LANL: The Real Story

CORRUPTION-US:
Halliburton Whistleblower Demoted
William Fisher

NEW YORK, Aug 30 (IPS) - Whistleblowers -- those who go public with allegations of waste, fraud and abuse -- continue to have a tough time, despite a law protecting them and repeated assurances from the White House, many government agencies and Congress that they maintain a policy of zero tolerance for retaliation.

The latest victim of apparent retaliation is Bunnatine H. "Bunny" Greenhouse, the senior contracting officer for the Army Corps of Engineers, who objected -- first, internally, then publicly -- to a multi-billion dollar, no-bid contract with the Halliburton company for work in Iraq.

...

The government is increasingly using the "state secrets" privilege to block whistleblowers' suits. The State Secrets Privilege gives the federal government the ability to dismiss legal cases it claims would threaten foreign policy, military intelligence or national security.

It was used in 2002 in the case of Notra Trulock, who launched a defamation suit against Wen Ho Lee, a Taiwanese American computer scientist charged with stealing nuclear secrets for China from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Pres. George W. Bush said national security would be compromised if Trulock were allowed to seek damages from Lee.

Lee -- who had been imprisoned for 278 days in solitary confinement -- eventually pled guilty to improper handling of classified data and was cleared of all charges relating to espionage.

[...]

Full Story

From Anonymous:

"Numb" seems to best describe the state of LANL these days. There is a slow, but apparently growing awareness that no matter who wins the contract, the days of UC and the UC retirement and benefits programs will soon be over at LANL. It will be an LLC that runs the place after December, no matter who wins the bid. Recent threads (http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/08/directors-instruction-provides.html, http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/08/best-wishes-to-contestants-in-this.html) show that while there are still a few staff who don't seem to understand that the days when UC ran LANL are almost over, most people now "get it".

Given the recent repeated demonstrations of management ineptness at LANL (post docs breathing acid fumes, requiring hospitalization and not reporting the incident for a week; the AM-241 contaminations followed by LANL PA trying to keep the news buried; the supposed "classified" Mac and the subsequent airing of confused and conflicting policies regarding how to excess computers at LANL, and more LANL PA stonewalling) it looks like the UC/Bechtel consortium does not stand a chance. Not that these most recent screw ups were necessary to demonstrate that it was time for a change, although I guess it can't hurt to prove the point.

Between now and the new year it should finally become a quiet news period as far as LANL is concerned. We can expect traffic on the blog to taper off, barring any more "oopsies", until the new contractor is announced. This is as it should be. Enjoy, if that is the right word, the last few months of UC's stewardship of LANL.

Sent in by a reader:

BY DAVID KESMODEL

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE

August 31, 2005

In a legal case being watched closely by bloggers, an Internet company has sued the owner of a Web log for comments posted to his site by readers.

Traffic-Power.com sued Aaron Wall, who maintains a blog on search engine optimization – tactics companies use to get themselves to appear higher in searches at Google, Yahoo and elsewhere – alleging defamation and publication of trade secrets. The suit, filed in a Nevada state court earlier this month, also listed as defendants several unnamed users of the blog.

At issue are statements posted in the comments section of Mr. Wall's blog, SEOBook.com. Many blogs allow readers to post comments, often anonymously, and Mr. Wall's blog included several reader submissions that blasted tools sold by Traffic-Power.com.

[...]

Full Story

From non-attributed:

There was a lot of talk about retirements around July 1st due to the UC retirement adjustment for that date. Does anyone have numbers to compare versus total employment numbers?

______Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Nov Dec
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006



--

Comment from the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/08/more-on-lanl-macintosh.html

post:

Well, it does begin to sound as if KOB did actually jump the gun on this one. Yippee, chalk one up for UC. Why is it, though, that UC & LANL can't even win one without sounding like the Keystone Kops?

Best wishes to the contestants in this week's oral exams, while we're at it.

August 29, 2005

The Laboratory has modified procedures for rehiring retirees, under guidance from a new Director’s Instruction issued last week.

Revisions to the policy on rehiring retirees were based on a recommendation from a team chaired by Mike Burns of the associate directorate for weapons programs (ADWP). This team reviewed a 2004 Director’s Instruction on returning retirees and recommended modifications. This team subsequently joined the “Fix-It” initiative created by Laboratory Director Bob Kuckuck to investigate and brainstorm solutions to issues raised by staff and various Laboratory organizations. The “Fix-It” initiative is led by the Chief Science Office (CSO).

[...]

Full Story

From: Anonymous:

Sources inside KOB TV are not happy with the Albuquerque Journal's version of the story about the LANL Macintosh computer. According to the Journal article, KOB reporters "jumped the gun" with their story about the computer having classified material on its disk.

According to these sources, LANL refused to grant a phone interview to KOB reporters last Thursday. Instead, this email was sent at 7:00pm from James Rickman [LANL spokesperson] to KOB:

Los Alamos National Laboratory Statement Regarding Salvaged Computer with Los Alamos Documents

August 25, 2005

* Los Alamos National Laboratory does not recycle computers used to process classified information.

