Federal biologist hit with suspension over L.A. River kayak trip

Remember the kayak expedition earlier this year down the rugged Los Angeles River? Well, there are some serious consequences for at least one of those involved, according to AP:

A federal biologist was threatened with a 30-day job suspension over a kayaking trip she took to protest perceived government threats to the Los Angeles River and other waterways, according to documents released Wednesday.

Heather Wylie, a project manager with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Los Angeles, went kayaking on the river one Saturday in July to draw attention to a proposal by the corps that could have exempted parts of the Los Angeles River from federal clean water protections.

Shortly thereafter, her supervisors told her they were proposing to suspend her for 30 days without pay because of the “unsafe and unauthorized boating expedition” and because of an “unauthorized and inappropriate e-mail message” she had sent to co-workers about the clean water issue.

The group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility announced plans Wednesday to file a whistle-blower complaint on Wylie’s behalf, and released the letter she received from her supervisors.

That photo's of another kayaker during a different expedition. For more on the biologist, keep reading after the jump.

--Shelby Grad

Photo: Brian Vander Brug / Los Angeles Times

In an interview, Wylie said her employers were violating her 1st Amendment rights.
“It’s really silly because it was on my day off, it’s my freedom of speech, I have the right to say I don’t agree with what you’re doing,” said Wylie, who added that she’s worked for the corps in Los Angeles for 4 1/2 years. “I was doing the right thing, and that’s what you’re supposed to do in a democracy.”

Jay Field, a spokesman for the corps in Los Angeles, declined to comment. “Out of respect for the privacy rights of all of our employees, the Los Angeles district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cannot comment,” he said in a statement.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility replied on Wylie’s behalf to the notice of proposed suspension, but so far Wylie’s supervisors haven’t responded. It’s not clear whether they’ll attempt to move forward with the suspension.

At issue is a proposal by the corps earlier this year to declare only small portions of the Los Angeles River to be “traditionally navigable waters” and therefore subject to the Clean Water Act. Similar determinations were being considered for other rivers around the country.
The decision prompted complaints from Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The Environmental Protection Agency subsequently stepped in and took jurisdiction from the corps to determine whether the Los Angeles River and the Santa Cruz River in Arizona would be subject to Clean Water Act protections.

The point of the kayaking trip Wylie went on with other activists was to prove that the Los Angeles River is, in fact, navigable.

The river runs 51 miles from the northwestern San Fernando Valley, around the eastern side of downtown Los Angeles and south to Long Beach Harbor. Lined with concrete along most of its route to prevent meandering and flooding, it flows at a trickle, if at all, during dry periods but can turn into a raging torrent during storms. Wylie said she participated in one day of a three-day kayaking trip and kayaked about 20 miles downstream from the edge of the Sepulveda Basin.

Her supervisors found out about it when they saw a photo of her on the trip on the Internet, according to the notice of proposed suspension.

Comments

[tom b]

Bush/Cheney/Rove have systematically attempted to permanently disable each and every federal agency and department. Justice Department has received the most attention but it's only one of many that have been attacked. The sciences have taken a beating.

If he is elected, McCain is unlikely to utilize the same pool of appointees and employees as his predecessor. For this reason alone, McCain must be defeated.

[c]

@b

what does that have anything to do with the story?

[Will]

Heather Wylie should be honored not disciplined. Government employees are commonly on the front lines of many environmental issues. If these civil servants are prohibited from speaking up as the Constitution allows, then I think our country is heading down the wrong path. When people take on civil service jobs, they are commonly doing it to give back to our country at the expense of their careers. Please support Ms. Wylie and the right for civil servants to excersie their first Amendment right.

[RC]

Come on people, quit smoking the rope. People who take Civil Service jobs take them for the same reasons other people take jobs, to make a living, sometimes with a heck of a lot more job security than in the private sector and with some great benefits.

Quit giving Bush/Cheney as much credit for everything that goes against what you like. They aren't as smart as you give them credit for.

Also, realize in our Republic (no democracy here folks, keep moving along) sometimes you sign away some of your personal freedoms for employment purposes, and you can be held responsible for your actions both on and off the job.

Heather is a big girl now, she should be able to make her own decisions, and reap the rewards or suffer the consequences for those decisions.

