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.

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

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.

Thanks for the advice, any particular devices you recommend?

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.

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.

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