* LANL's property accountability system did identify the Apple computer referenced by KOB-TV as a computer formerly used at the Laboratory in a training organization that neither produces classified information nor is housed in a classified area.

* The Laboratory will investigate to determine why the hard drive had not been removed from the machine, which is standard procedure when recycling unclassified computers.

KOB staff indicate that indeed, they did find dozens of documents on the hard drive....including memos, emails, timesheets....some with the word classified on them. The FBI asked staff if the documents were really classified and were told that KOB staff would be in no position to verify that. They did indicate that one email was entitled 'Transmitting Classified Material'.

Prior to the story, a KOB reporter spent all day Thursday on the phone with the auction site, Sandia Labs and Los Alamos. For most of the day, Los Alamos denied the computer was even theirs.

Sandia ran a check and found it did not belong to them and told the reporter it was likely Los Alamos', but a Los Alamos spokesperson said it wasn't theirs and that it likely belonged to Sandia Labs.

Initially, the reporter wrote an entire story around that angle---that this mysterious computer was not being claimed and yet it had Los Alamos material on it.

Then at 7 pm on Thursday, the memo from LANL spokesperson Rickman was received at KOB.

That's why the story was reported the way it was. It calls into question WHAT are these documents....and could they be classified? KOB feels that LANL's side of the story was included in the report as well (LANL's claim that the computer did not contain classified material and that it was used for training purposes). Therefore KOB staff believe the report was quite the opposite of a 'disservice to the community'...as LANL accused the report as being. The story calls into question 2 things: HOW could a computer with LANL material be sold to a KOB photographer....and should the community be concerned that classified material may have been leaked.

[Speaking of tracking unwanted visitors, this Time Inc. story is pretty interesting. --Doug]

By NATHAN THORNBURGH

It was another routine night for Shawn Carpenter. After a long day analyzing computer-network security for Sandia National Laboratories, where much of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is designed, Carpenter, 36, retreated to his ranch house in the hills overlooking Albuquerque, N.M., for a quick dinner and an early bedtime. He set his alarm for 2 a.m. Waking in the dark, he took a thermos of coffee and a pack of Nicorette gum to the cluster of computer terminals in his home office. As he had almost every night for the previous four months, he worked at his secret volunteer job until dawn, not as Shawn Carpenter, mid-level analyst, but as Spiderman—the apt nickname his military-intelligence handlers gave him—tirelessly pursuing a group of suspected Chinese cyberspies all over the world. Inside the machines, on a mission he believed the U.S. government supported, he clung unseen to the walls of their chat rooms and servers, secretly recording every move the snoopers made, passing the information to the Army and later to the FBI.

[...]

Full Story

A comment from the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/08/lanl-assails-tv-news-report-on-laptop.html

post:
_______________________________________
The fact is that we should, of course, defend ourselves against outrageous journalistic charges. The question is: how outrageous are these latest claims? I'm told that the Macintosh computer in question did in fact have material on the disk that was marked as classified. If so, how were the KOB reporters to know that it was "simulated" classified material? We should wait until all of the facts are known before jumping to judge the parties involved.

Saturday, August 27, 2005

By Adam Rankin
Journal Staff Writer

A report by KOB-TV, saying that a used Los Alamos National Laboratory computer bought at an auction by one of the station's news photographers contained items marked "classified," has drawn a strong rebuke from lab officials.

The story, which aired at 10 p.m. Thursday, reported that a news photographer bought the Apple computer at an auction and was surprised to find the hard drive contained information. The report listed memos and time sheets, some of which had the word "classified" on them, among the items still on the computer's hard drive.

LANL spokesman Jim Fallin said the news station "jumped the gun" by airing the story the way they did.

[...]

Full Story

By ANDY LENDERMAN | The New Mexican
August 27, 2005

A surplus computer from Los Alamos National Laboratory sold at a public auction is at the center of a federal investigation into whether classified information was on it, and why readable files were not removed before its sale, authorities say.

KOB-TV of Albuquerque reported Thursday night that one of its photographers bought an Apple computer several weeks ago. "In the computer ... we found documents labeled classified," KOB reported.

[...]

Full Story

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

An Albuquerque television station reported last night that a used computer purchased at auction was said to contain classified information.

A LANL spokesman said this morning the lab was investigating, but that it was highly unlikely the computer had classified information.

A 10 p.m. news segment, reported by Mindy Mizelle on KOB-TV said a news photographer from the station purchased the machine and was surprised to find that it contained a hard drive. He was further surprised to find that it contained data.

The report said the hard drive contained memos and time sheets from the laboratory, some of which were marked classified.

[...]

Full Story

To/MS: All Employees
From/MS: Robert W. Kuckuck, DIR, MS A100
Phone/Fax: 7-5101/Fax 7-2997 (fax)
Symbol: DIR-05-323
Date: August 26, 2005
Subject: Media Reports on Recycled Computer


By now most employees have seen or heard about media reports
concerning a recycled Laboratory computer with intact files that
was purchased at an auction house by an employee of KOB-TV. I
would like to update you on what we currently know about this
issue.

