LANL: The Real Story

Any chance someone can find a copy of this to add to the discussion mix? I've contacted the Atlantic to get it posted to subscribers, but no luck yet, My hard copy is in deep storage.

Pam

Title:MANAGING THE UNMANAGEABLE.
Authors:Crease, Robert P.
Samios, Nicholas P.
Source:Atlantic Monthly; Jan91, Vol. 267 Issue 1, p80, 8p
Document Type:Article
Subject Terms:*RESEARCH
*SCIENCE
Geographic Terms:UNITED States
NAICS/Industry Codes:5417 Scientific Research and Development Services
Abstract:Focuses on basic science research in the United States. Missions of applied and basic research; Cultural impact of scientific research; Aim of science management; Origin of administrative contracts in the United States.
ISSN:1072-7825
Accession Number:9441117

Doug:

Could you please post Rich Marquez' latest initiative on the blog? I feel the timing is at best questionable. Or maybe he's just trying to scare LANL staff away from reading the blog at work?



To/MS: LANL-All
From/MS: Richard A. Marquez, ADA, A108
Phone/Fax:
Symbol:
Date: May 31, 2005


Subject: New Monitoring Tool to Identify Computer Misuse

LANL AM 701.09 states “Personal use of electronic information
resources (including Laboratory computers) is prohibited if it:
Directly or indirectly interferes with the Laboratory’s use of the
resources; Burdens the Laboratory with additional costs;
Interferes with the user’s employment or other obligations to the
Laboratory; or is an unacceptable use as defined in (AM701). 03.”

I know we all use our Laboratory computers at times to send
personal e-mails or to visit sites not directly related to our
work. This memo is a reminder to everyone that our ability to
engage in reasonable incidental personal use of Laboratory
computers is a privilege and not a right. I caution you not to
abuse this privilege by spending unacceptable amounts of time
visiting non-work-related sites (for example, eBay) or by viewing
websites containing inappropriate material.

The Laboratory has now acquired software that allows for the
monitoring of LANL computer web traffic. This software is capable
of continuously scanning all LANL computers for inappropriate
activity. It has the ability to characterize the vast majority of
websites as to content and to sort the websites into acceptable
and unacceptable categories.

This new tool provides the Laboratory with a stronger ability to
block access to inappropriate websites. It also identifies
employees who spend unacceptable amounts of time on non-work-
related websites. Should such misuse be identified, offending
employees will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and
including termination of employment. Please refer to Incidental
Use of Government Property, Directors Instruction 05-002.

We must all understand that the privilege of being able to use our
work computers for incidental personal activities was negotiated
with DOE, and that privilege can be revoked should it ever become
evident that it is being abused.

I expect managers to monitor computer usage, and I am counting on
all of you, as professional adults, to comply with the spirit of
this privilege. It would truly be a shame if it were lost.


Cy: ADA:05-049

From Anonymous:

RETAINING SENIOR SCIENTISTS AND EXTERNALLY SUPPORTED BASIC SCIENCE AT LANL:
Part of the potential brain-drain from LANL comprises senior basic researchers,
who may either retire early or leave for greener pastures, or both. These
senior researchers are often Principal Investigators of their own basic
research grants obtained from outside funding institutions (NASA, NIH, ARPA etc.).
These outside grants typically support in addition to the PI, other staff
members and postdocs (who may later become staff members), and form a key
component of basic science at LANL. The potential loss of senior Principal
Investigators and their grants, and the personnel the grants support, will
have wide ripple effects on basic science at LANL.

Does anyone know what the current status is of a senior researcher who retires,
in terms of their outside grant support? Can they remain as PI of their
external grants at LANL, and continue to lead the research effort and
be paid for doing so from the grant? Such an early retiree still needs
to consider their future "real" retirement (their early retirement was basically
forced by circumstances, i.e. retention of their present UC benefits).
Can such an early retiree contribute volountarily to e.g. the 403b and 457
(clearly UCRP is not an option if the researcher is officially retired)?
One might hope the answer is "yes", particularly if the grant is
assessed the same high overhead, i.e. there should be some inducement to keep
the PI and the grant at LANL. These questions are about the current
situation at LANL, i.e. if someone knows the facts then it would be helpful
to post it.

Regardless of current policy, the issue of retention of senior basic research
scientists and their external grant support at LANL is an issue affecting the
future of basic science at LANL. Thus it might be one that the new contractor
would wish to address in a postive way.

Doug,

I find the ADSR emailgrams from Terry Wallace to be more informative than most AD messages about Laboratory management developments. You may want to post on your blog this new message about the contract bidding process. Note, in particular, that little information about the bids will be available before December 1, due to the nature of the competition. This secrecy would make it difficult for LANL staff to weigh in on the choices.

Anonymous


ADSR Emailgram
May 31, 2005

ADSR Emailgram
May 31, 2005

With the release of the RFP for the LANL M&O contract, many staff are
seeking information on what the respective bid teams are proposing and
how life at the lab would look should that team win.
Unfortunately, there will not be any real information available until the
winner of the contract is announced in early December. The
reason for this is the nature of the competition: the teams are
bidding for the contract and against the competition. This means that
each team will be trying to propose against what are the
perceived weaknesses in the competition, which includes everything from
organizational structure to names of key personnel. The
proposals are due on July 19th, and the two remaining suitors
(UC/Bechtel and Lockheed Martin/UT) are changing their strategies in real
time. For example, on Friday the LM team added another
industrial partner to their team to address concerns about operating
nuclear facilities.

The RFP is structured to be scored with a point total of 1000 points. The
Source Evaluation Board (SEB), whom ultimately makes a
recommendation to the Source Selection Official, assigns the points. The
broad categories for scoring include strategies for performing the
science and technology programs, business operations, laboratory
structure and small business promotion. The proposals are 250 pages in
length (or roughly one page per 10 million dollars annual
budget!), and each and every word is considered a potential winning
strategy or vulnerability. The only true known for the two teams are the
potential Lab Directors. Everything else is speculation or
rumor; and the rumors may well be planted by one of the teams as
disinformation to confuse or distract the other team. Again, I want to
stress that both teams are in an intense battle for a contract
potentially worth 50 billion dollars.

It is understandable that everyone wants to know what kind of changes may
be coming in 2006. The types of changes that have dominated the local
discussions include things like benefits. However, bigger
changes that could affect lab life include organizational structure
(i.e.; Will the divisions be reorganized?), key personnel (i.e.; Will
everyone at the top be new?), changing work scope (i.e.; Will all work
for others be curtailed?), and how the parent organizations
reinvest in the lab (i.e.; Will there be programs like the UC
Directed Research and Development?). It is certain that these
factors will be very closely guarded, and we will not know until the end
of the year.

This uncertainty generates angst. But there is some comfort in
knowing that both teams profess to want very much to preserve LANL's
strengths. This includes the remarkable science, the sense of
academic freedom that fosters the scientific creativity, a diverse work
force, and a broad national security mission. The only
certainty is that LANL will be different in 2006 - there will be a
corporate presence like never before. However, it is most likely that
the reasons most people came to Los Alamos - the chance to be part of a
national security team and pursue science and engineering that makes a
difference to society - will continue.



Terry


--
_____________________________________

Terry C. Wallace, Jr.
Associate Director of Strategic Research
Los Alamos National Laboratory

Science, Vol 308, Issue 5726, 1244-1245 , 27 May 2005

[DOI: 10.1126/science.308.5726.1244]

News Focus

NATIONAL LABS:
A Bidding War for Los Alamos

Eli Kintisch

Defense contractors will play a larger role in the next contract to manage Los Alamos National Lab, which has spent 62 years under academic reins.

Full Story (Subscription required when accessing from outside lanl.gov)

From Anonymous:

I am a former lab employee (Internal Audit Group Leader until July 2004).
I also spent seven years working as the director of internal audit for one
of Bechtel's major DOE sites. I would strongly advise against selecting
the UC/Bechtel team. While Bechtel is a solid reputable company, they have
named an unscrupulous and unethical manager to become the new director of
internal audit if they win the bid. My experience with LANL and Internal
Audit was horrible. LANL management feel the normal government rules for
contractors do not apply to them. Time and again I was admonished for
pointing out obvious violations of the rules and regulations and was
finally let go when I pointing out that the millions of dollars being spent
for free lunches for employees was illegal. LANL liked to call meetings
from 11:30 AM to 1:00 PM so they could call it a "business lunch", when the
only business was a free lunch. LANL management did not want anyone
challenging their right to spend taxpayer money any way they wanted. The
entire audit department of seven had quite,save one incompetent lady
waiting for her cushy retirement.

I think LANL under UC was a disgrace and do not see Bechtel as having the
will to change that behaviour.

My views on the contract for managing LANL have received some criticism to the effect that, by voting for "None of the above" corporate candidates to run the Lab, I have proposed a solution that does not fit into the "framework" of the bidding process. Let me expand on my comments: I believe that present and former Lab employees should mount a campaign of letter writing, beginning with comments right here on this blog, to all members of Congress that matter at all, stating that we want the whole bidding process to stop forthwith.

The entire premise of this contract rebid is groundless. For some seven years, the press has had one field day after another reporting misinformation about who is at fault for the "problems" and "scandals" that have "plagued" Los Alamos National Laboratory, beginning with the Wen Ho Lee fiasco. Every article about the Lab has buried in it somewhere, if not in the opening paragraph, the inference that LANL is unique in the history of national laboratories for its "failed" business practices ("waste, fraud, and serial abuse of the poor, beleaguered American taxpayer"), its "deplorable" record of environmental "disasters," and its "miserable" record of safety and security "lapses." The facts, when calmly examined by a cool eye, say otherwise, and they say it dramatically; the Lab is by no means a perfect institution--don't get me wrong--it needs the checks and balances of independent oversight, just like any other human enterprise, but it does not stick out like a sore thumb when compared to either Livermore or Sandia. But what it most certainly does NOT need is a complete redefinition of its mission by one or the other leading corporate member of the military-industrial complex. A nuclear weapons lab that serves the nation's interests in overseeing the stockpile--but NOT manufacturing that stockpile--and that produces basic scientific research for the good of mankind, needs to be free of the micromanagement that a profit-making entity would introduce, above and beyond the level already foisted upon it by the DOE/NNSA bureaucracy in Washington.

The best solution (but by no means perfect) to the "problems" at Los Alamos that the rebid of the contract would allegedly "solve" is to go back to something like the status quo ante. The University of California should be retained to "manage" three things, and only three things: (1) oversee the retirement system for all LANL employees, (2) oversee the benefits system for all LANL employees, and (3) oversee the scientific research aspects of the Lab, namely, run the LDRD program with true peer review and guarantee the academic freedom and integrity of the Laboratory's scientists. As in the past, UC should give advice and consent to DOE/NNSA's choice for Lab Director, particularly focusing on the Director's role as Chief Science Officer. DOE/NNSA should take over all responsibility--ALL of it--for business practices (including procurement), environmental compliance, safety, and security. Everyone at LANL should be an employee of UC--not the US Government--with accountability to UC for science and DOE/NNSA for operations. (Obviously, it may take some time for the lawyers at DOE/NNSA and UC to hammer this all out, but the suspension of the rebid process should be announced promptly, so that some semblance of normalcy can resume at the Lab, and the outflow of talent stanched.)

The rebidding of the contract is a bad idea, as it was when it was adopted over two years ago. Nanos' shutdown of the Lab for no defensible reason demonstrated the vulnerability of LANL's scientific enterprise when managed in a military way, and I fear that a similar fate may befall the Lab's science if it is managed in an industrial way. UC has never really had any true say about the operations, but the management of science is clearly better left to an academic institution. UC's management of the retirement and benefits have been unquestionably outstanding, and there is no need to change whatever works well. DOE/NNSA should treat Livermore and Los Alamos in exactly the same way, with the same setup in regard to UC's role; that way, Los Alamos ought never again be used as a political football, at least in principle.

A true conservative is one who stands up to radicals who seek to destroy an institution that, on balance, does much good. I call on all true conservatives to join in an effort to help derail the rebidding of the LANL contract.

--
Brad Lee Holian, former LANL employee

Los Alamos contract puts UC in PR battle
Texas partnership leads opposing bid to run weapons lab

Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer

Sunday, May 29, 2005

The competition to decide who runs Los Alamos National Laboratory is now fully under way, and its outcome will decide whether California loses one arm in its two-handed grip on the nation's nuclear weapons complex.

Last week, after three years of Los Alamos scandals that ranged from the sinister to the tacky to the dangerous -- scandals over missing computer disks containing secret bomb data, an alleged mispurchase of a Ford Mustang , and a woman who suffered a severe eye injury while working with a laser -- the University of California finally, definitively decided to fight for its job as the lab manager. It faces a single titanic competitor, a team jointly led by aerospace giant Lockheed Martin and the enormous University of Texas system.

[...]

Full Story

From Anonymous:

Dear prospective directors,

Foreign nationals have had a long and rich history at LANL right from
its inception. We are concerned about the future of foreign nationals
(FNs) at the Lab. One thing UC has done well is to attract and retain
FNs who go on to citizenship and a long, fruitful career at the lab.
We wonder how each of you will address the issue considering that
companies are typically averse to hiring FNs. In particular, LM at SNL
has had a poor record of this. When I graduated LANL offered me an
opportunity while SNL policy forced it to shut its doors on me, even
though I  was perfect match for one of its groups. We desperately hope
that UT/LM or UC/Bechtel will not institute policies that will diminish
the contributions of FNs at this wonderful place and strongly urge you
to continue the previous policies regarding FNs. Contrary to popular
thinking, FNs are seldom the security problem they are made out to be -
they cannot be, as they never come anywhere close to any sensitive
material. They do, however, require more paperwork, but if an
institution is willing to pay that small price the benefits are
enormous.

Here are some specific questions for the two teams:

1. What will be your policy toward current Limited Term and Permanent
Technical Staff Members who are Foreign Nationals?

2. Will you continue to encourage the hiring of new FN graduates as
postdocs?

3. Will you continue to encourage the hiring of FN postdocs as Limited
Term Staff Members and support their eventual conversion to permanent
positions?

4. Will you ensure that new, excessive controls are not placed on FNs
that they will leave out of frustration (source of funding, excessive
justification for their hiring beyond normal competency considerations,
etc.)?

Thank you

A Foreign National TSM

From Anonymous:

Sooner of later we have to realize that we can’t be the best at everything. Everything cannot be the number one priority. We can’t make safety, security and science all the top priority. This sounds extraordinarily simple and obvious, but LANL has not been behaving like this. We are trying to have everything, the World’s greatest science, the World’s greatest business systems and the best safety and security to boot. If we try to be the best at everything, we will be the best at nothing. We have to make some tough choices. The right choice can make our future brighter and better. If we choose wrong our future will be dim. I believe that our choices have been unambiguously wrong over the span of the last few years and we are currently paying the price. It is time to commit to a different path.

I find that it is good to start with some questions:
(1) What do we need to be the best at?
(2) What can we be great at?
(3) If we could choose to be good at one single thing, what would it be?
(4) What do we actually have a chance at achieving?
The answer on how to move forward can be found in honestly answering those questions and then making the necessary steps and changes to achieve those ends. We live in a system bound by finite resources (time, money, talent, etc.). Our resources define what is possible and good management is the art of the possible. We have to set the correct priorities and work toward them in a balanced way. If other goals are given priority over science, science will be diminished. This has happened without anyone actually acknowledging this. LANL has been driven to attempt the impossible over the past few years with disastrous consequences (keeping science #1 while making security, safety and business #1 too). We are left with a Lab that has diminished our resource of talent. There is no doubt that the last two years have diminished our talent pool.

The current state of the Lab is the consequence of more than a decade of focus on everything but science. Safety, security and business have alternatingly and repeatedly taken center stage at the Laboratory sapping the ability to retain scientific excellence as the key organizational characteristic. We are saddled with a management system that is ill suited to achieving scientific excellence due to both its structure and those who occupy its levels. Each passing year has seen an ever-greater disparity between the goals and motivations of the Laboratory leadership and those who are led. Many of those in management have neither the ability nor the inclination to lead a scientifically vibrant enterprise. Recent management choices have favored those who provide business stewardship over technical leadership. Others are simply yes-men (and women) who do not have the spine to stand in the way of the systematic dismantlement of a great scientific institution.

I’d like to visit each focal point in turn for some observations about how this Laboratory has devolved in the past decade. The emphasis on safety while important in many regards is not something I have first hand knowledge of. I work in an office at a computer; safety at work is not a concern for me. I know that there are many, many others who can speak first hand about how we have gone overboard with safety to the point that it has destroyed our ability to productively pursue our scientific goals.

Security on the other hand is something I know a lot about. A good example of how we have shot ourselves in the collective foot is the SCC building. This building was named after Nick Metropolis. I think this is a huge mistake; it should have been named after General Leslie Groves. The SCC represents Groves’ victory over Oppenheimer because of how it has divided and compartmentalized the Nuclear Weapons’ program. The design of the SCC is optimal to keep people apart and destroy collaborations. It was put together with the help of Lab management some of whom used security as a means to achieve operational control and power. We are left with their damaging legacy. There is nearly no bound to how tight security could get. There is also nearly no bound on how severely security could damage scientific productivity. The key is to make decisions that keep security concerns and science in balance. Too much security and scientific productivity and quality will plummet.

Lately we have been under the thumb of increasing emphasis on business excellence. Financial and project management are king. Scientific management is nonexistent. If one looks at how the management communicates the programmatic content upward, science has no place, its all budgets, milestones, earned value, and no science. Looking at how our programs are run it is clear that business excellence is pushing aside science. The most evident symptom of our institutional emphasis is the people comprising our management. I look up my management chain and I find almost no one who is qualified or has the tendency to provide scientific leadership. Moreover they have no stimuli to do so in any case. We are left moving steadfastly in the direction where science is dismissed from consideration. I am sure they would claim that we are still “The World’s Greatest Science,” but they aren’t qualified to say so. The point is that our science needs care and feeding, and simply taking it for granted will leave it diminished and hardly great.

My last comment will relate to science itself. LANL is two Labs (maybe three considering production). One Lab is the science lab with all the “great science” divisions. At this Lab, science for science’s sake is done. Utility for the programs of the lab is paid lip service, but is generally ignored. Management actively works to keep the science un-programmatic. LDRD is their god-given right. The only good thing the programs do is bring in some money for LDRD. Those program people aren’t scientists anyway, so moving some of that money to do great science is the right thing to do. The goal is to match the quality of the best of academia and all that is missing are ivory towers. The second LANL is the program lab. Here science is in full retreat and the hard-core program people want the scientists to get with the program of short-term deliverables and milestones. LDRD is theft from the program. The “great science” divisions are leeches. The goal is to support the program and get the job done. Scientific quality is meaningless and often counter-productive because it might cause a milestone to slip.

The writing on the Blog is replete with this divide. We need to bridge the gap if we are to survive. The “great science” divisions need to get with the program, so to speak. They need to honestly contribute to the programs’ scientific vitality while maintaining their quality. The programs need to realize that their science is lacking. The programs need to realize that they are too short-term focused and that the science is the programs is in dire need off revitalization. LDRD needs to be something that serves both and provides the Laboratory with a future where the great science gets done inside the program. It is all about restoring the balance. Restoring the balance both in terms of science as well as everything else that management has to do. Yes we need to be safe, secure and have good business practices. We don’t need to be so safe or secure that we can’t get our work done and more importantly get our work done in an exemplary manner. Our business practice and systems do not have to be great. I would argue that greatness in these other parts of our enterprise detracts from the only thing we should be great in, science and science of a particular nature, science in support of US national security.

