Thursday, June 09, 2005

Letter to Congressional Delegation from CLE

By now, most of your readers know about the community meeting with Tyler Przybylek this Sunday, 2-4 pm in the High School Duane Smith Auditorium, thanks to the story you posted from the Los Alamos Monitor on 6/8 and an earlier post (comment to 6/7 8:21 am question) of the Coalition for LANL Excellence (CLE) press release regarding this meeting. I don't know how many of your readers may have gone to the Coalition website: as a result, but for those who have not, I am forwarding the attached documents posted there: a recent letter from the CLE to our Congressional delegation regarding some of our concerns, and two attachments [1], [2] to that letter detailing some of LANL's accomplishments. We have already seen some response to a principal concern -- namely the lack of a signed extension to the UC contract -- as evidenced by your 6/8 10:26 pm post of a story about a statement from Tom Udall, as well as other responses we have had from Congressional staffers. We hope that many of your readers will find these documents useful and that they will also come prepared to Sunday's meeting with questions about remaining concerns with the RFP.

Norman Kurnit
for the CLE

(you can attribute)

(By the way, Attachment #1 was not produced by CLE, but we have Doug Post's permission to post it; it is a freely available LAUR. I find it mentioned on your site, but I don't believe it is posted.)

I would like to thank CLE for the great work it has done on the behalf of LANL employees. Most of what I do know about the rebid, I have gathered from your efforts.

This is a well-written summary by the hard-working people from the Coalition for LANL Excellence (CLE) regarding many of the issues with this recompete. A key point that I would add is that, in addition to the 1350 scientists eligible to retire, there are probably just as many very capable and professional support staff that may also leave. Additionally, a significant number of early career and mid-career employees in all fields are leaving due to many of the reasons stated in this very finely crafted letter from the CLE. The proposed start date for the new contract of October 1, 2006 is an outstanding idea and would coincide with a new Fiscal Year. It would allow current employees a few extra weeks to carefully consider major life-changing decisions effecting their careers and families. Finally, I would like to have seen Stupak and DeGette also copied on the distribution to educate them on the real capabilities of LANL and the potential damage to our nations security that could result from their ill-conceived proposals.
These are some questions that I would like answered for the record:

1. How are you going to assure that science at LANL survives the recompete?

2. How are you protecting the pension monies (maybe 2 Billion) from problems like US Air had?

3. It takes 20 years to earn paid retiree healthcare- are times spent under UC and LLC additive?

4.Can sick leave hours be converted to service time by either Transfers or Inactives at retirement?

5. There are several paths to become an LLC employee- what resources will people have to make the most important choice of their LANL career?

6. How likely are future layoffs due to the new gross receipt taxes?
To 6/10/2005 08:25:10 AM these are all good important questions.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?