The Laboratory's property database shows that the computer with
the serial number provided by KOB-TV was purchased by the
Laboratory in late 2002 and recycled in July 2005. The computer
had four owners, all of whom worked in an organization that does
not process classified material and which is located in an open
area. As such, the Laboratory has no reason at this time to
believe that the machine contains classified information. In
fact, the Laboratory does not ever recycle computers that have
been used to process classified information.

The images of what the KOB reporter termed "classified"
information that were shown in last night's televised report
appear to be phrases that are contained in two unclassified memos
regarding the handling of documents that were openly sent to all
employees during the time the computer was in use.

Laboratory security personnel are examining a copy of backup files
from the computer's hard drive and are working with the computer's
most recent user to confirm that the machine does not contain
classified or sensitive information. A preliminary review
indicates that no classified information was housed on the machine
at any time.

As could be expected, the provocative nature of the KOB-TV story
has led our sponsoring agencies and others to inquire about the
incident. We have apprised them of the true facts and are
cooperating fully in these inquiries.

Because of this situation, I want to remind all employees that the
Laboratory does have established procedures in place that are
designed to prevent incidents like this from occurring. Every
Laboratory employee should ensure that they follow these
procedures prior to declaring a computer as excess. Responsible
mitigating actions include user certification that the hard drive
on a computer has been wiped or degaussed prior to the computer's
removal from the user's organization.

Standard Laboratory procedures also call for removal of hard
drives and other memory devices from computers prior to public
sale. The Laboratory is investigating why the computer's hard
drive had not been removed and why it still contained readable
files. I will keep all of you updated on this issue as we learn
more.

From Anonymous:

On KOB TV news at 6AM this morning (Channel 4, reported by Monica Armenta) , there was a brief story that a KOB photographer bought a used LANL Macintosh computer that had a hard disk with classified information on it. He bought it from a company that sells surplus LANL and SNL computers. Nothing more at this time.

If true, this would be the last nail in the coffin for UC.

Comment from the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/08/story-on-continuing-safety-scandals-at.html

post:

There was an itty-bitty radiological contamination at Sandia today, they immediately sent an email to all employees, cordoned off the area, gave an update on the employee's safety...seems it was a very minor amount of contamination on a glove. So looks like the Labs are learning from mistakes...be open, be quick, do the right thing, everybody is happy. Accidents will happen in the best of environments, so the issue is recover and learn lessons, not cover up or blame, etc.

Science Magazine - 5 Aug 2005

"Stanford bound. ....
... Hecker, who served as LANL's director until 1997 and stayed on as a scientist before retiring from the lab last month, is going to Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation this fall as a visiting professor. There, he'll continue his work on curbing proliferation and nuclear terrorism and teach courses on science and nuclear security. Hecker says the looming new LANL contract clinched his decision to leave the New Mexico lab...."

[Given that there has already been some discussion on the blog about this... --Doug]

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

On a $15 million a year budget, Los Alamos National Laboratory is waging a daily battle against a barrage of threats to its computer network.

Alexander D. Kent, deputy group leader for the lab's network engineering group, said 25,000 computers processing about 850 gigabytes of data in 20 million legitimate sessions a day are facing a growing risk.

A graph of Internet sessions between May and mid-August this year shows at least five million "malicious" sessions on slow days and 10-15 million during peaks.

On weekends, when LANL activity slows, 90 percent or more of the computer activity appears to be malicious.

[...]

Full Story

From the 8/25/2005 LANL NewsBulletin:

By Steve Sandoval

August 25, 2005

Marquez speaks to state committees at Fuller Lodge

Associate Laboratory Director for Administration (ADA) Richard Marquez told state legislators Wednesday in Los Alamos that the Laboratory is committed to addressing employee issues while also continuing to meet its programmatic missions.

At a joint meeting of the state Information Technology Oversight and Legislative Laboratory Oversight committees in Fuller Lodge, Marquez said Laboratory Director Bob Kuckuck understands that employees are concerned about the state of the Lab given the contract competition for management of Los Alamos as well as residual concerns about the suspension of Laboratory operations. He said Kuckuck “has taken it upon himself to bring an era of calm to the frenetic pace of activities at the Lab.”

[...]

Full Story

Doug:

A comment on the "Harassment" post reminded me of a photograph taken by a friend of mine (Thanks, Sid) on the lower Windsor Trail this spring. He and his girlfriend saw the sign while out hiking (really, it was already like that). Maybe you could post it.

Thanks,

-Anon

From Anonymous:

Could you post this please Doug? The Dir talks the talk does he walk the walk?

_________________________________________
To/MS: LANL-All
From/MS: Robert W. Kuckuck, DIR, MS A100
Phone/Fax: 7-5101/Fax 7-2997
Symbol: DIR-05-283
Date: August 24, 2005
Subject: Harassment Policy (AM 711)


We all have the right to work in a productive environment that is
free of harassment of any kind and I want to remind all of us of
the Laboratory’s harassment policy. Harassment, as defined under
Laboratory policy (AM 711), is prohibited and is in conflict with
the Guiding Principles of Workplace Conduct as described in our
Code of Ethics and in the Equal Employment and Diversity Policy
Statement issued by Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman. In each
directive, the guiding principal calls upon each of us to become a
personal leader in attaining a workplace of inclusion and creating
an environment where all workers are treated with respect and
common courtesy so that we all have an opportunity to reach our
full potential.