Here are my answers to the above questions: (1,2,3,4) science in support of US National security. In my mind this primarily means the science that forms the foundation of our nuclear weapons stockpile, but also includes homeland security, nonproliferation, biosciences, energy production, and non-nuclear defense. It does not mean science for science’s sake or science that does not have a specific end goal tied to US National security. It acknowledges that this science mission means that there will be constraints on security, safety, funding and business practice. These constraints must be met, but never at the price of providing the US taxpayer with an adequate return on their investment. Our country’s continued security, prosperity and safety depend not on LANLs ability to be safe and secure internally, but rather our achievements in science in support of National Security.

I dearly want to step forward with enthusiasm and optimism, but we need to have a goal that is worth striving for. We need to move toward our goal in a balanced rational manner. The balance can come from keeping science the top priority while keeping safety, security and business compliant and competent, but no more than that. The rational part of the statement is keeping our resources and talent in mind while balancing things. The goal also has to be achievable and within the constraints of our available resources. Let’s be honest about who we are, what we have to work with and what everyone is willing to work toward. If we can, then the future can be better. If we can LANL will be there to answer the call when the Nation needs us.

LANL TSM
15 Years of Service

Whatever you think of Richardson, one thing he said rang true to me .... mobilize, organize....storm offices (well maybe not storm offices :-).
I see posts on the blog suggesting that maybe we, the employees (and retirees) could use some legal help. That is unless you think that the legal teams of UC, Bechtol, and Lockheed have the best interests of employees and retirees in mind.
Right now, given the short time frame, the only employee organization that COULD represent employees is UPTE.
I know many of you are anti union, anti UPTE, anti who is in UPTE, anti some of the stuff reported that UPTE officers have supposed to have said. And if Lockheed gets the contract,although the right to organize will remain, UPTE most probably goes away. But right now, UPTE is what we got. And the more of you who join, the more the flavor of the organization changes and becomes yours. An UPTE of the present. An organization that could provide legal assistance, address some of the vague parts of the RFP, represent employee interests.
As a former President of UPTE, I know the potential is there.
I am also exploring the possibility of other types of employee advocacy groups that could represent different Lab series employees, but we are kind of all in this together. I guess my roots are showing.
Sue Chasen

From Anonymous:

More reading material for Rich Marquez:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/05/05/29/1413217.shtml?tid=172

From Anonymous:

One sees numerous posts to this blog objecting to UC's handling of affairs at LANL. Many focus on how DX personnel like Todd Kaupilla and John Horne were mistreated. Here and there you see a sprinkling of posters repeating Dominici's demand for us to "Just get over it!" One comment from the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/05/anecdotal-observations-about-contract.html

post sums up my reaction to that advise quite nicely:

"... You see a lot of comments here in this theme because there has not been accountability for UC's mishandling of LANL's affairs. Until there is accountability, we will not let the matter drop. Somebody has to pay for the incompetence. That somebody is UC. They haven't payed yet."

Englewood firm a finalist to run Los Alamos lab By Ian Hoffman The Oakland Tribune

CH2M Hill, the Englewood engineering and environmental company that helped dismantle and clean up the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant, is now in a runoff to manage the birthplace of the atomic age, the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. More than a dozen defense and engineering contractors and universities jockeyed for a shot at running the $2.2 billion-a-year laboratory, which had been beset with a series of high- profile lapses in security, safety and financial control. [...] Full Story

From Anonymous:

Are Retiree Medical Benefits Really Protected in the RFP?

Will ALL those UC employees over 50 currently eligible to retire from UC with medical benefits continue to receive such coverage under a new contract? Specifically, there is a tiered level of medical coverage for employees with less than 20 years of service credit. For example, for someone with 15 years of service, the UC employer contribution for medical premium is paid at 75%, with the UC retiree paying the difference. If someone retires from UC under that condition, what will happen with a new contractor when the medical coverage is taken over under the new contract. The RFP does say that the offeror will supply a medical plan for retirees, but they are free to set their own service requirements, which may differ from UC if UC should not be successful. I have asked HR this question and they say they do not know and will have to wait till December 1 to find out. Some number of current retirees under these conditions could be in for a surprise next June when they lose their medical insurance because they do not have enough service requirements with the new contractor. Actually a similar question extends to the "equivalent " retirement plan one with the same age factors as UC. Having the same age factor is not necessarily the same as now, because additional age + years of service requirements can be added. For example at Sandia right now, an over 50 employee cannot retire until his age + years of service add to 75, quite different from UC currently. So Lockheed may not be much of a bargain for us.

Saturday, May 28, 2005

Lockheed Adds Partners to LANL Bid
By Adam Rankin
Journal Staff Writer

The day after the University of California announced it would fight to retain management of Los Alamos National Laboratory, the university's primary opponent took steps to strengthen its own team.

Lockheed Martin, which earlier this month partnered with the University of Texas to compete for the LANL contract, announced the addition of Fluor Corp. and CH2M Hill to round out its team.

Lockheed spokesman Don Carson said Fluor— an international construction and engineering company of about 30,000 employees— would be responsible for facility planning, design and development. CH2M Hill, Carson said, will be responsible for handling nuclear operations, including manufacturing weapons components, and environmental cleanup.

UC's team of industrial partners, which includes Bechtel National, Washington Group International and BWX Technologies, are similarly specialized. Though the exact responsibilities haven't been determined, government contractor Bechtel is a global engineering and construction company, BWXT manages government nuclear operations and Washington Group handles environmental cleanup, engineering and construction projects.

[...]

Full Story

Saturday, May 28, 2005

Gov. Urges LANL Employees to Hang On

By Adam Rankin
Journal Staff Writer

Gov. Bill Richardson told Los Alamos National Laboratory employees to "keep their powder dry," urging them not to make any hasty retirement decisions before the full details of the next lab management contract are clear.

"It's in America's interest to retain these scientists," he said.

Retirement rates at LANL are already projected to be at least 50 percent higher this year than previous years, largely due to employee uncertainty over the lab contract competition.

Richardson, speaking at a Los Alamos town hall meeting on Friday, said he favors the University of California and Bechtel National team over the Lockheed Martin and University of Texas team as the next LANL manager, primarily because of their scientific and technology background.

"I think it is the strongest proposal," he said, adding, "I think eventually politicians have to take sides."

[...]

Full Story

Publication:Santa Fe New Mexican;

Date:May 28, 2005;

Section:Opinion;

Page Number:8

About LANL pensions


Now: Los Alamos National Laboratory employees are guaranteed a pension without making any financial contributions. The retirement plan is based on an employee’s age and years of service.

The University of California Retirement Plan, as it is called, covers more than 170,000 employees — 8,000 from Los Alamos and the rest from other university campuses.

Employees also can contribute a percentage of their paycheck, on a pretax basis, to a separate plan similar to 401K plans. UC does not match their contributions.

Future: The U.S. Department of Energy is requiring bidders to present two compensation packages. Employees will have two months to decide which option they want during the transition between contractors.

For employees who transfer from UC to a new contractor within six months after June 1, 2006, without a break in employment, the compensation package must be “substantially equivalent” to what they’ve had. Employees keep their base salaries and carry over the length-of-service credit and vacation and sick-leave balances.

Substantially equivalent benefits are not required for employees hired after June 1, 2006; employees who retire before June 1 and reapply for a job under the new contractor; and employees who remain vested, inactive members of the University of California Retirement Plan.

Diana Heil | The New Mexican
May 28, 2005

LOS ALAMOS -- On a visit to Los Alamos National Laboratory on Friday, Gov. Bill Richardson urged workers to raise their voices in protest rather than make hasty decisions in uncertain times.

Many employees are tempted to retire as the first-ever competition for the management of the nuclear-weapons lab begins. They want to protect their lavish pension benefits because they aren't sure what a change in management might bring.

[...]

Full Story

Physicist, an ex-lab director, rebuts statement that corporations lack ability to do 'real science' By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER

The head of a team challenging the University of California for command of the birthplace of the bomb is mightily offended by the university's suggestions that corporations such as his employer, Lockheed Martin Corp., lack the ability or integrity to do real science. C. Paul Robinson, physicist and former Sandia National Laboratories director, lashed back Friday, saying his team was appalled at the lack of competent business practices and focused scientific direction at Los Alamos National Laboratory, run by the University of California since 1943. [...] Full Story

(I sent the following to Keay Davidson and thought it should be posted on The Blog, since it will be abstracted, if quoted at all.)

Here's my take on NNSA's (or DOE's, if you prefer) contract for managing Los Alamos National Laboratory. First of all, UC has never really "run" Los Alamos; it has only lent its cachet of academic freedom and scientific excellence to the institution, and has gotten back in return considerable prestige from LANL's own scientific output. Scientific research at LANL is a spin-off from the military-industrial program, and it has absorbed only a tiny fraction of the largesse that has been thrown at the Lab by Congress. But the benefits to the nation from this research far exceed anything that has been gained over the years by having on the order of a hundred times more nuclear weapons
than the country has ever really needed.

As to the current choices for managers of LANL, I vote for "None of the above," but only because our "ablest" politicians have decided that leaving things alone is not an option. My reasons are as follows.

NO to UC and Bechtel: UC has shown itself to be clueless and spineless in the face of the horrible damage that former Director Nanos did to the institution, and to the science produced therein, when he unwisely shut the Lab down. Bechtel is a slimy corporate entity whose main claim to fame is being second only to Halliburton in greedily soaking up tax dollars in Iraq.

NO to Lockheed Martin and the University of Texas: LockMart's candidate for Director of Los Alamos is quoted in the papers yesterday as saying that only a corporate entity like LockMart can cure the "problems" in security and safety that have occurred at LANL, even though, objectively speaking, there have been no more safety and security problems at LANL than at Sandia, which is a national lab run by -- you guessed it -- LockMart. Even reputable newspapers like the San Francisco Chronicle have fallen into the trap of saying that there have been security and safety problems at Los Alamos, when in fact, the real problem at LANL is public relations. UC has handled the PR in a most incredibly inept way, but that has little to do with science itself. Whereas LockMart will substitute factory production for science at LANL and will cover up any safety and security breaches that might occur much more skillfully than UC ever could, the scientific credentials of UT make it a lame substitute for UC as an academic partner.

NO to Northrup-Grumman: Another greedy member of the Carlyle-Group military-industrial complex, whose only claim to fame is making nuclear submarines on which Los Alamos-designed nuclear warheads reside. Not even an academic pretense here.

So who should run Los Alamos? I say the buck should be made to stop where the real responsibility for political and bureaucratic buffoonery originates, namely, the Department of Energy itself. Cut out the
middleman. Since there would no longer be any need for a bloated manager's fee, that money could be used to roughly double the amount presently spent on basic research at the Lab. Let DOE/NNSA, the entity that has always run LANL, be exposed to the light of day, without any window dressing of a corporate "manager." And if science is no longer valued in this country, is there any need for the window dressing of an "academic" partner, either?

Note that my "endorsement" of DOE/NNSA running the Lab should be taken with an enormous grain of salt. My point is that DOE should be nailed for the political mess they've created and the damage they have done to the Lab. UC should be blamed for letting them get away with it and not saying a word in the Lab's defense. As to the stand-alone retirement system, well, that's a transparent attempt to line corporate pockets, and the effect of all this nonsense is to prompt more people to retire early -- as I did -- just for self-protection.

-Brad Lee Holian (retired LANL staff member)

Postscript: I notice that yesterday Northrup-Grumman withdrew in favor of the Carlyle Group partner LockMart. No loss there. The bottom line is, this whole thing is a mess -- an entirely unnecessary mess. A rational Director, a sensible DOE bureaucracy (OK, oxymoron!) in Washington, a sensible Congress, and a UC bureaucracy that valued the Lab -- any one of these things -- could have prevented the catastrophe that has befallen Los Alamos.

SAN FRANCISCO
Regents vote to make a bid for Los Alamos
Northrop Grumman drops out, leaving field to UC and Texas

Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer

Friday, May 27, 2005

The University of California Regents voted 11-1 Thursday to join the competition for the next contract to run Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the nation's first atomic weapons lab.

"We're off and running!" S. Robert Foley, UC's vice president of laboratory administration, told The Chronicle after the midday vote at the regents meeting at UCSF's Laurel Heights campus.

[...]

Full Story

From Anonymous:

Doug, I thought you might find this new DOE IG report on contractor post retirement benefits of interest. If the IG had his way, DOE would just federalize the contractor workforce and give everyone the same benefits DOE employees get.

I believe that University of California/Bechtel ought to [be] the next managers of Los Alamos National Laboratory. UC has a history of excellence in scientific endeavors, a proven track record with Nobel prize winners and accomplishments which have changed the world. These go back to before the Manhattan Project, which created LANL and other laboratories and facilities. Bechtel has experience operating various facilities including the Nevada Test Site, which has field- tested many of LANL's designs.  UC has improved their chances for success by joining with three New Mexico Universities in research alliances at LANL. Bechtel has teamed with several other independent companies which specialize in various aspects of nuclear work.Together they make a strong partnership which should alleviate the concerns about management of Los Alamos National Laboratory - if they organize effectively.

Lockheed-Martin/Univ of Texas are both outsiders to the Laboratory's manner of work. Sandia National Laboratory, under LM, doesn't have the same basic science foundation that LANL has nowadays. LM is the major defense contractor in the country; consequently SNL has a more commercial thrust, as evident from it's own promotion. For over sixty years the government has purposely kept this Laboratory from being privatized by the weapons industry or run by the  DOD. UC has done the job with a scientific focus, somewhat independent of overlying political or financial pressure. To break from this long tradition is a step in the wrong direction, as it allows an excess of national weapons policy influence by the weapons makers, and in this case, for their stockholders. It is analogous to "letting wolves guard the sheep". I came to the lab from a major American coorporation, where I witnessed how business "refocusing"  met financial goals, often disregarding how excellent the science was. The
DOE/NNSA should continue what their founders in the AEC started, and not make a drastic change to privatize nuclear weapons. Short term political pressure from Washington should not be allowed to sway and change a balance of power which has been checked for so many years.Compared to UC/Bechtel, the University of Texas seems to be positioned to have a secondary role, helping to manage the scientific endeavors while the prominent LM would be keeping the books.This could put the scientific integrity of the lab at risk.

The beating that UC has taken for various perceived failings of the Laboratory in safety,  security and business regimen, has been largely trumped up by various persons and groups for their own personal and political gains. While LANLs mistakes have been headlines of national news, each time flourished with statements from opponents, the other major laboratories have made similar and even worse mistakes which have been either brushed off or largely ignored by media conglomerates. This has had a demoralizing effect on LANL employees, that they must somehow be 'buttheads' and 'cowboys' after all, to receive so much negative press. Many are retiring earlier to avoid an uncertain future. Having UC/Bechtel win over their adversaries would make a major statement for LANL to our detractors. One can imagine that they would continue to heckle the Lab, but that their interest might dwindle and focus on other agencies and institutions-if UC and partners were awarded the contract, fair and
square. I believe that UC has a strong winning case.

DISCLAIMER:
This information is solely my own opinion and does not represent Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California, nor the US Department of Energy and NNSA.

John T. M. Lyles

TSM, 13 years at LANL

Coment from the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/05/university-of-california-still-wants.html

post:

Not only that, Dawn, but he [Kuckuck] spends most of his time in California frantically trying to help write the response to the RFP. In other words, LANL is leaderless.

Of course it was leaderless under Nanos, so let's not go there.

NEWSPAPER STRAW VOTE: WHICH CONTRACTING TEAM SHOULD RUN LOS ALAMOS?
I am Keay Davidson, a science reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle. Doug Roberts, the Blog manager, has given me permission to poll Blog users on the question: “Which competitor for the next Los Alamos contract deserves to win?” I invite BOTH PRESENT AND FORMER Los Alamos staffers to pick their preferred winner:
— UC and Bechtel
— Univ. of Texas and Lockheed Martin
— Northrop Grumman.
— alternate candidate (your choice).
PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY you voted as you did, at any length. I might quote part or all of your comments in my newspaper story.
I realize that many respondents will wish to remain anonymous, and I shall honor all requests for anonymity. However, to ensure that no impostors try to impersonate present or former Los Alamos staffers, I request that respondents who are comfortable being identified in print provide the following information: Your name, your role at the lab (past or present), and your phone number (just so I can confirm your identity, if necessary; I won’t share the phone with anyone else).
Naturally, I am likelier to quote respondents who are willing to identify themselves.
I must emphasize that the vote is open ONLY to people who are present or former Los Alamos staffers. Even if you send your response to the Blog, please send a COPY of your response DIRECTLY to me to ensure that I see it by deadline. My e-mail address is kdavidson@sfchronicle.com.
I need all responses no later than 1 PM FRIDAY, MAY 27, New Mexico time.
Thanks much!.
Sincerely,
(Mr.) Keay Davidson
Science Writer
San Francisco Chronicle
kdavidson@sfchronicle.com

By Sue Vorenberg
Tribune Reporter
May 26, 2005

The University of California Board of Regents was to decide this afternoon on whether to bid on the contract to manage Los Alamos National Laboratory - but bickering between potential competitors has already started.

Two University of California committees voted unanimously Wednesday to recommend the institution move forward with a bid to operate the lab. If the regents accept the recommendations, UC and Bechtel Corp. will form a limited liability company to bid on and operate the lab.

[...]

Full Story

From Anonymous:

Maybe this guy should have a talk with Rich Marquez.

http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2005/052305schwartau.html

From Anonymous:

_________________________________

Attention CCS Employees,

On March 21, 2005, a Master Management Memo went out to the entire work force stating:

"Commencing March 21, 2005, the course Environmental Management System (EMS) Workers Awareness- Initial, EDS#32461, is mandatory for all LANL workers, including subcontractors."

The memo went on to emphasize that this mandatory training was not due until September 31, 2005. Nevertheless, the EMS training plan has been activated in every LANL workers profile, thus putting a big dent on compliance numbers.

If you have not already done so, please take a moment in the next couple days to complete the EMS Workers Awareness Training, Course 32461 at the following URL:

http://www.hr.lanl.gov/EMS/EMSAwarenessTng/Splashpage.asp

**PLEASE NOTE** Choose Option #1, it is a read and sign 'lecture'.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

MAY. 26 12:24 P.M. ET Defense contractor Northrop Grumman Corp. on Thursday said it has decided not to pursue the contract to run the Los Alamos nuclear weapons lab.

The University of California has run the lab -- the birthplace of the atomic bomb -- since it was created in 1943. Following a series of financial and security lapses, the government said it would put the contract up for bid for the first time.

[...]

Full Story

Press Release:

Northrop Grumman Statement on Decision to No-Bid Los Alamos National Laboratory Management Contract
Thursday May 26, 11:34 am ET

MCLEAN, Va., May 26 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Based upon its evaluation of the Los Alamos National Laboratory request for proposal, Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC - News) has decided not to pursue the contract. The company continues to be committed to helping the U.S. Department of Energy achieve its overall objectives, but has determined that it can best provide that support through other key programs. The company is currently evaluating other future opportunities with the Department of Energy and looks forward to applying its world-class capabilities to meet the agency's specialized requirements.

By Rebecca Trounson, Times Staff Writer

The cost of UC's bidding war

Thursday, May 26, 2005

THE PENDING decision by the University of California to participate in a bidding war for the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico is the right one -- for the nation.

We have consistently argued that it is less in the university's and more in the nation's interests for UC to continue to manage the lab on behalf of the federal government, despite its remote location far from any UC campus. It arguably would not even exist had UC not agreed 62 years ago to establish and manage the lab as a public service in time of war.

[...]

Full Story

UT & Lockheed Woo Los Alamos

BY RACHEL PROCTOR MAY

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
UC Office of the President contact: Chris Harrington (202) 997-3150
chris.harrington@ucdc.edu



UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA REGENT COMMITTEES VOTE TO COMPETE FOR
MANAGEMENT OF LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY

UC, Bechtel National, BWXT and Washington Group International team to compete and manage LANL

Key committees of the UC Board of Regents voted today (May 25) to pursue continued management and operations of Los Alamos National Laboratory by submitting a competitive proposal to the U.S. Department of Energy in response to the final request for proposals that was issued on May 19.

