Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:00 AM ET, 01/12/2011

Teresa Chambers 'stunned' by reinstatement

By Ed O'Keefe

Eye Opener

A month from now, Teresa C. Chambers could be back on the job patrolling national park sites across the Washington region as chief of the U.S. Park Police, almost eight years after warning The Washington Post that staff shortages at the federal police agency could impact visitor safety.

Citing weak evidence against her, the federal Merit Systems Protection Board ordered the Park Police Tuesday to reinstate her within 20 days. She is also entitled to back pay dating back to July 2004 and reimbursement for legal fees.

The Federal Eye spoke with Chambers Tuesday evening, shortly after she learned of the decision. A transcript of the conversation, edited for length, appears below:

Question: What do you make of the decision?

Answer: "It's a myriad of emotions. I find myself in stunned silence as I try to absorb what happened today. It's a day we've worked for so long and now that it's here I'm not sure what emotion to feel. Obviously very grateful that the day of justice has finally arrive."

Why did you hold out for so long?

"I wasn't holding out. The goal from the start was to return to the job that I loved, the job I competed and was hired for and to make sure justice prevailed, not just for me, but this is precedent-setting to other civil servants, other federal employees. One of the questions has been can a federal employee be fired for telling the truth, and this case will lay the groundwork for the future."

What about your current job as chief of the Riverdale, Md. police. Will you resign?

"When Mayor [Vernon] Archer hired me three years ago, he knew my case was pending at several levels and knew that someday this day might come. We'll take it a step at a time. I look forward to talking to folks at the Department of the Interior. ... I'm not certain how any of this works."

Will you quit your current job and go back to the Park Police when they offer you back your old job?

"Of course. That's what we've wanted from the start. I look forward to the day I can return to the United States Park Police."

What would you say to other federal employees or whistleblowers of any kind who are in a situation similar to yours?

"I didn't wake up one morning and decide to be a whistleblower. I went about my job every day, trying to live up to the ethics of a police chief, to be candid and to be supportive of my bosses, but also to look out for the safety and welfare of people who visited our parks and parkways, to make certain that those iconic statues are there for generations to come.

"I didn't seek to blow the whistle and do something untoward, in fact I thought my bosses would be quite supportive. I'm still stunned that a reaction back in 2003 occurred the way it did. I thought police officials in municipalities are expected to be truthful and candid and that our bosses wouldn't tolerate anything less. It troubles me that, I guess I was expected to be less than honest.

"That's behind us now and I hope people have the courage to speak the truth, or to make a decision that maybe the job that they're in isn't for them if they're expected to be less than truthful."

Have you heard from other whistleblowers over the course of this?

"Oh my goodness yes, and if you go to HonestChief.com there are thousands and thousands of people from around the world, many of whom are whistleblowers, who haven't had the exposure that my case has had because they were behind the scenes employees. I know this is a welcome day for all of them."

Does it bother you that the Obama administration kept this up? Your lawyers seem puzzled that it had continued.

"Puzzled is a really good word to describe that. Disappointed is another. I had hoped that there would be a quicker, easier resolution once a new administration came in.

"But everything happens for a reason. A compromise or the executive branch stepping in and fixing this wouldn't have had the long-reaching positive impact of a court decision, in this case several court decision and a Merit Systems Protection Board decision. that's going to be more positive for the greater good.

"It was a long fight, and it wasn't easy. And fortunately with a loving husband who put every ounce of his being into it, it came to fruition today. I'm still stunned, I'm not sure what to feel after so many years."

Leave your thoughts in the comments section below

Cabinet and Staff News: In Kabul, Vice President Biden promises U.S. support beyond 2014. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates says North Korean ballistic missiles pose "direct threat" to U.S. Bill Clinton says the nation's political tone must change.

CIA:
CIA's unit on climate change faces uncertain future: The new Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee plans to review it for its effectiveness and contribution to national security.

Missouri: Ex-CIA officer will be extradited: A federal judge on Monday ordered him transferred to Virginia to face charges that he leaked classified government information to a reporter.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT:
Obama aims to revise No Child Left Behind: He'll mount a fresh attempt this year to rewrite the No Child Left Behind education law, a top administration official said this week, and key congressional Republicans said they are ready to deal.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION:
Job-bias claims rise to record levels: The commission said charges of disability discrimination rose by about 17% to 25,165 claims. Overall, the agency received nearly 100,000 claims during the 2010 fiscal year, a 7% increase and the highest number in its 45-year history.