There are different forms of harassment, including sexual, racial,
ethnic, sexual orientation, and gender, that can create disruption
at work. Harassment is not tolerated at the Laboratory, it is
hurtful and demonstrates a lack of respect. It creates
interpersonal problems, results in lost productivity, contributes
to low morale, and may result in costly lawsuits.

Harassment continues to be a problem in today’s workplace across
the country and includes actions ranging from overt behaviors to
creating a hostile work environment. Federal and state laws, as
well as Laboratory policy (AM 711), prohibit harassment, and such
behavior will be dealt with quickly and appropriately, with
disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.

Managers and supervisors must immediately respond to and deal with
complaints of harassment or with behaviors that could be
harassing. Managers and supervisors must also inform employees
that harassment violates Laboratory policy. Employees and contract
workers who believe they have been harassed by any person on
Laboratory property should report the occurrence to their
immediate supervisor or to Staff Relations at 7-8730. The Ombuds
Office (5-2837) and the HR-Office of Equal Opportunity & Diversity
(7-8695) are also available to all workers who believe they may
have experienced harassment.

I want to emphasize that treating each other with respect and
common courtesy is a Guiding Principle
in our Code of Ethics. We must all continue to strive to be an
employer of choice — from the research we conduct to the way we
treat each other.

From Anonymous:


I was approached by a reporter yesterday, who wanted to do a story on
the continuing safety "scandals" at LANL, which, as all people "in the
know" know, is "run" by UC. (I cannot reveal my source, as you can well
understand, nor can I reveal my name, for equally oh-so-obvious
reasons.) I told him what I had read about the complete history of
safety "problems" at LANL, including the fact that things appeared to
get worse just after the shutdown. (Thanks, Brad, for those letters to
the editor at Physics Today.) Of course, "worse" means that even though
entire experimental facilities were shut down, so that no serious
injuries could possibly have occurred, there was a plethora of
stress-related minor injuries that required medical treatment. Now that
we are "back up and running full bore," some more injuries have
happened, and I told him that that was to be expected at a major
national laboratory, but that I doubted things were somehow terribly
much worse than before the shutdown. As long as any work whatsoever is
being done at Los Alamos, there will always be some level of accidents
that occur. Once again, the world should not panic at every incident,
and management at the Lab should treat individual cases with concern.
Punishment for mistakes should not be the norm, unless the
individual(s) involved are repeat offenders in ignoring common-sense
safety procedures. I suggested to the reporter that scientists tend to
be very conservative about lab safety and national security; for
example, they don't run around throwing lighted sticks of dynamite at
each other as noontime pranks, as some in Congress seem to think.

The reporter then asked about the "culture of arrogance," and I replied
that arrogance at Los Alamos most often comes in the form of directives
from upper managers who never bother to walk around and talk to the
scientists "in the trenches." When managers (a few, at least) do take
the time to find out what their former colleagues are up to and what
their concerns are, they are not inclined to shut down the entire
Laboratory for months just for appearances sake, nor to curry favor
with certain off-the-wall, angry-for-the-benefit-of-TV-cameras
Congressmen. Nor are they likely to be caught out short, as when the DX
Division leader was frogmarched into the Director's office to call
Linton Brooks up on the speaker phone about "missing" CREM, only to
tell him that she thinks it's all a bookkeeping error, to which Brooks
moans, "Oh, don't tell me this is just another one of those 'nothing
really happened at Los Alamos' stories!"

The reporter then told me that it looked to him as though there really
wasn't a story here (again) at Los Alamos about safety "scandals." He
thanked me and said that he wished he could have gotten a straight
story out of LANL Public Affairs spokespersons. He said all he got was
smoke and denials and more smoke. (Why am I not surprised?)

So, the bottom line is, don't look for a frenzied media exposé on "Yet
another safety scandal at LANL!" in the very near future. But don't
credit LANL or UC "spokespersons" for that.

[How about it? An anonymous request for comments. --Doug]

Doug
Slow news day. How about some comments on the soon to take affect RDL/FMD reorg in spite of a new contractor-LOCKMART or BECTAL in a few months.

By ANDY LENDERMAN | The New Mexican
August 24, 2005

Both teams seeking to take over management of Los Alamos National Laboratory are scheduled to meet next week with government officials for a series of interviews .

Rod Geer, a spokesman for the team led by Lockheed Martin Corp. and the University of Texas system, said his team is preparing to answer questions by the National Nuclear Security Administration's Source Evaluation Board.

The meetings are closed to the public, Geer said. And it's unclear where they will take place.

[...]

Full Story

[The last few days have been slow news days, so what the heck. --Doug]

Book Review: The E-bomb by Doug Beason
By Kirkus Aug 23, 2005, 16:14 GMT

Directed energy is the wave (and not just the microwave) of the future, the source of weapons that will prove to be revolutionary.

Imagine, writes Los Alamos National Laboratory researcher Beason, that an angry mob has surrounded the American embassy in New Delhi—for though our friends today, the Indians can turn on us at any minute—and that some of them are carrying weapons.