[...]

Full Story

Comment from the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/05/suddenly-its-all-become-very-clear.html

post:

To the original poster:

When we moved here in 1968, the downtown was much different. We purchased appliances from the local Sears or Montgomery Wards catalog store. There was a lovely bakery where families would congregate on Saturday morning before taking their small children to the library on Central. We could shop for odds and ends in a dimestore where the kids could get small toys. There were no fast food restaurants but there was Sparky's, Baskin Robbins, and a bowling alley all within walking distance of Central.

However, Los Alamos suffers from a shrinking business district because of internet, catalog, and out-of-town shopping, because LANL has moved more and more of its work across the bridge, and because of all the small companies that rent office space along Central and in other locations to support LANL. Now even SUP has moved downtown, various IM groups are located downtown, and landlords (all three of them) are delighted to rent to LANL because retail shops can't afford the same high rent.

Although the County Council wastes a great deal of time trying to figure out how to bring some life back to the business community, everyone is responsible for supporting our local merchants. Fourteen Los Alamos businesses closed in 2004. How many of those did you shop at?

Yes, in one part of town there are dirty, torn up roads, and I'm sure the folks who live along them are really tired of the dirt and noise. They are also still rebuilding from the fire and are probably tired of living in the shadows of the burned Jemez Mountains.

However, this is a community where children can play tag outside in the summer without parents fearing for them. It's a community where when something horrible happens, like Todd's death, folks rally around with food and financial support. And it's a community with a great environment. Last week, the sky was incredibly blue; and in the older neighborhoods large lilac bushes were in full bloom, and the fragrance was overpowering.

You are not a whiner, a grouser, or a cowboy. But when you are gone, your friends will miss you; and you might not miss LANL, but you will miss Los Alamos.

Lucrative deal is sign lab job won't be easy

By Sue Vorenberg
Tribune Reporter
May 25, 2005

The National Nuclear Security Administration is offering a financial feast to the next operator of Los Alamos National Laboratory - but the juicy meal won't come in one piece.

The $79 million meal will be doled out in courses - and while the winning contractor won't have to sing for its supper, it will have to produce quality results if it wants to reach dessert, officials say.

[...]

Full Story

By Sue Vorenberg
Tribune Reporter
May 25, 2005

Two University of California committees voted unanimously this morning to recommend that the institution move forward with a bid to operate Los Alamos National Laboratory.

The final decision will be made by the board of regents on Thursday afternoon. If the regents take the recommendation, UC and Bechtel Corp. will form a limited liability company to bid on and operate the lab.

[...]

Full Story

Doug:

This should be a post of its own, sorry but this is the only way I know to get it on anonymous.

Does anyone know anything about the rumor going around that all classifications lower than TSM are going to be restructured. This is supposed to hold true for OS, GS and all series below the TSM level. This is to take place in June.

I understand that the TEC Series is going to be reduced to 4 levels. Instead of a level 7 that it will be something else, not a TEC level.

I was told that this would make us easer to outsource us.

That is about all I know, does any body have any information.

Audio file at

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/ksfr/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=776622

UC committee recommends LANL bid (Audio)

SANTA FE (2005-05-25) -- A committee of the regents of the University of
California is recommending that UC enter the bidding for the Los Alamos
national lab contract.

That committee heard comments both pro and con why the university should
or shouldn't pursue the contract. One of the presentations was made by the
president of the company UC would partner with if they vote to go ahead
with the bid, Bechtel National.

But the room was full of students and others who don't like the idea of UC
managing a weapons lab.

The committee chairman called for a vote whether the University of
California should pursue the Los Alamos contract. Protestors in the room
shouted their preference - No.

Listen to some of the comments from today's meeting.

Please post anon.....

Anybody notice the influx of Texas license plates in town???

hmmmmm.

Loss of management could weaken UC's prestige

By MELISSA B. TADDEI / Aggie Senior Staff Writer

Posted 05/25/2005

With the UC Board of Regents’ decision on whether to bid for the U.S. Department of Energy labs — Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore and Lawrence Berkeley — looming, there is considerable reason to wonder what would happen if the UC didn’t run them for the first time in over half a century.

On Nov. 7, 2003, the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill for the 2004 fiscal year was approved. The bill included a clause mandating labs with “noncompetitive management and operating contract(s)” — contracts which have been held for more than 50 years — be renegotiated when their contracts expired.

[...]

Full Story

LANL RFP Fact Sheet (pdf)

Page 1 of 2
Statement of Representative Tom Udall
H.R. 2419
May 24, 2005
Mr. Chairman:

I rise today to speak about a matter of great concern to me and to many of my
constituents. The Los Alamos National Laboratory, in my district, is one of the largest
employers in the state. Two years ago, the Secretary of Energy determined that after more than
60 years of management by the University of California, the contract for the management and
operations of the Los Alamos National Laboratory would be opened to a competition.
We are all aware that there have been problems concerning the security of classified
materials handled at the lab and questions about safety practices. It is important to note,
however, that statistically the incidences of injury and illness at Los Alamos are well within the
range of both comparable DOE facilities and major chemical and manufacturing industrial
complexes. Still, I have consistently supported the competition in the hopes that the best
management team wins so the scientists and employees at Los Alamos can continue to contribute
to our national security and conduct world-class strategic science.

Last Thursday, the National Nuclear Security Administration released the final Request
for Proposals, or RFP, for the Management and Operating contract of the Los Alamos National
Laboratory. In December, the NNSA released a draft of this RFP. What concerns me is that
these documents were substantially different in two very fundamental ways.

First, the draft RFP did not indicate a requirement for the establishment of a separate,
dedicated corporate entity; the final RFP does. Because this requirement was not included in the
draft RFP, the public was never given the opportunity to comment on it. While that structure
may have emerged from the competition as the best design for the management of LANL, we’ll
never know. By mandating a specific corporate structure from the outset, the NNSA has
eliminated the proposition of an entirely different, and perhaps more creative and effective,
management structure. That appears to me to severely constrain, rather than promote, true
competition.

Secondly, the NNSA has taken the surprising step of dictating that the new management
entity must establish a stand-alone pension plan, one that would serve the employees of Los
Alamos only. Again, that requirement was not included in the draft RFP so the public never had
the opportunity to comment on it. The potential changes to the pension plan under a change of
management have been of the utmost concern for the vast majority of Lab employees who have
contacted me regarding the competition.

Currently, the employees of Los Alamos benefit greatly from being included in the
University of California Retirement Plan, which covers more than 170,000 employees. The
major organizations that have expressed the intent to bid for the Los Alamos contract already
employ in excess of 100,000 people. Obviously, a pension plan designed to cover that many
employees generates significant leveraging power.

Page 2 of 2
The Los Alamos National Laboratory alone currently employs only 8,000 people directly.
There is no way that a stand-alone pension plan designed to serve only 8,000 employees could
offer benefits as great as one that serves five, ten or, in the case of the University of California
Retirement Plan, 17 times that many. Shouldn’t the decision for how to best manage a financial
matter as significant as that of a pension plan be left to the discretion of the new managing
entity?

Furthermore, approximately 60 days ago, the NNSA completed the competition for the
management of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The University of California, which
has managed Lawrence Berkeley for 74 years, was awarded the contract. As such, Lawrence
Berkeley will continue to be managed as a non-profit entity, and its 3,800 employees will
continue to be included in the generous pension plan offered by the University of California.
The design of the final RFP for the management of Los Alamos National Laboratory
ensures that a non-corporate management structure cannot even be considered in the
competition. That is, the type of management structure that has very successfully served
Lawrence Berkeley for 74 years and Los Alamos for 62 years is not even on the table.
In conclusion, while I strongly support this competition, I do not see how it is in the best
interest of this country that a competition for the management and operation of a national
security complex as important as Los Alamos has been so greatly narrowed.
I would like to thank Representative Visclosky for affording me this opportunity to
speak, and with that, I yield back my time.

By Michelle Locke
The Associated Press

BERKELEY, Calif.— University of California regents face a big decision this week: Compete for the management contract of Los Alamos National Laboratory or walk away from the atomic birthplace it has managed since World War II.

A committee of UC's governing Board of Regents will recommend today whether to compete, and the full board will vote on that recommendation Thursday.

"This is a significant decision for the university," UC spokesman Chris Harrington said. "We expect a very thoughtful and thorough discussion."

[...]

Full Story

A comment from the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/05/newspaper-straw-vote-which-contracting.html

post:

I’m a mid-career LANL TSM who just returned from a visit to a major university. Let me tell you, this visit was a powerful jolt. With all the crap we had taken here in the last several years, I had almost forgotted what the REAL WORLD was like. The REAL WORLD where people enjoy coming to work; where science, not mindless rules or management abuse, is the center of most conversations; where young people – students and postdocs – come to you to LEARN and both sides take profound satisfaction in sharing knowledge; where opinions are respected and freedom of thought and expression is unquestioned.

Suddenly, it’s all become very clear. I’ve had it with LANL. I’ve had it with Admirals shutting down my research at will and with his lackeys ready to report anyone who they catch writing formulas on a blackboard during the shutdown. I’ve had it with division leaders telling people their work by itself isn’t worth anything, unless it directly ties to the "Mission". I’ve had it with a bunch of clueless half-educated bureaucrats trying to impose the same computer standard on scientists and secretary.

When I came here, it was because there were good people to work with. Well, now that these very people are either retiring or taking up jobs elsewhere, what am I going to stay here for? Just so that I could continue living in a desolate place in the middle of nowhere, a place with a single grocery store and two dozen churches? A place with dirty, broken-down streets and a "downtown" made up of a post office and a Starbucks?

Call me a "whiner", a "cowboy", a "grouser". I don’t care. I don’t want to serve at the will of Admiral Foley anymore. I’m through. I’m applying for university jobs and within the next year or two I’m outta here!

From Anonymous:

http://home.att.net/~nickols/credo.htm

Lockheed Martin-UT team leader proposes changes at Los Alamos

HEATHER CLARK

Associated Press

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - A possible tenfold increase in the federal government's fee to manage Los Alamos lab is deserved if security troubles are brought under control, the head of a team bidding for the contract said.

C. Paul Robinson resigned last month as president of Sandia National Laboratories to head Lockheed Martin Corp.'s team for the contract to manage Los Alamos National Laboratory.

[...]

Full Story

Blogger Status

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Due to a hardware error, a percentage of Blog*Spot users will run into intermittent trouble when trying to access their blogs. We have people in the datacenter working on the problem and anticipate that this will be corrected during the next two hours.

[It seems to be fixed now. --Doug]

This is a shameless promotion of one of Los Alamos' newer business
establishments. I am sitting here, enjoying a wonderful lunch and a
glass of Stone IPA; my laptop is open on the table in front of me, and
I am reading the blog and catching up on my email via the Trinity
Beverage Company's new, free wireless internet. Why am I telling you
this? What does it have to do with LANL, the blog, or anything else
important?

I'm telling you this because Ron Selvage, one of the owners of TBC,
has made my job of maintaining the blog both easier and more pleasant,
and I wanted other people to know that. Comments on this post will be
turned off: if you want to complain about the crass commercial nature
of this post, use the email address at the top of this blog and I will
make sure both of those complaints are properly handled.

The rest of you should come down and enjoy some good food and beer at
Los Alamos' only smoke-free bar/restaurant.

Bring your laptop.

From Anonymous:

Oh, that's just terrific. The LANL home page has a link on it to the "Operational Efficiency" project: https://int.lanl.gov/orgs/oe/index.shtml. That link takes you directly to an invitation to view a Quicktime video of George P Nanos and John Bretzke.

Nice thinking, whoever decided to put this bit of motivational garbage out for us to all see.

From Anonymous:

There is currently an initiative being run out of ADA addressing
Information Technology Infrastructure. While there are some very
worthy goals of this effort, notably in the in the area of purchasing
strategy and obsolete equipment replacement, there is the question of
"standardization".

If you've been a user of the Lab's computing infrastructure for any
length of time, you've likely observed the various travails visited on
support personnel and users by viruses and spyware, with exploits
targeted primarily at the Microsoft Windows platform. This situation
is not going to improve.

While other operating systems and environments are certainly not free
of vulnerabilities and exploits, there are fewer specifically targeted
at them.

What does this have to do with ADA's effort? Plenty, because the
outcome is allegedly "predecided" in favor of Windows, regardless of
the effort's results and conclusions. This is a classic example of how
a lot of technical decisions seem to be made at the Lab: decide first,
create a huge, expensive effort to get supporting data, and then make
the data fit the decision.

It is quite ironic that a workplace that has the alleged goal of
secure operations tolerates "lowest common denominator" decisions in
the area of security, especially those that are made autonomously and
capriciously.

We, the authors of this submission, believe that the ADA has not
presented a well-considered plan . We are members of LANL's
computational community, and our assessment is that the ADA's plan
makes no sense from a security point of view, nor from an economic
point of view. We therefore urge the new director and his team of
advisers to place an immediate moratorium on the ADA's plan, and
launch a reevaluation of his proposed initiative.

Doug:

I thought you should post this bit of hypocrisy, penned by the NNSA head who "fully supported Nanos' decision to shut down LANL" and who backed Nanos' claims of deteriorating safety trends at LANL in spite of the well documented proof to the contrary.


http://www.abqjournal.com/north/opinion/353425northoped05-22-05.htm?lrail

Doug,

This emailgram from ADSR Terry Wallace may be interesting to blog readers as an indication of how seriously the Lab management takes employee retention issues.

Anon


ADSR Emailgram
May 23, 2005

The Laboratory faces an extraordinary challenge concerning its workforce. LANL's staff has performed extraordinary service to the nation in the last 60 years, and the workforce is unique within the DOE complex. However, the uncertainty of LANL's future, the crushing burden of paperwork associated with "getting work done," and the emotional toll of the last year, pose immense obstacles to retaining staff and recruiting "the best and the brightest." I am struck that the institutional approach to retention and recruitment is very "first come, first served," with little planning or appreciation for unintended consequences. As an example, we (LANL) respond to retention mainly with occasional offers of increased salary - which typically breed resentment within teams and groups.

With this in mind, we have instituted a task force within SR along with HR to look at retention and recruitment issues. This task force is developing suggested methods to be used by managers to generate informative dialogues with the individuals who possess the capabilities needed to sustain their organizations. It will also create better understanding of the perspectives necessary to overcome the challenges and obstacles inherent in recruiting and retaining top talent. I have also asked the task force to develop a longer-term, "best practice" approach to our staffing strategies and succession planning. Closely associated with this initiative are our needs for knowledge capture and transfer tools in general and, specifically, to effectively manage the "memory loss" which may be inherent in the immediate days to come. A cross-institutional team has just developed a knowledge capture and transfer process which will be offered to managers and their groups in June.
I want to assure you that I consider these issues as serious challenges for not only SR but also for the institution as a whole. Recruitment and retention affect the entire workforce from entry and mid-level to our most seasoned employees who may be considering retirement. Replenishing and retaining our scientific and technical talent at the Laboratory is a persuasive priority regardless of who wins the contract competition. Beyond the obvious pension concerns, these issues are compounded by the high average age of our workforce and the fact that more individuals, who are eligible to retire, are seriously considering the option due to the increasing challenges of our work environment.
I am most interested in your input and feedback - from new hires to long-career employees.

UPTE@Los Alamos worked hard to get some of the language changed from the draft RFP to the present language in the final RFP. This effort has been ongoing for at least two years. UPTE visited D.C. several times and met with many different representatives to tell them the concerns of UPTE members in the contract competition. Our CWA colleagues spoke on our behalf to their congressional members when we could not do it ourselves. We developed a respectful relationship with the SEB to ensure that the interests of our members were heard. We don't hide what the members want. Read our letter to the SEB at http://www.upte.org/LosAlamos/uc_contract/UPTEcommentsLANLdraftRFP.pdf
Regardless of what many think, a unified, but reasoned voice for employees does matter. UPTE stepped up to the plate and if we didn't hit a home run, we at least got on base. In June we plan to hold an open forum. We hope many LANL employees will attend (details will come out later). We will be watching the RFP process unfold and adding our input as developed by UPTE members.
Theresa Connaughton

From Anonymous:

The removal of the 9/80 work schedule seems to me, to be a breech of contract for the employees that hired on at LANL during the past 5 years. This schedule was offered as part of their benefits package. Many people accepted employment under those terms. The LANL administrative manual (AM326) states that "In rare cases where an organization cannot otherwise provide required services during normal business hours, or when required for programmatic, safety, or security reasons, a manager may request an exemption to in order to assign an employee to either the 9/80 or 5/40 schedule". If the "rare case" was to address resumption issues, and since the lab is back up and running, shouldn't the 9/80 be reinstated? I wonder what a judge would say?

A comment from the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/05/real-attempt-to-seek-solutions.html

post:

Integrity. I can work with that.

And Todd's memory. I agree that we cannot forget what happened there and seek redress for him in whatever way we can.

Does anyone know how the contributions to his family are going? Do we need to pass the hat a few more times?

Doug, does it make sense to restart a Post regarding helping Todd's family and getting some satisfaction from LANL/UC? I know Foley was a real bastard about that, but I don't know that we need to take no for an answer so easily.

Doug, I found the following information on the UC Regents website:

The UC Regents will be meeting this Wednesday , May 25, to discuss the LANL
RFP and a possible bid on this contract.

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/regmeet/may05.html

You can share concerns or views with the Board by email. Emails received
will be included in the Secretary's report of communications to the Board at
its next regularly scheduled meeting.

Every email will not be responded to individually; however, emails will be
shared with Regents and, when appropriate, forwarded to appropriate
University administrative offices. The address is:

regentsoffice@ucop.edu

--------

It might be good for LANL/UC employees to let them know about your views on
UC's ineffective management of LANL and suggestions for improving LANL, as
well as any concerns over the RFP, the partnering with Bechtel, loss of UC
benefits under the proposed partnership, and VP Foley's management of LANL.

A few recent comments to posts on this blog have prompted me to refresh the collective memory out there regarding posting etiquette.

1. In reference to the moron who insists in calling other contributors "morons" in his submissions, please go somewhere else.

2. With respect to the one or two contributors who post with the seeming sole intent of tearing down others' suggestions, but without offering a constructive alternative, likewise please go elsewhere.

As a reminder, the intent of this blog is to identify problem areas within LANL, and to offer suggestions for fixing same.

--Doug

From Anonymous:

I am a person who works at Savannah River Site (SRS) in Aiken, SC in the Defense Programs. I visit LANL. LLNL and Sandia quite frequently and has learned the ways in which the lab works and how it is perceived to work. In general, LANL has hard working, sincere, intelligent employees but there are some who just have a “don’t care attitude” like every other place. The management at LANL does not seem to know how to manage, but they seem to be doing a good job of borrowing buzzwords and using them to show that they are managing. If a manager cannot motivate the employees to do whatever for the benefit of the lab and the nation, they are not managing. Let me tell you my experience at SRS. When DuPont was running prior to 1989, they were managing to an older set of requirements with about 10000 employees. When DOE imposed a new set of reqmts, they got out of the game. The Westinghouse (currently WGI) – Bechtel team came in, and they had to follow the new set of requirements. They hired a whole team of bean counters (thousands of them) and procedure writers and the population swelled to 26000 in 1992. Then came the axe and we started shrinking and we are down to 13000 people in 2006. We had over 200,000 procedures and finally in the last 5 years, we are bringing common sense into management. The number of procedures had come down by 50%, we attend only 2-4 hour training classes and spend only 10% of our time in training. I am afraid that in UC-Bechtel-WGI team, they will hire a ton of bean counters and make life worse at LANL before making it better. However, I feel that a Lockheed team will be more sophisticated, focused and use the Sandia experience to make life better at LANL. Also the Bechtel-WGI team just will follow what NNSA wants and get more money rather than trying to tell them the right approach. In contrast, I feel that the Paul Robinson team has more credibility and has made Sandia employees feel good about what they do and will do the same at LANL. You can check the morale at SRS with your friends but my opinion is that the moral is not at all good at SRS.