GOVERNMENT WORK/LIFE/OPERATIONS:
Bill proposes 10 percent cut in federal workforce: A Texas Republican congressman wants to cut the federal workforce by 10 percent in the next decade, impose a three-year pay freeze across federal agencies and Capitol Hill and trim government printing and vehicle costs.

INTERIOR DEPARTMENT:
Oil spill panel calls for new rules and spending: The commission found that the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill arose from a preventable series of corporate and regulatory failures

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT:
Coalition of groups rallies outside White House for closure of Guantanamo Bay: A group of 173 human rights activists marked the ninth anniversary of the detention center's opening.

NTSB:
NTSB wants airbags installed in all non-commercial aircraft: Were it not for the broken bones, the brief flight of the little Cessna two-seater would have been comical.

U.S. PARK POLICE:
Fired Park Police chief Teresa Chambers ordered reinstated: Teresa C. Chambers could be back on the job next month.

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD:
U.S. considers rules to spur freight-rail competition: The agency announced it would hold a hearing in May to study possible changes designed to spur competition, and it asked railroads to weigh in.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT:
Treasury moves to the cloud: It will move four existing sites into the Amazon Web Services cloud and will work with the company to host a new agency Web site.

Treasury optimistic about GM share price: The recent surge in its stock price bodes well for the company's goal to cut ties with the U.S. government, the government's point person on GM said Tuesday.

Follow The Federal Eye on Twitter | Submit your news tips here

By Ed O'Keefe  | January 12, 2011; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  Agencies and Departments, Oversight  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Fired Park Police chief Teresa Chambers ordered reinstated
Next: Newt Gingrich doesn't like the 'Forever Stamp'

Comments

Good for her! This really is precedent setting and a very positive development. She was actually a pretty good chief from what I understand.

Posted by: thebloddletting | January 12, 2011 7:09 AM | Report abuse

Thumbs up!

Posted by: awfulexcuse1 | January 12, 2011 9:03 AM | Report abuse

6 years of back pay. Wow. With her fairly high level position I'd estimate her pay out to be somewhere north of $600,000. Good for her. It sounds like she deserves it. But why did it take 6 years to resolve this? I know government red tape an built in inefficiencies makes quick decisions in government nearly impossible but 6 years is a bit much.

Posted by: 6thsense79 | January 12, 2011 9:15 AM | Report abuse

The outcome of Chief Chambers' case is certainly welcome, but anyone contemplating fighting the government for her/his rights should note that it took her over SIX YEARS and who knows how much money in attorney's fees to prevail. Few people have the requisite patience and money to pursue such a case, while the government has unlimited amounts of both. Fighting city hall is a losing battle for most people (I know because I have tried it), but I am glad that there is the occasional victory such as Chief Chambers'.

Posted by: Cosmo2 | January 12, 2011 9:42 AM | Report abuse

I think I heard that it was even higher than that, they have to take into account interest (that's one element of good timing for the feds), and pay her for benefits. Sounds like she deserves it.

Posted by: mike8 | January 12, 2011 9:44 AM | Report abuse

There is another message in these events and that is it takes so long to resolve a dispute of this nature it could become useless by the time a decision is rendered. It shows that federal employees face an almost impossible task in trying to find what they consider justice. Unfortunately, this is the way of the powerful: wear down opposition which they cannot easily dismiss or defeat. The government has virtually unlimited resources and time, but individuals have only fixed periods in which we can work most productively. Someone had a personal grudge against this police chief, in my estimation, and one thing we are missing is to see and hear that person fess up.

Doug Terry at The TerryReport

Posted by: terryreport | January 12, 2011 9:54 AM | Report abuse

The only thing that Chief Chambers did wrong was to say that the Emperor did not have any clothes on.

Let us hope that her long ordeal is over.

Posted by: jnrentz@aol.com | January 12, 2011 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Good for the Chief. Unfortunately, it's about friggin time!!!!