[...]

Full Story

LANL employee are obviously worried about the impending contract change,
and with good reason. The lab has remained isolated from the game of
musical chairs that AEC/ERDA/DOE has played with site contracts across
the complex, but now it may be your turn in the barrel. Perhaps my
experience will be illustrative of what to expect. I hired in at the
Pacific Northwest Lab in Richland in the spring of 1974, managed at the
time by Battelle for the AEC. Due to down turns at Hanford in 1988 with
the decision not to restart N-Reactor, my wife and I (a metallurgist)
went to Savannah River. I went from working on the new production
reactor program at Hanford, to working in the physics group at Savannah
River Lab on exactly the same project. Our clearances transferred of
course, but absolutely no time in service. The integrated contract at
Hanford allowed for transfers between Battelle, Westinghouse, Rockwell,
and United Nuclear at Hanford, but no such provisions were ever written
for between-site transfers. I can tell you from experience that a
deferred pension with no COL adjustment rapidly degrades to the value of
doodly-squat over the years. If you think the DOE or contract teams
have remedied this situation in the last 17 years, think again. The
cost savings associated with terminating pension rights are just too
tempting and easy to cut. Case in point - the new contract at Idaho
National Laboratory. The parent company to Westinghouse Savannah River
Company (Washington Group International) teamed up with Battelle. A
number of our colleagues have been tapped to move west. Unfortunately,
WGI has announced that they will only maintain continuity of benefits
for majority owned' affiliates. And guess what? WGI is only a 49%
partner in the new INL contract. All those lucky folks that get to
experience the beauty and grandeur of Idaho get to do so with deferred
pensions from SRS, or an actual pension if they quality. Of course at
SRS, the pension formula uses 0.012 times years of service, with a 50%
vesting factor only after 15 years, going to 1.0 when age and years of
service reach 85. If I were to get tapped, my total pension after 30
years of service split between PNL and SRL would amount to ~13% of my
current salary, forever frozen in 2005 dollars. So instead of worrying
about loosing your COL, I suggest that is not the half of your worries
if UC leaves and some hungry contractor comes to town. With ~15,000
already laid off from SRS, and thousands more from Rocky, Mound, and
Fernald, the contractors have simply used this as an opportunity to pick
up decades of expertise at bargain prices. I now work with individuals
with split pensions from Rocky Flats, Mound, and PNL, all trying to make
enough to save for a decent retirement. DOE has talked about the
benefits of portable pensions for years, but frankly there is no
down-side from their perspective to treating us like so many migrant
nuclear workers. Highly educated, and highly skilled in the arts of
nuclear materials production, separation, use, storage, etc., but
frankly who else is going to pay these salaries for our specialized
skills? I always assumed that DOE would come to its collective senses
and realize that this is simply gutting the chances for attracting the
next generation of talent into the complex. They talk the talk, but the
bottom line is dollars. It is simply easier to rob thousands of the
chance for a meaningful pension, and allow contractors to shuffle us
hither and yon across the complex. Expect a separate 'cleanup'
contract, with worker's professional careers channeled into a backwater
of alphabet soup contractors, with pension benefits subdivided and
isolated at each hand-off. Good Luck, and God Bless.

Signed, Been There, Done That

If someone can offer proof that they have suffered retribution as a result of using this blog to express their opinions, then I offer the use of this blog to publicize the details of the retribution. Names, times, dates; factual descriptions of the retribution. Proof is a requirement for those wishing to use this blog for that purpose, as are names and all other pertinent information.

The LANL PA division has stated, in writing, that LANL employees are guaranteed their first amendment rights, to include expressing those views via a blog so long as

1. it is not done during work hours,
2. it is not done using LANL resources, and
3. the employee does not represent oneself as an official LANL spokesperson.

This blog has extremely high visibility, with members of congress, the senate, UCOP, LMCO, numerous news organizations, and not a few legal groups reading it daily. UC does not want to be reading about any more management mistakes at LANL on this blog, in The New York Times, or anywhere else.

Again, a purported fear of retribution or retaliation for using this blog as a forum of discussion does not carry much weight with me as a rationale for anonymous posting. In fact, I was, and continue to be somewhat ashamed at the timidity of LANL staff in general when it came to speaking out against the "egregious" mismanagement at LANL, that was clearly demonstrated on July 16 of last year, and which continues today.

--Doug

This is one of those deals where I'm the focus of criticism no matter what I do. When I turned off anonymous comments I received a barrage of criticism and requests to turn it back on. When I turned it back on, the reverse happened. The majority of "contributors" to the blog seem to want anonymous comments left on, which leaves me (and Brad) in the position of being the blog garbage collectors, and accordingly being criticized for "censoring" the blog.

So, I guess that's the way we will leave it, unless somebody can come up with a better, workable idea.

--Doug

From Anonymous:

There was a major disruption in internet service at LANL on Friday. I'm told it was because of a worm attack on unprotected Windows systems. Can anybody supply details? Rich Marquez would like to make LANL an "All Windows, All the Time" operation. Friday is a glimpse of LANL's future, if Marquez is still around to implement his plan come December.

