The employment of relatives in the same organization tends to have a number of undesirable results. It sometimes leads to requests to HR that are difficult to refuse without deterioration in delicate relationships. The appearance of favoritism in personnel actions, decision-making in connection with work assignments, and the possibility of misunderstanding and resentment on the part of the general public are all reasons we must understand the restrictions and regulations on the employment of relatives.

Federal law and regulation prohibit the appointment, employment, promotion or advancement of a relative (you can find the definition of relative in the CFR), or the advocacy of such an action, by any public official in a position to influence, directly or indirectly, these personnel decisions.

“Relative” does not specifically cover individuals who may be members of an employee’s household. However, 5 CFR 2635.502 precludes an employee from taking actions in his/her government capacity that are likely to have a direct and predictable effect on the financial interest of a member of his/her household.

A manager/supervisor may not:

• Effect the appointment or advancement of a relative in any position within the NPS.
• Direct another official within the NPS to appoint or advance his/her relative.
• Appoint or advance the relative of an official within the NPS when that other official has recommended the action.
• Exercise any influence or control over any discretionary personnel matter (such as initiating or approving requests for personnel actions, performance evaluations and awards) affecting a relative. This provision essentially prohibits an official from serving as a first- or second- level supervisor of a relative.

Despite the prohibitions noted above, supervisors/managers may take actions affecting a relative, providing those actions are non-discretionary in nature (such as an upgrade due to the correction of a classification error or the issuance of a new classification standard).

Regulations do not prohibit the appointment of a relative who is a preference eligible, provided the relative's name is within reach for selection on a certificate and an alternative selection would violate the relative's entitlement to preference. This exception applies to the initial appointment action. Subsequent actions on the part of the official affecting the relative's employment, such as a recommendation for promotion, would still be prohibited.

You are encouraged to contact your servicing human resources office for more information or if you have questions about this issue.

Interpretation

Help! — I am looking for help from ANPR member interpreters for a special project involving the future of the interpretive profession. I am assembling a team to create an online web learning community. It will be by interpreters for interpreters. We have about 70,000 people providing park-related interpretive services for the National Park Service across the nation. Now is the time to take advantage of 21st century technology.

This idea is an outgrowth of a conversation with David Larsen and two ideas I’ve been kicking around in my head for a while. Y ou may recall my column about creating an NPS university where we can learn from each other and grow as a team. The other idea came out of the recent Interpretive Development Program certifier workshop at Mather. I realized going through that training that there is no really good way for us to work collaboratively in our parks except for folks lucky to work at a park with a large staff.

Because we don’t get together often with interpreters from other parks, face-to-face communication with our compatriots is rare. Also, there are quite a few people out there with misconceptions about the IDP program for interpreters.

At first I thought this could all be solved by creating an IDP forum on InsideNPS. After my brainstorming session with Larsen, though, we agreed that a forum didn’t have as much potential as I hoped. Instead, we came up with an initial framework for what might work. This is where I need your help.

I want to create a professional web community to enhance interpretive learning, collaboration and skill growth. I also want to provide support for the IDP and the Eppley interpretive courses. We want this to be accessible to all interpreters, so it will not be on an NPS server. We need to find a place to put it that can be accessed either at work or home, 24 hours a day, so that all 70,000 of us can use it.

The web community will have at least three components, with more yet to be created. Ideally, the Eppley courses and in-park trainings will serve as the two bookends of interpretive learning. The web community will be everything in between. My hope is it bridges the gap by personalizing interpretive learning.

The components are broken into interpretive disciplines, such as the 10 benchmark IDP modules, and dozens of more niche subjects. I’d like to see an electronic magazine (E-zine) where NPS interpreters write regular articles on subjects relevant to interpretation. The authors would be subject-matter experts with much experience in a particular interpretive challenge. A forum-style Q&A section would accompany articles. Readers could respond to the author, ask questions and get clarifications. The next segment would be a library of podcasts where interpreters can post their own videos to showcase a specific technique that others can emulate in their parks. Good ones can be added to the podcast research library.

The next part will be a Wikipedia section to promote interpretation, explain what it is and why it is so valuable. This site would be overseen by an elected board that monitors content, keeps things focused and organized, and continues to support the web community’s needs.

If you want to join me in planning for this, please e-mail me at iceagecaver@yahoo.com. If you are a budding interpretive professional looking for projects to hone your skills, join up. This isn’t just for those who’ve been there and done that. We need a diverse group — newbies and seasoned experts — to develop this project. I can’t do this alone, so please help!