In closing, I feel that both the bidders will have a good technical proposal but I think the Lockheed team will be a better overall manager for LANL and can bring credibility and the science back to where it belongs.

From Anonymous:


1. I would like to see management set a goal to reduce the number of meetings everyone
has by 50 per cent.
2. I would like to see an end to "Brown Bag Lunches."
3. I would like to see a complete overhaul of the training system and to see the amount
of time waisted in training by 80 per cent.
4. If I never attend another so called award ceremony where half of the people have contributed
little or nothing to a program receive some kind of award or kudo it would make me very happy
5. I would like to see a system where those individuals who work productively are rewarded
monetarily.
6. I would like to see a system where the concept of "Metrics" is completely overhauled.
7. It would certainly help if the diversity office just disappeared.
8. I would like to have a commitment from whoever takes over this lab to never, most especially
during a time of war, shut this institution for anything other than the most catastrophic circumstances.
9. I would like to see this "behavior based style of management" thrown out the window and
would be delighted to see violators of our safety and security regulations held accountable
for their indiscretions monetarily.
10. I would like to see an end to about 80 percent of the politics I witness on a daily basis.
11. I want an environment where I can come in, do my job and go home feeling proud of the
good work that I have done as opposed to being harassed, intimidated or threatened for
having done too much work.
12. I would like to have the opportunity to work for the respect I know I can earn from my
management and peer group.
13. I would like to see the dignity of work restored in the work place.
14. Look folks, it should be clear that I ain't no management type. I'm just a good ole redneck
cowboy from Texas and all I want to do is to have a good opinion about myself and the work I do.

A comment from the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/05/retirement-floodgates-opened-precisely.html

post:

I believe that some of the airing of concerns seen here as well as discussions in a number of other venues are a real attempt to seek solutions for an organization that has been and could or should be great.

In the absence of a concerted effort to improve things that really matter, people will continue to 'think out loud' and dabble with possible solutions to perceived problem areas.

The things that really matter, from the trench-view, are things that consistently pose problems in getting work done in a reasonable time, at a reasonable cost, and with a reasonable amount of safety and security and are reasonably close to the desired outcome. Hopefully, there is also reasonable recognition to balance out the reasonable effort expended.

I've intentionally overused the word "reasonable" because it alludes to common sense (uncommon as it may be recently) and because in the legal system we use the 'reasonable man' test as a benchmark and it is commonly accepted as a valid descriptor of the average person.

So, why is this improvement, positive change and common sense so elusive? Aren't there smart people engaged in all or most levels of the Lab?

One suggestion which continually appears and then fades away is to use this blog (or other communication venue) to have positive and productive discussions about problems and possible solutions. It is difficult to do so in a public forum without risking the potential for violating policy. It's more difficult to have people volunteer to share information within the broken system when they fear retribution or retaliation. Real or perceived, the impasse is monumental for many and the frustration mounts.

Some problems don't seem to be just Nanos' era but much earlier. The departures of each 'bad manager' or deviants like those who criminally shamed LANL (Alexander & Bussolini) are certainly steps toward recovery.

The retirement of many people who feel they can't risk losing what they've been told would be their security beyond their work-years is a sad compromise for some of the intellectual strength we have hoped to draw upon, however they can't be blamed for taking a necessary step toward their own and their family's stability.

Those who will leave because they can no longer tolerate the circumstances should be wished farewell, literally that they fare well in their next endeavor, rather than lambasted for making a choice they need to make to deal with the situation.

Those who will stay and those who will come on board will need to roll up their sleeves and look around for what can be fixed, what can be replaced with something that works, what can be jettisoned and what can be left as is.

My hope is that what can be simplified will be simplified rather than complicated. Also that what can be salvaged in terms of meaningful work, future achievements and people's well-being, will also be salvaged.

And finally, I hope that the struggle and the follow-up with hard work, integrity-based effort, will allow the people's trust (Congress, the public, et al) to be restored and prove that we're not just a bunch of lazy, clever (at avoiding work, hiding problems, creating messes, or taking cavalier risks with their money, environment & etc) whiners.

I don't mean to downplay the situation that people who live and work in the area endure, but it is evident that there is much more to be gained by putting one foot in front of the other toward recovery rather than trying to continue to explain the current conditions and continually justify the response.

From Anonymous:

It has just been a few days since the RFP was released, and already we see the news media beginning to pick up on the relative quality of the LM team vs. the UC team, as evidenced by the the recent AP story by Heather Clark, and the Albuquerque Tribune piece by Sue Vorenberg. On top of that, there is now open discussion of the scapegoating of LANL employees during the shutdown in which UC's handling of events is being exposed. I suspect that, while the competition probably will not turn into a route against UC/et.al., it will become increasingly obvious that a changing of the guard is inevitable. UC and LM will be evaluated on their records, and not on their promises; LM has a much sturdier platform upon which to build their claim for the rights to run LANL than does UC.

From Anonymous:

A comment from the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/05/980-workweek_19.html

post:

I agree that there are far more serious problems than the 9/80 but I think employees see it as a symptom of a larger problem -- scapegoating. There was no connection between the 9/80 and the security incident, but management, apparently right up to Foley, decided to punish all employees for the trouble others had gotten the lab into.

And frankly, it is related to Todd Kauppila's case, because Todd, was the victim of scapegoating for a truly broken security system which he did not have the authority to fix.

Scapegoating is the sign of a very sick institution. It isn't just the 9/80 it is the insanity of management people are upset about. Employees consider what is happening to them to be completely unrelated to their actions and frankly, they are right.

A comment from the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/05/it-is-not-too-surprising-that-members.html

post:

How did LANL become the poster child for security and safety mistakes? Think about it, most of the security failures which made us famous for incompetence were not really security incidents at all. But they gave openings to politicians who wanted to win a contract for their favorite corporation.

A 2 billion and growing budget is a plum for any corporation and several are interested in having such a plum. They can profit from the management fees and the intellectual property they will own as a result of operating the lab. They can get also intel on all kinds of other government programs that they might wish to go after from LANL's participation with DOE and other agencies.

The safety incidents were bad, but everyone has noticed that other laboratories don't make the news when one of their employees is killed, much less injured. That is because those laboratories have already been outsourced.

We, as a nation, voted for Bush, whether you like it or not, and Bush and his party are in favor of putting everything in the hands of private business. They were looking for an excuse and had lots of help in trumping up excuses. And Bush's campaign manager from the last election sits on the U.C. Board of Regents. Admiral Foley served on Bush's transition committee. So even if UC wins, LANL will still be privatized.

Now that we are being privatized, I hope all you good Republicans will enjoy what you voted for. If not, there will hopefully be elections in the future.

MIT expert sees rocky transition no matter who runs Los Alamos

By Sue Vorenberg
May 20, 2005

Culture change - and maybe chaos - is coming to Los Alamos National Laboratory.

No matter who wins the bid to operate the lab, its management style, business practices and daily operations will shift, says Hugh Gusterson, an associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studies the political culture of nuclear weapons scientists and labs.

[...]


Full Story

By HEATHER CLARK, Associated Press Writer

Friday, May 20, 2005

(05-20) 11:00 PDT Los Alamos, N.M. (AP) --

The Wen Ho Lee case. Confusion over the whereabouts of classified computer disks. Workers buying camping and hunting gear on the government's dime. Disgruntled scientists posting complaints on a blog. A potential brain drain among the weapons experts.

[...]

Full Story

May 20 (Bloomberg) -- Lockheed Martin Corp. may have an edge over Bechtel Group Inc. and Northrop Grumman Corp. in the competition to run the Los Alamos National Laboratory, a contract valued at as much as $44 billion, analysts and lawmakers said.

The Energy Department issued a request for proposals yesterday to manage Los Alamos, which has been operated by the University of California since its founding in 1943. Director Peter Nanos resigned this month following Congressional criticism over security lapses at the New Mexico nuclear weapons research facility.

[...]

Full Story

Final bid directive adds stand-alone pension, higher fees

Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer

Friday, May 20, 2005

Federal officials issued their final specifications Thursday for the forthcoming competition to run Los Alamos National Laboratory -- and at least one California lawmaker suggested the document might favor a defense industry bid over one from the University of California, which has run the nuclear complex for six decades.

UC officials and other competitors said Thursday that they were still reading the thick "Request for Proposals" document and would not comment on it for several days. Bids must be submitted by July 19, and the winner of the competition is scheduled to be announced Dec. 1.

[...]

Full Story

Los Alamos National Laboratory and the University of California:
Technology Stewardship Asleep at the Wheel?

Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL) was in the national news last week, this time concerning the resignation of its director, Pete Nanos. Corporate media was all atwitter about a blog that called for Nanos' resignation and then accurately predicted down to the day when it would occur. The blog, was begun by LANL computer scientist, Doug Roberts, a 20 year veteran of the lab, in response to censorship of letters critical of Nanos' management by the LANL NewsBulletin. Roberts and other LANL scientists were outraged that Nanos would waste more than $100 million of taxpayer money, and they believe, compromise national security, by shutting down the lab because of missing computer disks. Disks, it turns out, that were only a figment of LANL bean counters' imaginations. The blog also has a special section called "The Running List of Wasteful Activities" in which LANL employees can anonymously draw attention to things that further waste tax payer dollars. Maybe management will heed the recommendations, but likely it won't because of the general aversion management types have to recommendations by the people who actually do the work.

[...]

Full Story

Pension changes could spur rash of retirements at LANL
By DIANA HEIL The New Mexican



A generous benefits package at Los Alamos National Laboratory has kept employees loyal under the University of California’s management. Now, a first-ever competition that could unseat UC has thrown those perks into question, and some employees, including top scientists, are tempted to retire early to preserve their benefits.

The U.S. Department of Energy is requiring all bidders to create a new pension plan.

The lab has projected a 50 percent increase in retirements this year, which would amount to 379 employees leaving, spokesman James Rickman has said. Under the UC plan, employees who are at least 50 years old with more than five years of service are eligible for retirement.

[...]

Full Story

Feds sweeten deal for LANL manager
By DIANA HEIL The New Mexican



Bidders seeking to manage Los Alamos National Laboratory must pick a price — between $63 million and $79 million a year. That’s up to nine times what the University of California, the lab’s current manager, makes now.

They must find a person smart enough to be director of a $2.1 billion research lab and confident enough to certify to the government each year that the nuclear weapons there will work.

They must be prepared to clean INSIDE

up 62 years of environmental waste. They must create an attractive pension plan.

They must draft a plan for rebuilding a troubled nuclear-weapons lab, which has sparked the ire of Congress for its safety, security and businessmanagement flaws. They must show their abilities in manufacturing and be willing to manage a bomb factory.

And they have 60 days to do it.

[...]

Full Story

A comment from the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/05/los-alamos-oversight-up-for-bid.html

post:

It’s amazing – I have been reading the LANL blog since about 5:00 a.m. (I am at home – off the DOE defense contractor’s clock.) I hate to think that you all are having so many of the same problems we suffer from.

The management teams are a disgrace for the most part. I’m not sure if the blame is lack of human compassion, lack of real management skill or such instilled fear of making a wrong decision that they are rendered useless.

Add to the mix contract renewal – do we want to keep that same incompetent management or do we want to turn our future over to the unknown? Because face it – the unknown may not be better – it could even be worse. From what I have been reading on all the various threads you people at LANL pride yourselves on your superior research endeavors. If you relinquish the reins to a defense subcontractor, I am quite afraid that you will lose that research edge that you have maintained for so many years. Defense contractors of present day have one thing in mind – making lots of money quickly and getting out fast – your ideas will belong to them and they will stifle scientific independence – can you say “research mill”. Correct me if I’m wrong but I was under the impression that some of the most ingenious, scientific minds worked at LANL – you will not like operating in a production facility where more more, more is required not quality, quality, quality. Just like “puppy mills” it makes for bad breeding.

I’m not saying that you should accept poor, bad or abusive management, I just think you may want to explore a more compromising situation for all involved. UC top management (not necessarily lab management) may be in a more receptive mood now that the bidding has begun to listen to some suggestions from the backbone of the lab. They may not but it has to be worth a shot –

I’ll be watching the updates and praying for your futures
Sincerely
Scared for our jobs everyday at a DOE defense-contractor-run-facility.

From Anonymous:

It is troubling to see mention of redress for Todd Kaupilla in the same context
as reversion to the "9/80" workweek.

The "9/80" workweek was a gigantic waste of taxpayer money, and eliminating it
was one of the few sensible things that happened under Nanos.
"9/80" was originally put in place under John Browne in the late 90's to fend
off unionization efforts, which disappeared anyway for unrelated reasons.

It was a misconceived policy from the start. Such policies are only sensible
when productivity is directly proportional to time spent on the job, namely
in a production-line environment. It is not remotely appropriate for a
scientific enterprise, and it was subject to rampant abuse from the start.
We all know how easy it was to find parking on Fridays, with all lots suddenly
much less than half full every single Friday. But the abuse was not only that
many workers chose to take off every Friday, but that many never even worked
the required time during the rest of the week. A typical policy was to arrive
and leave at the same hours as before, but claim to "work through lunch"
to make up that extra hour. But it doesn't really work that way either
for scientists or for support staff.
In many divisions, it was called more accurately the "8/60" workweek.

The "9/80" policy if strictly adhered to is also an anti-family policy,
since extended daycare coverage isn't necessarily available,
and the extra hour away from parents for smaller children is not
compensated by the alternate Fridays. The "9/80" policy is wasteful
in other ways: for projects that needed daily coverage, it frequently meant
having to hire two workers instead of one, an unnecessary redundancy
just to have every Friday covered. And much paperwork requires multiple
signatures, so even if fully half were available on Fridays still nothing
could go through, and consequently it was taken for granted that a large
fraction of the lab would automatically shut down on Fridays.

It is true that substantial amounts of taxpayer money were squandered in
last year's ill-conceived shutdown. But even more taxpayer money was squandered
before that in the years that an ill-conceived "9/80" was the default.

Todd Kaupilla was a hard worker who appears to have been unjustly fired
because the former lab director needed a smokescreen for his lack of informed
decision-making. The 9/80 workweek was a scam and waste of taxpayer money.
Mentioning the need for reevaluation of Todd Kaupilla's firing in the same
context as restoration of the "9/80" workweek is a disservice to his memory.

From a comment on the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/05/shocked-saddened.html

post:

It is not too surprising that members of Congress are appalled at uncensored information availability, such as a blog can provide. I would like to see blogs started on Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), and the Congresswoman from Colorado, as well.

News Release
U.S. Senators Pete Domenici & Jeff Bingaman


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: CHRIS
GALLEGOS/Domenici (202) 224-7082
MAY 19,
2005
JUDE McCARTIN/Bingaman (202) 224-1804

DOMENICI & BINGAMAN LOOK TO FINALIZATION
OF LANL CONTRACT COMPETITION

Despite Concerns with Final LANL RFP, Senators Want Process Finished

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senators Pete Domenici and Jeff Bingaman today said
they want the competition for the operations and management of Los
Alamos National Laboratory to be completed on schedule, despite some
concerns with the final request for proposal (RFP) issued by the
Department of Energy.

Domenici and Bingaman today stressed the importance of the lab and its
employees knowing who will lead the renowned facility into the future.
The DOE National Nuclear Security Administration issued its final RFP
for the LANL contract.

Domenici and Bingaman, chairman and ranking member respectively of the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, had offered
recommendations to the NNSA during the drafting of the RFP.

"The final RFP is not everything I would have wanted, but
it is what is now in place to dictate the last leg of the competition.
It has taken a long time for DOE to prepare this proposal, and I am
pleased that in 60 days we will know who the new lab manager will be
and we can strengthen our focus on the lab's national security
mission," Domenici said. "I know change is difficult, and I know the
challenges facing employees and their families. But I have every
confidence that it will turn out to be a good situation for Los
Alamos."

"I remain concerned that under this RFP, senior scientists
will decide to retire, and that there will be vastly different pensions
for employees depending on when they were hired. But the final
decisions have been made, and I'm glad that the bidding process is
moving forward. It's my hope that the bidders take to heart our
concerns about the pension plan, and that each team puts together a
very strong pension proposal," Bingaman said.

Based on the final RFP schedule, the bid proposals should
be returned in 60 days and a contract award will be made on or about
Dec. 1, 2005. After a contract is awarded, the RPF outlines a
six-month transition period for all interested parties, including
employees, to analyze the new contractor and the benefits agreement in
order to make the best decisions for themselves, their family and
career.

--MORE--


Page 2 DOE/Final RFP for LANL Contract


In general, the final RFP is offering a fixed seven-year
contract, with an option for another 13 years. For the first time
ever, DOE is proposing a fee range for bidders, between $53 million to
$79 million annually (30 percent fixed at $17million to $20 million,
with 70 percent "at risk" based on annual negotiated milestones).

The RFP will mandate a stand alone pension and corporation,
and outlines a series of options for existing employees. It also
outlines expected contractor support for regional initiatives.

"I am hopeful that the end result will be right for the
lab, the employees, the state of New Mexico and the nation. From what
I can see this will be a vigorous competition. The bidders, including
the University of California and its team, will determine what they can
offerthe lab and the employees as the new manager. I think each team
brings outstanding and unique capabilities that will make a positive
contribution to the science and management of Los Alamos," Domenici
said.

"We have three strong teams that have shown interest in
bidding for the Los Alamos contract. Which ever team is selected, I
firmly believe that LANL will continue to be a premier laboratory for
science. I hope the teams will keep in close contact with us as the
bidding process moves forward," Bingaman said.

The Senators favorably noted that two bidding teams led by national lab
directors- Dr. Mike Anastasio of Lawrence Livermore leading the UC team
and Dr. Paul Robinson of Sandia leading the Lockheed Martin team
and-have proven track records of supporting science and are very
familiar with the unique challenges of managing a weapons laboratory.

KSFR 90.7 FM

Retirement counseling grows at Los Alamos National Laboratory

By Bill Dupuy


SANTA FE (2005-05-19) -- The line of people wanting to know about their
Los Alamos National Laboratory retirement benefits has just gotten longer.

Seventy-two people are on a waiting list for retirement counseling after a
special three-day series of sessions was announced earlier this week.
Laboratory spokesman James Rickman says the 144 appointment-availabilities
in those sessions were filled within 24 hours of the announcement that
they would be offered.

A team of eight human resources counselors from the University of
California will travel to Los Alamos in June to assist the six LANL
retirement counselors. Rickman says the laboratory is studying whether it
can add at least 50 more counseling sessions to the schedule, set for June
8-10.

Retirement counseling previously was offered only when employees called
the Human Resources Department to make individual appointments. Rickman
says they set up the special counseling sessions based on the numbers of
people wanting to know about their benefits.

Eligible for retirement under the University of California plan are
employees who are at least 50 years old with more than five years of
service.

KSFR reported in March that the projection for LANL retirements for the
fiscal year ending in October is 50 percent greater than the prior year
and 60 percent more than the year before that. Rickman says that
projection will not be updated until June. If the projection becomes
reality, 379 UC employees at the lab will retire this year. That compares
with actual retirements of 251 in 2004 and 235 in 2003.

Rickman confirms one factor leading to the increased interest in the
retirement-counseling sessions is uncertainty over the lab's contract. He
says another factor may be curiosity. This is the first time lab officials
have been able to project retirement benefits beyond a 90-day period.


http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/ksfr/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=774201

From Anonymous:

I grew up in Los Alamos, My father & Mother both worked at the Lab, and I still have relatives working there. I am out East in the commercial sector. I have very strong positive feelings for the LANL, So I was shocked & saddened to hear on NPR radio this morning that members of congress are reading all of the belly aching on this BLOG and are using it as ammunition to try to close down LANL. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4657337

That would be devastating for Los Alamos & for Northern NM in general. Not to mention the impact to Science & to National Defense. The comments on the radio show said that many of the writings on this forum were very poor quality, and amounted to childish bickering.