Posted by: ruthella10 | January 12, 2011 10:31 AM | Report abuse

It's about stinkin' time!!! It was pretty obvious back when it all went down that Chambers was getting hosed for political reasons. The fact that it took this long for justice to be done is pretty bad.

Justice delayed is justice denied. While full back pay and attorney fees is a complete win, it doesn't go far enough. I think she should get punitive damages, too.

Posted by: _BSH | January 12, 2011 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Back-pay while she was paid for doing a job in MD...yup, this country can afford to do that...add it to the $14T, who cares, right?

Posted by: mjandrews8 | January 12, 2011 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Kudos to the MSPB for making the correct call. Too bad they can't penalize the self-serving politico who pulled the cord to fire her. I work in Fed HR and in too many instances supervisors and managers make poor decisions and leave it up to the to us to clean up the mess.

Many of you are correct, the Gov will never admit they are wrong and will fight the case because they have the weight of the agency behind them and can just wait it out until the former employee runs out of money, patience and hope. Sometimes in desperation these individuals lash out in in-appropriately by going "postal". So hooray for Chief Chambers.

Posted by: bureaucrat1 | January 12, 2011 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Kudos to the MSPB for making the correct call. Too bad they can't penalize the self-serving politico who pulled the cord to fire her. I work in Fed HR and in too many instances supervisors and managers make poor decisions and leave it up to the to us to clean up the mess.

Many of you are correct, the Gov will never admit they are wrong and will fight the case because they have the weight of the agency behind them and can just wait it out until the former employee runs out of money, patience and hope. Sometimes in desperation these individuals lash out in in-appropriately by going "postal". So hooray for Chief Chambers.

Posted by: bureaucrat1 | January 12, 2011 10:38 AM | Report abuse

This is truly great news. If only we could redress many of the other crimes perpetrated against our Nation and its government by Cheney et al.

Posted by: SoCali | January 12, 2011 10:39 AM | Report abuse

mjandrews8, eat me. Go suckle from your mother sarah palin's nipple. baby.

Posted by: swatkins1 | January 12, 2011 11:00 AM | Report abuse

mjandrews, what an idiot you are! The feds are lucky they aren't paying a few million in damages for what they did to her and put her through for 6 freaking years! They are getting off extremely easy financially for just about ruining a person's career for just being honest!

Posted by: yankeechess | January 12, 2011 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Great...with legal fees the government will have to pay this person a million dollars and her lawyers multiple millions(why do you think they take the case?).

Only in the US government can you not fire an employee...so what if the "reason" was not correct. In the private sector you can get fired...and you have to get another job.

Posted by: littleharbor | January 12, 2011 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Great...with legal fees the government will have to pay this person a million dollars and her lawyers multiple millions(why do you think they take the case?).

Only in the US government can you not fire an employee...so what if the "reason" was not correct. In the private sector you can get fired...and you have to get another job.
****************************************
You don't grasp the reason why you can't fire federal employees on a whim? So if you're a Democrat and the new boss fires you because he's a Republican, that's not a problem? Time for a civics lesson, I'd say.

Posted by: st50taw | January 12, 2011 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Thank you, swatkins1, for that reasoned and thoughtful response that only adds to our nation's civil tone of discourse.

Posted by: tmkelley | January 12, 2011 11:48 AM | Report abuse

@ mjandrews8: Chief Chambers is ENTITLED to receive this back pay. Were it not for the fact that she was improperly removed from her position with US Parks, she would have never had to take another position elsewhere. She and her family still had to survive (mortgage, insurance, etc.) while going through this ordeal. Chief Chambers was violated. I'm glad she is victorious, and that the victory has been made public...because even receiving back pay won't take away the harsh reality of what she has been through.

Posted by: jennjen | January 12, 2011 11:59 AM | Report abuse

@ littleharbor: Your statement is incorrect. Not all government employees who are fired will get their job back. Many are fired for cause, and the termination is carried out properly. Some are fired inappropriately, but never take any action. There are laws to protect people from unfair firings. Chief Chambers was willing and able to take up the battle. Thankfully, she won. As for private sector employees, they have rights too, and many of them have also filed cases - and won. You are sorely misinformed, if you really believe private firms do not have to abide by laws, rules, and regulations.

