Photo © Mark Blaine
Summer 2003. Reddy Squirrel visits Los Angeles. Bighorn eight are vindicated. Skeleton Crew to Manage Forests
Reddy Rallies Los Alamos
Mark Blaine and I met at the Blue Window, a lovely little New Mexico bistro, before Reddy Squirrel’s grand debut. We discussed her messages, her personality, her history and then headed over to get dressed and ready to go. I was a bit nervous. Not about being dressed as a giant red squirrel with floppy black feet and no peripheral vision, but about setting a tone for the new character, a character already embroiled in controversy.
I cemented Reddy’s main firewise and supporting messages in my head as I climbed clumsily aboard the shiny fire truck—no scampering, unfortunately. I waved at passing cars (and held on to my head as it reached skyward) from the top of the engine until we reached the municipal building. A happy crowd of kids with a few chaperones and local dignitaries met us. Getting down from the fire truck was an interesting challenge with very limited vision and huge shoes, and I breathed a sigh of relief upon making it down without any Charlie Chaplin falls.
We planted a fire-safe tree and the kids were awarded prizes for a coloring contest held by the Los Alamos County Defensible Space Project. I was prompted to tell those gathered how to make their homes safer from wildland fires. I also asked the kids what they thought while Mark gave Reddy Squirrel T-shirts to kids willing to talk into the microphone. Needless to say, he ran out of T-shirts fast. By that time, I was becoming Sweaty Squirrel, so we headed back for decompression, laughs and a beer.
I wanted to make the point I had squirreling around in my head all day about how Reddy Squirrel is not in competition with Smokey Bear, about how her practical advice is meant for homeowners and families living in the wildland-urban interface and that Smokey talks to every person everywhere about human fire prevention. I never got that point out somehow. I hope the next Reddy Squirrel does, because Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics needs the U.S. Forest Service as a partner, not an adversary, in our effort to get the defensible space idea out.
Oh, and if you are asked to be Reddy Squirrel at her next appearance—do it! Who wouldn’t want to take on the personality of a plucky squirrel and tell people how to be safer and happier? —Lisa Matlock
Vindication for Bighorn 8
Longtime readers of Forest Magazine will remember Wyoming’s Bighorn National Forest bat box scandal of 1999. Bighorn wilderness and recreation forester Craig Cope was suspended for fifteen days without pay for moving a bat roosting box thirty feet. The box had been erected in the district office parking lot—poor bat habitat—where it obstructed employees’ view of the distant mountains. Cope, who was the acting district ranger, and a Bureau of Land Management employee (the BLM shared the office) moved the box to a copse of trees. The BLM expressed surprise when Cope was taken to the woodshed for his decision.
Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, however, wasn’t surprised. Cope was one of more than a dozen Bighorn employees who several years earlier had spoken out against the unethical management of Larry Keown, the former Bighorn forest supervisor. As a result of his and other employees’ whistleblowing, FSEEE engineered Keown’s reassignment to a nonsupervisory position (he has since retired from the U.S. Forest Service).
Keown’s regional office proponent Tom Thompson appointed Gail Kimball to replace Keown and, according to employees, told her to clean house on the Bighorn. Under cover of an alleged budget deficit and workforce reorganization, virtually all of the whistleblowers were harassed or forced to transfer or retire.
In a bittersweet finale to this drama, the Forest Service and eight of the employees in April reached a settlement of the employees’ whistleblower retaliation complaint. The settlement requires the Forest Service to pay $200,000 (to be divided among the employees and their lawyers), reduces Cope’s suspension to a letter of reprimand and restores another employee’s dates of service for retirement benefit purposes.
The settlement resulted from an in-depth Office of Special Counsel investigation that found sufficient evidence of reprisal to force the Forest Service’s hand. Although the numerous complainants and the diversity of retaliatory tactics complicated the case, the Bighorn’s hiring data undercut its attempt to disguise retaliation as workforce downsizing. Far from reducing its workforce, between 1998 and 2003, the Bighorn increased its staffing from seventy-four to 111 employees.
