Saturday, April 30, 2005
LANL Blog in the news
Doug:
Thought you might like to see this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/national/01alamos.html?pagewanted=1&oref=login
  May 1, 2005 |
At Los Alamos, Blogging Their Discontent
| |
blog rebellion among scientists and engineers at Los Alamos, the federal government's premier nuclear weapons laboratory, is threatening to end the tenure of its director, G. Peter Nanos.
Four months of jeers, denunciations and defenses of Dr. Nanos's management recently culminated in dozens of signed and anonymous messages concluding that his days were numbered. The postings to a public Web log conveyed a mood of self-congratulation tempered with sober discussion of what comes next.
"Some here will celebrate that they have been able to run the sheriff out of Dodge," Gary Stradling, a veteran Los Alamos scientist who is a staunch defender of Dr. Nanos, wrote Tuesday on the blog.
"It might be a good idea," he added, "to shut down the celebration and form a work party to clean up Dodge City, because the new sheriff will if we do not."
The blogging comes at a delicate moment in the 60-year history of Los Alamos. The University of California, which has helped run the lab for the federal government since the days of the Manhattan Project, faces close scrutiny in Washington as to whether its contract should be renewed. And resignations and fears of a mass exodus have recently roiled the waters. Some analysts believe that now, given the public outcry, the lab will have to abandon Dr. Nanos in order to make a tenable bid to keep its contract.
Dr. Nanos would not comment. A spokesman for Los Alamos, Kevin Roark, said false rumors of the director's resignation had circulated for months. Mr. Roark added that Dr. Nanos was extraordinarily proud of what he had accomplished at Los Alamos, which employs 14,000 people on an annual budget of $2.2 billion. He called the vitriolic blogging unrepresentative of the majority of employees and said it often had the tone of a sophomoric Halloween prank.
"Everybody, I think, was a little surprised at how mean it got," Mr. Roark said.
Several outside experts said that the director's quick departure was inevitable and that the blog's attacks were playing a significant role.
"Nanos is leaving," said Greg Mello, director of the Los Alamos Study Group, a private organization in Albuquerque that monitors weapons laboratories. "The blog changed the climate, giving people an outlet they didn't have before."
Blogs seem to be everywhere. But this one is unusual, in that the Los Alamos National Laboratory, isolated in the mountains of New Mexico, has a long history of maintaining the highest level of federal secrecy. The lab's very existence was once classified. Today, barbed wire rings many of its buildings, federal agents monitor its communications, and its employees are constantly reminded that loose lips sink ships.
The blog (www.lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com) went public in January and since then has registered more than 100,000 visits, with more than half a million pages viewed and more than 5,000 comments. Discussions run on a variety of topics, from the sanctity of retirement benefits to the likely identity of the next contractor who will run Los Alamos.
Since most messages are anonymous, there is no way to know how many lab employees contribute to the blog. Even so, from the sheer volume, detail and differing styles of the messages, the number is clearly many more than a handful. The language, often studded with obscure acronyms, suggests that the authors have a deep knowledge of the lab's exotic culture.
Furious debate centers on Dr. Nanos, a retired vice admiral of the Navy who holds a doctorate in physics from Princeton and became the lab's director two years ago. Many bloggers criticize his decision to shut down most of the laboratory last July, when he cited "egregious" safety and security violations after two computer disks with secret information were reported missing and an intern working with a laser suffered an eye injury.
The security alarm turned out to be a clerical error - the disks, in fact, never existed. Still, Dr. Nanos kept many lab areas closed for seven months, until late January. During that time, lab personnel worked on improving safety and security.
Dr. Thomas J. Meyer, a distinguished chemist and a member of the National Academy of Sciences who oversaw 2,000 employees as head of the lab's strategic research, resigned in October during the shutdown and afterward filed a long critique of the episode and the director's acts.
"He chose to transfer blame and intimidate individuals even with a staff that was often attempting to implement difficult and complex safety processes," Dr. Meyer said in his critique, which was posted on the blog. He called the director's treatment of lab employees "vindictive and abusive."
A banner atop the blog site sets the tone, asserting that the shutdown cost taxpayers "approximately $850 million, an exodus of highly talented staff members, and the loss of untold millions of dollars of funding from customers who have taken their business elsewhere."
Lab officials say the shutdown probably cost $120 million, and federal officials recently put the figure at $370 million.
Mr. Roark, the Los Alamos spokesman, acknowledged that the lab was worried about a recent spike in retirement inquiries. "We're not anticipating a mass exodus," he said. "But that doesn't mean we're not concerned about the possibility. We are."
The blog's creator is Doug Roberts, a computer scientist who is a 20-year lab veteran. In an interview, he said he was inspired to start the blog when he and his colleagues had their critical submissions to a forum on the lab's online newspaper rejected.
Mr. Roberts said it was impossible to know how many lab personnel contributed to the blog, since it was set up to protect their identity, if so desired. He estimated the vocal population at 200 to 500 employees.
The blog runs a petition for Dr. Nanos's removal; it has garnered more than 100 signers, although most have concealed their names.