MY feeling is that if you don't have a positive Idea on how to fix a problem or improve the Lab, stop whining !, If you don't like your job, don't like Los Alamos etc. , go somewhere else where you will be happy.

On professional athletics teams, they like to keep there internal problems to themselves where they can be fixed, They realize that once you air your dirty laundry in public, conflicts are much more difficult to resolve. My suggestion to some of you is that if you have problems with someone in your organization, go buy them a beer, sit down & discuss it. don't blab it out on the internet where any idiot can read it & vote you into oblivion.

http://www.doeal.gov/LANLContractRecompete/RFP.htm

Comment from the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/05/i-still-believe-lanl-is-great.html

post:

Prior to coming to the Lab I worked for a world-wide organization that I was proud to be a part of. I felt valued. My supervisors (and there were many because I moved every few years) used positive reinforcement and provided guidance and training. I knew my contribution was part of something bigger than myself and I would enjoy telling my grandkids about my work there one day.

Fast forward to now.

My Nanos-like boss is an abuser and technically so far in over his head he can't make competent decisions. He sleeps through meetings. He is a blamer and scapegoats his employees. He doesn't listen or reply to feedback from his direct reports. He ignores all manner of advice unless it supports his positions. He is dictatorial and punitive. And amazingly, his boss puts up with his bad behavior and I can't understand why.

I really enjoy my work location and am proud to be a part of the facility mission. I really love the people I work with locally. So I stick it out hoping my abuser boss will go away through some upcoming reorganization and my life will return to a happier place.

Until I (and my family) am relieved of this daily weight, I will have a hard time being upbeat about UC's management team and the future of the Lab. I will do my best each day, despite the debilitating manager, in the hopes he will go away soon. This is the cross I bear daily and I doubt I am alone.

There is just no excuse for any company, public or private, to perpetuate poor managers who are technically incompetent and people abusers. Life is too short for this to be acceptable to anyone. And please don't say "just leave." If it were possible, I would have been gone by now. Los Alamos real estate values prohibit me and my family from either just quiting or leaving at this time.

Doug,

Please post anonymously.

Thanks

--------------------------------------------------------------
I have to tell you folks that reading this blog is getting really depressing and if it doesn't improve I'm going to have to stop reading it.  People who read this blog, especially those not employed at LANL, need to know that some of the comments here don't represent all LANL employees.  I for one feel the need for some positive postings to support the Laboratory.

I still believe LANL is a great scientific laboratory where a lot of great science and engineering takes place and will soon again become a great place to work.  We've had several rough years and I'm glad our former director is gone.   But.......we need to put that behind us and focus on our jobs, the science here, and the Lab's mission.  It's imperative for the sake of the Lab and national security that we do this.  Otherwise we will continue in the downward spiral and take the Lab with us to a point that it becomes a shell of its former self.  We owe it to the legacy of Los Alamos and all the great accomplishments achieved here to not to let this happen!

I was impressed with Kukuck's comments last Monday and I thought President Dynes was upbeat.  Foley did come off looking bad and hopefully Dynes saw this and will work with the regents to address his behavior and his role at UCOP.  I'm hopeful that Bob Kukuck will be a great interim director and address some of the problems that have been allowed to fester here over the last few years.

Given that, we need to start supporting our place of work.  I've been here 25 years, raised a family in town, and feel I've gotten a lot out of working and living here.  Maybe it's time to give something back.  If you are near retirement you should look at your options and decide if you want to retire or to stay and help LANL get back on its feet.  Each of us has to look at these options and decide.  LANL needs us and we need to support the Lab, especially now.

At this time I would like to remind readers something my grandmother (and maybe yours too) taught me when I was small:  "If you haven't got something positive to say, say nothing at all."  Unfortunately a blog such as this lets too many negative people keep making negative comments.  It's time for some positive ones.  The glass is not half empty.

Comment from the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/05/engaging-in-discussions-related-to.html

post:

Actually, 7:58, the retirement floodgates opened precisely *because* of Bob Dynes' presentation. The majority of the audience saw through his transparent insincerity, and 100% of the audience saw Foley for what he is; a dyspeptic, crude, ill-tempered tyrant. Does that sound familiar?

A comment from the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/05/foley-was-fascinating-on-completely.html

post:

I am not aware of any LANL rule that forbids engaging in discussions related to the future of LANL. Perhaps now that Nanos is gone and his jackboot troops are on the run it will become permissible to use the blog for its intended purpose: identifying problems at LANL and helping to provide solutions to same.

By Sue Vorenberg
Tribune Reporter
May 18, 2005

Michael Anastasio has never worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory, but the head of the University of California bid team says he's familiar with New Mexico.

The university announced Tuesday that Anastasio, director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, will head the team from UC and Bechtel Corp. that plans to bid on the National Nuclear Security Administration contract to operate Los Alamos. The contract, up for bid for the first time in 60 years, expires at the end of September.

[...]

Full Story

Critics Fear Nuclear Facility Is Becoming For-Profit Venture

By Rick Weiss and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, May 18, 2005; A15

The federal government is preparing to put up for bid the management of the legendary but troubled Los Alamos National Laboratory for the first time in the facility's history, with potentially great ramifications for the high-stakes field of nuclear science.

The New Mexico laboratory, famous for developing the atomic bomb but also widely revered as the world's leading nuclear science lab -- only about half of it focused on weapons -- has grown into a $2.2 billion operation. Its 8,300 employees work for the University of California, which has managed the facility since 1943 on essentially a not-for-profit basis.

[...]

Full Story

By Adam Rankin
Journal Staff Writer
University of California officials announced on Tuesday that nuclear physicist Michael R. Anastasio, director of UC's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, will head the team preparing a bid to retain the school's management of Los Alamos National Laboratory.

UC and Bechtel National officials said Anastasio has the right combination of a solid science background and an understanding of U.S. Energy Department workings to lead a successful team.

"His familiarity with the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the university and the missions of both institutions— as well as the National Nuclear Security Administration and the Department of Energy— makes him an excellent choice for this key position," said UC president Robert Dynes.

Anastasio, trained in theoretical nuclear physics, rose through the Livermore ranks from his start there in 1980 in one of the lab's nuclear weapons design divisions.

In a phone interview on Tuesday, Anastasio said he plans to visit LANL as part of the competition preparation but had a few words of encouragement for LANL scientists and employees in the meantime.

"The key message is that we are going to win," he said. "I believe in Los Alamos. It has a great history, and it will have a great future."

[...]

Full Story

By Diana Heil | The New Mexican
May 18, 2005

Los Alamos National Laboratory is seeking the help of its rival sibling to help the University of California win the bid to continue running the birthplace of the bomb, as it has for 62 years without competition.

Michael Anastasio, director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California for the past three years, has been selected to be in charge of this first-ever competition. Bechtel Corp., one of the world’s largest engineering firms, is partnering with UC.

[...]

Full Story

From Anonymous:

Believe it or not there was good news to come out of Monday's "Meet The New LANL Director" meeting. Foley, egotistical entity that he is, underestimated the visibility that his abusive actions would enjoy. Not only did a large fraction of the entire staff of LANL see him for what he really is (substitute your own apt, witty simile here) but, thanks to the power of blog, the whole world is now reading about it.

That's the good news.

The bad news is that Dynes, working from a solid experience base which dictates inaction in the face of difficult decisions, will do ABSOLUTLY NOTHING!

From Anonymous:

I found several aspects of yesterday's meeting with Dynes, Kuckuck, Foley, and Cobb to be completely fascinating. Dynes' obsequious, transparent desire to be liked by the audience was the first impression that he made, to be quickly followed by a growing awareness of his general cluelessness regarding LANL. He was clearly ignorant of who Todd Kaupilla was, much less of the circumstances of his death. Sadly, I am not surprised that Dynes had no inkling that a LANL staff member who had devoted 22 years of his life to LANL, who had been unfairly fired by the previous director, Nanos, had died unexpectedly two weeks ago, leaving a widow and two children. Much less that he had died uninsured, as a result of the unfair firing.

Foley was fascinating on a completely different level. His crude, arrogant, angry demeanor epitomized what it was about Nanos that caused the readership of this blog to facilitate an early departure from LANL for him. Also, knowing that Foley works directly for Dynes and observing first-hand Dynes' tacit approval of Foley's behavior was mesmerizing, in a nightmarish sort of way.

Cobb was, well, Cobb. To know him is to not like him very well. At least he was willing to concede that UC would look into helping Todd's family.

Kuckuck would be hard not to like. I admired his earnestness. I would probably like him if I were to meet him. I wish him well. I believe Dynes and Foley will make it impossible for him to take the type of corrective action necessary to turn LANL around.

From Anonymous:

In an article in the Santa Fe New Mexican titled “Interim LANL Chief’s First Message Stresses Open Communication,” the following quote was made:

“During a 90-minute presentation by Kuckuck and two officials from the University of California, lab employees complained about the bureaucracy of safety – such as burdensome paperwork – that makes it hard to do science, according to lab spokesman Kevin Roark. Kuckuck agreed to investigate whether the safety procedures are overblown, Roark said.”

Roark went on to state “the interim director said his top goal is to change the world’s perception of Los Alamos…” Too bad our own Public Affairs Office doesn’t have the same goal.

I may be interpreting this all wrong, but to the outside world one of our problems was we didn’t take safety seriously and according to Roark we still don’t. With friends like this, who needs enemies?

From Anonymous:

Here is the problem with the new Blog, I cannot make this comment anonymously on the new Blog. I’d love to sign my name, but I cannot be this honest and open. Reprisal is still a very real possibility (Bob Foley is a good name to keep in mind).

There is a trend in how the Lab is being managed that is working to drain the science out of programs that would be good to discuss. Over the past few years there has been a move to apply stricter project management to everything in sight. This appears to be a one size fits all approach that does not differentiate between science and engineering. There does not seem to be any recognition that managing science is different. The net result is the transformation of what should be research projects into engineering projects with little scientific vitality or original thought.

This trend has driven the scientists from the management ranks. Since scientists have historically led Los Alamos, we have a system where management and scientific leadership come from the same body. Today to a very large extent we have (too) few scientists in management positions and the net result is little to no scientific leadership. I am amazed by the lack of scientific content in most of the reviews held here. Some managers have placed edict on their programs to not have any technical content in project and program reviews! This ought to be unacceptable, but instead it’s become the way we do business. Science ought to be job number one, instead it is a troublesome afterthought that defies the conventions of project management.

For years there has been a broad-based recognition that “milestones” are driving the programs. These milestones control the resources within the system. Because failure is not allowed, the milestones are chosen to be something easy to achieve (or something already achieved!). The net result is to push us away from anything that will actually provide the best return for the taxpayers’ dollar. Instead of fewer milestones, we have more. On top of this we now have “earned value”. This idea is being applied in the same manner. It measures everything on a linear scale and acts as if its all been done before. I understand that it is going to be with us a long time because it is in the RFP. It’s the world’s greatest science being managed by the world’s smallest minds.

All of this is acting to make our management risk averse and hold them to a standard where no risk is taken, and no science actually gets done. (Great) Science is about taking risks, about trying ideas that have a good chance of failing because you are doing something that have never been done before. What we have is management that is driving us to be as mediocre as possible because failure has become unacceptable.

What needs to be done to fix this?
1. If we need to bring ideas and people from the outside to manage our science, bring these things from organizations that have a successful track record in science (not engineering, manufacturing or facility management!).
2. Create a system that has a tolerance for risk and failure. This will allow the goals that we set for ourselves to be high rather than systematically low-balled because we’ll get hammered for failing.
3. We need to have some scientific leadership coming from somewhere. It would be best if it were somewhere in the management system, but in lieu of this it must be incorporated in the process.
4. More leadership needs to come from inside the ranks. Too many of the people brought in from the outside have little or no idea about how Los Alamos works, its history or where to find science. Most of our current management success is window-dressing, the core of the Laboratory’s abilities are rotting. We need management that will cherish and grow science rather than quash it.
5. Stop applying management fad of the day in a mindless way to science. We’re not building a house, or running an assembly line, etc… Some things cannot or should not be measured; we need room for discovery and serendipity.

If the trajectory of the Lab is not changed we will end up with a useless husk. The time to act is now.

Livermore director is last major piece in university's attempt to fend off challenges

By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER

In a chess game for control of U.S. nuclear weapons design, the University of California has tapped the director of Lawrence Livermore weapons lab to fight for continued university management of Los Alamos lab in New Mexico.

Physicist and bomb designer Michael Anastasio becomes the last major piece in the university's attempt to fend off challenges from two huge defense contractors and persuade the U.S. Department of Energy that it should keep running the nation's largest weapons laboratory as it has for 62 years.

[...]

Full Story

Doug,
In case you haven't seen this it was just
emailed to all Livermore employees.

Anonymous,
LLNL


UC, BECHTEL NATIONAL NAME ANASTASIO TO LEAD LANL COMPETITION TEAM

Today the University of California and Bechtel National announced that LLNL
Director Michael Anastasio will lead the competition team for the Los
Alamos National Laboratory contract process.

Anastasio will hold a special all-hands/employee meeting today (May 17) at
9 a.m. to discuss the announcement and answer questions.

The meeting will be held in the Bldg. 123 auditorium and will be broadcast
live on Lab TV on Channel 2. Please note that the director will be able to
take employee questions from the Bldg. 123 auditorium only.

The all-hands meeting will be rebroadcast on Channel 2 Tuesday through
Friday at noon, 2, 4, 6 and 8 p.m.

[...]

Full Story

All,

I got tired of the ad hominem attacks against constructive posts and complaining about various people. So I took a few minutes and created a new blog

Science at LANL

http://scienceatlanl.blogspot.com/

I do not know how to run a blog and hope that Doug will help me get this one to work as well as his does. I chose the same color scheme for continuity.

If such a blog is useful, please try posting there. If it is not useful, I will disband it. At the moment it is a stripped down blog. It will improve. If someone knows how to run a blog and is willing to help, I would appreciate it greatly.

Eric

From Anonymous:

Lots of info to impart from this meeting, which lasted nearly two hours. First to speak was UC President Bob Dynes after being introduced by Don Cobb. Dynes spent approximately 1/2 of a nano-second vaguely alluding to possible problems we at LANL may have experienced in the past year, and then went on to describe (in glowing terms) the future that UC/Bechtel/Washington Group/BWXT would bring to LANL. He wagged his tail a lot, made endearing I'm-an-adorable-puppy-and-really-I-want-you-like-me sounds for at least 10 minutes.

My memories of the glory of this mornings proceedings are already fading to the point that I cannot remember if John Foley spoke next, or not. In any event, Bob Kuckuck was the next speaker of note. Kuckuck did come across as earnest, well-intended, and not a bad guy. He praised us, told us how impressed he was with how well we had held up during the past year, but without specifically (Nanos) calling out any particular (Nanos) issue or person (Nanos) that UC might have (Nanos) contributed to our lack of well-being (Nanos) during the past 12 months. I do clearly remember Foley glaring out at the audience (full house, for a change) looking as if he had both high blood pressure and a bad case of indigestion during the entirety of Kuckuck's presentation, so we now clearly knew who was the good cop, and who was the bad cop.

The interesting part came during the question and answer section. First was the obligatory "are we going to get our 9/80 back?" question. Then there was a good question. A gentleman in a black shirt stood up and said, "I wonder if there is some way that UC could help out the family of Todd Kaupilla, who was uninsured at the time of his death two weeks ago after having worked at the lab for 22 years." The question was interrupted by applause once. I noticed Dynes looking confused, and then he tapped Foley on the shoulder and whispered into Foley's ear, clearly asking "Who the hell is this Kaupilla person?" Foley whispered back an answer. Kuckuck then started to fumble an answer, also clearly uninformed on who Kaupilla was, but then Cobb tapped on Kuckuck's shoulder and whispered in Kuckuck's ear while Kuckuck held his hand over the mike. Kuckuck then passed the mike to Cobb who said, "We are already working on that." Foley glowered even more deeply.

There were other questions, most of them actually well thought-out and voiced, until the obligatory one about day care came in via a phone call. Then there was another caller who asked in a fairly angry tone, "Will UC reconsider Kaupilla and Horne's case?"

Foley snatched the microphone away from Kuckuck and said, "No."

And on that note, the meeting began to wrap up. I took away several things from the meeting, First, that while Kuckuck seems to be a nice enough person, he is a UC employee who will be working to a mandate of "tread water, but don't make waves". Second, any team that has Admiral John Foley on it is a team that I instinctively want to play against. Foley is clearly part of the team that railroaded Kaupilla and Horne. In continuing the injustice that Nanos started, Foley will be one of the reasons that LANL will continue to see staff leave in the coming months.

From Anonymous:

In response to Eric Fairfields proposals: We tried to do just what you suggest in the GEONET project which was instigated in response to management making noises about finding diversified research venues. GEONET could have been the "fair broker" in the ridiculous debate raging over global warming. In it's short life GEONET was extremely successful. We had many projects in the works collaborating with the top researchers in the field around the world. GEONET was arbitrarily killed by managements decision to make an umpteenth attempt to gin up some reason to revive the obsolete meson facility, one of the Director's pets.

There is simply no reason to make big plans until the management problem at Los Alamos is corrected.

From Anonymous:

Kudos to Eric for trying to start a different type of discussion
between LANL employees. Perhaps such a dialogue belongs on a parallel
blog focusing on Science at LANL, nevertheless I think it is a great
idea. I decided to comment since I saw that posts complaining of
problems get plenty of responses but a constructive post such as this
did not elicit a single response. We need this type of dialogue along
with discussion of problem.

Comment from the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/05/retirements.html

post:

The type of Director that Kuckuck appears to be is largely irrelevant. He's
made it very clear that he's only filling in for the interim period.

The real question is what type of manager is UC? They left Nanos in place
for way too long. Do they realize that? If not, then they are not the
type of organization you want running this lab. Listen very carefully to
Admiral Foley on Monday. He's the one who will be giving you hints as to
what type of people will be managing this lab in the future. He is also
a guy who seemed to think very highly of Admiral Nanos. Has he changed
his mind? Has Dynes? That is the critical question. You can expect them
to stone-wall on that question, but it is vital that the staff know the
answer. If they actually liked Nanos' performance, then get the hell out
of here as fast as possible (or hope that LM/UT/Robinson win the contract).

Monday, May 16, 2005

Lab Cleanup Change Nixed

By Adam Rankin
Journal Staff Writer

Department of Energy officials have reconsidered earlier plans to carve out the environmental cleanup portion of the Los Alamos National Laboratory management and operations contract for a separate manager.

"I think this is a very successful shift in policy, as far as the future operations at Los Alamos go," said state Environment Department Secretary Ron Curry. "No matter who the ultimate contractor is... the lab has 60 years of legacy environmental problems that have to be dealt with."


[...]

Full Story

From Anonymous:

That self-promotional section called the "Director's Notebook" is no longer on the NewsBulletin's front page. That can't be a bad sign.

All,

Now that we seem to be past the Nanos era and into other critical current issues, please remember that I have

1. Drafts of constructive plans for the Lab now and after the contract is awarded.
2. Places to go.
3. Strategies for surviving here, in many divisions and groups.
4. A current indexed organized version of the blog since January in Word format.

If anyone is interested in this information, please contact me.

Eric Fairfield

Frf42@yahoo.com

A comment on the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/05/otherwise-different-director-same-lanl.html

post:

I've been thinking about this a lot myself, recently. I'm 54, with not quite 20 years at LANL. If I were to retire now, I could not live off of the retirement; I had planned to work at LANL for at least 5 more years. Up until last year I enjoyed my work and the people that I worked with. Nanos changed that. The work environment is now pretty much completely depressing. A number of my colleagues have left LANL, some of our customers have withdrawn funding, and I see nothing on the horizon that would lead me to expect any positive, substantive changes coming any time soon.

