The superintendent of Mount Rushmore National Memorial said Tuesday he understands why he has been criticized for security failures that allowed Greenpeace protestors to climb the monument and unfurl a huge protest banner last month.

But Gerard Baker rejected the notion that he and other Mount Rushmore officials were to blame for the security breach.

"Is it too bad it happened? Yes," Baker said in an interview in his office. "Do I think it was my responsibility? Absolutely not. We did everything proper."

In one of his first public interviews since the July 8 Greenpeace incident, Baker acknowledged that his public assertion a day after the protest that "all security measures functioned exactly as designed" turned out, upon further review, to be false. An hour or so after Baker made the statement at July 9 news conference, he was informed there actually was a problem in the system, he said Tuesday.

But it was almost two weeks before National Park Service acting regional director David Given of Omaha, Neb., acknowledged that Baker's initial statement was in error.

But even if the system had been operating at 100 percent, it probably wouldn't have stopped the protesters before they reached the top of the monument and unfurled a large banner on global warming, Baker said. That's why security improvements are being made at the monument right now, he said.

"We're enhancing security at the back of the mountain," Baker said, declining to be more specific.

The initial phase of the National Park Service review of the incident and the memorial's security system has been completed. NPS officials said early last week they hoped to release some of the results of that review by last week. But the NPS still wasn't quite ready Tuesday to discuss the review. Baker said he will release information soon.

Security upgrades have been needed at Mount Rushmore for some time, he said.

"The system is not state-of-the-art by today's standards at all," he said.

The main security system protecting the mountain sculpture itself is almost two decades old. When security was tightened at the memorial after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, it focused on improving safety at public buildings and viewing areas rather than tightening access to the mountain itself, Baker said.

"The security emphasis then was not so much on the mountain, but on the safety of the visitors coming in," he said. "Now we've got to look at both of them and achieve a balance. I have instructions that whatever needs to be done, we'll do."

In past years, requests for funding needed to make the mountain more secure fell behind other budget priorities for the financially challenged National Park Service, he said. He declined to be specific about the improvements or confirm reports that the security system failure involved cameras and sensors.

But the NPS has committed more funding to that cause at Mount Rushmore and is reviewing security at other national monuments. Overall security at Mount Rushmore and elsewhere will be improved because of the Greenpeace demonstration, he said.

"There's always a silver lining in stuff," he said. "We've learned from this."

Greenpeace succeeded in their planned protest but may have failed to get the publicity they sought. Global warming got lost in the media coverage of the security system and insinuations that Baker and others were at fault, he said.

"We're not even talking about global warming," Baker said. "Their message got lost."

The Greenpeace protesters were obviously well-educated about the monument and highly trained and prepared, Baker said. He believes they chose their date knowing there would be increased activity on the mountain for cleanup after the busy July 4 weekend.

"I really believe that Greenpeace had that information … and knew that we would have a lot of staff up there to clean up," he said.

When Greenpeace protesters were first picked up on a security camera, those monitoring the cameras had to check to see if they were there for cleanup duties.

"They called around and determined they weren't, and we mobilized immediately," Baker said. "Within three minutes, we realized that wasn't us and got somebody started up there."

The breach showed the monitoring system needed an upgrade. And that could mean more staff to keep track of it, Baker said.

"I think the need to get more individuals in there is a reality," he said. "We need to get more eyes in there."

Baker was away from the monument when the protest occurred but returned that afternoon. But he said NPS officers responded quickly, with help from state and local authorities. Twelve Greenpeace members were taken into custody, and 11 were charged with federal misdemeanors.

Given the limitations of the security system and the complications of the rugged terrain, it's unfair for some to conclude that management at the monument failed.

"We've done nothing wrong," Baker said, adding that he believes that his job is secure.

Baker also said it would be impossible to assure such a protest could never succeed again, even with security upgrades.

"Can I sit here and say this is 100 percent safe and secure? Absolutely not," he said.

But it will be more difficult if someone tries it again. And Baker isn't ruling that out.

"In times like this, we see sometimes a national trend of copycats," he said. "And I get concerned about that."

Contact Kevin Woster at 394-8413 or kevin.woster@rapidcityjournal.com