Administration

Close to 100 National Park Service human resources professionals gathered in late May to discuss the implementation of the services to be provided by the Park Service’s new Human Resources Operation Center, scheduled to begin operating in Denver on July 1. Some of my thoughts about this meeting and its purpose and the whole transformation to a “most efficient” Human Resources organization are outlined in this article.

First, the workshop was worth the time of being away from the office! The presentations were informative and put together well. I’m sure we all learned a lot about changes we can expect in the next few years and the importance of staying involved with the process as we continue down the path of implementation.

Second, it was apparent that HR professionals at all levels of the organization need to continue to have open and frequent communications with one another. For me, it was the first time I was made aware of some programs that will be different beginning in the new future. For example, the NPS is moving back to a centralized recruitment process for temporary positions (similar to the former Seasonal Employment Program where applicants for park ranger positions put in one application for seasonal jobs throughout the Service). Other changes to policies and programs are in the works.

Third, I came to the conclusion that the NPS HR program has “reform churn.” What I mean by this is the NPS hires new leaders (managers and supervisors) who come in with great promise and lots of new ideas. A lot of changes are proposed and occur for a couple years, but there may be no dramatic improvement, so the current managers and supervisors move on because things have not changed much. Then new managers and supervisors come in, again promising to fix things by implementing a lot of changes. The net result is no reform lasts long enough to truly fix any problems. The organization keeps lurching in different directions every couple of years, never making any real progress. I am hoping, this time, that real, meaningful transformation will occur.

The quote below seems appropriate for us to consider as we move forward with our current activities.

“We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganized. Presumably the plans for our employment were being changed. I was to learn later in life that, perhaps because we are so good at organizing, we tend as a nation to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization.”
— Charlton Ogburn Jr. (1911-98)
From “Merrill’s Marauders: The truth about an incredible adventure,” Harper’s Magazine, January 1957

A pattern of constant reform is not new. Unfortunately, we have no simple, objective measures to see how well our HR operations are doing. This is partly the result of there being no clear, agreed upon, purpose defined for HR operations in the NPS. Some want vacancy announcements issued within one week, some want retirement counseling today, some want advice on managing a disciplinary case, and so on. All of this means that people care very much about human resources and how we manage our employees, but people can’t tell how well we are doing.

This workshop, though, leads all of us to return to our offices to help the NPS hire the right people, with the right skills, at the right time (as stressed by Jerry Simpson during this workshop). It also provides us opportunities to develop performance measures for HR processes and operations.

I encourage all of you to get together with your HR staffs to find out what was discussed at this workshop and how all of us can be involved in making the NPS the best organization to work for in the federal government.

Interpretation

21st Century Parks — What will the new parks of the 21st century be? Recently I watched the campy Cold War film WarGames. It got me thinking that perhaps the NORAD/Strategic Air Command complex deep in Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado, would make a great NPS unit because so much of the Cold War was coordinated in that mountain.

The next day I watched the NASA channel and saw various shots of Cape Canaveral at sunrise. One of the space shuttles stood at the ready, elegantly lit by rays of the new day’s sun. I think Cape Canaveral would make a fine national park in cooperation with NASA. Just imagine the space shuttle Endeavor and its rockets forever perched proudly on the launch pad, an eternal symbol of America’s skyward aspirations.

I strongly believe that interpretive thinking plays the leading role when envisioning new parks. A potential park’s merit can be judged by ascertaining whether or not it stands on the bedrock of national meaning and significance. It is the work of interpretive-minded folks to identify that. This can be accomplished by anyone of a political mind, such as retired interpreters. A major component of meaning and significance is that it engages with audiences. As the Interpretive Renaissance is implemented across the National Park Service, it will be important to consider whether a proposed park can engage new audiences because they will be the visitors of the future. A complementary question must be asked. Is the current assemblage of NPS units adequate to engage new and future audiences? My suggestion is that it is not. But there is no ideal number of parks. Identifying national places of value is a journey of discovery for the country with no ultimate destination.

With all the hardships of the last decade, it is easy to forget that our agency can and will continue to make bold steps in order to tackle the future It was heartening to find out that the NPS has a group discussing potential park units right now. This tells me that our agency is thinking of the future and evaluating our next frontiers.

Much of the continued relevance of the NPS lies in the creation of cultural sites where we as a nation broke major new ground between 1940 and 1980. Just as America continues to evolve, so must the NPS. Minuteman Missile and Minidoka Internment are good examples of this future-oriented thinking, especially since there are so many people living today who lived during these times and resonate with these stories. These “living history” visitors can come to these parks and share their personal stories with their descendants.

Realizing the interpretive potential of a place is key when thinking about the first steps for park creation because it requires the acknowledgment that a resource possesses importance. The job of interpreters is not just to respond to a resource once it has an identified value. Interpreters were right there at the birth of each of our parks, facilitating the process of establishment so that that place is proven as valuable, meaningful, relevant and worthy of being a park. A park concept then coalesces.

The National Park System reflects who we are as a people and what we, as a collective, say our priorities are. The national landscape is ripe for some fresh and diverse stories to be added to the makeup of the system. As we bring new units online, we will stay relevant and keep the assemblage of our units conceptually diverse and timely.

Our challenge as defenders of the original intent of the NPS mission and the values of our parks is not only to tell the old stories, but also to look for strong, new park stories. The current lineup of almost 400 NPS units is not a finished product. America is a moving, evolving entity, and our system must continue to reflect that. It is time to usher in a new generation of park units with new stories full of fresh national significance. Interpretive values and vision guide where we go next as an agency and what places and ideas will engage the next generation of visitors.