Therefore, I also will be paying close attention to what Kuckuck says and how he says it. If I am not convinced that he intends to turn LANL around from the destructive course Nanos laid in, then I too will be retiring and going to work elsewhere. I no longer enjoy coming to work here, and I will enjoy it even less if I am convinced that Kuckuck's mandate is to place us in a holding pattern until it is announced who the next contractor will be.

There are many other healthy places where I could go work that will be glad to have my experience and talent, and which are willing to demonstrate this by paying me a good salary and providing me with a work environment that is designed to facilitate my work, not to impede it.

A comment from the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/05/culture-of-lab.html

post:

The DOE/NNSA composite "cu***re" (in keeping with the suggestion in 5/14/2005 10:54:00 PM) seems to be anti-nuclear, anti-science, and anti-lab. This cu***re appears to prevail regardless of the party in power. This observation strongly suggests the cu***re is the consensus position of the permanent DOE/NNSA bureaucracy. The net result as previously reported here on this blog is that the USA has the most expensive and least productive nuclear weapons program in the world. In short, we spend the most money of the declared nuclear weapon states but Pakistan can built more pits than we can. China has a new criticality safety complex while ours sits in boxes awaiting shipment to Nevada. China also has modern scientific complexes to support its smaller program while we have people stuffed into some structures dating back to the 1950s. India can make more tritium for its weapons and we can. Finally, several nations have experimental test programs that seem much more advanced than ours. How can this difference be explained? The answer is that we spend enormous sums of money accomplishing often inane and repetitious orders and regulations that add little and in many cases nothing to security, safety, or environmental protection. The seeming purpose of these orders and regulations are twofold. First, they serve to maintain the employment of a growing bureaucracy that once but no longer oversaw the world's largest industrial complex. Secondly, the orders and regulations focus on shifting responsibility away from the rule makers onto the scientists, engineers, technicians, and support staff that are trying their best to sustain our nuclear weapons in an absolutely reliable and absolutely safe condition without being allowed to actually test them.

The truth about cu***re sometimes hurts but it must be said. However, I must say that I have many, many friends in the DOE/NNSA bureaucracy that fully understand what has happened and are as frustrated and as aggravated as I am.

The question is what can we do about it?

I will be going through the queue of submissions this morning and adding the ones from the past week that are still timely.

--Doug

From a comment on the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/05/response-to-rumor-however-was-quite.html

post:

I predict Kuckuck will lay words on us like, "we have had a difficult year, but now it is time to put that behind us, and look to the future", or some such. True enough, of course, but impossible without closure on a number of the raw, gaping wounds that remain from Nanos' interregnum. Like how Todd Kaupilla was unfairly fired over a security incident that turned out to be an institutional bookkeeping procedural flaw, for example. Or addressing the fact of the large numbers of staff who have left because of Nanos' unwarranted shutdown. Ditto the customers who have left. Or the mountains of unnecessary paperwork procedures Nanos instituted, like LIRs, IWDs, STOP training, etc. Or the incompetent staff he gathered around him.

If he mentions even one word on any of the above abysmal legacies of Nanos' short, but all too-long tenure, then I will sit up and begin to pay attention. Otherwise, different director, same LANL.

http://lamonitor.com/articles/2005/05/11/headline_news/news02.txt
http://lamonitor.com/articles/2005/05/13/headline_news/news02.txt

From Anonymous:

ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor

The University of Texas System Board of Regents voted on Thursday to proceed with renewed plans to partner with Lockheed Martin for the contract to manage Los Alamos National Laboratory.

In his prepared remarks, Chancellor Mark G. Yudof assured the regents that the risks and rewards, as well as the University's capacity to make a contribution, have been addressed.

[...]

Full Story

From Anonymous:

It is easy to make a donation to the memorial fund over the Internet if you have LANB access banking - just log in to your LANB account and order a funds transfer from your account to LANB account 32268720. It's quick and painless.

Comment from the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/05/udall-has-had-nothing-to-say-about.html

post:

If you've ever been present at the scene of a news event, and then later seen it reported in the media, you know how things can come out distorted. But, when it's about something that really counts, like when Jeffry Gardner says:

"Working to change the arrogant nature of the scientific community that thumbs its nose at its employers (us, that is) when we ask for tighter security and better management? Absolutely."

...then it gets rather worrisome.

Nobody wants "tighter security and better management" more than the scientific community at Los Alamos. It's our work that gets impaired directly by lax security and poor management. But what we've had for the past year is anything but security and management.

When the Fourth Crusade turned aside from its mission and instead sacked Constantinople, it illustrated what damage a lot of energy, poorly directed, can do. When Pete Nanos cut loose the support and security staffs to perform vigilante justice on their co-workers, telling them bad actors were all around them, it marshalled every petty rivalry to a showdown of full-contact organizational politics.

Co-workers told me tales of being harangued by support workers for interrupting their solitaire games with security forms during the shutdown. Getting a straight answer to a policy question became nearly impossible, as support workers became afraid to commit their security policies to writing or unwilling to give someone proof of compliance. Accusing someone else of a violation (real or imagined, mostly imagined) became an accepted way of gaining points with the management. Trying to defend oneself against a spurious accusation only brought more accusations.

Los Alamos does not need another inquisition. The data do not support the claim that Los Alamos is "troubled." The scientific staff at LANL is exceptionally conscientious, professional, honest, and patriotic.

The nation does not need to hear more from an ungrateful and arrogant media culture that thumbs its nose at those people who work to defend it from harm. Journalists fool themselves into thinking they perform some national service when all they do is stir up trouble so they can profit from selling the accounts of it.

From Anonymous:

In January 2004, Foley was going to bring in BWXT to manage "operations" functions. There were going to be about 50 of these guys on board of which about 18 were going to be at DDL level. They began showing up in mid-Jan. We got one in our Division even though we had two DDLs at the time.

These guys stayed about three weeks before DOE figured out that this had been done. This was going to cost ~$20M and had been sole-sourced. There was no justification for the sole-source procurement.

SO, the BWXT guys quietly departed and nothing more was said.

We suspected that Foley must have some old Navy buddies at BWXT.

From the May 9 LANL NewsBulletin:

In the discussion of Lab safety, the topic of fatal accidents at work has not been discussed. Given that the Lab employment is on the order of 10,000 workers and that many years of data are available, it is a statistically significant sample. This also is timely as we are past the 10th anniversary of the tragic training exercise shooting. Since that tragedy we have recorded approximately 100,000 man-years worked without a fatality. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration publishes its statistics in the same units, fatalities per hundred thousand man-years worked. Collecting the data together with the Lab data it is clear that our fatality rate is below that found in the educational and financial industries. The work at the Lab consists of a great deal of paperwork (too much for our own good), as with the lowest risk industries, but also consists of significant manufacturing and construction work. Compared to those two industry segments the Lab has been very successful at preventing fatal accidents.

Given also the nuclear weapon materials, the high explosives, the ubiquitous megawatt size electrical power sources, the occasional surprise receipt of live anthrax (through errors of external parties), and the armed guard force, this is a extraordinary record of worker safety. The record is so outstanding that it must be credited to a combination of factors: the safety intiatives that followed a series of severe accidents a decade ago; widespread compliance with those initiatives by the work force; and an additional quanta of good fortune.

One can only be bewildered by the widespread criticism of University of California management and the Lab work force found in the media, and be deeply concerned about the impact of the inevitable.

Table. Fatalities per hundred thousand workers by industry segment* or employer**.

Los Alamos and Cont.	0
Agriculture	31
Construction	12
Education	0.8
Financial	1.4
Manufacturing	2.5
Mining	27
Transportation	17

*OSHA Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (2003)
**Los Alamos data for 10 years (~100,000 man-years)

--David Reagor

From the May 9 LANL NewsBulletin:

May 9, 2005

"Culture" of the Lab

I am deeply disappointed in the National Nuclear Security Administration following the Jerry Paul testimony on May 5 to the subcommittee on Oversight of the House Energy and Commerce committee (http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/docs/2005-05-05_Jerry_Paul_OI_testimony.pdf). An NNSA representative stated that "we in NNSA felt that inattention to safety procedures at the Laboratory presented a greater problem. Together [with the CREM episode] they led us to believe that a culture of non-compliance existed within the Laboratory." This follows on a statement last July, from none other than the director of this Laboratory, that there is a "culture of arrogance" here. It is difficult to imagine language that could be more damaging to this institution.

Let's examine these uses of the word "culture." Anthropologists generally use it to describe a set of customs and behavioral norms shared by the majority of a population. In every large population, there are aberrant instances of behavior shunned by the majority. These do not reflect "culture" but rather the abandonment of it.

The number of Lab employees disciplined after last year's safety and security incidents is a handful (about 12) in a population of about 8,000. Even if one accepts their punishment as deserved, a handful is not, by definition, "cultural." Yet the NNSA and some managers at the Lab continue to refer to "cultural" problems on an almost daily basis. This seems to fly in the face of Brad Holian's careful analysis showing that the Lab safety record is comparable to the rest of the complex. It also contradicts data on security violations at the three weapons labs that was publicly released by NNSA itself (Santa Fe New Mexican, Feb. 9 2005).

If we have identified procedural flaws, let's call them that and fix them -- and move on. Let's not refer to them as indicative of bad "culture." If I were one of the Laboratory's customers and knew little about the institution other than that its own managers decried a "culture of arrogance," I would be unlikely to send funding to the Lab for national security work. That is how this contemptuous language is hurting our future prospects at the Lab. Having worked diligently with classified information for the last decade, and having spent countless hours writing Laboratory hazard documentation, I get more than a little annoyed at being lumped into some chimerical "culture" of disregard for safety and security.

I have a proposal: for the next year, let's ban the use of the word "culture" at Los Alamos. COMPASS can find a new catchy acronym. In the intervening time, let's reflect on the true meaning of "culture" and find a way to characterize problems and corrective actions that doesn't polarize the Lab community. Perhaps then we will learn how to use the word appropriately.

As for our customers in the NNSA, I have this question: Are we working together as a team to advance the state of national security, or will we give in to the kind of bitter divisiveness inherent in the misuse of language? I'd like to think the former, but at present I'm not so sure.

--Bernard Foy

From the May 6 LANL NewsBulletin:

May 6, 2005

Purpose of the Daily Newsbulletin and Reader's Forum

I have a question: What is the purpose of the Daily Newsbulletin and Reader's Forum?

The stated purpose for the Reader's Forum on your Web page is "The Letters to the Editor section of the Readers' Forum is designed to encourage constructive dialogue among University of California Laboratory employees and retirees. It is a mechanism for conducting reasonable discourse based on fact or informed opinion." Regarding the Daily Newsbulletin, I would propose that it be something to the effect of providing a reliable source of news of interest to the employees of Los Alamos National Laboratory. In the case of the Reader's Forum, I would submit that this purpose has not been achieved in recent times. My proposed purpose for the Daily Newsbulletin has not been met in recent months.

My question is prompted by an observation that the Daily Newsbulletin has ceased to be a reliable or timely source of news regarding the Laboratory. The recent article about a Blog's impact on the Laboratory, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/national/01alamos.html, is a sterling example. The Reader's Forum does not provide any reasonable dialogue on the issues most pressing to the Laboratory and its employees. The phenomenon of the Blog, LANL the Real Story (http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/), is a direct consequence. When employees are not given the opportunity to read the news in a timely fashion or discuss issues internally, these functions went outside the Laboratory.

--William (Bill) Rider

From the May 6 LANL NewsBulletin:

May 6, 2005

Director Nanos leaving

Even before the official announcement of Director Nanos leaving the Lab, I noticed a marked improvement in the overall morale of Laboratory employees over the rumor of the director leaving. In my 51 plus years on this Earth I have never seen the exodus of one person cause such a marked change in the attitudes of employees like the exodus of Director Nanos has. I am praying that the interim director and the new director will exhibit real true leadership skills.

--Jerry Antos

From Anonymous:

I wondered how Nanos could walk in off the street and land a high Federal job. Now word from a good friend at DTRA explains everything. Nanos will not be a Federal employee but a University of California employee on assignment under the Interagency Personnel Act. It appears that Admiral Foley, who has turned his back on justice and fairness, has managed to protect his comrade-in-arms again. While we will be put through the contractual wringer, Nanos will have his UC employment regardless of the outcome of UC bid for Los Alamos. Why does the word "conspracy" come to mind? While I'm speculating, I believe the IPA arrangement means the UC did not have to buy Nanos' house or may not have given Nanos a golden parachute. The irony in any case is that some thirty victims of Nanos are paying their attorneys, suffering, and now dying from the abusive actions of George P. Nanos, Jr. Meanwhile Nanos, the bully, is getting royal treatment from Foley's office. I'm sorry but this situation reminds me of what the Soviet Union was like before the fall of the Berlin Wall,. nomenclature living like entitled tsars while the citizens were slaves laboring within a system of abuse and deprivation. This is not the America that my ancestors and I fought and in some cases died for. It is not the America that Los Alamos has worked so diligently and brilliantly to defend. However, it is exactly how President Dynes and UCOP's Foley are managing Los Alamos and it is why I'm looking forward to UC losing both the Los Alamos and Livermore contracts.

Comment from the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/05/power-equals-responsibility.html

post:

You talk as if LM had the contract sewed up! If it is so clear that they should be running LANL, then why even have a competition? I wish to thank Sean-Paul Kelley for his words about the bloggers. For the most part, I feel that postings are made with respect and integrity, and it is good to see that someone out there recognizes this. I have seen little evidence of groussing, whining, or any of the other words that have been used to try to discredit the bloggers, free speach and venting are better descriptions.

LANL has serious problems with respect to its employees, typified by the treatment of Todd Kaupilla that resulted in the tremendous stress that cost him his life. Tony Andrade too? No one knows. How many others are out there that only time will tell us? I recently joined UPTE because I have a desire to see the LANL Good Old Boy/Girl network brought to its knees. I don't know that UPTE is up to the task, and they are taking on UC too, so the challenge is great, but what else is there? Can't we turn UPTE into the union we want, rather than reinventing the wheel?

How do we fix the LANL problem(s) now that the primary source of the stress is leaving?

I suggest we turn this blog into a focus on LANL improvement. Can we put together a more comprehensive improvement plan with the courage and insight of this large group of employees? We have a list of the things that LANL doesn't do well, can we get together a list of good steps to move forward in a positive way? It is clear to me that we are almost buried in bureaucracy and are sinking fast, but is it really too late? Can we take the efficiency project that Nanos has started and make it really be an efficiency project?

LANL scientists, in my opinion, resist safety and security activities because they are done so poorly, have little relevance to safety and security, and waste huge amounts of valuable time (how many 60-hour weeks can one work in a week?). After we get done with the training (useless) and the other bureaucratic requirements (read: nonsense), how much time is left to actually do experimental science? Or to bring in next year's funding for that matter?

If we don't get an organized voice in this contract competition, and get a seat at the table, then we deserve what we get, and it won't be pretty. Not only will we bring down LANL, but every business, school and real estate agency in Los Alamos will lose as the place turns into a ghost town as one blogger has already said.

Not quite brave enough to sign my name, but high on LANL and the blog!

From Anonymous:

A couple of years ago, when I still believed Pete Nanos had LANL’s best interests at heart, I sent him the following advice on LANL culture and management. The advice seems to be still applicable today. Perhaps the winning bidder will take this to heart.

Management areas that must be improved:

1. The absence of a strong program management function that provides third-party over-sight, reporting, and corrective actions for work packages that are in the early stages of trouble. The LANL program management function focuses on the beans of cost and schedule without addressing technical issues. Systems engineering is non-existent. This results in crisis management as technical problems fester and then finally bubble to the surface when they are very expensive to resolve.

2. The absence of a structured management development program to give people promoted from the technical ranks the “people tools” they need to do their jobs. There also does not appear to be a management succession plan to identify, develop, and promote well-qualified leaders into the management ranks. There is apparently no mechanism to identify under-performing managers and to offer them a face-saving exit when they don’t work out.

3. A culture of “collegiality” which is analogous to the Military Academy “Ring knockers.” People are reluctant to criticize their fellow workers because of the strong negative tribal consequences and risk of professional ostracism. This builds a “go along to get along” mentality where preserving the UC contract is the ultimate goal and hiding problems is the cultural response. You are not allowed to criticize someone who screws up. I don’t think you can build a culture of continuous improvement and customer focus in this climate.

4. A policy of hiring new grads and post docs with little or no industrial experience. As LANL becomes more involved in big iron engineering projects, people with industrial experience are more and more crucial to success. Hiring inexperienced people means you get to buy their learning curve.

Advice from the trenches:

1. LANL needs to manage their managers, rewarding those who are capable and moving aside those who are not. You need a face-saving mechanism to replace under-performing managers just as you replace under-performing TSMs.

2. Team Leaders and Work Package Leaders (first level managers) need more support and training. The senior management culture must respect their contribution while simultaneously providing the mentoring and oversight they need to keep out of trouble. Project management that focuses only on cost and schedule to the neglect of technical performance is a two-legged stool.

3. LANL needs to build a culture of engineering discipline. There is no apparent attempt at imposing the disciplines of systems engineering, formal specifications, peer reviews, or test and validation plans on product development. Part of it is the LANL prima donna mentality, and part of it is the emphasis on hiring people who have little or no real world experience (new grads and post docs). Emphasizing new grads and post-docs means you are always paying for the learning curve.

From Anonymous:

Can you believe this? I can't.


To:
Subject: ADWP_all@lanl.gov
From: seestrom@lanl.gov
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 15:41:07 -0600

Dear Colleagues-

I find it sad to write on the weekend after the University of California has announced the departure of the Laboratory Director. I know that many of you have taken offense at some of the actions or words of Director Nanos. It would be a very great mistake to assume the departure of the Director means that the changes he was trying to institute in the Laboratory were wrong. There is a need for change in Los Alamos, and that need for change will not change with the departure of this Director.

The change that is needed is to create a culture of accountability that extends from the Director and the Executive Board to each and every staff member. This does not mean punishing individuals for mistakes but rather making clear the expectations for each position - supervisor to worker - and then each of us delivering on the expectations that have been set for us. It means leaders clearly telling people when they are not meeting our expectations. For each worker - it means undertstanding what is expected of us, and doing our very best to live up to that expectation.

I and my colleagues on the EB need the help of each of you to make this culture change in Los Alamos. We are fighting years of history of lack of accountability, and we therefore have an uphill battle. Our customers and regulators do not have confidence in us - and it is not because they are bad or unfair - it is because we have not acted in a way to earn their confidence. Because of this we have built up a considerable bureacracy that does not necessarily help us to be safer or more secure. But to change this we must first begin to take personal sccountability for safety , security, and compliance.

I want to be very clear: I am not saying that the present problems are problems generated by the workforce - our problems are clearly the result of a failure of leadership over many years. But the entire workforce must engage to change this culture. I know that all of you are capable of this, that you are dedicated to the mission of this laboratory, and that you are willing to do what it takes to make us successful. I am asking your help to engage positively to move the Laboratory forward.

Susan



Susan J. Seestrom, Ph.D.
Associate Director for Weapons Physics
Mail Stop A106
(505)665-4454 fax (505)665-1293

I was moved by all the love and support displayed at the memorial service at Ashley Pond and the reception that followed. Todd had definitely made his mark in the lives of those who knew him there in Los Alamos. Todd and I go way back. We've been friends since the 9th grade. I was deeply saddened to learn of his death. My heart goes out to Sara, John, and Tia as well as Todd's parents, John and Marie, his brother David, and sister Diana. I'm sure the healing process will take some time for us all. I miss my friend Todd. Todd was a good friend to everyone that he called friend. That was his nature. I'm sure that the legacy that he leaves behind will encourage all those who knew him. A special thanks goes to John Horne for being there for Todd especially through the tough times. I'll always remember Todd's courage and hope to face my adversities as them come with the same tenacity. May God comfort Todd's family and friends during this time of mourning.

