Gettysburg Park superintendent reassigned

[Kerflumoxed]

Ephrum wrote:

Maybe he wasn't supposed to view things like that while he was on the clock. I mean from an employer standpoint, he's not doing his job if he's looking at porn while at work.
Some employer's are that way. I've known a few people who lost their jobs just for having Solitare on their work computer, or were paying bills online, while on the clock.
Point being, people lose their jobs for a lot less than what he did.

And let's be honest, porn is a lighting-rod kind of subject, like politics and religion.

How many mothers are going to read about this and want their children to go visit Gettysburg National Park? Or be anywhere near the man.

It's probably a matter of public perception.

I still think he was stupid to do that at work. He should've done that in the privacy of his home.

Ephrum, think you have hit the proverbial nail on the head...it is against NPS rules. Even more, he acknowledged it was against the rules and still did it.

Somewhat like the Choice Theory of Dr. Wm. Glasser in the education field in creating Quality Schools. To sum up, there five reasons for human behavior:
"•all we do is behave,
•that almost all behavior is chosen, and
•that we are driven by our genes to satisfy five basic needs: survival, love and belonging, power, freedom, and fun." (Wonder which need he was satisfying? )

And, with each choice, there is an internal/external response...some good, some bad! When we make the right choice (like contributing to the success of the new GB) good things happen. But, if the wrong choice....Whoa, Horsey! Well, that is the short of it. If you are interested in the whole concept, try: http://www.wglasser.com/index.php?optio ... &Itemid=27

But, I digress (don't I always?). The hard pill for me to swallow is that he does not suffer a salary reduction! I would be interested in knowing whether or not the job he has been transferred to is a new job created for him. Also, if it is an existing job, what was the pay rate before his arrival this morning? :huh:

[Little Powell]

Also, this never would have been an issue in the first place if the computers were locked down. If they had filtering software (like Websense) then he would have been forced to do his porn surfing off the clock at home. He'd still be the happy, porn addicted Gettysburg Park Superintendent..

[Gfran64]

At the expense of moving this to Rant and Rave, I would only suggest that he receive no more or less latitude than other public servants who have engaged in less than exemplary behavior while serving us. It is a given that this man admitted to viewing pornography while on the clock and has been reassigned at his previous salary. President Clinton received certain favors from a subordinate in the oval office while on the clock. He was impeached, but he maintained his position and his salary and has kept his retirement package. So I ask you, which is worse? Then I would ask, Who's job description changed as a result of their activity? Something to think about.

Regards,

Greg B)

[norb]

All I'm saying is that a person should not be fired for doing something that is not work related during work hours. Most people do it, every time they take a phone call from home. An employer has every right to fire someone for doing this. It's against every company policy that I've ever heard of. But I do not personally feel that it should be a fire worthy offense. You can almost guarantee that the person firing them has done some personal business on company time. I feel that a warning for a first offense would be more fair. Given that there are no other circumstances. How many people read this forum or post here during office hours?

They have the right to do what they did, but if I were in the position and he was a valued employee, I would give him a warning for a first offense. Maybe have him go to some consoling on internet porn addiction. Cause you gotta have it pretty bad to risk your job

[Kerflumoxed]

norb wrote:

All I'm saying is that a person should not be fired for doing something that is not work related during work hours. Most people do it, every time they take a phone call from home. An employer has every right to fire someone for doing this. It's against every company policy that I've ever heard of. But I do not personally feel that it should be a fire worthy offense. You can almost guarantee that the person firing them has done some personal business on company time. I feel that a warning for a first offense would be more fair. Given that there are no other circumstances. How many people read this forum or post here during office hours?

They have the right to do what they did, but if I were in the position and he was a valued employee, I would give him a warning for a first offense. Maybe have him go to some consoling on internet porn addiction. Cause you gotta have it pretty bad to risk your job

Excellent point, Norb.

