009 @ 3:56 pm

67. 

    I’m not sure about the process and breakdown money allocation between the natural and cultural parks at that high of a level, since I am not in any way involved with that, of course. I am a seasonal park ranger in interpretation, so it’s hard to see those things myself. But, if you’re looking for a unifying factor, think about it this way: the NPS is about preserving, and in both cases the mission is to preserve. In a sense, one can even say that both Grand Tetons and Gettysburg are historic resources, because both are trying to preserve historic landscapes.

    Comment by Raffi — October 24, 2009 @ 7:25 pm

68. 

    Eric,

    Of course I know your work!

    Appreciate you taking the time with thorough responses.

    Hope to see you on the battlefield sometime.

    (I tried posting this earlier but somehow it got labeled as spam by the auto-detector, not sure why)

    Raffi

    Comment by Raffi — October 24, 2009 @ 9:24 pm

69. 

    Raffi,

    I have provided, in the course of the discussion specific to Shiloh, the information you seek. I can provide more details for the other parks, but do not wish to intrude on the host’s space here. If you look at any of the NPS Parks, and query for their long range plans, you will see those reports.

    Why was it not done for decades? Well simply put the park system was overlooked for some time, when it came to funding from Congress. In the mid 1990s a certain first lady made a visit to one park in particular and was aghast at the appearance. From that visit came a lot of attention.

    From that attention came several programs proposed at the top level aimed to bring all the parks to a level of parity with regard to service offerings, appearance, and contextual support (i.e. historical or ecological factors). THAT not Latschar, was the start of the tree clearing. Basically the park service was called to the mat and had to explain what the money was being spent on and how better to focus that money. In the end, parks were required to provide long range plans for improvement, and ask Congress for funding.

    Arguably a larger percentage of the park at Manassas has been cleared than at Gettysburg. And with less fuss.

    Arguably a better arrangement has been made with Pamplin Park and Petersburg than was done between the GB park and the Foundation.

    Monocacy has actually grown in coverage, provided a better interpretive system and improved VC, in terms of relative scale, on par with what has been done at GB over the last 15 years.

    And Arguably a better job was done with regard to road repairs and improvements in Shenandoah NP than at Gettysburg.

    These four parks (plus Shiloh as I mentioned above) have made gains without the flash and controversy. I’d bet you cannot even name one of those park superintendents. To say that GB needed Latschar is reaching, IMO. GB needed a leader, and unfortunately the one they got was flawed to the core.

    And Latschar did NOT go to Congress and secure funds outside of the department’s process. To say he personally appealed to Congress outside of the department or the service is not true. He went to Congress on behalf of his bosses to explain the mountain of money requested in response to the long range plans mentioned above.

    So to close this dialog, next time you want to call someone a liar (as you did) then make sure YOU have the facts to back that up. From the short time I’ve seen your discussion on this forum, it is clear you prefer to hurl insults rather than keep the dialog principled. You do not appear to have much background in these issues, and often fill in insults as mortar for poor arguments. There are some things I can tolerate and overlook. But being called a liar is not one of them.

    Comment by Craig — October 25, 2009 @ 9:09 am

70. 

    John Foskett,

    The whole story would fill up a book (several in fact in the form of DOI internal policy and instructions). With regard to the different funding strategies between the different parks, you are correct in assuming those require different approaches. The NPS currently adjusts that, with the recognition that not all solutions apply to all situations, using a long range planning system. Each park is required to provide their long range plan for approval. I’m going to swag from memory here, but as I recall that plan must address certain core objectives of the service –
    -Education/interpretation;
    - Stabilizing, preserving, protecting, and maintaining cultural resources;
    - Managing, monitoring, and protecting natural resources;
    - Maintaining and expanding partnerships;
    - Improving park accessibility.

    Within that framework, each park basically makes their pitch for “attention” which is clearly in the form of $$$. Prior to the 1990s, any park improvement plans were presented just as if one were doing facilities repair on a building. After some attention the parks received in the 1990s, these above mentioned broader set of objectives were placed on the improvement process. In short, the parks were not simply expected to put a new coat of paint out every year, but gradually improve in quality over that time.