When he heard about the settlement, Pete Chidsey, retired Bighorn district ranger, said, “While I am delighted that [the eight employees] have been vindicated, far, far more individuals lost their jobs, were forced into undesirable reassignments, ‘early’ retirements, etc. We have never been able to recover from the professional damage done to our careers. If the Forest Service is sincerely interested in achieving closure on this entire mess, I would recommend that the chief issue a personal letter of apology to all the individuals affected.”
An apology will not likely be soon forthcoming. Thompson is now a Forest Service deputy chief and Kimball is his associate deputy chief. The pair are among the most powerful figures in the Forest Service.—Andy Stahl
Skeleton Crew to Manage Forests
Who are the U.S. Forest Service employees eligible for outsourcing under the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act, known by the acronym FAIR, and what do they do? To help answer that question, I picked at random a typical ranger district, coincidentally located near the official Wyoming residences of Vice President Dick Cheney and former Interior Secretary James Watt. According to the FAIR inventory, nineteen employees work on this district, and all but one fulfills a “commercial” activity. The only “inherently governmental” employee is the district ranger, the head of the office.
The other eighteen folks include:
• One natural resource manager who has worked on the district for twenty years (he’s the institutional memory of the district) and does “a little of everything” while also supervising several other staff.
• One vegetation manager who doubles as the district silviculturist (plants and manages trees) and botanist while also serving on a federal incident management team that was at ground zero after 9/11 and involved in the Columbia shuttle recovery.
• One forestry technician with responsibility for supervising the seasonal trail maintenance crews and Forest Service-owned livestock (e.g., pack horses).
• Four fire prevention officers who run the fire suppression engine crew, patrol the district during fire season educating the public regarding fire risks, put out fires and conduct prescribed burns.
• Two forest engineers who design roads, bridges, campgrounds and other structures.
• A fisheries biologist who conserves threatened and endangered fish, ensures that projects protect fish habitat and works with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department.
• A land surveyor who ensures that the national forest boundaries are properly posted and respected and is involved with land exchanges.
• A rangeland manager who oversees private livestock grazing on the district.
• A minerals manager who oversees the commercial and recreational mining of minerals.
• Two road maintenance employees who do just what their job title says, maintain the district’s miles of primarily gravel and dirt roads.
• Two administrative staff who handle the paperwork.
• One information specialist who answers public inquires of all kinds.
These are the people who manage your public lands. According to the FAIR inventory, a private sector company could perform all of these jobs, allegedly at less cost to taxpayers.
Is the private sector ready to take over these functions? Yes, according to a pleasant sales representative at Westaff, “one of the largest staffing companies in the country.” Westaff and companies of its type are clearinghouses for large corporations and, now, government agencies looking for inexpensive, often temporary, labor.
But federal employees are different from their private sector peers. Sure, the private sector has biologists, foresters and other technically trained staff who could fulfill many of the functions carried out by federal workers. But federal employees are governed by binding and enforceable rules of ethical conduct—private sector consultants are not.
Ethical conduct rules prohibit federal employees from accepting gifts or bribes from those doing business with the government. No such prohibition applies to consultants.
Federal employees are barred from feathering their own nest in the performance of their public duties, such as by making recommendations on decisions from which they or their family members might financially profit. No such prohibition applies to consultants.
Federal employees may not give preferential treatment to anyone. No such prohibition applies to consultants.
Federal employees may not hold outside employment that creates or gives the appearance of creating a conflict of interest between their private interests and their government obligations. No such prohibition applies to consultants.
Federal employees may not accept compensation for representing outside business interests in matters involving federal decisions. No such prohibition applies to consultants.
The proponents of privatizing the public sector may not believe that ethics are important. But no one can seriously assert that business ethics, as practiced by Enron and its ilk, are any substitute for the statutory ethical rules that bind federal workers. Who do we want managing our national forests: workers required to place the public interest first or workers whose first loyalty is to the temp agency that hires or fires them? —Andy Stahl