RonB

By Sue Vorenberg
Tribune Reporter
May 13, 2005

Lockheed Martin has found its partner in the big dance-off to run Los Alamos National Laboratory.

The University of Texas regents on Thursday authorized Chancellor Mark Yudof to finalize a partnership between the school and Lockheed to bid on the contract to operate the lab.

[...]

Full Story

Sara, Jon and Tia, Todd's parents -- may you feel the intense love and concern pouring your way. May you find the strength to grieve completely and to forgive the wrong of a few and focus energy on taking in the kindnesses of those who truly care for you.

I am extremely sad that Todd spent his last days in the grieving process he was unable to finish. I am sad that his death is, in part, a "tragedy of an internal uncontrolled management war", even though his career was spent testing the technologies to prevent a real war. Todd was always the first to admit that diplomacy was not his strength. However, his strength was his strength to plow forward finishing projects using his tenacity and problem solving skills. I personally have no respect for people who spend their time trying to win personality contests. I do respect creative thinkers, risk takers, and the intense energy it takes to get the job done!

l have to confess to being one of those folks afraid to speak up and speak out - AND admittedly, I am not sure speaking out really helps. Upper level managers aren't really listening as they are busy preserving and defending their own positions, watching other people do the work, and quarreling over who gets the credit. We all observe this behavior and are powerless to change it. Our only power is to change ourselves and possibly where we work.


Karen Warthen
MST-6
MS G770
Trust your intuition - always!

The memorial for Todd was quite moving. There were about 1,200 people present; a clear indication of how many friends and supporters that Todd and his family have. I wish Sarah, John and Tia the best of luck in this terribly difficult time.

Doug Roberts

From Anonymous:

The IM picture-taking fiasco turned out to be a non-event. Either there never was a work order issued as claimed, or there was, but somebody eventually realized how incredibly stupid it would be to use LANL resources to photograph the memorial service of a former LANL employee whom the late, but not lamented Director Nanos had thoroughly vilified. The response to the rumor, however, was quite telling. A violent response would have been the likely outcome had LANL photographers showed up. I begin to wonder what, if anything the new interim director can do to even start to earn back some of the trust that Nanos and his cronies destroyed during that past year. Monday starts a new week, with a presentation by interim director Kuckuck to LANL staff. It will be interesting to see what impression he leaves.

Nanos is gone, but his cronies still remain.

Doug,

I suggest any money in the "send Nanos to NY" (to apologize from the
windows of Macy's) fund be given instead to the family of Todd Kauppila,
if possible. I hope you can find time to figure out who controls this
fund and make that suggestion to them.

- Tinka

From Anonymous:

Good, now we have a competition.....

UT, Lockheed to bid on Los Alamos contract

Austin, TX, May. 12 (UPI) -- The University of Texas voted Thursday to authorize a joint bid with Lockheed Martin Corp. to manage the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

[...]

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050512-045034-4981r.htm

A memorial service will be held for Todd Kauppila at Ashley's Pond in Los Alamos on Thursday, May 12, at 4:00 P.M. A reception will follow at the Elks Lodge at 1600 Trinity Drive in Los Alamos. We want you all to come share in this celebration of Todd's life.

In lieu of flowers those who wish to do so may make donations to the Todd Kauppila Memorial Fund at the Los Alamos National Bank, account number 32268720.

John N. Horne

Submissions will wait in the queue until after Todd Kaupilla's memorial service.

--Doug

I have received several requests to re-think the moratorium on posts, and so I will make a few exceptions regarding important news. The following article(s) will be for that purpose.

--Doug

Your readers might find it curious that we just today received a work order
for photographs of the events around Ashley Pond tomorrow, 5-12. We were
instructed to "use discretion" and to try to capture as many faces as
possible.

Curious, no?

[From an IM Division employee]

ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor

A memorial service will be held Thursday afternoon at Ashley Pond for Todd Kauppila, a nuclear scientist who worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory for 21 years. The memorial service will be held at 4 p.m., followed by a reception at the Elks' Lodge on Trinity Drive at 5 p.m.

Kauppila died at the Los Alamos Medical Center Sunday at the age of 40.

[...]

Full Story

Dear Colleagues:

Today the University of California announced that it intends to partner with Bechtel National, Inc. to prepare a bid for the competition for the Los Alamos National Laboratory management contract. Contingent on the University of California Board of Regents deciding to compete, and the University winning the contract, this agreement also calls for UC and Bechtel to form a partnership to manage the lab on behalf of the Department of Energy. I believe the formation of this strong partnership places the University in the best possible position for a successful bid for continued management of this great institution. A UC-Bechtel partnership allows the excellence in science and technology to continue while management and operations are enhanced and strengthened.

The teaming agreement with Bechtel, I believe, is in the best interests of the nation, the Department of Energy, the laboratory and the University. Throughout their history, the UC-managed laboratories have achieved stunning scientific and technological successes, and I believe the University's presence plays a major role in fostering that tradition of superior science. I also believe that bringing together the academic, scientific, and technological expertise of the University with the project management, administration and business operations expertise of Bechtel is in the best interest of the nation and of the laboratory.

This partnership combines Bechtel's world-class program and project management, facilities management, safety and environmental management, and robust government business systems with the University's excellent scientific and technological skills. As part of the team, we will be joined by Washington Group International (WGI) and BWX Technologies, Inc. (BWXT). WGI is a leading provider of integrated engineering, construction, and management services to the Department of Energy. BWXT is the premier manager of complex, high-consequence nuclear and national security operations.
As you are aware, the partnership also includes a consortium of New Mexico institutions that will form the Advanced Studies Institute at LANL. These institutions include the University of New Mexico, New Mexico State University and New Mexico Institute for Mining and Technology. The agreement with these institutions solidifies the role of New Mexico universities as part of a bid to compete for the LANL contract.

For more than three decades, I have had a strong relationship with the UC-managed national laboratories, and I continue to be in awe of the scientific and technological work being done at the labs. I, for one, would like the university's association with the laboratories to continue, but I want to see the final request for proposals before an ultimate decision is made. My primary concern is how we organize ourselves to maintain and nurture the quality of science conducted at the lab, in a culture of strong operations and management.

It is important to note that the final decision to compete for management of LANL will be made by the UC Board of Regents and the Bechtel National Inc. Governing Board. I expect the Regents will make their decision once the final request for proposals has been disseminated and thoroughly reviewed.
The scientific accomplishments of the UC-managed laboratories are unparalleled, and the University's contribution is unique in creating and sustaining the environment that nurtured this success. Bechtel's philosophy and management style is not dissimilar from UC's public service model: strong commitment to employees and community; quality technology based on external peer review; openness and an unrestrained voice for laboratory scientists and managers; and a strong commitment to our nation's defense and the national interest. Together, I believe we can continue to provide our nation with the world-class science and technology that it has come to expect from these extremely valuable institutions.

As the competition process moves forward, I will be back in touch. If you have additional questions or comments, please email me at dynesdesk@ucop.edu. While I cannot respond to every message individually, I will address issues of broad concern on the UC laboratory employee website, in the Our University newsletter, periodic web chats, and through other means of communication.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation and your efforts to keep your institution at the forefront of research in the national interest.

Sincerely,
Robert C. Dynes

By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER

Two corporate powers of the nuclear world — Bechtel Corp. and the University of California — are expected today to announce a joint bid for management of the birthplace of the bomb, Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

The alliance brings the nation's largest research university and one of the world's largest engineering firms head to head in competition with teams headed by the nation's first- and third-largest defense contractors, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman.

Full Story

Jeffry Gardner: The sound of silence

Udall has had nothing to say about closing down Los Alamos Lab

By Jeffry Gardner / Tribune Columnist
May 11, 2005

Democrats in the United States House of Representatives are lining up to shut down Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Now, listen. Do you hear the congressman from New Mexico's 3rd District rising to the lab's defense? Me neither. The Democrat who represents that chunk of the Land of Enchantment, Tom Udall, who's never at a loss for words, is strangely quiet.

Full Story

I considered Todd a friend as well as a former co-worker. He will be missed by so many.

My prayers and thoughts are with Sara and the children. Thanks, Todd…it was pleasure working with you and knowing you.



Mary Luke

(Prescott, AZ)

Albuquerque Journal North
Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Scientist Fired in Missing Disks Case Is Dead

By Allison Majure
For the Journal

Former Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist Todd Kauppila, 41, who
was fired last year in a security scandal that shut the lab down for several
weeks, died at Los Alamos Medical Center on Sunday.

Kauppila, formerly an experimentalist and team leader at the lab's DX
Division, was fired in September over the apparent loss of two classified
computer disks that were later found to have been nonexistent. An inventory
error eventually was blamed.

Kauppila died of "hemorrhagic pancreatitis," Scott Wilson, associate
director of the state Office of the Medical Investigator, said Tuesday.

On Friday, Kauppila had publicly rejoiced over the resignation of lab
director Pete Nanos, the man who fired him.

"Every table is packed and the beer is flowing," he told The Associated
Press as he celebrated with fellow scientists at a Los Alamos eatery.

Kauppila's wife, Sara, told neighbors that he stayed in bed Sunday,
feeling dehydrated. Sunday evening she discovered him unconscious.

Kauppila said he was fired last year because he didn't immediately
return from a family vacation during a lab investigation into the two
classified computer disks. Kauppila claimed he was made a scapegoat over the
disks.

In a March interview, Kauppila described frustration that the University
of California was dragging its feet in dealing with his contesting his
firing.

Kauppila was without life insurance following the firing. Although he
began contract work for Keystone International on Jan. 20, the contract
position did not carry benefits.

"We are all waiting to do what we can to help the children and Sara in
what ever way we can," said Judy McKenzie, a teacher at Barranca Mesa
elementary school, where the Kauppilas' daughter Tia attends classes. "The
students are wanting to help too and they want Tia to come back."

Neighbor and friend Jane Clements has coordinated local support for the
Kauppilas. Boy Scouts, the Beta Sigma Phi Sorority and the Barranca Parent
Teacher organization will be providing meals.

"There has been a tremendous outpouring of support from many, many
people to provide meals, childcare and other support," Clements said.

LANL spokesman Jim Fallin said, "We want to offer our sincerest
condolences and sympathies to Todd's wife and children. During his tenure
Todd was a friend and colleague to many."

"Todd was an enigmatic guy and a brilliant scientist," said former LANL
co-worker Scott Watson.

University Professional and Technical Employees union steward Betty Ann
Gunther said, "I admired Todd deeply for his courage in such a difficult
position and for his ability to be good to people ... No one would have
suspected him of being, in any way, a poor performer. He was outstanding and
his friends will tell you that."

Contributions to the Kauppila family can be made payable to "Memorial
Fund for Todd Kauppila" Account 322687-20, Los Alamos National Bank, P.O.
Box 60, Los Alamos, N.M. 87544. For more information, contact Jane Clements,
661-6570.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

I have been a friend to Todd and his family,Sarah Jon and Tia, for many years. His passing Grieves me beyond belief. Todd, my friend and confidant has passed for no reason. He spent the last few months regrouping to make sure his family was O.K. The Pressure he was under must have been more than his family and friends could understand or not completly see. A strong man he was and he sends a statement that should grasped by all. His world renowned talents in science and dedication to his country should be truly recognized. I will truly miss my friend . Thomas L.Gravlin....Journeyman Machinist Group DX-5....Hydros are (YOU and Us)...God Bless You My Friend...Love Ya...

Thomas Gravlin

From a friend of the family:

I just returned from visiting with Sara. She’s holding up for her kids but is in shock as we would expect. She does have family with her now and some very helpful and concerned neighbors. Both scout troops that her children are involved with have offered their help and support with food etc. The sorority that we belong to will fill in with food as needed, there are 12 of us so that should last quite a few days.

Sara was actually the person who found Todd and called 911. They resuscitated him but it had been too long. She is extremely exhausted and needs rest. She would appreciated cards etc. from anyone but I do think she’s swamped with visitors. She sends her thanks to all who have called and is happy to know there are so many friends who are concerned.

She and the families are making some arrangements Tues. There may be a memorial service sometime but maybe not. Thanks again for all your support.

By Diana Heil | The New Mexican
May 10, 2005

In a restaurant on Friday, Todd Kauppila celebrated the news of Pete Nanos’ resignation as director of Los Alamos National Laboratory . “Every table is packed, and the beer is flowing,” he told The Associated Press.

[...]

Full Story

In 1623 John Donne wrote, "Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." Strange how these poignant words written so long ago echo this day among the still scarred canyons of Los Alamos.

I was saddened to hear of the passing of Todd Kauppila yet I have no real understanding of the intense weight that this man bore for himself, for his family, and for all who seek justice and fairness. His death is a death we share. The bell that tolls for him tolls for all each of us.

My heart and prayers go out for this brother and for his wife Sara and their children, John and Tia. I pray that in the quiet hours that will come, they will come to find the peace that passes all understanding.

Terry Hawkins

I, too, wish to express my deep sorrow at the loss of Todd Kauppila, a fine person, outstanding professional, and a person I am delighted to have had a chance to know. Todd was dedicated to his job at Los Alamos National Laboratory and worked sixty hour weeks to save a program that was in deep trouble. For his effort Todd received the LANL's Distinguished Performance.

I did not get to know Todd until after he left LANL, but I came to respect his strength in the face of adversity and his obvious talent. I also came to respect his friends, co-workers and team members, including John Horne. Clearly, Bechtel, recognized a fine employee when it saw one.

I will miss Todd, and I know his family and co-workers and friends will miss him deeply as well. It is not often that one meets such a fine human being and employee all rolled into one. I urge all LANL employees to keep Todd and his family in their hearts and minds, as I plan to do. It is important that we lend our support to his widow, Sarah, and his children, parents and brothers and sisters. They were terribly proud of Todd and loved him deeply. They will need our support for some time.

Sadly,
Betty Ann Gunther

There is to be a memorial fund set up for my neighbor Todd Kauppila and his
family at the Los Alamos National Bank.

Aloha, Todd, and Godspeed.

Khalil J. Spencer
1799 Camino Uva
Los Alamos, NM 87544
505-661-8141

Hi Doug, Here is some additional info regarding our friend Todd. You
might want to post this.....

Some of you may have worked with Todd on visits or conferences. He
was only 40 and had been fired from DX for the CREM (non) issue. His
wife works as a receptionist at the high school and doesn't make much,
as you can imagine.

Last night the Kauppila family lost their loving husband/father, Todd,
formerly of DX Division. He passed away suddenly due to a massive
heart attack.

Please lend your support and prayers to Sara, Tia, and John during
this sad time. There is a memorial fund set up for the family at LANB
(please see information below).

Account # 322687-20
Memorial Fund for Todd Kauppila

It is with great sorrow and a profound sense of loss that I must convey the following information.
At 11:00 P.M. on 08 May, 2005 my dear friend and mentor Todd J. Kauppila passed away at the age of 41.

Todd is survived by his wife Sarah, son John, daughter Tia, his father and mother John and Marie, sister Diana, and brother David.

Because of the support that so many of you have shown for Todd and his family over the last ten months, you should know that your thoughts and prayers have helped to sustain them. In the coming trials that they will face I know your continued prayers and assistance will be a blessing to them.

Todd dedicated his life to his family, whom he loved dearly, and to his science on behalf of the nation. He rose to be a world renowned leader in his chosen field. He served with pride and distinction knowing that the data that he collected was critical to the security of the nation that he loved. To those that knew him he was also a loving husband, father, and a devoted friend whose loyalty was beyond question. It is those qualities that will cause us to miss him the most. Todd was also deeply involved with local charities and veterans groups. Today this community and this nation are much poorer because of his passing.

I hope you will join me in praying that the Lord Jesus Christ will look after his soul and will ease the pain of this tragic loss for his family and those of us who knew and loved him.

Sincerely,

John N. Horne

Los Alamos director steps down

By David McGlinchey
dmcglinchey@govexec.com

The director of Los Alamos National Laboratory announced last week that he is stepping down after two years filled with controversy and troubling news from one of the nation's leading weapons research facilities.

[...]

Full Story

01:52 Domenici says he believes Robert Kuckuck will serve well as an
interim director at Los Alamos National Laboratory as the NNSA moves
forward with the process to award a new operations contract for the
lab.

02:47 Domenici says he is troubled by reports, factual or not, that
senior scientists are opting for early retirement because of
uncertainty over the LANL contract process. He stresses that all
employees will have at least six months after DOE lets a new contract
to decide whether the management plan is personally advantageous. He
encourages the media to carefully report on the contract process.

13:32 Domenici says he is not aware of any DOE and NNSA plan to
establish a permanent pit manufacturing facility at LANL. He says a
decision on creating such a facility has been put off, but that the
intent is not to place such a plant in Los Alamos.

15:18 Domenici says he does not see the federal government effort to
recover $14 million from the University of California for the
security shutdown last year as an effort to keep the University from
making a bid to retain the management contract at LANL.

16:18 Domenici says there's no question that the discord over the
LANL shutdown played a role in Dr. Pete Nanos decision to resign as
director of the lab. He says he believes Nanos believes he did what
had to be done for the lab and that it was time for him to move on.
Domenici says the laboratory and its mission are "bigger than the
grousers" who should get on board to restoring LANL's image as being
on the "high rung of the ladder of excellence."

From: Tegnelia, James (Jim) CIV, Director
Sent: Fri 5/6/2005 12:51 PM
To: DTRA-ALL
Subject: Dr. Pete Nanos joins DTRA Team!

I am pleased to announce that Dr. G. Peter (Pete) Nanos will be joining
DTRA in the next few weeks to help us plan and administer research and
development directions.  Dr. Nanos, a retired Navy vice admiral, is a
tremendous resource for the agency and we are most fortunate in being
able to tap his capabilities.
Dr. Nanos brings a wealth of science and technology experience to DTRA's
extant and new missions.  Prior to assuming the leadership of Los Alamos
National Laboratory, one of the nation's premier nuclear weapon
laboratories, he was LANL's principal deputy for Threat Reduction,
responsible for the Biosciences, Decision Applications, and
Nonproliferation and International Security divisions.    Dr. Nanos came
to Los Alamos from the U.S. Navy where he commanded the Naval Sea
Systems Command.

As DTRA continues to expand into new mission areas-especially with the
U.S. Strategic Command's Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction
assignment- I look forward to Pete's integration of science and
technology into our full-range of national security tasks.  He is not a
stranger to our mission, operations and many of our people.  He will
bring the same vision and sense of purpose that he has shown in each of
his previous positions.  His wealth of contacts in the Department of
Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, and the departments of
State and Defense will serve us well.

As I have said before, we have a lot of work to do to fulfill our
current mission and all future challenges, and to have Pete-a sailor,
scientist and patriot-join our team is an exciting addition.

Please join me in welcoming Dr. Pete Nanos to the Defense Threat
Reduction Agency!

James A. Tegnelia
Director

From Anonymous:

[...] I just read the New Mexican article on line about Nanos' upcoming transfer to Steve Younger's old DOD job (or something similar).

I went ballistic when I read Manny Trujillo's comments supporting Nanos and 
trashing the "prima donna" scientists. I believe that Trujillo has damaged any 
chance the union might have had to bring in any new LANL scientists. If these 
quotes are at all accurate, he should resign from the presidency of the union; 
if he doesn't do so, I am going to resign from the union in a very public way. 
Backstabbing of one group of LANL workers, who have endured the stress of Nanos' 
unwarranted shutdown, by another group of workers, who have also suffered, is 
unacceptable behavior for a union claiming to represent all of the workers and 
staff--I want no part of any such organization headed by such a person. Again I 
say, if these quotes are at all accurate, then Trujillo is no better than Nanos. 
They should go off to DOD together!