    Specific to your question, yes, the money is allocated with a different sense of objectives for the different types of parks, but those allocations fit within an over-arching service wide plan to improve the quality of our parks.

    Comment by Craig — October 25, 2009 @ 9:24 am

71. 

    Thanks to both for the input. The point made above regarding the identity of the Superintendent being relatively insignificant needs a qualification, IMHO. Another example from the climbing realm. For decades only one guide service was concessioned to guide climbs on Mt. Rainer. The monopoly was completely unjustified, with other area guides at least equally qualified to guide the several routes on the mountain. In fact, a good case could be made that those guide outfits provide a better service. A few years ago, the Superintendent of Mt. Rainier NP (name currently escapes me) listened to the chorus of complaints and either vigorously pushed an end to the monopoly or ended it himself. This is not to say that Latschar was in any way indispensable to the changes at Gettysburg NMP which I think many would agree have been for the better (blowing up that hideous tower, the revegetation/clearing, the new VC) . I do think, however, that a Superintendent can have an impact for better or for worse on how a particular park is operated. I plead ignorance on how instrumental Latschar was in pushing these positive developments. And, quite obviously, all of that has been seriously compromised, at least from a public relations standpoint, by the conflict issue and now these bizarre revelations.

    Comment by John Foskett — October 25, 2009 @ 11:19 am

72. 

    Craig,

    I did not accuse you of lying, I claimed that you were jumping to conclusions based on assumptions and on speculation — and many wrong facts. Several of your facts above are incorrect, but I do not any longer feel like having an in-depth discussion about this, especially on the host’s page. I have to return to my schoolwork, haha, so perhaps if we meet sometime I will gladly have a civil discussion. If you read what I originally wrote, I think there are points you still have unaddressed, and you should consider. I am unclear as to how you are so sure these things would have happened (counter-factual) without Latschar there.

    As I said above, ask those involved with the projects who they hold responsible for those initiatives. I personally know most the people involved with the project (in leadership roles), and I also personally know people at many Civil War parks (again in leadership roles), and I also personally know leadership officers in the Journey Through Hallowed Ground, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the Civil War Trust, and all of these people agree on Latschar’s centrality to these projects. So right now, it’s your word from outside against those who have been closely involved with the projects for years — and presumably have more facts for the basis of their conclusions.

    I think even Eric, a strong (and more reasonable) critic of Latschar, gives him credit for at least some of these initiatives, as you will find in his comments above (though I am not speaking for him, and hopefully I am not misunderstanding some of your comments Eric, my apologies if I am).

    As for you accusing me to be a liar, look into it and you’ll find the facts I mentioned to be true — if anything, I am hesitant to mentioned facts rather than the other way around. I urge you to reconsider your over-reaction to my comments and reading more into them than are already there — I hope this is not the sort of reading that caused you to jump to your conclusions on Latschar’s role in these projects.

    Comment by Raffi — October 25, 2009 @ 1:07 pm

73. 

    Raffi,

    I absolutely no give credit where it’s due, and he does deserve credit for the things that he accomplished.

    Eric

    Comment by The General — October 25, 2009 @ 1:32 pm

74. 

    Eric:

    I meant to respond to the second-to-last paragraph in your 10/19 post. That procedure is simply SOP for both private and public sector employers. As an employment lawyer with both for clients, that instruction is given immediately on discovering that an employee has been accessing this type of stuff in the workplace. I can fathom only one reason it wasn’t done here – bureaucratic rank. If this had involved some sort of clerk, you can wager a handsome sum that the person would have been told to collect his or her personal items and been helped to the door.

    Comment by John Foskett — October 25, 2009 @ 3:17 pm

75. 

    Raffi,
    My point is that “great things” that happened at Gettysburg were not singular or isolated. Rather these were part of a greater focus in the NPS toward higher level objectives. I think if you would read my comments rather than trying to accuse me of something, you’d see that clearly. Great things happened at other parks, without Latschar. So to say he was somehow critical to the situation is a bogus conclusion. Looking at the examples I’ve provided, clearly there was another way. Furthermore Latschar became a focus of those who wish to limit the park, and in some ways made enemies of those who he should have allied to the cause.

    Comment by Craig — October 25, 2009 @ 3:47 pm

76. 