One who signed openly in February was Dr. Brad Lee Holian, a theoretical physicist who worked at the lab for 32 years. He retired a month later.
"People were feeling like they were in a pressure cooker," Dr. Holian said in an interview last week. "Nanos is so abusive, not just to the general staff but his underlings. People were afraid to say anything. On the blog they could vent without fear of reprisal."
Jeff Jarvis, who publishes BuzzMachine, a blog that focuses on media issues, said the Los Alamos site showed "a new ethic of transparency" that has come with the explosion of electronic self-publishing.
"It's not just the power of the blog," Mr. Jarvis said, "it's the power of the citizen."
The battle over Dr. Nanos comes as the University of California is considering whether to bid to renew its contract, which expires Sept. 30. Two leading space and military contractors, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, have announced an interest in running the lab.
Chris Harrington, a university spokesman based in Washington, denied that Dr. Nanos was about to resign and defended him as "clearly understanding the mission of the lab."
Mr. Harrington added, however, that the university is doing "a thorough review" of its management options for a possible bid on the new contract.
John Schwartz contributed reporting for this article.
Corporate carcinoma
The effects of a massive retirements are compounding. First, the institution loses a significant fraction of its total corporate knowledge. Say that 2,000 people leave with 25 years of experience, 50,000 person years represent a lot of experience walking out the door. Included in that number will be almost everyone who has felt the ground heave under their feet following a nuclear weapon explosion underground. Second, because of the time required to get employees vetted for their security clearances (now running up to two years in some cases but averaging over a year) the organization has no way of transferring that corporate knowledge to the next generation of employees. These employees will have to live on overhead or do meaningless work for that period. Third, the current policy advocated and implemented by Director Nanos will prevent retirees from being called back to work at the Laboratory to mentor and accomplish or close-out critical work. This process is sometimes called "corporate carcinoma" because productive cells leave faster that they can be replaced and remaining cells feed on resources without being productive enoungh to provide a net positive influence on the survival of the organism. This disease is sometimes caused by excessive draining of swamps.
Is the champagne I polished off last night a waste of time?
This is from the previous post reciting a NY times article.
Posting Guidelines
To date I've been fairly lenient in enforcing the posting requirements for this blog (on topic and professional) choosing to err on the side of leniency at times to avoid casting a pall of censorship on this forum.
Starting from this point, however, I will be a bit more strict. If this blog is to continue to be of value, then it needs to mature somewhat. Reread the sidebar link entitled "Posting Guidelines" to refresh your memories on what is acceptable, please, and help to keep the dialog on a constructive course.
Thanks,
--Doug
Why does Nanos continue to be protected?
Doug:
This comment is from the "See You Later" post further down on the blog. I think it raises a good question: Why does Nanos continue to be protected?
"The troubling aspect of this whole scenario at LANL seems to be that the director has been allowed to "punish" employees for absolutely ANY kind of reason.And no one interfered. Dr. Tinka Gammel's very public account of her lawsuit against him as her next-door neighbor should make all of us pause and wonder about GPN's troubling behavior.Dr. Gammel is a brave woman. She refused to be bullied by the director, even though he is her next-door neighbor. She has to see her tormentor on a regular basis.
How many people knew the REAL STORY about that incident?
Nanos has been allowed by DOE, our delegation, NNSA and UC to continue his tirades against innocent employees even though they knew that GPN himself had broken many of LANL's rules.Who has been covering up for him?
Betcha' there are some REAL interesting stories out there re GPN that have not yet seen the light of day? Who will be brave enough to share them?
I would be interested in knowing what the psychologists at UC think of the director's unusual behavior toward ANYONE who did not agree with him on EVERYTHING!
Why is this man still being protected so much and for what reason? Is he a national treasure?
Our previous directors may have not been perfect, but I do believe they loved their community and respected the people who worked for them. No one ever accused them of covering up their mistakes!"
Rocky II?
An additional insight should have been included in the previous comparison of the LANL suspension of work to the Rocky Flats shutdown. In December 1989, the FBI suspended Rocky Flats nuclear pit production work for conducting operations contrary to EPA regulations. This followed a number of serious and highly visible safety problems at Rocky Flats. The suspension was an attitude adjustment to a previously view of the nuclear weapons community that the nuclear weapons activities were too important to be constrained by environmental laws. Energy Secretary James Watkins had been in office since the spring of that year. He was a former naval nuclear submariner, former Chief of Naval Operations. The fact that Rocky Flats plant was midway through production of the primer Navy SLBM nuclear weapon, the W88, did not result in the resumption of operations. Rocky Flats never came back up. The cost is inestimable, but exceeds $ billions.
The multiple parallels between Rocky Flats experience and LANL\u2019s recent history surely did not escape Director Pete Nanos in the summer of 2004. A retired admiral, former director of Navy's Strategic Systems Programs (SSP), was at SSP during the Rocky Flats debacle and much of his effort there was to compensate for the failure of DOE to deliver the complete W88 build. Think again what was on the battle screen of this leader, in the middle an aggressive maneuver to turn LANL around, when he made the decision to suspend operations. (You can imagine the pressure that resulted in his frustrated characterization of those few who jeopardized LANL thru their irresponsible actions.) We are operating again. And yes, I think he deserves a lot more credit than some here give him.