Governor tours Lawrence Berkeley lab's facilities

By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER



BERKELEY - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger threw his strongest support yet Friday behind the University of California's efforts to keep running two nuclear weapons labs in two states.

In a bit of a coup for the university, the governors of both New Mexico and California now have endorsed UC's partnership with Bechtel National and others to bid for management of the birthplace of the bomb, Los Alamos National Laboratory.

What's unclear is what the backing from Schwarzenegger and New Mexico Democrat Bill Richardson is worth.

[...]

Full Story

From Anonymous:

Please post this article. We could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble had we screened our previous CEO.

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/96/open_boss.html

By Hildi T. Kelsey

August 19, 2005

It is clear to me that this Laboratory does science like no one else does science.”
--Laboratory Director Robert Kuckuck

Laboratory Director Bob Kuckuck noted several of the many positive contributions of the Lab and discussed the need for safety improvement at a all-employee talk Thursday in the Administration Building Auditorium at Technical Area 3. “We need to feel good about what is happening [at the Lab] and work our way through the difficult parts,” he said.

While the director was complimentary of the Laboratory’s science efforts as well as its role in weapons design, the Lab’s national radiation source recovery program and recent success at DARHT, safety was a key priority as he outlined his goals. In general, Kuckuck said he wants to change how employees think about they way they do their work and react to incident and safety elements.

[...]

Full Story

[Free version]

By ANDY LENDERMAN | The New Mexican
August 19, 2005

A retired Los Alamos National Laboratory employee accused and later cleared of trying to purchase a car with lab money has sued the lab, two television-broadcast companies and others claiming defamation, breach of contract, fraud and other charges, state District Court records show.

Lillian Anaya and her husband, Mel, of Santa Fe County sued LANL, some lab workers, CBS Broadcasting Inc., the owner of Albuquerque's KRQE News 13 and Tri-City Auto Sales of Phoenix, among others, according to a civil complaint filed Wednesday.

The Anayas allege defamation, false-light invasion of privacy, breach of contract, fraud and other injuries related to an investigation and later broadcasts concerning the disputed purchase of a Ford Mustang with a lab credit card, according to the complaint and other sources. The suit seeks unspecified damages.

[...]

Full Story

Friday, August 19, 2005

By Adam Rankin
Journal Staff Writer

In 2002, Lillian P. Anaya was accused of trying to buy a souped-up $30,000 Mustang with her Los Alamos National Laboratory purchase card.

During the subsequent investigations and media coverage that ensued over allegations of financial mismanagement and fraud at LANL— including several congressional hearings— Anaya spent 10 months on paid investigative leave before finally being exonerated in June 2003.

Then-LANL director Pete Nanos said of the allegations: "There was no Mustang."

Now, the 32-year LANL veteran purchaser and her husband are seeking compensation in a defamation lawsuit for what they say was pain, suffering and financial hardship resulting from the allegations, which appeared nationwide in press reports and were frequently cited by lawmakers as an indication of LANL's woes.

[...]

Full Story

Comment from the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/08/one-more-submission-from-gary.html

post:

____________________________
"retirement incentive"

Hey anybody out there...what did the director talk about this afternoon? thanks in advance

A comment from the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/08/wikipedia-listing.html

post:

_________________________
And now, as of today, the entry reads:

"George Peter (Pete) Nanos was the former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory from January 2003 to May 2005. As of 2005 he was the shortest serving director of the laboratory. He took the helm at Los Alamos in the wake of a string of allegations and scandals involving security, safety and business issues. Initially he was given the title "interim director", but in July 2003 he was made a permanent director by the University of California without any further search. Scandals continued during his tenure including: a case of suspected missing classified disks (which turned out never existed, but were thought to be missing due to inadequate record keeping practices), improper charges on lab credit cards, and a student injuring her eye with a laser ([1] PDF). These scandals motivated Nanos to stop all normal operations at the lab for nearly seven months (July 2004 to January 2005) to examine and supplement the Laboratory's procedures and practices. The shutdowns could have cost as much as $367 million USD [2]. During an address to Laboratory personnel, he characterized alleged rule-breaking scientists at the Lab as "cowboys" and "buttheads," causing an uproar amongst personnel who felt Nanos had little respect for their efforts to function under what they saw as perpetually defective management practices. He left Los Alamos to take a job at the Department of Defense (specifically the Defense Threat Reduction Agency). The year he left there was a large spike in retirements [3] and an employee-run blog attacked Nanos [4] and his management of the institution. Nanos left under a cloud of employee discontent, missed programmatic milestones and lingering security and safety issues. His successor was Robert W. Kuckuck, who took office on May 16, 2005."

-A never-ending saga that changes its ending daily.

By James E. Rickman

August 18, 2005

A Director’s Instruction (Adobe Acrobat required) and formal guidance for managers regarding alternative work schedules was released Wednesday. The new alternative work schedule is scheduled to be implemented during the pay period beginning Sept. 12.

A master-management memo (Adobe Acrobat required) from Laboratory Director Robert Kuckuck emphasizes the need to balance employee work-life issues with delivery of programmatic commitments, customer service and internal support.