Protection

If It’s Always There, Then It’s Always There: As commissioned U.S. park rangers we have the opportunity and privilege of being armed anytime, anywhere. Whether it be out to dinner, at a crowded sporting event, flying on an airplane or even at church, we can travel armed. Our agency policy explicitly permits us to carry our firearms at all times, on duty or off.

Parameters do exist, of course, and it’s prudent to be familiar with them prior to carrying off duty. Here are the highlights (paraphrased from RM-9, 2009 version):

1. Credentials. Our law enforcement credentials and shield must be immediately available anytime we’re in possession of our Service-issued firearms, both on and off duty.

2. Conduct. Anytime we carry our firearms off duty, we must conduct ourselves in a manner fully consistent with the conduct provisions of DM 446 and RM-9 and carry our firearms fully concealed from public view.

3. Type I vs. Type II Commissions.
   a. Type I-commissioned employees can carry National Park Service-issued and/or approved firearms off-duty inside and outside NPS areas.
   b. Type II-commissioned employees can carry Service issued and/or approved firearms off-duty within the park to which they are assigned.
   c. A Type II-commissioned employee’s chief ranger may provide written authorization for them to carry firearms off-duty outside of the park on a case-by-case basis.

4. Display and Use of Firearms Off Duty. The display and use of firearms while off-duty outside of NPS jurisdiction will be in accordance with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations, and all provisions of RM-9. Authorization to carry firearms in areas outside of the National Park System does not, in and of itself, convey authority for commissioned personnel to display or use deadly force in response to crimes that are outside of their federal jurisdiction (see applicable jurisdictional inventory and Good Samaritan legislation for guidance).

Though viewed as a daunting realization by some, carrying our firearms with us everywhere we go is seen as a rare opportunity, or even obligation, by others. The NPS cannot require us to carry off duty. That is a decision each of us must make for ourselves. It is wholly a personal choice.

That said, here are a few factors to consider when making that decision:

Just because we have our firearm on our person doesn’t mean we have to use it. I hope I never need to use it. Thus far in my life, knock on wood, I’ve not needed it off duty. So what inconvenience do I pose upon myself to just have it on me? None.

How many thugs out there are carrying firearms illegally every day? It’s only a matter of time before we run into a situation where someone brandishes a firearm. By carrying ours, we at least have the option of engaging if the situation renders it prudent. And here’s a sobering question: How terrible would a ranger feel if he or she truly could have prevented a violent criminal act had they only been armed?

Since we are allowed to carry them, why would we ever choose not to? We are highly trained professionals and skilled with the tools of our craft. Weapons retention, marksmanship and situational awareness are ingrained into us. If we ever need our firearm off duty, we’re trained to use it and use it well. Some feel we would be remiss to not carry them, that we owe our readiness and vigilance to society in return for the training and skills we’ve received.

Some rangers will carry some days and not on others. What factors do they consider when choosing to or not to carry off duty? Clothing? Destination? Do some maybe even go through the thought process of, “I doubt I’ll need it today”? If a ranger ever thinks that, he or she should consider another career path.

I can think of maybe two venues where I don’t actually have my firearm on my person: while on a long run and while swimming. That’s it, both for obvious reasons. Otherwise, it’s right there in the holster.

Here’s the crux of why rangers should carry firearms off duty all the time, not just some of the time: If we ever need it, we might need it now, right now! The two seconds one has to stop and think, “Gosh, did I grab my firearm prior to leaving the house?” might be the same two seconds the thug uses to get the drop on him or her.

If rangers develop the habit of always having it on their hip, they’ll never have to lose those two seconds wondering if they brought it. There will be no wondering, there’ll be no “if.” It’ll always just be there, and they’ll have the confidence of knowing that it’s there.

Bottom line with packin’ heat off duty: If it’s always there, then it’s always there.

~ Kevin Moses, Buffalo National River

I missed the last Ranger Rendezvous in Santa Fe, but in thinking of its theme, “Being Green Means More Than Wearing Green,” it reminded me of an issue under discussion at my current park and perhaps others.

I live in Wyoming, land of much snow and cold, as do many of you and your friends. About 10 years ago, in keeping with NPS policy, my park moved to phase out wood stoves in park housing units due to safety and environmental concerns for air quality. Recently, because of higher propane prices and discussions about what types of fuel are most sustainable, park staff have begun to rethink whether old-fashioned woodcutting (close to home, maybe even with a hand saw or ax rather than chain saw!) is “greener” than using natural gas, propane, or electricity produced at a considerable distance and trucked or piped through native plant and animal habitat. At least locally, there are no simple answers on how to balance these concerns with human health and safety and the logistics of not “flipping” home heating and cooling systems, whether NPS-maintained or not. But surely we will have many similar discussions and start to re-think traditional operations with a new eye to practicing green life- and work-styles.

In a servicewide effort to get “greener” in field operations, the acting NPS director issued a memo in March announcing that rangers and resource managers would use non-lead ammunition to cull animals or dispatch wounded ones, in addition to eliminating lead fishing tackle by 2010. The negative effects of lead on human health and in the environment, especially in scavengers and predators, is well documented; numerous scientific papers have focused on how lead adversely affects waterfowl, California condors, bald and golden eagles, and other species. Although NPS law enforcement officers are still required to carry lead ammunition, in some parks and state wildlife or conservation agencies, officers are training with nontoxic ammunition.

At a 2008 conference, representatives of The Peregrine Fund noted 29 countries around the world that regulated lead ammunition and documented this growing trend over the past 15 years. It’s probably a trend that will continue in and outside the NPS.

NOTE: If you work in resource management and are interested in becoming a columnist in this space, please contact the editor at fordedit@aol.com.