It is interesting to note, however, that his behavior pattern of visiting these sites was not included in the original report and only came to light after its publication. After it was disclosed, there appears to have been some NPS hindsight and reconsideration "that all was not well" after all. I suspect that if the supt. had been viewing some antique car sites/shows, antique auctions or checking out his vacation options in Burmuda, there would not have been much, or any, outroar. However, once it was publicly disclosed (and it was apparently discovered before the report was issued) that he had frequented porno sites, be they soft-core or hard-core, the "powers-that-be (to quote a famous politician) decided to CYA!

One also may determine to separate a private job from a public job. Do I want a public servant utilizing public (read as "Your's and Mine") tax dollars to surf the net for any non-related job sites when they are being paid an astronomical (my choice of adjective) 145K? Having spent my life in coaching and teaching, I can easily imagine the results of I had elected to surf porn sites on the school computers, disregarding the employee's handbook that specifically prohibits that kind of behavior! Just as importantly, I would have expected no less than an immediate dismissal with no thought of appealing the decision. Again, comes back to taking responsibility for one's personal actions...as in Choice Theory. Make the wrong choice, suffer the consequences....make the right choice, enjoy the consequences. Ah...life is so simple. As famed UCLA coach John Wooden (who just turned 99 on the 14th of this month) used to tell his students: "Just do what is right!" Doesn't get any better than that...does it!

[Amish John]

Because he was pretty controversial I wonder if this was just an excuse to remove him?

[Kerflumoxed]

Amish John wrote:

Because he was pretty controversial I wonder if this was just an excuse to remove him?

John, that certainly could be!

On the other hand, it certainly would not do the park any service by retaining your point man who had such a sullied reputation, especially within the confines of the city itself.

Further compounding the problem could be his fellow workers at the park (or for that matter within the entire park system). Undoubtedly, there were some co-workers who would not approve of his conduct as well as sabotaging any further positive efforts he might have made.

You know human nature, John! I suspect that once the story makes the rounds within the park service, unless he is able to work somewhat in isolation, he will be a target for quite some time.

J

[Rich Mac]

norb wrote:

All I'm saying is that a person should not be fired for doing something that is not work related during work hours. Most people do it, every time they take a phone call from home. An employer has every right to fire someone for doing this. It's against every company policy that I've ever heard of. But I do not personally feel that it should be a fire worthy offense. You can almost guarantee that the person firing them has done some personal business on company time. I feel that a warning for a first offense would be more fair. Given that there are no other circumstances. How many people read this forum or post here during office hours?

They have the right to do what they did, but if I were in the position and he was a valued employee, I would give him a warning for a first offense. Maybe have him go to some consoling on internet porn addiction. Cause you gotta have it pretty bad to risk your job

Fortunately for him, he wasn't fired. He was reassigned. That's a huge difference. Tomorrow morning, he's going to wake up a federal employee, with all benefits that he has accrued over his decades of public service.

Holding the coveted office of Superintendent of Gettysburg National Military Park certainly has it privileges. However, that office also must be held to a higher level of accountability. When you are the "commander", "boss",or "HMIC", you need to exemplify outstanding leadership qualities - not surf porn on the company computer. I agree with Kerflumoxed that he's lucky to still have his job, salary and that his pension hasn't been compromised.

If you want the $145,000/year job, you need to keep your pants zippered in the office. Unless you're the President

[Armchair General]

A major impact is also public relations. Gettysburg National Military Park is a place that's supposed to be family friendly, where people can come with their little kids and look at places where soldiers bashed each other's brains out (entirely kid safe if you ask me). The last thing you want is the person in charge of that family friendly environment to be looking up porn during office hours.

[norb]

I see the publicity problem and I would agree that once it got out their hands were tied. I would have cut his pay big time though, something below 6 figures. He would have to earn his way back. Especially since he damaged the integrity of the park with his actions. So in the end, I guess I would be tougher on him than they were.