Gary (yet again, sigh)
Retirements Up Sharply at Los Alamos
Retirements Up Sharply at Los Alamos
Journal Staff Writer
Los Alamos National Laboratory is projecting a 50 percent increase in retirements this year as a higher than usual number of scientists and technicians close to retirement age opt for the security of their current pension plan rather than to wait and learn what the next lab manager has to offer.
As of Monday, nearly 2 percent of the laboratory work force, or about 146 workers, had completed its retirement paperwork. That figure is already more than half of the 251 workers who retired during all of last year.
LANL spokesman James Rickman said it is difficult to attribute any causes to the projected increase, but he did say feedback from workers preparing to retire suggests that their decision is at least partly in response to the uncertainty posed by LANL's pending contract competition.
Current LANL projections based on retirements thus far estimate that about 380 employees, or 4.6 percent of the 8,225-employee work force, will file for retirement by year's end, Rickman said.
He said LANL will have a more accurate projection by June, when the largest number of retirements normally occurs due to an annual cost-of-living adjustment that becomes effective that month.
For the past two years, the average annual work force retirement rate has been 3 percent, Rickman said.
After more than 60 years as LANL's manager, the University of California must now decide if it will compete to regain the weapons lab's contract. Then-Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced in April 2003 his decision to put the LANL contract out for bid after a series of financial and security management problems.
The university's contract expires at the end of September, but so far, its Board of Regents hasn't made a decision about whether to compete for the contract, though spokesman Chris Harrington said the school is preparing as if it will.
He said a decision may come as early as the school's next regents meeting in May.
In March, Sens. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., expressed their strong concerns that uncertainty from the competition process could provoke a "mass exodus" of LANL's most senior scientists who chose retirement to maintain their university benefits.
LANL employees are eligible for retirement beginning at age 50. Rickman said the average age of the entire work force is slightly more than 46 years old. Of the 3,361 LANL scientists, about 1,350, or 39 percent, are 50 years old or older, he said. Of the lab's technicians, about 630, or 34 percent, are 50 years old or older.
Friday, April 29, 2005
See you later
Gary can say what he may. However, I say in response to Pete being fired: "See you later butthead!" You have done more to destroy the economy of northern New Mexico and, indeed, national security than any person in the history of Los Alamos.
Fact: this accident did happen
Was having to assess our Laboratory operations this past year necessary? Every story usually has an alternative viewpoint.
I participated on the laser accident investigation team. I could not believe what I was told regarding the accident - here was a Principal Investigator operating a Class IV Nd:YAG laser system (high peak power invisible, infrared radiation) without wearing laser protective eyewear! This action conflicts with the most basic rule of laser safety. Operation included running the system to produce laser light, not just pulsing flashlamps with an inactive Q-switch.
Finding someone who would operate a Class IV laser system without protective eyewear was bad enough. What scared me more, however, was that a few other coworkers/ colleagues shared his safety philosophy with respect to laser operations. The way I read the rules, I cannot even be at my computer station off in some corner of the lab without protective laser eyewear while a Class IV system is running in spite of any confidence I might have in how well the beams are managed. In the case of this accident the laser light was poorly managed.
How do we discover these egregious safety behaviors before they result in accidents? Fact: this accident did happen; among the Laboratory laser community we found somebody who would operate a Class IV laser system without protective eyewear. I ask myself if there are like minded workers out there who are in a position to compromise safety, security, procurement, environmental compliance, (pick your favorite topic)…
At least some degree of self assessment was warranted. I submit these opinions as a private citizen. Hopefully they add another perspective to “the real story”.
Thomas P. Turner
A few observations
I would like to conclude my interactions on this forum with a few observations, then I will turn in my soap box.
o
LANL is no longer a reservation for the free-ranging, wild scientist. The Laboratory reminisced about by Harold Agnew, Stirling Colgate, Ben Diven and Jay Wechsler in the Operation Castle discussion required responsibility and competence without a lot of oversight. The stakes were high, the mission was urgent and was not controversial. We work in a different world.
o
Note, someone has to develop regulations and IWDs. They can make sense and be efficient, or not. We cannot stand back and wait for "someone else" to solve our operational and process problems. "Someone else" may make it worse. It is better to engage in the process, thinking thru what is needed and proposing efficient and effective language. Our continual and positive engagement in solving our problems to improve our processes (like travel, IWDs, procurement, safety, security, etc.) is termed "Quality" management and includes us. (To the many remarkable scientists here: You are awesome. But really smart and powerful people learn the processes and interactions required to accomplish their mission, not just stand back and take pot shots at others because things did not miraculously happen.) It is complicated and will take time. Our process refinements have lagged the changing requirements, but good, dedicated people are working this issue. I have hope, not cynicism, for the success of the Enterprise Project. Be patient as the bugs are worked out. Do not be cynical or discouraged. We can do this!