Douglas,

You guys and gals have done great work and I congratulate you on your success. I posted about you and your blog a second time here. If you get a chance I'd like you to read it. http://agonist.org/story/2005/5/8/201835/7126

Best wishes for the future.

Sean-Paul Kelley
Editor
The Agonist
www.agonist.org

_______________________________________________
Power Equals Responsibility
Sean-Paul Kelley | San Antonio | May 8

The Agonist - I've followed this story pretty closely over the last few weeks, even checking in at the blog from time to time. There is no question that this dedicated and patriotic group of employees utilized the power and anonymity of blogging to lay Nanos low. Everything I know about Nanos indicates he deserved what he got, too. It warms my heart to see these employees, honorable and partiotic lot that they are, actually made Los Alamos a better place.

All that being said, I worry that a more unscrupulous group of folks might someday soon attempt to do the same thing to someone else, someone utterly unlike Nanos. Perhaps a small clique of disgruntled employees who dislike a very effective and honorable boss will begin a whispering campaign of slander and libel. If (when) that happens, I promise it'll create an environment whereby managers cannot make any hard decisions and organizations will be run by people walking around on eggshells. How is something like this to be prevented?

Look, I'm not criticizing the folks at Los Alamos. What they did needed to be done. But I do fear they've opened a Pandora's box to people with less integrity and dishonorable intentions. And as much as I love blogging, it needs to be used responsibly, as the vast, vast majority of bloggers have used it. I'm just pointing out the obvious here. Any thoughts?

From Anonymous:

On the 9/80:A prompt return to 9/80 would be an easy victory for Director Kuckuck and a signaled return to normalcy. However, UCOP -- read that Admiral "Sly" Bob Foley-- has vetoed a return to the 9/80 for the foreseeable future. You'll hear about this brain infarction next week.

Numerous people have sent the following in reference to the LANL enterprise project. It has been repeatedly suggested that the LANL EP is a candidate for investigation regarding the costs of its development and value provided, and in fact it is listed on the "Running List of Wasteful Activities" sidebar link.

One comment listed there:

"Allowing a project such as the enterprise project to spend $200 million to install a system that will not deliver what it has promised to deliver. Giving that same project carte blanche to pay astronomical fees for contractors who have already proven that their greatest expertise is their ability to justify why they didn't deliver."

http://igor.parrot-farm.net/blog/dilbertenterprise.jpg

Please post. You can use my name: Stefan Wray

Beware of Univ. of Texas/Lockheed

You may not like the mismanagement of UC and want a new lab contractor,
but there is reason to be worried about the Univ. of Texas getting
involved. UT System sees one big reason for getting more involved in the
lab management business: money. At a recent UT System Regent's meeting,
there was clear ignorance on the part of Regents as to what actually takes
place at Los Alamos. Expect another absentee landlord looking for prestige
and government dollars.

Albuquerque Journal North
Sunday, May 8, 2005
Editorial

Nanos' Exit Good for Lab

EDITORIAL: Los Alamos National Laboratory director Pete Nanos is
stepping down next week— perhaps not coincidentally on the same day the new
lab management contract is expected to go out to bid. He was brought in
almost 2 1/2-years ago to tighten things up in the wake of procurement and
security scandals. Measured by journalists' crude standard— if you've made
everyone on every side of the story mad, you've probably got it about right—
Nanos could be said to have done a good job.

Lab employees, outraged when Nanos publicly characterized them as
"cowboys" and "buttheads" who couldn't be bothered to follow routine
security procedures, continue to complain loudly on the Internet about his
hard-nosed management style. Members of Congress, judging by Michigan
Democrat Bart Stupak's tirade on the subject Thursday, appear unconvinced
that the lab's problems can ever be fixed and are talking— surely only that—
about closing the place. Meanwhile, University of California officials, on
whose watch the scandals occurred, went into a snit when federal officials
questioned the wisdom of their 60-year monopoly on the lab management
contract and continue to play coy about whether they'll bid on the new one.

The problem, of course, is that making everybody mad may be good
journalism, but it isn't often good management. A retired vice admiral,
Nanos already had one strike against him when he took over— Los Alamos
scientists have resented military interference since the earliest days of
the Manhattan Project. And as Department of Energy officials found out when
they began talking about letting private industry take over running the lab,
those scientists correspondingly treasured their historic association with
the country's premiere intellectual institutions, including the University
of California, and were prepared to desert if the link was broken.

It remains to be seen who bids on the LANL management contract. But
Nanos' departure (for, appropriately, a Defense Department job) may augur
well for the future of the lab. So, too, his replacement, a veteran UC
administrator from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who may be
better suited to restoring collegiality on The Hill.

Doug, please post this article that I found on "The Agonist". The link is

http://www.agonist.org/story/2005/5/6/115315/9441

Thanks, Anonymous

Comments -
By Sean Paul in USA: Intel and Policy on Sat May 7th, 2005 at 10:10:24 AM PDT

From Anonymous:

“The Energy Department has questioned $14 million worth of shutdown costs as unallowable under its contract with the university. In an unrelated audit, the agency’s inspector general found that the Energy Department and the university miscalculated fixed payments allowed to government contractors for home office expenses. For the last five years, the overpayment has totaled $21 million and escaped the government’s attention in part because it never asked the university for itemized expenses, according to the inspector generals audit. For that same reason, the government never noticed that it mistakenly had agreed to pay $8 million in university operational expenses of no benefit to federal taxpayers.

Energy Department officials appear inclined to surrender any claim to the $21 million but may seek reimbursement from the university for about $880,000 in clearly unwarranted university charges to the government. These included $140,000 in costs for student recruitment and donations.”

Excuse me. Did I read this correctly? DoE, because of its sloppy oversight, let UC get away with $28 million in unallowable charges, and now doesn't intend to ask for them back…and Congress is going to let them get away with this?? Is there a sweetheart deal going on between DoE and UC? If so, just how fair is the lab recompetiton? You reporters out there reading this ought to follow this up. Something very, very fishy is going on in the DoE, and perhaps in Congress. Is there a quiet deal with the California delegation somewhere? If a company doing business with the government was found to have overcharged by $28 million, you better believe the GAO would want it back, with interest and perhaps even penalties. So how come the DoE gets away with it?

Which leads to another related question: Los Alamos Lab and the University of California have come in for a good deal of public criticism from Congress and others, some of it fair, some not. But conspicuously absent in this finger pointing has been the DoE. In the end, the DoE owns the lab, UC just managers it. So the DoE is ultimately responsible for the poor management of the labs, and has clearly been complicit in covering up problems there for years. And the DoE concurred on the long lab shutdown, which must have cost the taxpayers close to a billion dollars, though the DoE is trying to low-ball the costs by not counting everything. So how come no one is talking about firing the DoE staff that is supposed to have managed the lab and UC. How come no one is proposing closing down the DoE, who after all haven't invented anything of use yet?

Seems to me the real ire of Congress and the public ought to be focused on the DoE, where the buck really stops, rather than on UC and the labs.

What a beautiful day it will be
On the 16th of May when I see
Nanos driving away
In his Volvo of gray
But I grieve for the folks in D.C.

The most hated of men in LA
Will be leaving the 16th of May
We will all line the streets
As he leaves in defeat
Middle fingers held high on display

From Anonymous:

Doug,
I applaud your call to start working the issues. I
have been at the Lab for more than 20 years, and my
highest management position was Group Leader. I have
worked with many managers at higher levels, including
some EB members.

The first and foremost issue I see today is that group
leaders have lost their ability to lead, because their
budget has been moved up to the division, and they
don’t have any control over it. One of the things
that Nanos did right, when he first became director,
was to review in depth what the group leader role was.
Unfortunately, he didn’t follow through. I suggest
we resurrect that research and implement it ASAP.

The second issue is the Enterprise Project. We need
to ask why such a large investment is needed, at the
expense of science and infrastructure at the Lab. In
particular, to support the previous issue, it has to
allow for individual cost codes for groups.

Third – the overhead issue. Nanos cut down on
overhead but not on the overhead work. This causes
all sorts of possibly illegal cost accounting
shenanigans. We need a realistic overhead rate,
coupled with an effort to decrease overhead work.

Fourth – choose group, division and directorate
leaders who have demonstrated their ability to lead
people. Not “project leaders”, “program managers”,
etc. I think you know who I am referring to, but lets
start avoiding name calling.

Lets also recognize that running the Lab today demands
an immense amount of administrative work, and that
“chiefs of staff”, “special assistants”, “senior
advisors”, etc., are an unfortunate consequence. LANL
needs to work with DOE to decrease the requirements
that generated this busy work, but as long as the
requirements exist, these people need to be
appreciated like everyone else. (disclaimer: I am NOT
in any of these categories).

Now, lets have a FACTUAL discussion!

Thanks…

Step 1 has been accomplished, Director Nanos has resigned. Step two is now ahead of us: we must start performing damage control on what is left of LANL. I suggest that we begin by addressing the the items listed in the "Running list of wasteful activities at LANL". Much thought has gone into producing this list of all that is badly dysfunctional at LANL, and therefore it provides one starting point for us to collectively begin to repair that which is broken. If the new director decides to pitch in and help, so much the better.

In the coming days the focus of this blog will be reoriented towards a longer term set of goals. The time to review past mistakes, judgment errors and injustices, while not completely behind us, is now of secondary interest. At this point we need to regroup, and begin to plan our path forward. It is my intent to help focus the users of this blog towards that productive end.

--Doug

CAROL A. CLARK and ROGER SNODGRASS, lanews@lamonitor.com, Monitor Staff Writer

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., blasted Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Michigan, for being out of touch with the history and value of the Los Alamos National Laboratory during a telephone conversation this morning.

"Why do we have to have this lab?" Stupak asked Jerry Paul, Principal Deputy Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration during a House investigative hearing Thursday.

"How are you going to fix it?" he asked again later. "What is going to change with the new manager?"

Domenici said comments that Los Alamos should be closed because of problems were made by someone who doesn't know about what Los Alamos does.

While the laboratory has had some problems, Domenici said, "the problems are on the way to getting taken care of.

"The laboratory is the United States of America's science security blanket. While this lab does many things in the interest of national security, it is also our security against science breakthroughs that might adversely affect our people."

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., who sits on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said Thursday that Los Alamos has filled a significant role in national security since its creation as a top-secret World War II project to develop the atomic bomb.

"Anyone who would question the lab's importance clearly does not have an understanding of all that this lab has done and continues to do for the country," Bingaman said.

Domenici was also unhappy with the answers about the lab provided by the NNSA deputy administrator.

In answer to the question of how to fix the lab, Paul referred to an unfinished study that has been cited by NNSA Ambassador Brooks to justify a possible $3 billion cut in the weapons laboratory budget over a number of years.

"What is so special at LANL?" Stupak continued. "Why do we need Los Alamos? What can't be transferred some place else?"

Paul said an outside group was examining that question concerning the entire complex and its critical missions.

"Where do they need to be done and what are the critical missions that are needed?," he asked.

The study, commissioned by Rep. David Hobson, R-Ill., chair of the subcommittee that holds the pursestrings for the energy department, was due at the end of April, but Paul said it is now expected at the end of May.

Sen. Pete Domenici objected recently to funding assumptions based on a study whose conclusions had not been adopted.

"I was very disturbed by the quality of the representation by the NNSA (DOE). The gentleman who appeared seemed to me to be poorly equipped and grossly uninformed about the laboratory," Domenici said.

"How he could do such a terrible job of describing the value of the lab is beyond my understanding, and I will complain directly about that to DOE Secretary Samuel Bodman and NNSA Administrator Linton Brooks."

From Anonymous:

Hey Doug: I found this under the Diana Heil post "Nanos to Leave Top Job".
It's very telling and I think it deserves its own spot on the Blog.

Several bloggers were concerned that Nanos, like an evil cyborg, would hold grudges and retaliate from Washington. Please know that we in Washington know Nanos already. He fouled up his nest here before he fouled up his nest there. He has no friends here other than his family. Worry not and enjoy your victory. Congratulations on another job well done for the Nation's security. Los Alamos has written another chapter in deterrence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/national/01alamos.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/07/politics/07alamos.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/06/AR2005050600660.html
http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/apreax05-06-05.htm
http://www.abqtrib.com/albq/nw_science/article/0,2668,ALBQ_21236_3757327,00.html
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/world/11586525.htm
http://www.abqjournal.com/north/348535north_news05-07-05.htm?tease
http://lamonitor.com/articles/2005/05/06/headline_news/news01.txt
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nanos7may07,1,5284673.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/living/science/11589370.htm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/07/UCLABS.TMP
http://www.abqtrib.com/albq/nw_state/article/0,2564,ALBQ_19863_3760229,00.html
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/13503.html
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7772231/
http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=18654
http://www.webpronews.com/news/ebusinessnews/wpn-45-20050509NanosHandsInLosAlamosResignation.html
http://www.newsfactor.com/news/story.xhtml?story_id=02100000FK3I
http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?id=33253
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20050509/01

In my humble opinion, this blog would not have even come to existence, were it not for a poor decision by Jim Fallin last summer (whether he was under instruction from Nanos I couldn't tell). There is a lot of good stuff in this blog, along with the dirty laundry and the whining -- not so different from the Newsbulletin (except the spelling and punctuations are better in the Newsbulletin). I was shocked a few years ago to find that some of our high-level managers were "too busy" to read the Newsbulletin -- but that was how you find out what employees were thinking!However, should the bloggers take credit for Nanos's departure? I doubt it. His biggest limiting behavior is the lack of discipline: there is no check of his temper, his language, his thoughts; this lack of personal discipline would have gotten him sooner or later. I expect the wiser managers to find out what employees are thinking. Do not dismiss this blog as the whining of a few malcontents. Many loyal LANL employees have contributed to this blog with good intentions. The biggest lesson here for the wiser managers is this: do not try to take away anyone's freedom of speech. You can't, and you'll lose. Karen

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA APPOINTS NEW LABORATORY DIRECTOR

The University of California today (May 6) announced the appointment of Robert W. Kuckuck, a veteran in national laboratory management, a former National Nuclear Security Administration official and a leading expert in nuclear weapons testing and treaty verification technologies, as interim director of Los Alamos National Laboratory. UC President Robert C. Dynes, acting with the approval of U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman, appointed Kuckuck interim director, replacing departing director George Peter Nanos.

Kuckuck will take office on May 16, 2005, and is expected to serve through the remainder of the university's current contract to manage Los Alamos. Nanos will be stepping down to take a new position with the U.S. Department of Defense.

"Bob Kuckuck has the knowledge and expertise to provide strong leadership for Los Alamos," said Dynes. "His depth of familiarity with the laboratory, the university, and the missions of both institutions, as well as the National Nuclear Security Administration and the Department of Energy, makes him an excellent choice for this position.

"Bob's expertise in nuclear weapons and his fundamental understanding of how strong management and science must coexist in a national laboratory will be invaluable to the ongoing and important work of the lab."

A nuclear physicist who has taken on a variety of leadership responsibilities up to the highest levels of laboratory management, Kuckuck has extensive experience in the nuclear weapons complex having worked at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration.

In his more than 35-year career at Lawrence Livermore, Kuckuck held a number of management positions including deputy director of the laboratory from 1994 to 2001. Additional positions included assistant program leader, solid state lasers from 1975 to1977; assistant associate director for nuclear testing from 1977 to 1979; program leader for treaty verification research from 1979 to 1981; deputy division leader (diagnostics physics) from 1979 to 1982; deputy associate director for nuclear design from 1982 to 1984; and associate director for nuclear test and experimental science from 1984 to 1991. He began his career at Lawrence Livermore as an experimental physicist.

From 1992 to 1994, Kuckuck was special assistant to the University of California for laboratory management. From 2001 to 2002, Kuckuck was deputy administrator at the National Nuclear Security Administration with responsibility for internal operations and organization restructuring. After leaving NNSA in December 2002, Kuckuck was appointed senior advisor in the Office of Laboratory Management working on laboratory oversight issues.

"I am both honored and pleased to serve as director of Los Alamos National Laboratory," Kuckuck said. "The scientific and programmatic achievements of Los Alamos under UC management have been extraordinary. I look forward to working with these dedicated and capable people, many of whom have been my colleagues over the years."

Kuckuck received his Ph.D. in applied science from the University of California, Davis, his masters in physics from Ohio State University and his undergraduate degree in physics at West Liberty State College. In 2003, Kuckuck received the Department of Energy Secretary's Gold Award. DOE's highest honor, the award citation by Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham recognized Kuckuck for "superior leadership" and for "vision, dedication and commitment to excellence . . . that have directly resulted in the advancement of initiatives that are strengthening the nuclear security of the United States of America."


Kuckuck is married to the former Marilyn Kiger, and they have three adult daughters.

Dynes received approval for the interim action from UC Board of Regents' Chairman Gerald Parsky and chairman of the regents' Committee on Oversight of the Department of Energy Laboratories Peter Preuss.

As interim director of Los Alamos National Laboratory, Kuckuck will earn $355,800 annually and oversee an operation with a $2.2 billion budget and a work force of approximately 13,500. The director's salary, like that of all other UC employees at the laboratory, is paid from funds derived from the federal DOE contract. No general funds from the state of California are used to pay the director's salary.

LANL director Nanos to join U.S. Department of Defense

Nanos served as director of Los Alamos National Laboratory, first as interim and then as permanent director, for more than two years beginning in January 2003. He is stepping down to take a new position at the Defense Threat Reduction Agency for the U.S. Department of Defense in Washington, DC.

"Pete has done a remarkable job under extraordinary pressures and circumstances these past two years. He has been a stalwart agent of change at the laboratory," said Dynes. "His determination to move the laboratory forward, along with his commitment to excellence, have resulted in many notable and lasting improvements in virtually all areas of the laboratory's operations.

"Because of his strong leadership, the nation can be confident that Los Alamos is a stronger, safer and better-managed laboratory today. I wish Pete the best of luck in his new endeavor."

During his tenure, Nanos led Los Alamos National Laboratory through what some, inside and outside the lab, consider an unprecedented period of change, uncertainty and challenge.

In his two years as director, the laboratory completely revamped its business models and procurement systems, overhauled its overhead rates, reducing costs associated with scientific research, reshaped the lab's organizational and management structure to improve performance and productivity, reestablished the nation's ability to manufacture PITs, took aggressive steps in support of reinvigorating basic and applied scientific research in all areas, restarted waste shipments to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in southern New Mexico, completed a comprehensive waste management agreement with the New Mexico Environmental Department, re-energized the lab's presence and partnerships with surrounding communities and pueblo governments, restructured and strengthened the lab's security and emergency response posture, enhanced its involvement in our nation's scientific and foreign assistance programs abroad, and re-engineered its data sharing and information management systems.

During this same period, the laboratory continued to distinguish itself in the fields of basic and applied research, capturing numerous national and international science awards including eight R&D 100 Awards in 2003, eight American Physical Society Awards in 2003, five R&D 100 Awards in 2004 and three E.O. Lawrence Awards from DOE in 2004.

Nanos' insistence on development of a standardized common set of overarching management principles ultimately led to the adoption of five critical management priorities -- safety, security and compliance; national security mission; science in support of the lab's mission; business management and community partnerships.

Acknowledging his primary responsibility to ensure safety and security of the lab, Nanos suspended all laboratory operations in July 2004 following a series of safety and security related incidents. He then personally managed and directed one of the most comprehensive and complex restart programs ever conducted within the Department of Energy's complex.

"It has been a sincere honor to work at this most prestigious laboratory. While there have been many challenges, I believe there have been many more successes, not so much because of what I may have done, but because of the men and women who care so much about this great institution," said Nanos. "It is they who deserve all the credit for what has been done here and it is they, the laboratory's staff, who will always have my deepest and most heartfelt respect an