The Rest of the Story

As a supervisory government employee, Ron Huntsinger's primary responsibility was to his employee's safety and welfare. This should be common sense, but in addition, there are numerous required trainings that would have emphasized this to Ron; apparently Ron lacks sensitivity and/or was sleeping during the trainings...or maybe he was so intent on his mission to get her fired or force her to quit that he put that above concerns for her welfare. It appears that once Ron recognized Marlene's strong will and his inability to control her, his goal was to work with the human resources dept and management to make a case for her dismissal.

The downfall of Marlene started in September 2004, when Ron threatened her with a letter of reprimand. Her crime was that she had sent out an email correcting a factual mistake spoken by Ron (apparently its preferred to have incorrect info out there than to correct your supervisor). It is distressing that this minor infraction was so overblown, however, it can now be seen as a red flag that something more than trying to merely discipline an "insubordinate employee" was under way. After several weeks of anguishing over a possible reprimand, Marlene said she asked Ron when she would receive it and he replied "I'll give it to you when I'm damn well ready to. You brought this on yourself."

In an attempt to rectify the situation, Marlene requested a mediation meeting with Ron and it was scheduled for October 5th, 2004. Marlene's hope of solving it through mediation though were dashed when Ron strategically served her with the reprimand (notice of suspension without pay) that, because of some kind of government policy, immediately cancelled the mediation process to Ron's advantage (he didn't want to resolve it; he wanted her fired). Marlene and her colleagues were in disbelief at the action and encouraged her to fight it; It was almost laughable that this could be happening to someone of Marlene's caliber. Everyone who knew her was confident that upper management would never in a million years support it and must have somehow been misled; however, this turned out to be a wrong assumption. Over the next few months, Ron continued his attacks and stripped her of her manager duties, denied her of a much needed vacation and made taking sick leave difficult.

As a direct result of the anxiety created by this situation, many employees and friends watched as Marlene went from a healthy vibrant employee to a depressed walking skeleton. Her colleagues encouraged her to go to the doctor to seek treatment for depression to help her through this tough time (prior to Ron's arrival, she was not on any medication to treat anxiety or depression). Employees directly expressed their concerns to Ron about her extreme weight loss and the toll the stress was taking on her mentally. Even Marlene talked to Ron about the stress this was causing and her deteriorating health conditions. At her weakest point, Ron decided to serve the final blow by giving her additional reprimands a week before she took her life.

Marlene, as a fighter for what she believes in, and did all the right things by attempting to schedule mediation, hiring an attorney, contacting assistance programs, defending herself to upper management (she even proposed to "write an apology to Ron Huntsinger and apologize to him in person as well") and responding with a grievance to their decision. During each step Marlene threw every ounce of energy she had into fighting it, but grew increasing weary and frustrated as it took a toll on her health. When her grievance was denied, she was too weary to appeal the decision and knew they were hell-bent of getting rid of her. They did. It will be interesting to see what puppet they choose to fill in behind her.

by Susan at 2005/09/06

We've heard a lot about Marlene's performance as the consummate professional and its all true, but I'd like to also point out that she was one of the most honest, kind-hearted, truest friends anyone could ever have. This is why Marlene had many, many friends all across the nation who considered her their best friend, including me. I, like her other friends, spent many days over the past year talking with her as she described her unbelievable situation, listening to her cry, listening to her frustrations and confusion about what to do next, and wondering who she could trust. Her friends struggled to give the best advise they could to help her and counted on Marlene'' strong nature to pull through; but none of her friends were aware of the fact that she had been served with two more reprimands near the end. Her back was finally broken.

She had reached the point of hopelessness and saw no way out. She was not going to, in her eyes, burden her friends with her troubles any more. She was going to take control of the situation. Had they known, any one of her dear friends would have driven day and night to drag her out of there and offer their homes to her for as long as she needed. We all blame ourselves for not calling that week, for not being there when she really needed us. As the good person she was, the day before her suicide, Marlene baked a cake for her associate manager's mother who was stricken with cancer and offered to take her to her cancer treatment. She called her favorite Uncle Earl to see if he needed anything and told him she loved him for the first time......and the last time. We miss her greatly.

Russell Hodin Aug. 31, 2005

Perhaps what was extreme about Marlene was her sense of principles. Every person who worked with her and who had any sense of principle, regardless of which side of the grazing issue they were on (and believe me, there are a lot more than two sides to the grazing issue) had tremendous respect for her. I believe that is one reason why her presence created such animosity in the upper BLM management and it's political handmaidens (dare I suggest Bill Thomas, for one?) Combining her strong principles with her ardor for her adopted Kalahari sprang a passion and energy very rare in any field. I believe this is what attracted people of quality talent and devotion to her (I have met most of the people mentioned in the article) and what also challenged the status quo. The status quo cannot tolerate talent and energy and works always to destroy it. They won this battle, but will most certainly lose the war.

Kathy R

It appears to me that Marlene's record speaks for itself: she was repeatedly promoted on a merit basis while with the BLM and achieved the level of GS-13; she successfully reached an agency consensus on her draft management plan -something that previous managers had evidently been unable to accomplish. I think everyone who knew Marlene recognized that she was uncompromising in her ideals and was a perfectionist. Her personal characteristics tended to polarize her somewhat: people either loved her or didn't.

The problem as I see it is that there was a huge personality and idealogic conflict between Marlene and her boss. The BLM allowed her supervisor to impose harsh disciplinary actions against her for what boiled down to a personal conflict. I know some would say that she crossed the line and was insubordinate, obviously her supervisor thought so. In any case, was she correct in her assessments? Her past performance and achievements were not taken into account, and there was no attempt by the agency for mediation. I would imagine that the supervisor did not want mediation; he took personal affront to Marlene's actions and sought to terminate her as a result.

What needs to be investigated is whether or not the supervisor and the agency as a whole violated established protocol (including that established by precedent) in the actions they took with respect to Marlene's conduct. Was she subjected to condoned bullying? Furthermore, on a larger scale, the BLM and other resource agencies need to be held accountable to the public for how well the public's interest is served by the manner in which these agencies oversee resources that belong to the public - including the long-term sustainability of their management practices.

I work for the state's water quality regulatory agency; if the public perceives we are not doing our job we are subject to third-party lawsuits. The BLM must be equally subject to legal action if they are serving the needs of ranchers at the expense of the public's right enjoy public lands with high biological integrity. Finally, if the BLM is not appropriately managing the Carrizo, doesn't the Nature Conservancy have the legal option to retract those lands put under the management auspices of the BLM? Perhaps they should consider such a move. I appreciate the comments of "Anonymous," and I think Marlene would gladly risk being seen in a negative light in exchange for a thorough investigation.