o
o
Some of you disbelieve that the nation could do without LANL and your particular project. You cite the pit mission, the LANL weapons in the stockpile, the long tradition of great LANL science, the entitlement of Northerner NM, etc . Reread the bullet above. Our adversaries are diverse, but are equal-opportunity. Rocky Flats was the only pit manufacturing facility in the nation when it was shut down for doing what it had always done. We have a bunch of good guys here from Rocky. Ask them how unbelievable their experience was. I understand that a few years ago Brookhaven National Lab's contract was changed over a safety problem, across a weekend, retroactive to the previous Friday. If you think that LANL could be immune to a similar action, you do not understand these things:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
(The caterer and the errant cart of food was NOT part of an undercover surveillance team trying to identify malcontents ;-). It was just an ARAMARK mix-up.)
o
I appreciate the many e-mails and personal discussions thanking me for adding a thoughtful and positive dimension to this blog. I particularly thank those here who have weighed in to counter ad hominem attacks. My arguments stand or fall on their own. Separate out the man and the issues. Lets deal with the multifaceted, multilayered issues within our reach.
Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem)
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favorable outcome. Or a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps. This usually occurs when the antagonist is emotionally but not cerebrally involved. Should never happen at Los Alamos.
The future
To the people who would like a good future for the Lab, please take some time to help it occur.
Respectfully,
Eric
Welcome to LANL
Doug,
I would like to see this comment from the "There is good news" thread elevated to a top-level post.
Thanks.
Glenn:
Welcome to LANL. A couple of suggestions for you to consider:
1) Any "tribute" to Nanos will backfire. Tell it like it is.
2) The "stealth" thing isn't working. Best to come out of the closet. UC looks more foolish by the day in their attempts to perpetuate the pretense that Nanos is still running things at LANL.
3) Take a lesson from the Nanos regime: Openness is good, secrecy, censorship, and lies are bad.
Texas Takes 2nd Look at Lab Contract; University, Lockheed Martin Might Team Up
Friday, April 29, 2005
Texas Takes 2nd Look at Lab Contract; University, Lockheed Martin Might Team Up
By Brandi Grissom
The Associated Press
AUSTIN— The University of Texas System has renewed interest in managing the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
In February, UT System Chancellor Mark Yudof recommended the system drop pursuit of a management contract for the nation's largest nuclear lab after a series of security breaches and after UT officials failed to find a corporate management partner.
Since then, Lockheed Martin, a likely management partner, has revived its intent to bid.
"Lockheed Martin's withdrawal as a potential partner in the bidding process for Los Alamos was a factor that weighed heavily in my earlier recommendation to forgo a potential bid," Yudof told regents at a meeting Thursday.
The system already has partnerships with Lockheed in research at Sandia National Laboratories, which Lockheed Martin manages for the Department of Energy.
UT regents heard testimony Thursday from those who support and oppose the system's possible involvement with the lab where the first nuclear bomb was developed more than a half century ago.
UT System spokesman Michael Warden said regents may opt to make a decision about whether to compete for the contract at their next regularly scheduled meeting in May or wait for DOE to issue a final request for proposals, expected May 15.
In the meantime, he said UT System officials are discussing a potential partnership with Lockheed Martin.
Supporters of a UT bid, including Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Gov. Rick Perry's deputy chief of staff, Phil Wilson, say the research and economic opportunities the lab could provide would be invaluable to the UT System and Texas.
Opponents, including state Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, want the system to back away from a partnership they say is tantamount to promotion of nuclear armament.
In July, UT officials formally expressed interest in a contract to manage Los Alamos. The federal nuclear weapons lab has been operated by the University of California System since it was established in 1943. The Department of Energy opened bidding on the contract after security and management problems.
The original contract with Los Alamos would have required the system to manage the entire workings of the lab where much of the nation's top-security weapons research takes place. The DOE is expected to change the contract, allowing for corporate management with academic oversight of research.
"This model in which industry is the managing partner and academia conducts research is the approach most likely to lead to satisfactory resolution of past problems and, more importantly, generate spectacular success in the future," said Bob Barnhill, UT System vice chancellor for research and technology transfer.
Neal Lane, a Rice University professor who has done work at Los Alamos for the past 30 years, said the UT System could reshape the embattled facility with a quality work force and emphasis on research.
"It's essential that a major university like the University of Texas have a leading role in guiding the laboratory in order to ensure the science remains among the very highest priorities of the laboratory," Lane said.
UT Austin President Larry Faulkner said the focus of officials deciding whether to pursue the Los Alamos bid should not be the opportunities it may provide to UT but rather the system's duty to the country.
"The nation needs a solution at Los Alamos," Faulkner said, "and that solution will involve some linkage to the academic world if it is to be effective."
Karen Hadden, chairwoman for Peace Action Texas, told the regents they should take a stand against nuclear weapons proliferation rather than participating in their development.
"Our role in the world should be to help take these weapons out of existence," she said.
