Mount Rainier park ex-official scrutinized on land

Having the dots not connect is exactly what Dave wanted. He is giving the image of playing hard line, so that makes the deal with RMI unfathomable.
Corruption is a crazy thing and you never know what the offender is going to do.
As a crude analogy look at priests having sex with alter boys. They preach one thing and do the polar opposite.
Illusionist call it deception. In this case Dave was preaching toeing the line on the parks Concessionaire Program, Playing hard ball with Crystal, even though Crystal did not technically have services in the Park. While on the other hand was committing a conflict of interest that should have cost him his job. As the superintendent he should know the detail of every document he signs and to knowingly sign a conflict of interest document and later play stupid is unfathomable. I know it is a strong accusation, but he is the type of guy who can lie and pass a lie detector test.  In my brief meeting working with Dave I felt he was a very likable person. He is very personable and says the right things to the right people. A bit like Mitt Romney.
But he made some suggestions that cued a classic bait and switch in my mind. He was trying to protect some interests, by offering other suggestions. That did not sit right to me. I never felt he was ever telling the whole story and it is obvious that he is not done with that routine.

I'm a little confused. Isn't the concern about Uberuaga that and the Whittaker land sale that there was a quid pro quo? That Uberuaga gave Whittaker special consideration? But Joe's post says that Uberuaga was going to unreasonable lengths to achieve a concessionaire balance. Connect the dots for me. is the complaint that Uberuaga delayed the concessionaire balancing for the benefit of Whittaker and that was the quid pro quo?

From a federal perspective, first and foremost:

(1) There was an appearance of impropriety, which is considered very improper and is on its self grounds for dismissal.

The appearance stems from children being hired by and financial dealings with a concessionaire; the unusually high price of the house; the peremptory, short period of advertisement; the bargaining before advertisement, etc. 

Every senior federal employee is required to take ethics training (and, if appropriate, contract officer training) and take tests on ethics that deal specifically with these issues.  Appearance of impropriety is emphasized as very serious.  One can not even take a free lunch or a gift worth $25 or more or free travel to a conference (unless approved from above to attend a meeting beneficial to the agency).

Every senior fed is required to file detailed financial disclosure statements that covers his and his spouses' finances also; most find that very intrusive, but have to do it to keep their jobs.

Next:

(2) Evidently, according to the newspaper, not only did he fail to disclose fully he then later lied about the circumstances.

more or less finally,

(3) there may or may not have been a quid pro quo, for example, an inflated price for the house for an extra couple of years of dithering on the opening up of the concessions (IIRC from the 2 newspaper articles I read), years worth substantial income to the concessionaire; also possible was the way the concession was divvied up.  I have not seen myself anything that states these are in fact q-p-q.

(4) he was warned early on by his supervisor and recused from dealings with the concessionaire because his children worked for his concessionaire; the financial dealings on his house were of hundreds times more value that the earnings of his kids, yet he did not recuse himself.  And he was a senior, career employee whose entire career was in contracting and business administration.

note: why the promotion? I don't know, but I do know DU was highly regarded as being a particularly effective federal executive by many of his peers and was highly regarded by WA's congressional delegations, conservation groups, and volunteer organizations, as well as concessionaires and contractors.

Good response, AC.  Ethical standards prohibit deals which have the appearance of impropriety because proving quid pro quo can be impossible if the conspirators have rehearsed their scripts. 

Many of us have suspected a cozy relationship between RMI and MRNP administrators, but these circumstances stink beyond anything I imagined.  DU paid $84K for the house and sold it 10 years later for 500% that price.  Uh, right.   :  And I'm not buying Peter W's pleas of innocence.  The notion that he paid 3X assessed value yet expected nothing in return is horseshit.  Plenty of dots to connect. 

ETA: Judd's suggestion that the seller note/DOT made DU and PW "business partners" is inaccurate.  A borrower and a secured lender are not "partners."  The seller financing made DU a major creditor of PW, not a partner.  The distinction is not material because the lender-borrower relationship is every bit as suspect as a "partnership."  The note called for PW to make house payments to DU for 5 years, and during that 5-year period DU directed the climbing concession process which RMI competitors criticized for "footdragging."  And in the end RMI walked off with 50% of the concession. Very stinky indeed.

Thanks for the responses. It makes better sense now. And I agree that it stinks.

I knew when I saw this that there would be a healthy discussion here. Being a government employee myself it is hard to believe anyone in his position could believe this sort of transaction would be allowed in an environment where we have to disclose even minor gifts or turn down vendors who want to buy us a cheap lunch. It will be interesting to see how they treat it.

I knew when I saw this that there would be a healthy discussion here. Being a government employee myself it is hard to believe anyone in his position could believe this sort of transaction would be allowed in an environment where we have to disclose even minor gifts or turn down vendors who want to buy us a cheap lunch. It will be interesting to see how they treat it.

It is all over with. We know from the newspaper he got a reprimand and a promotion. I suspect (on no evidence) he probably got a short suspension without pay and that his temporary assignment to Yosemite was part of the whole deal. I don't believe any further proceedings are possible unless they involve disciplining his superiors (Jarvis et al.), since he has already been investigated and "punished". Anything more would be kind of like double jeopardy in response to news reports.