More Unethical Conduct by John Latschar

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.