THE HEARING’S FINAL DAY

Summary of the Hearing's Final Day

The third and final day of the hearing before Judge Elizabeth Bogle at the Merit Systems Protection Board was short but full of potential fireworks.  James Steven (Steve) Griles, the Deputy Secretary for the Department of the Interior, was called back from his white-water rafting “mission” in the Grand Canyon to testify as a witness for Chief Chambers and had some very interesting insights. 

Griles was called to rebut the charge that Chief Chambers went outside the chain of command in an attempt to head off the detail of Pamela Blyth, one of her key budget staffers during the preparation of the next year’s budgets.  Chambers’ attorney argued that she needed a person on her staff to guide the process and that to take that person away would have been damaging to the budget of the U.S. Park Police and could, therefore, impact security. 

Under direct testimony with Chambers’ attorney, Mick Harrison, Griles admitted to having a telephone conversation with the Chief:

MICK HARRISON:  What was the conversation with Teresa Chambers?

Dep. Sec. GRILES:  She said the detail of Ms. Blyth would damage her ability to do her job.

MH:  When you chatted with Ms. Chambers did you express a concern about her contacting you directly?

SG:  No

MH:  Have you spoken to her without her supervisors being present?

SG:  I speak to most of the employees.

MH:  Do you discourage employees from talking to you?

SG:  I do not. 

Griles said that in response to that conversation with the Chief, he called a meeting “of others in the chain of command to discuss the assignment [regarding the budget] and the deployment of the assignment.”  Griles described the meeting and said that those present including Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife Craig Manson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Law Enforcement and Security Larry Parkinson, National Park Service Director Fran Mainella, USPP Deputy Director Don Murphy and others. 

MH:  How long did that meeting last?

SG:  Several hours.  This was a lengthy meeting at which a large number of issues was [sic] discussed.

NH:  Was it your intent to have all the people in the chain of command [Chambers’ superiors] present?

SG:  Yes.

MH:  Do you believe that the issue of detailing Ms. Blyth was achieved?

SG:  I believe that a reasonable compromise regarding Ms. Blyth was achieved.

MH:  During the meeting did anyone mention that Ms. Chambers had violated any rules about contacting you?

SG:  No.

MH:  Did you understand after that meeting that Don Murphy intended to reprimand Teresa Chambers?

SG:  That was not part of the discussion.

MH:  As a result of the meeting was the detail of Pamela Blyth cancelled or postponed?

SG:  As a result of the meeting a compromise to achieve the objectives was achieved.

MH:  Was the purpose of this meeting to critique the performance of Ms. Chambers?

SG:  It was not. 

During his testimony Griles took frequent long drinks from a large bottle of water he had brought to the witness stand with him.  He frequently looked to the attorneys for the Department of the Interior when answering questions from Mr. Harrison.   

Cross examination by Robert L’Heureux, a private attorney brought in from outside the agency to handle the case, was relatively brief. 

L’HEUREUX:  Did you participate in the decision to remove Teresa Chambers?

GRILES:  I did not. 

Judge Bogle then followed up with her own questions. 

Judge:  What was the project that Ms. Chambers told you she needed Ms. Blyth to achieve?

SG:  As part of the ’05 budget there were two issues with which I concerned myself: A reassessment of the duties of the Park Police – were they doing duties outside of the normal function of the U.S.P.P., especially in light of September 11 and the NAPA study and secondly as we were trying to implement those studies and as we worked with Teresa Chambers,  the budget of the Park Police as we dealt with those budget issues Teresa Chambers was bringing to us.  We discussed the issues she told us she could not achieve in the time frame without Pamela Blyth.

RL:  Did you take Ms. Chambers at her word?

SG:  I took all the people and made sure they understood that we needed this budget and it was because of this need that we decided to modify the detail, [of Pamela Blyth]. 