    My problem with the gentleman is intellectual dishonesty. A friend of mine from New York visited the “new” center and too issue with the presentation of the position of former slaves. I’ve never seen the place, so I cannot comment. However, this friend wrote to Latschar and asked him why he believed that newly freed slaves with no education and who could not read or write were worthy to be elected to public office simply on the basis of their race. Latschar responded with some information on several slaves so elected who COULD read and write.

    In response to Latschar’s letter, when my friend sent back overwhelming documented evidence (taken from Union sources) of the total lack of any ability of the vast majority of these newly elected freedmen to hold ANY office. Instead of acknowledging this evidence and the fact that it contradicted his own viewpoint on the matter, Mr. Latschar simply ended the correspondence. That, as far as I’m concerned, is intellectual dishonesty.

    Latschar presented a position and to a certain extent, defended it. But faced with overwhelming evidence contrary thereto he simply refused to either continue the debate or acknowledge the superiority of my friend’s viewpoint. That is hardly the quality of scholarship or objectivity that should be requisite in anyone holding Latschar’s position.

    Val

    Comment by Valerie Protopapas — October 25, 2009 @ 5:45 pm

77. 

    Craig,

    Again, I point you to all those people involved with the project that I mentioned above. Talk to them, see what they say.

    A larger effort in the NPS yes, but not nearly as much as what happened at GNMP.

    Your “larger percentage” argument for Manassas is spinning because the area at Manassas is not nearly as large as the area at Gettysburg.

    Your argument about Petersburg and Pamplin Park is missing the point: the point isn’t what partnership you think is better, the point is that the scale of what Latschar did with the Foundation is far far larger than what happened at Petersburg with Pamplin Park. You may not agree with the partnership with the Gettysburg Foundation, but what is relevant to the argument of the degree of credit that Latschar deserves for bold initiative is his level of responsibility within those projects, not whether or not you approve or disapprove of the project. So stick to the point: like the Foundation or not, Latschar is the one who has greatest responsibility for the scale of what happened at GNMP with the Foundation (which led to $100 million plus, the VC, the landscape rehab as a result of the VC moving, and so on). Remember that it was Latschar’s degree of influence in this that was precisely the basis for the investigation by the Inspector General. So you are way off the mark in questioning the degree of Latschar’s role in this — even if you disapprove of the Foundation partnership.

    Your claims on Monocacy are again ill-informed and spinning. It has actually grown in coverage because it had very little to begin with, unlike Gettysburg where preservation has begun since 1864. I am not sure what your evaluation criteria are for Monocacy providing a better interpretive system, but let me point out that Latschar doesn’t have as much to do directly with interpretation at the park as far as ranger programs go. That falls to the Supervisory Historian, who you can contact about this issue for more information. Let me remind you that at GNMP we give over a dozen different types of interpretive programs daily in the summers, daily-changing battlewalk topics, multiple evening campfire topics, and about 20 Real Time anniversary programs as well as several anniversary battlewalks for 3 days (which get hundreds of people each, and are broadcast on TV). As for your point about Monocacy and its “improved VC” — indeed it is improved, and I appreciate that, but it is again not to the scale of the Gettysburg VC, recognized by many major journalism publications as the best Civil War Museum in the country, covering the whole war — and including a restored Cyclorama painting, of which there are only 2 on this continent and about 10 in the world. So for you to reduce the comparison between the VC Mococacy and the VC at GNMP is a fallacy of degree, according to the rules of argumentation.

    Your point about a better job was done with regard to road repairs and improvements in Shenandoah NP than at Gettysburg is knit-picking evidence and looking very narrowly and missing the bigger picture. First, how do we evaluate this? What is your criteria? Second, more importantly, even if I concede you this point, let us ask: perhaps Shenandoah had better road improvements because they didn’t focus so much effort on all the things that GNMP did? In other words, if we do a more thorough evaluation of initiatives, the conclusion could very well be that Shenandoah did more work on roads because it did not have so many other big initiatives that were taking up time and money. So again, your cherry-picked emphasis there is spinning the larger picture.

    I am not as familiar with the work at Shiloh, so I won’t jump into the debate there.