Burnam downplayed the research and job opportunities that might be created, saying the danger of nuclear weapons created there far outweighs any positive results that might come from managing Los Alamos.
He called for more openness in the UT System's decision-making process and requested reports on the fiscal impact a role in management of the lab could have on UT.
"This process is lacking, and the product is dangerous," he said.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
There is good news,
There is good news, and there is not-so-good news. The good news, of course, is that Nanos has definitely left the building. The other news is that he has found, or is in the process of finding a new job. Are you ready?
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/theme_home6.jsp
That's right, DHS in the Threats and Protection department. RUMINT has it that if he has not already done so, he is about to snag a high-level position there. Why is that bad news? Well, of course it is bad news that there is someone out there foolish enough to hire Nanos into another high-level position. No surprise, I suppose, that he found that fool inside DHS. The other reason that this is bad news is that (wait for it) DHS is one of LANL's customers. Yep. Nanos will still be our boss in a certain sense. Perhaps in no small sense if he gets his vengeful mitts on LANL's portion of DHS's budget.
One more item: our new stealth Director, Glenn Mara, has an email address: gmara@lanl.gov. I only mention this because I know many of you would like to make suggestions to him regarding the wording of Nanos' tribute, which I expect Mara (maybe we need to think of him as our interim interim Director) or Kuckuck (our interim Director) to deliver mid-May.
When can you retire from Lockeed?
At LANL/UC when you reach 50 you can retire if you have 5 years of service (to get medical too you need 10 years). Very very nice benefit for people who came from other companies.
Conversely, Lockeed makes you work for ever!
From rip2003.pdf (google "rip2003.pdf sandia"):
You are eligible to retire with a service pension when you meet both the
following minimum age and term of employment requirements:
Minimum
Age
Any age
50
55
60
65
I was planning on retiring at 50. With Lockeed, I will have to work 10 more years before being eligible for retirement. Yuck!
Lockheed expands its reach
Giant military contractor brings story of success to Albuquerque
By James W. Brosnan
Scripps Howard News Service
April 28, 2005
WASHINGTON - The nation's largest military industry contractor traces its heritage to the days when aviators in rickety biplanes made a living selling rides for $5 a head at carnivals. When Lockheed Martin Corp. stockholders meet in Albuquerque today, they will review the performance of a company with $35.5 billion a year in sales and 130,000 employees. [...]
More money sits on company's horizon
By Mike Tumolillo
Tribune Reporter
April 28, 2005
Lockheed Martin's top executives told a small group of shareholders today what they already knew: The company made a great deal of money in 2004 and will likely make more in 2005. Speaking at the annual shareholders' meeting at the Sheraton Uptown Hotel this morning, President and Chief Operating Officer Robert Stevens summed it up by saying, "Our outlook for the future is very bright." [...]
WHAT'S YOUR PENSION AT SANDIA/LOCKMART?
From Anonymous:
WHAT'S YOUR PENSION AT SANDIA/LOCKMART (AT FUTURE LANL/LOCKMART?)?
Following is extracted from rip2003.pdf (google "rip2003.pdf sandia")
Pension=(highest average pay over 3 years)*(retirement age factor)*(service credit)
The key differential numbers are the "retirement age factor" numbers for
Sandia vs Lanl. I've extracted them below from rip2003.pdf and from the Lanl
Retirement Handbook, the third column is the ratio of Sandia/Lanl expressed
as a percentage i.e. (Column2/Column3)*100.
Age Sandia Lanl Ratio
50 1.04% 1.11% 93.6
51 1.12% 1.24% 90.3
52 1.20% 1.38% 86.9
52 1.28% 1.52% 84.2
54 1.36% 1.66% 81.9
55 1.44% 1.80% 80.0
56 1.52% 1.94% 78.3
57 1.60% 2.08% 76.9
58 1.68% 2.22% 75.6
59 1.76% 2.36% 74.5
60 1.84% 2.50% 73.6
It seems that based on the above info, that Sandia/Lockmart (Lanl/Lockmart?)
retirement benefits ranges from 93.6 to 73.6% of Lanl/UC, and gets progressively
worse with employee age. If sick leave is not converted to service credit at
Sandia/Lockmart as it is at LANL/UC then that's another loss. The Lanl COLA
issue (retire by July 1, lock in 4% more) has been discussed already.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not a benefits rep, nor otherwise expert, and am offering a
strictly personal opinion about some publically available information. No one
should take action based solely on the numbers or discussion above, they
should seek out and independently verify facts on their own.
UT System reopens talks on bid for Los Alamos
What should I, my friends, my group, or my division be doing now?
After a phone call discussion with Doug, he suggested that the following might be useful to readers of this blog. I apologize for its length. There seemed to be a lot to include.
I am an ex-LANL technical staff member (biophysics and molecular biology) who now runs a small business consulting and contracting with pharma and biotech. I am broadly trained in biology, chemistry, mathematics, computer science, programmatic efforts, human relations, management, business development, and teaching.
