More Unethical Conduct by John Latschar

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

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!!

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

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

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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