Protection

The purpose of the National Park Service Ranger Honor Guard — it’s raison d’etre — is to honor our fallen brothers and sisters.

Historically, the NPS relied on other agencies, such as the Border Patrol or military, to conduct honors funerals for NPS personnel killed in the line of duty. They did outstanding work, but something was missing. Rangers need to bury their own.

Since forming in 2003, that’s exactly what the NPS Ranger Honor Guard has done. The team has been called upon at a hauntingly high frequency. Because of this, we train rigorously with perfect presentation as our goal. We drill for long hours, firing seven rifles until we can hear only one, and repeating maneuvers over and over until every movement is right on — until we reach absolute precision.

Why absolute precision? Why long hours for a maneuver that lasts only minutes?

When one of our own passes away, we give our all for them. Anything lacking perfection would not be our all to honor them.

If fallen rangers are supposed to be buried by their peers, why does the honor guard wear uniforms that are different from everyone else’s? Just as military, police or fire department honor guard uniforms are different from that of their peers, our uniform is different to honor them. In everything we do, we honor them.

One of the most poignant explanations of an honor guard’s purpose comes from a tradition rooted deep in history. After many Civil War battles, both armies would retreat to the woodline to regroup, tend to their wounded and work on their muskets. After a time, they would wave white flags to advise the enemy that their intentions were only to emerge back onto the battlefield to pick up their dead so that they could honor them in a way fitting to a soldier. Each army would then carry off their dead with mutual respect from the opposing force.

When done, they would fire three volleys to let the enemy know that they had tended to their fallen and they were ready to fight again.

When we fire three volleys at a ranger’s funeral, we are telling the world that we have tended to our fallen brother or sister, and we are ready to go on again.

~ Kevin Moses, Big South Fork

The American Geophysical Union, the world’s largest scientific society of Earth and space scientists — some 50,000 researchers, teachers and students from 137 countries — issued an updated position on climate change early this year.

Excerpts include: “The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate systems — including temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean; the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons — are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity…Warming greater than 2 degrees Celsius above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity…if this warming is to be avoided, our net annual emissions of carbon dioxide must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century.”

The Jan. 29, 2008, New York Times reported that questions about climate change are causing conservation organizations to wonder whether their efforts are “insufficient or beside the point.” The article quotes Everglades Superintendent Dan Kimball talking about how a two-foot rise in sea level would transform up to half of the ’glades’ freshwater marsh into a saltwater system. Depending on the rate of sea rise, mangroves could be submerged or “gather sediment and actually build landform.”

California Academy of Sciences Director Healy Hamilton says “a 100-year investment nationally in a large suite of protected areas may no longer protect the target ecosystems for which they were formed.”

While scientists and park managers are always challenged to make assumptions about the future, potential changes in parks are likely greater than we may imagine — or can address within our current policy framework. Should we undertake efforts to restore missing terrestrial species or habitats that are reasonably predicted to be submerged by rising oceans within this century? To move lighthouses or rehabilitate historic structures on coasts or islands that may disappear? Will we undertake even more intensive and expensive measures to protect cultural and natural features, and abandon our policies that emphasize relying on natural processes when possible to assert dominant influence on species and landforms?

I (and probably many others) want to maintain optimism about the future of our parks and our planet, and it’s hard to do so unless we recognize that climate change is a whole different level of challenge from whether the latest required annual reports or online trainings are done on deadline. Much recent focus has been on NPS units revisiting core priorities and operations, discussions that should acknowledge that “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein . . .” requires a commitment to more than just traditional programs, facilities and visitor services. It also requires a sustained level of research and monitoring on baseline resource conditions, and on changes and trends in those conditions over time. It requires commitment to strategic actions we can take, not only to mitigate undesirable changes already observed, but to avert as-yet-unseen changes or reverse unacceptable trends.

How do or will park managers, resource specialists, scientists, resource protection rangers and interpreters address the uncertainties, the public concerns and the possible climate-changed futures for parks and processes and species and cultural objects?

How do we do our part, individually and collectively, to seriously reduce not only our carbon footprint but to educate our constituents and stimulate action?

NOTE: Are you in resource management and interested in becoming a columnist in this space? Please contact the editor at fordedit@aol.com.