Last year, I was asked to apply for the open division leader position in B division. As part of my due diligence, I asked myself “If I am offered the job, should I take it?” This analysis led me to create 5 year strategic plans for B division, a number of other divisions, and the Lab as a whole. Since I have written a number of business plans complete with detailed financial spreadsheets, I tried to write similar things for the Lab.
My main questions were:
- What is a best prediction of the structure of the Lab in 5 years?
- What should I or colleagues be doing now to protect ourselves?
- Should any of us plan on being here in five years?
Last fall, my answers (many, many pages of analysis) focused on the forces affecting entire divisions and the Lab as a whole. Last winter, my answers started to include expected behaviors of potential bidders and of politicians during the recompete and its aftermath.
In the last month, following a number of phone calls whose essential message was “Get me out of here!”, I have started to focus this analysis on credible strategies for individuals and am helping some colleagues (new hires, mid career, and retirees). Some people’s best strategy is to stay here. Other people’s best strategy is to be prepared to leave but not to leave right now. For certain folks, leaving now is a good idea.
So far, for most individuals, I have had 70% solutions. I already know about 70% of what they need to know to plan for their future and that of their family. I have credible predictions about the future of their funding, their division, often their group, and a number of benefit issues. I do not yet have the detailed individual fine tuning that would allow me to include a person’s wishes about living in the mountains, continuing to work with particular colleagues, putting their children through school, etc. However, it does not take much time to do this fine tuning, case by case.
In response to the ‘Get me out’ phone calls, I have started to offer a flexible service that resembles a strategy planning service and a placement service. Among the things I have offered to individuals and groups are:
- Future analysis – Quantitatively, where does my group or division seem to be headed.
- Hedging analysis – What should a person (or group) do now to protect their career and retirement
- Placement analysis – What employment opportunities might exist outside the Lab. This analysis relies on my 3,600 active contacts in the
- Resume writing – Many lab staff have not written resumes in years. I write them constantly and can help others.
- Actual placement – Headhunters and others call routinely looking for talent. With headhunters I get paid by the company for finding a person to fill a need. If I am paid by the person, then I find a good place for them to go.
- Business issues – Does leaving the lab and trying to start a business locally make any professional sense for a particular person.
- Intellectual property issues – Some people have what they consider to be valuable intellectual property. Together we assess its value and how to develop it.
I can’t afford to offer these services for free. (My landlord expects me to pay the rent every month. ;-) ) I can offer them at reasonable rates. Since I am not funded by any government agency, I can work, without conflict of interest, for best interests of the person instead the best interests of a sponsor.
The rates resemble Federal Express rates. For instance, I know how long it takes to upgrade a resume. I charge hourly rates for the appropriate number of hours. If you want the revised resume in a month or two, the hourly rates are low. If you want the resume tomorrow morning, the rates are much higher. If you want the resume later this afternoon, treat me really nicely.
If such analysis might be of use to you or your friends or if you just want more details, please contact me.
505-662-3115
Hanging Separately
August 2, 1776 - When Benjamin Franklin signed the Declaration of Independence, he said, "We must all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."
The same thought seems to apply to LANL staff and the recompete. Each staff member is risking their career and approximately $200,000 in benefits on the recompete. The potential bidders in the recompete are spending millions on their bids to run the place; politicians are winning the hearts of voters by bad mouthing LANL; and, yet, we are trying to protect ourselves, our loved ones, our town, and our Lab, not by savvy collective action but by separate, no cost, posts on blogs.
Credible plans that I have seen to protect irreplaceable staff and weapons knowledge require quick, collective action. Such plans would thwart people who would mistakenly destroy the Lab. Such destroyers are not malevolent just uninformed. They do not fathom the need for LANL nor the workings of LANL. Yet, we dither.
Could someone explain to me why acting only as individuals and only by whining on blogs is the right thing to do in the face of an aggregate loss of $1,000,000,000 to LANL employees and in the face of the potential death of the Lab as we would like it to be? We come across as a bunch of kids showing up to play in the Superbowl against the New England Patriots. We, the scientific heart of the country’s weapons program, are showing up in cutoffs with a soccer ball, no coach, and no game plan; yet we expect to win. Do we have a fairy godmother who is protecting us and whom I have not met?
I love the Lab and, especially, its people. Behind the press releases, we constitute a necessary national treasure. I would like us, employees and former employees, to start acting as a professional team, playing a winning game, for real, for ourselves, and for the defense of the nation. Hanging separately does not seem that appealing.
Sincerely,
I have a "Going-Away" party to attend
Would love to attend your pro-Nanos luncheon on Thursday, Gary, but I
just looked at my calendar book and realized I have a "Going-Away" party
to attend on that very same afternoon for a certain fellow who's high-up
on the LANL management chain (hint, hint). I'll be bringing along some of
Mrs. Smith's wonderful Barcardi Rum punch, so party goers can properly
celebrate and blissfully forget the shenanigans of the past year. The
ol'lady makes one helluva punch. If you see some people laughing loudly
with lampshades on their heads running naked down the hallways of the
Otowi building screaming "Happy days are here again!", well, that'll be
us.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
It's official, LANL RFP delayed
WIRE AND STAFF REPORT
The formal document soliciting proposals for managing Los Alamos National Laboratory will take a little longer to finalize.