Posted by: jennjen | January 12, 2011 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Congrats to Chief Chambers.This is a victory for all honest men and women who are involved in public safety and a blow to narrow-minded,petty , PC bosses who fear having to face the truth about institutional short comings and use bureaucracy to bully others and hide from their own weak egos.

Posted by: 10bestfan | January 12, 2011 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Congratulations, Chief!

And BUCK FUSH.

Posted by: bs2004 | January 12, 2011 1:19 PM | Report abuse

good for this person. politicians in our country are disgusting fools.

Posted by: pofinpa | January 12, 2011 1:57 PM | Report abuse

It always cracks me up when people erroneously assume a person who is awarded back damages in a government civil claim receive millions of taxpayers' dollars. What morons!

First, she is entitled to only the pay she would have received had she continued in the position until (I'm guessing) the date of actual reinstatement. Any amount she's earned in another, lesser job will be deducted from that amount, and she will receive the difference. In addition, all amounts she receives is considered income, so all state and federal taxes, as well as deductions for social security, etc. will be taken beforehand (but offset by what she's already paid in to the various treasuries through her current job).

With respect to attorneys' fees, she can only be reimbursed for the bills she's actually paid. I'd guess a majority of the bill has been deferred, and the attorneys representing her will be paid separately. I don't know what the fee arrangement in the case is, or if it's statutorily mandated, but I think these attorneys earned every penny! (And it won't be millions, either!)

The intent of money damages is MEANT to be punative, to "punish", to discourage similiar behavior - so the same thing won't happen again in the future.

Why aren't these people who are complaining about the $$ more concerned about the underlying behavior that led to the wrongful termination claim in the first place? You know darn well that if it had been them, they'd be screaming six ways to Sunday about the injustice of it all!

Posted by: pfallsgirl | January 12, 2011 1:58 PM | Report abuse

from the very beginning i thought she got screwed for telling the truth. i can understand why others would not come forward and tell if something was not right if they thought they would get fired. i almost forgot about her until last year when i heard a story on the news that reminded of her. glad to see she will get the job she loves and did well.

Posted by: astroman215aolcom | January 12, 2011 2:30 PM | Report abuse

This is indeed very good news. The firing was wrong and petty. More than that, it was dangerous. The guys that fired her claimed it was a security issue after 9/11. That was patently ridiculous.

I'm glad she persevered in this. Good for her.

I live in DC. I see first hand the terrible job NPS does with our monuments and parks. It's a national embarrassment.

Posted by: TheHillman | January 12, 2011 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Funny that part of the MSPB's decision rested in part on the conclusion that The Post's original article most likely incorrectly quoted Chief Chambers.

While she gets her job back and back pay, it's also interesting that the final order acknowledges that she violated directives by her superiors and made unprotected statements to the press and a Congressional staffer. That doesn't mean that the agency was right in firing her (it sure seems like it wasn't), but the Chief did brake some rules. This wasn't case wasn't as black-and-white as it may appear in an twelve-paragraph blog entry -- they rarely are.

Posted by: GSS1 | January 12, 2011 4:30 PM | Report abuse

The result of the case seems just. What the article failed to address, and what might be interest to readers, is the awarding of back pay. Clearly, the Chief did what was appropriate: Mitigate her damages by seeking employment elsewhere. If her other employment paid an amount equal or more than her wrongfully terminated employment, is she still entitled to collect the full amount of the wages from her former job? In other words, is she entitled to receive and keep 6 years' pay from both employers?

Posted by: othergolden | January 12, 2011 4:40 PM | Report abuse

She didn't "brake" any rules. Personally, the government didn't "break" her resolve.

Good for her.

All of you harping about the money don't know what you are talking about.

Posted by: tojo45 | January 12, 2011 4:44 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry people - but do any of you remember what a BAD chief she was?!!

Posted by: ReindeerDippin | January 12, 2011 4:49 PM | Report abuse

@pfallsgirl

"The intent of money damages is MEANT to be punitive, to "punish", to discourage similar behavior - so the same thing won't happen again in the future."

----

So, I don't disagree with this assessment, nor do I have any complaint about the fact that they found she was inappropriately dismissed and that some redress was in order...