    Finally, perhaps the other Superintendents are not as well known precisely because of the fact that Latschar distinguished himself because of these projects. That is, if it was such a department-wide effort, then why did the National Trust for Historic Preservation as well as the Civil War Trust distinguish Latschar as opposed to those from the other parks? What made Latschar stand out within these department-wide efforts? While indeed there was more effort by the NPS to improve things, it was nothing even remotely close to the scale of what happened at GNMP — just ask the National Trust or the Civil War Trust.

    If you still don’t believe me, again I urge you to talk to those involved with the projects who they hold responsible for those initiatives. As I already said, I personally know most the people involved with the project (in leadership roles), and I also personally know people at many Civil War parks (again in leadership roles), and I also personally know leadership officers in the Journey Through Hallowed Ground, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the Civil War Trust, and all of these people agree on Latschar’s centrality to these projects. So right now, it’s still your word from outside against those who have been closely involved with the projects for years.

    Our kind host, Eric, also weighed in above.

    So until you talk to these folks, please avoid: using the hyperbole (i.e. “bogus conclusion”), and attacking me as someone who “do[es] not appear to have much background in these issues” (see my background in who I am citing in my paragraph just above this one).

    Unfortunately, with all due respect, if I may quote yourself back to you: “From the short time I’ve seen your discussion on this forum, it is clear you prefer to hurl insults rather than keep the dialog principled.” Eric and I had a good discussion, and I thought we generally did a good job of not attacking each other — I feel disappointed that you felt the need to attack me off the bat. We were both passionate, but still with all my previous posts, nobody thought I accused them of being a liar, even if I said they may not have all the facts (which is fine, nobody is all-knowing, that’s why we engage in such a forum).

    I am not accusing you of lying (i.e. knowingly misleading). I think you genuinely believe what you are saying. My issue, as you can see, is that you are going way too far with your argument when you blur the difference of degree, when you forget the difference of the contingencies within each park and the obstacles each faces, and when you focus on one initiative at one park and another one at another park but fail to see the comprehensive picture.

    Ultimately, as I said, when it comes to Latschar’s accomplishments on the battlefield, I think I’ll stick with what the people involved in the project think, what the leaders at other Civil War parks have said to me, and what those distinguished organizations recognize. As you will find in my posts above, I do not by any means think he is perfect; but I do recognize, as Eric does above, his accomplishments on the battlefield.

    Comment by Raffi — October 25, 2009 @ 5:50 pm

78. 

    Raffi,
    Again, you are way, way, off and trying to put words in my mouth. It seems you are more bent on gaining the man in question some saint-hood than looking at the facts.

    Perhaps you have not read anything I have written, only focused on bullets you can hype in your responses. I have recognized what Latschar did with regard to the battlefield. However, my point is Latschar did not do anything beyond what his peers were doing at other parks. I’ll applaud what he did accomplish, but at the same time weigh the negatives that you so conveniently overlook. You’ve offered some unconvincing arguments above. But nothing that changes the base reality.

    I have spoke with many of the folks in the organizations you mention in this and your other comments. In the course of my day job, I have spent a lot of time working at NPS and DOI’s offices in the beltway. I can say that when Latschar’s name is mentioned, the response is not overwhelming. Often it is either non-committal (quietly changing the subject) or outright expressions of disgust. Face it, the man gained a lot of enemies. Let’s hope that those enemies don’t translate their dislike to the park.

    Let me say again, I don’t think the man did anything out of the ordinary, or beyond what his peers accomplished with less backing, less press, and less notoriety. But I will acknowledge he did accomplish enough in his 15 years to talk about. I just wish it had not come with a counterbalance load of negatives. As such, Latschar’s tenure will be marked by a lack of integrity, not by any great achievements.

    Let’s move on from this discussion then and focus on what more needs to be done at the park.

    Comment by Craig — October 25, 2009 @ 8:39 pm

79. 

    Craig,

    I did not put words in your mouth, I tried to give an answer to each of your points, one by one, then I quoted you.

    I did read everything you wrote, not some bullets, and I urge you to read what I wrote throughout my responses on here. Your claim that I “conveniently overlook” the negatives and that I am trying to get him “saint-hood” is flat out false. Just read what I’ve written throughout this discussion, whether to you or to others.