[...]
Full Story
It may not be official yet
It may not be official yet, and God knows why they are trying to keep it secret still, but Glenn Mara is now taking care of business in the director's office. When the time comes, either Friday May 13 (oh, that would be a good day) or more likely Monday May 16 UC will announce that Kuckuck will be the new, interim director. I can even hear how the announcement will be pitched.
"Our departed former director Nanos performed courageously during the difficult times of the past year. We are here to finish the wonderful work he started." Or some such drivel.
Lets Do Lunch
This notice was posted today on the M&O contract web site
Doug,
This notice was posted today on the M&O contract web site:
April 26, 2005
NNSA Source Evaluation Board (SEB) Website Status Notice regarding the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Management and Operating (M&O) Contract Competition
Thank you for interest in the LANL M&O Contract competition. NNSA is in process of finalizing the Request For Proposal (RFP) for the LANL M&O Contract Competition. The proposed final RFP must be reviewed by the Department and approved by the Source Selection Official prior to release. The NNSA SEB projects that the final RFP for the LANL M&O Contract Competition will be released in mid May 2005.
No Rush Likely Needed to Preserve Our Retirement Benefits
Subject - No Rush Likely Needed to Preserve Our Retirement Benefits
Colleagues:
I did some reading on benefits in the government literature and on the competition web site. My conclusion is that it is highly unlikely that we will lose anything that we already have, and it is likely that we will continue to accrue benefits in a competitive fashion with the rest of industry (or better if UC wins). With an extension, we will have the opportunity to add another year to UCRP even in the worst case, so I'm sitting still for the rest of this year. The only way we lose big is if UC decides not to compete and refuses to manage our retirement funds in the future, so let's try to help avoid these. We should be able to guess what the most likely scenario is in the next few weeks anyway.
If you noticed, the modified RFP presented the concept that LANL employees would be allowed to become inactive members of UCRP while becoming new members of the contract manager's retirement plan. If UC wins, it is still likely that no changes will occur. If UC loses, it is likely that we will retain what we have in UCRP and join a new defined contribution plan for acquisition of additional benefits. This is the lowest cost solution for the government and the contractor and is now standard in industry and the DOE/NNSA. The GAO is pushing DOE towards defined contribution plans because, with the exception of UC and a few others, the vast majority of these plans in the country are under-funded and thus creating growing future liabilities for the federal government, meaning the taxpayers. Some other things from the reading:
DOE had $13.4B in unfunded contractor future liabilities in 2003 according to a GAO report (attached). This includes both pension and retiree health care. The causes - stock market, rising health care costs, DOE accepting optimistic projections rather than resume contributing to some plans, lack of tax incentives for annuity-based insurance for retiree health care, and boomers beginning to retire.
The GAO found that according to DOE's own statistics, 44% of its post-retirement health care costs are above market typical, and 29% of its defined benefit costs are above typical, even though the complex average total benefits were typical. The GAO singled these two types of plans out for more specific management oversight.
DOE principally uses pay-as-you-go for retiree health care because of the lack of tax incentives to induce contractors to use annuities, for which no proven algorithm yet exists anyway and which the contractors are resisting.
DOE typically passes post-retirement costs on to the next contractor, or else pays the old contractor to continue managing them, thus increasing their operations costs as contracts are re-competed. Defined contribution plans are preferred for the future since these can move with the employee, eliminating this growing cost as contracts are re-competed.
Fortune 100 companies are typically carrying $1.3B in liabilities for post-retirement benefits. Because their retiree health care costs have increased by >200% in recent years, they are moving to annuities, which bound their costs but do no necessarily cover retiree costs (UC retirees should expect this eventually also as it is the only solution gaining traction). They have to do this for their balance sheets as these are reportable liabilities. Also, they typically use defined contribution plans for other retirement benefits.
Let's step back from the Micro to the Macro View
Let's step back from the Micro to the Macro View for a Moment
The micro view debate on this blog revolves around management practices, pensions, the RFP and the contract, who did what to whom, etc.
This is a vibrant and worthwhile dialog, but it is a situation like asking who left the doors and windows open to your house in the desert letting
sea water in. A macro view question is to ask is why there is sea water sloshing across the desert...
1) During the cold war, nuclear weapons deterrence prevented a world wide conflict. In this era were the lab's capabilities unique and vital? The answer is yes. In a post-9/11 world, would a US nuclear weapon prevent the use of a terrorist nuclear weapon or other WMD? The answer is no. Can the lab's capabilities help prevent another terrorist attack? The answer is yes. Are the lab's capabilities as unique in this regard as it was in the past? Maybe and Maybe not. In this new world situation, we are much closer to the rest of the national security pack than before. As a result of this, we don't look that much different to the Government than any other extremely important national security asset or capability, so we are less likely to get special treatment.