That said, you state that monetary compensation is meant to be punitive in order to discourage similar abuses. In the case of a Federal settlement however, it is a bit odd, I think most federal managers would already be aware of best practices regarding termination. And since they won't be directly or personally impacted by any damages this might be a bit transparent in terms of discouraging behavior. I think finding against the organization in this way might be a bit self defeating. At the end of the day individuals at high levels carried out their own agenda, which was wrong headed. While I do think her job should be reinstated, I also think those individuals most responsible for allowing this to happen should be dealt with in a public manner that makes it clear actions like this won't be tolerated.

In a civil case where a company pays damages, that company will be punished most directly, because those damages might represent a competitive disadvantage. (raised prices, bad PR etc.) For the federal government that model doesn't apply. Budgets are rigid, and taxes not easily raised, so it is pretty fair to say that damages really effect the public most directly, and then tangentially public servants who may find themselves dealing with unhappy customers. That money will come from somewhere in the budget, and it already came from our taxes... so, though I'm sure it's not her intention it will take away from something else.

Just food for thought.

In the long run, you could argue that some reduction in services is a fair trade that will pay dividends down the line when the system learns from this event and makes the necessary steps to not allow this to happen again. But in order to be comforted by that rationale, you have to believe that the Fed is capable of learning and changing.

Posted by: gconrads | January 12, 2011 4:55 PM | Report abuse

I am very glad Chief Chambers won her case.She had a sterling reputation in the Prince Georges County PD,I had the opportunity to work with her while Iwas Deputy Fire Chief in the County.


Ward Casddington,DFC Ret.

Posted by: wardcaddington | January 12, 2011 6:03 PM | Report abuse

It is not about the money obtained from back pay, it is about truth, honesty, respect and "FAITH", attributes not now longer seem to prevail on Capital Hill. Perhaps, the results of this injustice, may have a positive effect that will prevent it from occuring again. Things happen for a reason, Teresa Chambers will be a better, stronger, and effective Chief. I pray that the "helper" within her will protect and guide her in serving with Excellence. May God continue to bless her.

Posted by: jenniferjj | January 12, 2011 6:09 PM | Report abuse

It serves the Interior Department right that this is the decision. They'd better learn that being truthful is a GOOD thing. They were wrong, not to mention STUPID when they made their original decision to fire Chief Chambers.

Posted by: nsoble | January 12, 2011 7:22 PM | Report abuse

WaPo: Please produce an article naming the person who fired her and the justification for it. I realize it's in the archive but now let's see the person who started all this get some light shone on them now. They will of course refuse comment through their lawyer but it will put their name out there in the present and notify those they work with or for now what they did to this Chief. My understanding and memory seem to be that she wasn't that great but was wronged in this case. Having worked within both the Legislative and Excutive Branches for 0ver 20 years - I ALWAYS refer questions and comments to/from Congressional Staff to the appropriate legislative affairs offices first.

Posted by: ikins | January 12, 2011 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Congratulations for the Chief. She was a rising star in Prince George's when she was tapped to lead the Park Police. She was fired by the Bush Administration. It was an outrage at the time.
Just another latent expense of having George Bush as president.

Posted by: Eric20 | January 12, 2011 9:46 PM | Report abuse

I always found it highly suspect that the Bush administration was all about creating anxiety in us about terrorism as a means of garnering support for wars and tax cuts and whatever other misguided thing that administration wanted, but in this case the Chief says hey, we are understaffed and funded, and it could be dangerous" and she's whacked out of her job protecting Americans and our National Monuments for it. Oh wait, was it because they were actually and honestly underfunded? And it was embarrassing? The National Parks and the monuments they contain are natural targets. To leave them unprotected is a travesty. She deserves her job back, she deserves the money, and she deserves an apology from everyone involved.

Posted by: bigpaws12 | January 13, 2011 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Teresa Chambers is anything but honest. Look at how she has mismanaged her parents' estate in Allegany County, MD over the past three years, draining estate funds, raking money off the top, litigating ad nauseum with the rightful heirs in order to keep them impoverished while she gallops through Congress on her white horse in her Mother Teresa costume. She's a fraud. Bush had it right. She should be in jail!