In addition to the Director’s Instruction, the Laboratory also released a management planning guide and a set of frequently asked questions and answers to assist managers in developing work schedules in their organizations. The master-management memo reiterates earlier guidance that alternative work schedules must incorporate conditions of supervision and must be developed and approved by management.

Lynn Boland, acting leader of the Human Resources (HR) Division, said the three alternative work schedules available for Laboratory personnel are as follows:

• 5/40—in which employees work a standard eight-hour day, five days a week.
• 9/80—in which employees work four, nine-hour workdays and one eight-hour work day on a Friday one week, and then four, nine-hour workdays with a Friday off the next week.
• 4/10—in which employees work four, 10-hour days each week in organizations where it makes programmatic or operational sense to do so.

Under the alternative work schedules program, the Laboratory will maintain regular business hours within each organization between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.

“The goal of alternative work schedules is to allow programmatic commitments and deliverables to be met while maintaining the quality and responsiveness of service and support to the Laboratory, and to support the work-life balance needs of employees where possible,” Boland said.

Schedule changes will be allowed twice a year—at the beginning of the first pay period in May 2006 and the beginning of the first pay period in November 2006. In certain cases where it is necessary to accommodate a major life change (such as care for a seriously ill near relative, the death of a spouse, etc.), schedule changes may be permitted outside of the two regularly scheduled change periods, Boland said. As with every aspect of the alternative work schedule program, all changes must be developed and approved by managers.

Employees on the 9/80 schedule must take at least a 30-minute lunch break each workday.

When a holiday falls on a day that a full-time, nonexempt employee would have been scheduled to work more than eight hours (an employee working an alternate work schedule), supervisors may approve the employee to work an extra hour or two hours in the same week, or the employee must report the difference as vacation time.

Exempt employees are expected to work the extra hour or two hours at some other time during the same workweek, or to use discretionary absence with a manager’s prior approval.

If a holiday falls on an employee’s regularly scheduled 9/80 Friday off, the work day immediately before the holiday may be observed as the holiday.

Criteria for employees to be on a 4/10 schedule have not changed, said Boland. The 4/10 schedule may be used when an organizational unit within the Laboratory must be on the schedule to meet programmatic and customer demands.

Two employees inhale toxic fumes at lab in latest case of employee injury

---

By Diana Whitaker
DAILY BRUIN CONTRIBUTOR
dwhitaker@media.ucla.edu

The University of California-operated Los Alamos National Laboratory, which is currently being considered for new management, has seen another series of mishaps this summer that could be potentially damaging to the university's bid position.

The most recent incident resulted in the hospitalization of one employee.

In June, two employees at Los Alamos inhaled toxic fumes. One spent six days in the hospital in July after suffering prolonged respiratory symptoms, while the other experienced temporary shortness of breath.

Breaking with protocol, lab management was not informed of the incident until Aug. 3, more than a month and a half after it had occurred.

[...]

Full Story

From Anonymous:

Most of the discussions regarding anonymity have overlooked an important constituency -- the thousands of contractor employees and local merchants who do business with LANL. Many of you out there worry about what your group or Division Leader might do if they caught you reading the blog, or could trace one of your comments. As a member of the not-employed-by but immediately-affected-by LANL group, I can tell you that the rest of us stakeholders are keenly aware that the due process you are entitled to (which apparently doesn't always occur) as a condition of your employment, does not in any way extend to protecting the expression of our views and opinions.

Please keep an avenue open for posting anonymous comments.

In order for Los Alamos National Laboratory to move forward as a viable scientific institution from the troubles inflicted upon it from the outside (by Congress, the Clinton and Bush Administrations, and DOE, and exacerbated by an opportunistic news media) and inflicted upon it from within (by the previous Lab Director), it will be necessary for the next contractor to remove from positions of power -- Division Directors and above -- any who hold the view that shutting down LANL was a necessary action by a bold visionary to preserve the scientific output of the Laboratory.

I am saddened by the continued silence from the University of California about these cataclysmic events in the life of Los Alamos National Laboratory. On the day of the announcement of the bids, Mike Anastasio (UC's candidate for Lab Director) failed to say anything like what C. Paul Robinson (Lockheed Martin's candidate) said, namely, that the shutdown would not have happened on his watch; to paraphrase Robinson, why administer chemotherapy to a whole community when one person has been diagnosed with cancer?

The upper Lab managers who have endorsed, whether explicitly or tacitly, the need to shut down the entire Laboratory for over a half year should look to escape, as did the former Director, to a comfortable position courtesy of the UC bureaucracy, since it now appears unlikely that UC will be awarded the contract.

-Brad Lee Holian

From Anonymous:

Question to UCDC.EDU Washington, DC

Dear Sir,

Please see the attached .ppt presentation. It clearly states on page 15 paragraph two that if a UC employee does not retire before the new contract takes over he or she will not be a retiree of the UC system. This consequently means that they will not get the 2% COLA now or in the future. We at LLNL have heard that the UC system had intended to get rid of the 2% COLA not only for us new retiree but to all that had retired before us as part of a cost cutting agenda. Is this true? I and 2,900 other people at LLNL need to know this in order to make plans.