That closed the testimony and there were issues related to a number of exhibits which Chambers’ attorneys wanted entered into the record.  This resulted in a number of sometimes heated debates between Mick Harrison and Judge Bogle.  Repeatedly, Mr. L’Heureux argued that the documents were not relevant, and the judge supported him on almost all calls.  

Harrison grew increasingly frustrated and told the judge that he did not understand her rulings.  He asked that a standing order of objection be entered for him rather than have him appeal each document. 

Many of the documents refused admission into the record were emails which Harrison argued put to question the testimony of NPS Deputy Director Don Murphy, Bruce Sheaffer, the Comptroller of the National Park Service, and Randy Myers, one of the attorneys within the Department of the Interior.  Harrison said that these witnesses’ statements were contradicted by these emails and that they impeached their credibility as witnesses.  At issue was Mr. Murphy’s contention under oath that a memo he had written using the words “you” and “I” referred to himself and that it didn’t lead to a meeting with Craig Manson; that Mr. Myers’ testified that a meeting didn’t occur and that that meeting is referenced in future emails; that Mr. Sheaffer didn’t recall discussing a $12-million dollar budget shortfall within the department, yet documents would show otherwise. 

In closing arguments, Robert L’Heureux tried to paint Chief Chambers as “a high level official who would not listen”.  He said “she would not listen to documents she herself had written.  She would not listen to Congress or her superiors when told what to do.”  He went on to say “It’s not hard to understand why Don Murphy wanted her dismissed and why Mr. [Paul] Hoffman supported that action.” 

He also said “Her utterances show she was not a whistle blower.” 

H’Leureux said that Chambers was speaking in an official capacity when talking to The Washington Post and that these actions threatened to impair the agency’s relationship with a key member of a committee. 

He went on to dismiss the Chief’s assertions that she had tried to contact her immediate superiors to discuss the detailing of Pamela Blyth but, in his words, when she didn’t get the answers she wanted, violated the chain of command. 

“In short, Teresa Chambers has repeatedly exhibited poor judgment and cannot be trusted.  Teresa Chambers has repeatedly shown that she is deaf to the orders of her superiors.”  And with that L’Heureux closed his case. 

Then it was Mick Harrison’s turn.  “Clearly the penalty of removal is exceedingly harsh.  Teresa Chambers did not impose herself on [House Interior Appropriations Sub-Committee staffer] Debbie Weatherly.  It was Weatherly who persisted in getting to the bottom of the conflict of information.  She was getting disparate information [from the agency]. Agency officials are required to answer questions from Congress, and Teresa Chambers did that.” 

He added, “The agency has not established its case by the preponderance of the evidence.” 

In response to the charge of inappropriate budgetary discussions Harrison said:  “The agency relies on Don Murphy’s memory which has been proven does not exist.  The agency has not brought forth evidence to prove what the agency says would match numbers in the President’s [Bush’s] budget.  The $27-million numbers are nowhere to be found in this courtroom or anywhere in the world.” 

He went on to say the Steve Griles did not consider talking to the press as lobbying and that this restriction is no where to be found in the ethics training document she received. 

In closing, Harrison said that “Ms. Chambers took action to allow her department to protect the parkways and the icons.  She was motivated when the Inspector General told her she [her department] had deficiencies.  She took her concerns to her superiors.  She was put into a public forum not of her choosing but she did what she was supposed to do by giving an honest answer to questions asked her by The Washington Post.” 

“I would assert, Your Honor, that Ms. Chambers did exactly what was expected of her by the Congress, by the Constitution, and by the American public.” 

So what happens now?  Judge Bogle will consider the evidence and the testimony and will then make a recommendation.  If either party is unhappy then it will go to the three-person Merit Systems Protection Board.  There can be additional briefs similar to a court of appeals, and from there the Board will make its decision. 

Once the Board makes it decision, it can be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals – Federal Circuit.  From there it could go to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

It may take 30 days to get a decision from Judge Bogle; and, if it goes before the full Board, it could be another two to three months before a decision is released.  Observers note that it’s not uncommon for the Board to overturn the recommendation of one of its administrative judges.