    “Face it, the man gained a lot of enemies.” If you read above, I did indeed agree with Eric that he was polarizing, so you are arguing against someone else here, not me.

    Your claims that “Latschar did not do anything beyond what his peers were doing at other parks” or that “I don’t think the man did anything out of the ordinary” are just off the mark. Again I say, over and over, you are blurring the degree of the changes at each of these parks, and you are overlooking the distinction made by so many of his peers and these organizations — many of these are public recognition that I can point to very clearly, whereas some of the private discontent you refer to I am not surprised at because inevitably some people will be unhappy (but WHY they are unhappy is the key, saying they are not so keen on Latschar to you does NOT prove that they agree with you in that he did not accomplish something out of the ordinary… Eric, for example, is not so keen on Latschar, but he certainly still acknowledges his contributions).

    Ultimately, I am disappointed that your best response to my point-by-point refutation of each of your examples (except Shiloh) is to come back and restate your point (for which I addressed the weak evidence).

    Hopefully I quoted you enough in this post so you don’t accuse me of putting words in your mouth.

    Comment by Raffi — October 25, 2009 @ 9:20 pm

80. 

    Raffi, and I think you are overlooking, and in many ways marginalizing, the excellent work done at the other parks. Read up on the annually submitted long range plans of the parks such as Vicksburg, Monocacy, and even little old Fort Pulaski. I would advance the case that dollar for dollar, more has been done at Pea Ridge than at Gettysburg. There is a fantastic example, way out there in Arkansas, of the park cooperating with outside organizations, and volunteers, to achieve the park’s goals. All that is missing is some idiot feathering his nest… which is what happened at Gettysburg.

    I’ve agreed with you that the man “did something” and deserves credit. I cannot follow you further and say he should receive high recognition. There it ends.

    Comment by Craig — October 25, 2009 @ 11:20 pm

81. 

    In terms of impact, John Latschar’s greatest legacy for GNMP will be his role in helping to draft the 1998 General Management Plan. GMPs run parks, basically. A good plan will set the stage for many years to come, while a bad plan can let the park drift and allow the resource to deteriorate.

    For all his faults, Latschar (and I do think his critics have raised valid points) played an important role in drafting that plan. All the good that has come at Gettysburg stems from that plan, and now that Latschar is gone, the park will continue to benefit from a clearly focused plan.

    Not every park has been so lucky. Chickamauga is in the middle of just such a process now, and I have spoken often to Jim Ogden about it – each time he has emphasized the need for the public to get involved and get their comments included at each stage of the process, in order to make sure that the park emerges with an equally strong GMP.

    Dave Powell

    Comment by Dave Powell — October 26, 2009 @ 12:48 pm

82. 

    Craig,

    I am not overlooking the work at the other parks. I am just comparing the scale of what happened, because that is the very basis of your argument.

    I acknowledge that you recognize Latschar “did something,” but once again you are missing the point. Our debate isn’t where he did something; our debate is whether it is somehow distinguished compared to other parks (to quote you): “Latschar did not do anything beyond what his peers were doing at other parks” or that “I don’t think the man did anything out of the ordinary”… you will notice, from my post above, that is the claim I was arguing against, not your (new) claim that he “did something.” So let’s stick to the topic and the issue.

    Your Pea Ridge example again can be deceiving, as your Monocacy example — moreover, your Pea Ridge example lacks a single piece of hard data to support your claim.

    To repeat the same method that you used earlier to make your case when comparing to other parks (which I rebutted) is a poor augmentation to your argument. Then, to simultaneously call Latschar “some idiot” while changing your point to “I’ve agreed with you that the man “did something” and deserves credit” because your position has been so untenable is also a poor way to build your case.