[Andie]

I agree with Will. RC and Tom, I appreciate your participation in this forum, but I don't see how the comments fit in with the discussion. Here's my quick two cents: I don't think we have the full story. I work in a very similar federal agency and deal with these types of situations frequently. Politics and money play a much larger role in these matters than you think. Her supervisors are probably under severe pressure from external forces and internal leadership to keep her quiet. She on the other hand may be too vocal for the agency's taste and a 30-day suspension is as good as it gets to firing someone who may be perceived as damaging. (Firing someone once vested in the federal system is difficult.) The point is that the agency was being pre-emptive about the possibility of an embarrased by her weekend adventure. I don't know where the pictures and videos of her participating in this activity are, but if she's explicitly out there representing her agency making these comments, on the weekend or not, then that likely deserves disciplinary action. If she's being mouthy in the office, but not publically, then I don't think it is right for the agency to be intentionally surfing for evidence on the web and then punishing her.

[Lorie]

I think that RC is likely a do-nothing type of person in the first place when it comes to taking action. First I have worked as a public servant, for 5 years, California County govt, just taking a break for grad-school. I believe that as long as Heather's actions taken during the day off did not attempt to represent the ACOE, then she is within her rights in this regard. She may not represent the views of the ACOE in any way, but her own views, absolutely. Maybe we need a Supreme Court ruling to help clarify this matter. But people like RC bug me, as they are the types to sit back and let things happen. In this world, as the "big boys" of business will tell you, you must get in there and take action, or forget it. Too much representation is afforded "other interests" that are not necessarily concerned about environmental matters that affect us all-- narrow interests are oddly WELL protected. Do not give in Heather- if it's right, then it's right.

[environmental blooger]

Heather is in her right to speak up and protect the public's interest. What happened to our beloved constitutional rights? They are being diminshed day-by-day and commentators like RC above are only adding to our lose of freedom. If your boss tells you to go out and committ fraud, theft, larceny, burglary, murder, etc. and it is against your belief's will you go out and do it just because you are told to do so or will you stop act ethically, morally, and legally because you are a free-thinker. You have rights, you have freedoms, they were meant by the founding fathers to be checks-and-balances on government, we police ourselves and that is why we have thrived as a free country since our founding. Otherwise go live in Iran.

[Joel]

This is interesting to me, particularly because I work for a large state agency, where the subject of "should I or should I not publicly raise something the agency is doing that I disagree with?" is an undercurrent with the entire staff.

In any large bureaucracy, any of it's employees are going to have anywhere from a few to many grievances with the employer. If everyone complained all the time, the agency would be paralyzed, and it would do far more harm than good. So, the question becomes, well, then, how or why does one employee gain some kind of special status over others? What if Heather's work resulted in her underlings disagreeing with it all, and the protested her work to the public? Would Heather be happy about that, or resist punitiveness? Doubtful, to say the least.

It is tricky. I realize there is a right, and arguably a need, for contrarian free expression. However, it is a judgement call on where and how to do that. I'm not sure Heather's paddle and then editorial campaign demonstrate much tact or judgement.

Maybe she should do what would seem to be the more obvious thing and quit the Corps and go work for someone for whom she agrees with what they are doing, then criticize the Corps from afar. Publicly fighting Corps' management policy on the one hand, and then turning around and drawing a paycheck from them, seems..well...inconsistent. I know if it were me in her shoes, I'd just quit.

I understand and sympathize with many of her supporters' points. But for a moment it might be wise to consider some of the other issues her actions are raising. They are dangerous precendents. If every government employee begins sacking their employers' faults like it's their own personal crusade, every single government entity would cease to function.

[Pablo]

It's very important to understand that Heather's editorials would receive no attention unless she identified herself as a Corps employee. In doing so, she is using her position to garner negative public perceptions of her employer. Anyone doing so in the private sector would be terminated immediately.

In my opinion, the kayak trip probably did not warrant discipline. However, Heather's persistent editorial campaign rises to outrageous insubordination and certainly violates ethical standards at the same level of those she protests. If everyone who works for the government makes public their grievances at this intensity, our government would cease to function. Heather, the next time you want to editorialize about a Corps decision, use an alias!