Posted by: dfattiest | January 13, 2011 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Just because Teresa was able to somehow acquire a million dollars to fight the Feds does not vindicate her, despite the recent ruling. She brought on a lot of bad blood when she took the Park Police job in the first place, bringing in her cronies from North Carolina, side stepping the chain of command, botching the tractor standoff on Wisconsin Avenue, eulogizing her dog to everyone in her department, giving friends helicopter rides when she was supposed to be guarding the President, lobbying on television for funding rather than using appropriate channels. She's a politician in the truest, vilest sense of the word. Let's hope the government appeals the decision before the contagion spreads!

Posted by: dfattiest | January 13, 2011 5:56 PM | Report abuse

All western liberal governments commit to a facade of transparency and honesty whilst in reality they adhere to a practice of secrecy and arbitrary abuse of power, which is how they are used to 'business' being done (democrats and GOP alike). Thus when a government is forced to accept something like whistleblower legislation as part of the lip-service paid to open and honest government, it does its' level best to make sure that the legislation is enacted in word only, like the OECD anti-bribery legislation of 1999. Whereas whistle-blowing is encouraged and protected by the word of the law in many democracies, in practice anyone blowing a whistle (no matter how apparently righteous their case) will automatically meet with a ****storm of retaliation from the groups in power as a way of protecting their interests. It's a way of saying 'look but don't touch; you can have your whistleblowing legislation, but if you try and do anything with it, see what happens to you!' Obama is the prisoner of the powerful interests represented in the federal government and controlling the democratic party machine, and even if he wanted to (doubtful) there isn't much he could do.

Posted by: Jon61 | January 14, 2011 5:43 AM | Report abuse

http://bcchambers.blogspot.com/2010/05/perhaps-she-doth-protest-too-much.html

Posted by: bonchambers | January 14, 2011 11:40 PM | Report abuse

It is good to CONGRATULATE Teresa Chambers, who seems to have triumphed in her epic battle against the US Department of Interior.... Good for her!
As the sister who helped to raise her and was her greatest advocate for more than 50 years, I would congratulate her myself, but, for the past 2 years, she has BLOCKED any and all communication from me (and from our brother)-- email, even on facebook, snail mail. [Changed her phone & fax numbers; returns mail--even Christmas cards and gifts-- unopened, etc.]
WHY???

Posted by: bonchambers | January 17, 2011 8:20 PM | Report abuse

It is good to CONGRATULATE Teresa Chambers, who seems to have triumphed in her epic battle against the US Department of Interior.... Good for her!
As the sister who helped to raise her and was her greatest advocate for more than 50 years, I would congratulate her myself, but, for the past 2 years, she has BLOCKED any and all communication from me (and from our brother)-- email, even on facebook, snail mail. [Changed her phone & fax numbers; returns mail--even Christmas cards and gifts-- unopened, etc.]
WHY???

Posted by: bonchambers | January 17, 2011 8:22 PM | Report abuse

http://bcchambers.blogspot.com/2010/05/perhaps-she-doth-protest-too-much.html

Re: the blog posting... sometimes it is necessary to have a place to express one's frustrations, to get 'angry' (part of a grieving process, I suppose, for the sister I once believed would always be there for me). After losing our brother Ed and then Mother and then Dad, our family of 6 was cut in half.

Then, instead of heeding our pleas to stay close, Teresa (for what ever reason) decided she didn't "have time" to speak to either my brother or me. There is much more to the story than this space will allow, but it is not simply about the money.
[She has been, supposed, 'Executrix' of our family's estate, and has successfully postponed settling.] Her abandonment of family has really been more difficult to handle than the loss of those who died.

Posted by: bonchambers | January 17, 2011 8:27 PM | Report abuse


Perhaps, she was "fired for telling the truth" back in 2003, but we in her family have seen very little truth (or tranparency) from her since.

Perhaps, opposing the government, she learned how to "litigate".... perpetually.
So, now, she will get what she wanted from the Feds, after 7 1/2 years in court--- but AT WHAT COST?

Posted by: bonchambers | January 17, 2011 8:31 PM | Report abuse

If those who are praising her reinstatement ONLY KNEW the whole story, they would be extending more than their congratulations.

Perhaps it may be true that someone who is deceptive with family might not be dishonest in her job. Perhaps, Teresa had good reasons for being deceptive with family, in that she has had a mission that she sees as far more important.

I hold no malice toward her, only pity... for what she has lost is far more valuable than anything she may have gained.

Posted by: bonchambers | January 17, 2011 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company