    Ultimately, you have no response to most, almost all, of my points, beyond repeating your broader claim. I addressed almost all the parks you mentioned, and you “threw another one in the mix” so to speak (Pea Ridge) with no evidence at all. Moreover, I am again disappointed to see you stooped to marginalizing the interpretative programming at GNMP (which you said nothing again about), not to mention that such a claim clearly reveals how you have misunderstood the role of the Superintendent (i.e. not directly in interpretive programming, at least at GNMP). I am also of course not convinced your beltway friends agree with you for the same reasons (critics of Latschar don’t necessarily agree with you that he didn’t somehow accomplish more than the “ordinary” — to use your word). I’m glad to see your accusations against me putting words in your mouth have thankfully disappeared. In short, most the evidence for your claims does not stand up, and your rebuttal has generally been to ignore most the points and focus on some individual new point you bring in (and to repeat your larger claim, despite my responses to your supporting pieces of evidence and to your attacks, such as the on GNMP interpretation or on my background).

    I appreciate, sir, any good debate — I feel I got that with our kind host Eric, who did an excellent back-and-forth with me (in good fun and intellectual curiosity!) that acknowledged the points set forth and stayed on topic and did not just repeat the same thing over. Unfortunately, in this case, I do not feel you did similarly.

    This, to be clear, is not meant to be an insult to your intelligence, background, or argumentation skills. This is merely my opinion of the case you have presented only in this thread — NOT of your intellectual capabilities in any way. So please don’t take this as an attack on you as a person — it is more so on the argument itself — a distinction recognized most the great thinkers/philosophers of history (so it’s good enough a distinction for me!). In other words, as I often tell my students who may not have earned the grade they wish: “This is an evaluation of this piece of work that you submitted, not an evaluation of you as a person or your intellect.” I extend to you that same amiable sentiment.

    There, sir, it ends.

    Comment by Raffi — October 26, 2009 @ 5:56 pm

83. 

    Raffi,

    I would, however, pass along a piece of friendly advice to you. Since you are a park employee; and since your personal information may well have been accessed on the computer in question; I would suggest you secure some form of identity theft prevention service. You never know, due to the sites that must have been accessed and the malicious files that may have found their way to the system, who was able to pull data from that computer.

    Comment by Craig — October 27, 2009 @ 6:21 am

84. 

    Craig,

    Thanks for the advice, any particular devices you recommend?

    Comment by Raffi — October 27, 2009 @ 6:39 am

85. 

    About a month ago, I signed up myself and my wife at LifeLock.com (www.lifelock.com). Seems to be an excellent service. If you use any of the number of promotion codes available, it just costs a tad over $100/year per person. They notify you of any shady activity, prevent general access to your credit history (I love that – do you know that EVERY time you get a mailing from credit card offers, car insurance, etc, they’ve checked your credit report?), and pay if they screw up.
    Now we get a LOT less junk mail (hardly any) and I have a lot more confidence due to my high presence on the internet.
    J.D. Petruzzi

    Comment by J David Petruzzi — October 29, 2009 @ 2:53 pm

86. 

    I came across this exchange while on another search, and perhaps should not even revive the topic of Mr. Latschar.

    But:

    Every time an NPS employee logs on the the network, thus giving them internet access, they agree to abide by the use policies in place.

    Each year all NPS employees, as well as volunteers and others must take online training to show that they understand their responsibilities in this area.

    Each Superintendent must certify that the training has taken place.

    Simply reassigning, Mr. Latschar to a non-supervisory position is not enough to demonstrate that the DOI/NPS is serious.

    I don’t even know how he got to those sites. I am a current employee and I can’t even access itunes or youtube at work. They have all that stuff blocked.

    Comment by Ted Nicholson — October 31, 2009 @ 8:51 pm

87. 

    Ted,

    I don’t think anybody questioned the fact that he indeed violated policy. I think the questions have been around:

    1 the punishment (as per the policy outlines, not based on what I think or you think or whoever thinks it SHOULD be)

    2 the publicity of the violation as per DOI policy and guidelines on such publicity (any violations in publicity? and how does/should this publicity affect the punishment?)

    3 the effect on John Latschar’s accomplishments at GNMP

    On another note, he was mistakenly listed on a panel for the Southern Historical Association 2009 program as the President of the Gettysburg Foundation — obviously it’s a mistake (also I don’t believe he made it to the meeting):

    http://www.uga.edu/sha/meeting/program.htm#41

    Saturday, November 7: 11:45 A.M.-1:30 P.M.