On the subject of anonymous comments, "the demise of the blog", etc., I want to share my thoughts.

First, I became tired of being this blog's garbage collector. Increasingly over the past few months, vicious, mean-spirited, cowardly anonymous comments had been appearing which I simply deleted. The final straw, of course, was the recent tastless attack on Todd Kaupilla.

I initially created this blog with the capability to post anonymous comments turned on because of the real atmosphere of fear and retaliation that existed at LANL in January, 2004. I acknowledge that to an extent, that atmosphere still exists in locations throughout the lab. However, the mechanism of anonymous comments were increasingly not being used for that purpose. Rather, they were more often being used "get back at" somebody the submitter did not like. Fear of retaliation was not an issue.

Emailed anonymous submissions are still a supported mechanism for interested participants to present information on this blog. Admittedly, now that anonymous comments are no longer supported, the free flow of discussion is somewhat impeded. Given the number of email messages that I have received expressing concern that the lack of an anonymous comment capability will limit the blog's usefulness, I am willing to reconsider returning that option to this blog.

But with the following understanding:

1. I have installed a logging system. The IP address of every machine that connects to the blog is recorded, with a time stamp. Perhaps the knowledge that abuses of the privilege of submitting comments anonymously can now be attributed to the submitter will be all that is necessary to stem the flow of poison pen letters.
2. I would prefer that people use their own names when submitting comments, unless there is a real reason not to. If, in the opinion of the poster, anonymity is essential to avoid damaging one's work environment, I would like to see a pseudonym used, to make it easier for readers follow discussions.

To allow those who are interested to supply feedback on this topic, I will turn on anonymous comments for this post.

--Doug

From Anonymous:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Peter_Nanos

Hi Doug. Just some comments to you (unless you think it would help in some way, then please feel free to post it)

I read the blog almost every day. So does my 13 year old son. I've only made one post...the thank you note for everyone's support...but even during the summer doldrums when there wasn't much for folks to talk about, reading it gave us hope that the people who wronged us might still be held accountable for their actions because bloggers still voiced such dissatisfaction with their workplace.

I will admit that recent, hateful comments are obnoxious. We are, however, made of sterner stuff than to read a comment like the one made about Todd and think of it as anything other than blather. Yes, it hurt, but in the end, all the anonymous poster did, really, was ruin any hopes he had of anyone caring what he thought. Looking at it from another way, things like that ... comments which rile up our supporters... help to keep memory alive of the events that happened here. People are slowly forgetting all the bad stuff that happened and getting comfortable again in their jobs, figuring the system will take care of itself and such things will never happen to them (or not caring at all how or why, but resting comfortably with their paychecks being regular.) People like Mr. Stradling are convincing them that all is well and we're the bad guys (a job he's been hired to do???) Even I agree that censoring comments we don't agree with is wrong...and would not wish to be the one having to decide what to censor or not! I truly don't see things from Mr. Stradling's point of view and thus he is the enemy for thinking as such...but he has a right stand on the other side and to voice his opinion.

I agree, in general, that those who choose to post anonymously can be viewed wimps. On the other hand, over the months since Todd was fired, I started to resent some good friends because they did not come forward and defend Todd more. I found out later from people I know and trust that they had been threatened (directly, not implied) by managers. Yes, we are talking about some of the same managers that Mr. Stradling defends. These are people with families to feed, so while I still, on an emotional level, resent that they did not step forward, I see, on a logical level, why they did not. Retaliation is not only a possibility, it is very likely and has already been threatened in some cases. This mess was a conspiracy and all the players except Nanos are still here. A side note in response to Mr. Stradling's comment to John Horne about having proof...we have it and they will see their day in court. In the meantime, no proof is offered on either side in this forum. It's a place to vent, to share opinions, to commiserate.

I guess what I'd like to see is for an avenue of anonymous posting to still be available. I've noticed that a few have just given first names and maybe that's the answer. Or maybe encourage people to have forum names so ones who cross the line can have their accounts suspended? I just hate to see the chatter come to a screeching halt....and it seems that it has (John's letter to Bingaman should have gotten 30 comments by now!)

Thank you for your consideration. Regardless of your decision, I still appreciate and thank you for all your efforts.

Sincerely,
Sara Kauppila

I second Bernard's suggestion for Gary Stradling. After all the space that Gary has taken on this blog to espouse his own points of view, I think it would be educational for him to ask (and actually listen to) other LANL employee's opinions regarding former director Nanos.

Unfortunately, I suspect that Gary is one of those people does not listen well to others, especially when their ideas differ from his own. Nevertheless, if he were to try, it would be educational for him and for the other readers of this blog.

--Doug

I have a suggestion for Gary Stradling. Talk to your co-workers and others
in your building at LANL and take an informal poll. How many agree that
Pete Nanos "was a decisive man of vision and courage," and how many agree
(as I do) that his term as director was disastrous for LANL? Keep track of
responses and report back to the blog. Tell us the number interviewed, the
number responding in either direction, and give us a rough idea of t