2) If you think LANL has a retirement bump crisis, the rest of the national security infrastructure has as well. Many government agencies are seeing a big exodus of retiring senior people, being replaced by a new flock of folks that are learning the ropes. In the DOD, this is compounded by the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war has drawn many senior officers away from the core planning and acquisition bureaucracy leaving junior officers with a lot more responsibility supported by major contractor SETA support (Systems Engineering Technical Assistance) which in many cases leave the foxes guarding the chicken coop. Combine this situation with point 1) above, and you see why someone might start saying, "why not start treating the care and feeding of nuclear weapons just like military communication satellites, F-22 fighters, M1 Tanks", etc.
So the world changed, the seawater came into the desert, the Admiral was in put in charge of the adobe house, and no matter what commands he gave, surprisingly it didn't float..... What we really needed was a naval engineer a few years before the sea water came in....
We need some answers
Editor's Note: The most recent information regarding the status of the operating contract is available from links in the Daily Newsbulletin. Links to UC and the National Nuclear Security Administration can be found in the upper left corner. As additional information becomes available it will be added to the link sites and the Daily Newsbulletin will provide news coverage.
April 22, 2005
We need some answers
We need more information regarding the schedule for the implementation of the new Laboratory management and operating contract. We heard in February that the National Nuclear Security Administration had asked for a six month extension to the existing University of California contract, which (if granted) would indicate a switch-over in the spring of 2006, but we have not heard (as of mid April) whether that extension has been granted by the Secretary of Energy, or indeed by UC. According to the Lab Benefits office the current contract will end in September 2005, which is to say there is no extension. Yet, just five months short of that terminal date we still have not seen any indication of how the UCRP funds will be transferred into whatever the new plan will be, nor do we have tools for estimating how our defined benefit pension plan will convert.
With no information as to how the new plan will compare with UCRP, the fiscally conservative course is to follow the common assumption that the new plan will be considerably worse than the present plan. Many of us are therefore reluctantly led to explore retirement options in the absence of any concrete information. Those of us still low on the UCRP Retirement Factor charts must also apply for jobs elsewhere to make ends meet. If we are applying for faculty positions that begin this autumn, we need to make our decisions within the next few months. Clearly, if the changeover does not occur until March of 2006 (or later?), it would be to our advantage to continue UC employment at least until then because of the increase in service credit, and postpone (or extend) our job searches.
So, the questions we need answers to are: (1) What is the current schedule for the award of the new contract and its implementation? (2) Will there be a grace period during which we can carefully consider our options while we continue to accrue UC service credit and process our retirement paperwork? (3) In short, what is the absolute last day we can retire to ensure being covered under UCRP? (4) Finally, can we begin to put some brackets (lower and upper limits) to the retirement benefits we would get under the new contract manager's plan if we convert to the new employer without retiring?
--Galen Gisler
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Comments are turned off
--Doug
WHO ARE YOU GUYS?
Now, It is true that this blog is more likely to attract the pen of the inconsolably angry person, than a reasoned debater or analyst who could wrestle with the complexities of a difficult situation. But, still does the trend shown here not cause you at least to wonder?
I do not intend to impune the genuine distress and anger of LANL staff, who genuinely (but erroniously) think that there was an intent by management to damage them or the lab. But I have to wonder whether some of the relatively few anonymous daily posters here are ringers, planted from the normally vocal and active adversarial organizations across the nation who are set on destroying LANL. How many ringers would it take to stoke the fire of the LANL staff who have felt injured? Would this tactic provide legitimacy and reinforcement for some to harbor anger and bitterness who would otherwise have forgiven and returned to productive work? How many really inflammatory statements would it take to give the 1500/day visitors/viewers the impression that there is a deep and insoluble problem?
Some of you seem to resonate with conspiracies as the root cause of problems. Do you resonate with this one? I'm just thinking here guys. Anonymity is fraught with problems.
Gary
Regarding good times in Dodge City
If the new "sheriff" comes in and thinks he's going to "kick ass" and "clean up the Lab" then he will also fail. The plows and anvils are loaded on the wagons and plenty of dry powder is now on hand. We now have a heliostat signal system thanks to Doug and his Blog. It won't take long for the rest of the very mobile staff to finish packing up and head to "Californie", home of the triple distilled.
There's probably still time (but it's now down to weeks) to salvage something of the Lab but any new management will have to be very careful and very inspiring. Otherwise, the rest of Los Alamos National Laboratory will crumble through their hands like dust.
- a 25 year plus TSM
Congratulations
Congratulations to the keeper of the blog for surpassing half a million page views today!
Giving Employees What They Want: The Returns Are Huge
The $3 billion question
Spurred partly by the comments on the blog, and partly by conversations with some lab sources, I wrote a post this morning trying to clarify the $3 billion number from the Domenici news release:
http://www.abqjournal.com/cgi-bin/weblog.pl?perma=2419&topic_name=NM%20Weather
I don't have this nailed down in enough detail to write a story yet - my math doesn't line up exactly with the numbers Domenici and Brooks have given - they're close, but they don't match exactly. But given the concern, I wanted to get at least something on the record. Post a link if you feel it's appropriate, since more people read your blog than mine. :-)
Cheers, John