    41. WORKSHOP IV—THE PUBLIC PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF SLAVERY AND SLAVE RESISTANCE: A ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION

    PRESIDING: Gary Gallagher, University of Virginia

    PANELISTS:
    Carol Ely, Executive Director, Historic Locust Grove
    Dan Jordan, Former Executive Director, Monticello
    John Latschar, President, Gettysburg Foundation
    Keith Griffler, University of Buffalo

    Comment by Raffi — November 10, 2009 @ 5:41 pm

88. 

    He is an idiot. He had my dream job and I totally would not get involved in that crap especially on the job. What a fool.

    Comment by Mike Rinehart — November 26, 2009 @ 1:36 pm

89. 

    Mike,

    Calm down, my friend, and see the discussion we’ve all already had. No need to react with such venom that gets the discussion nowhere.

    Comment by Raffi — December 1, 2009 @ 7:36 pm

90. 

    And all I can think about is “Why on earth would they ask Eric Uberman’s opinion?” Of all people, Eric Uberman? REALLY? He’s not the most ethical person himself.

    Comment by Sarah — December 2, 2009 @ 11:54 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

• Search for:
• Pages
  • About Eric Wittenberg
  • DAVID F. DAY: MEDAL OF HONOR WINNER, FEARLESS SCOUT,
  • Full Response to Andrea Custer
  • Research Corner
  • The Cavalry
  • THE CAVALRY CHARGE
  • The Charge of the Light Brigade, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson
• Archives
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
• Categories
  • Battlefield preservation
  • Battlefield stomping
  • Blogging
  • Civil War books and authors
  • Confederate Cavalry
  • General musings
  • General News
  • Neo-Confederate hooey
  • Rants
  • Research and Writing
  • Revolutionary War stuff
  • Union Cavalry
• Blogs I like
  • A Philadelphia Phanatic
  • Andrew Duppstadt
  • Bottle Rocket Science
  • Brian Downey
  • Charlie Knight
  • Chris Wehner
  • Civil War Interactive News Wire
  • Civil Warriors
  • Corey Meyer
  • Craig Swain
  • David Woodbury
  • Dickinson College A House Divided Blog
  • Dimitri Rotov
  • Don Caughey
  • Drew Wagenhoffer
  • Gettysburg Daily
  • Harry Smeltzer
  • J. D. Petruzzi
  • Jack Dempsey
  • Jenny Goellnitz
  • Jim Schmidt
  • John Hoptak
  • Kevin Levin
  • Madness Mike
  • Mannie Gentile
  • Mark Grimsley
  • Michael Aubrecht
  • Michael C. Hardy
  • Michael Lynch
  • Mike Block
  • Mike Noirot
  • Nick Kurtz
  • Rea Andrew Redd
  • Rene Tyree
  • Robert Grandchamp
  • Robert H. Moore, II
  • Scott Mingus
  • Scott Patchan
  • Steven Mynes
  • Susan Wittenberg
  • Ted Savas
  • TOCWOC
  • Tom Clemens
  • Touch the Elbow
• Civil War Sites of Interest
  • Central Ohio Civil War Roundtable
  • Civil War Preservation Trust
  • CWDG Online
  • Dennis Morris
  • Gettysburg Discussion Group
  • J. David Petruzzi
  • One Continuous Fight: The Retreat from Gettysburg and the Pursuit of Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia, July 4-14, 1863
  • Plenty of Blame to Go Around: Jeb Stuart’s Controversial Ride to Gettysburg
  • Randy Drais
  • Rush’s Lancers, also known as the Sixth Pennsylvania Cavalry
  • The Books of Eric J. Wittenberg
  • Wade Sokolosky
• Compilation Blogs
  • The Battle of Kelly’s Ford
• Other Sites of Interest
  • David Knopfler
  • Patriots of the American Revolution
  • Shadowbox Cabaret
  • Sonic Swap
  • The American Revolution Discussion Forums
  • The Law Offices of Eric J. Wittenberg Co., L.P.A.
• Publishers of Civil War History
  • Blue & Gray Magazine
  • Edinborough Press
  • Ironclad Publishing
  • North & South magazine
  • Savas Beatie Publishing
  • The History Press
  • Westholme Publishing
• __
  
• Meta
  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org