Wednesday, May 31, 2006
What other surprises are there upcoming
Doug---please post anonymously if you think this is interesting
______________________________________
Did anyone else notice that, seemingly without a word,
the UHC accounts started reading LANS as employer
rather than UC in early May. I received an
"explanation of services" letter from UHC and noted
that my employer was LANS. This was dated early May
for services in April. The UHC person I talked to had
"no clue" why or when the changeover in employer had
occurred, even though we obviously don't start as LANS
employees til June 1. A call to the LANL benefits
office confirmed that this "change" had been made in
early May. Why? And why no word (unless I missed it)
about the premature change?
And did anyone notice that on today's pay stub a
small, oh so small, note about an increase in costs
for life insurance through LANS?
Has there been a notice on this other than small type
on a pay stub no one looks at?
A harbinger of things to come? News ways of doing
business"? What other surprises are there upcoming
from LANS that will be "substantially equivalent" to
what we had?
______________________________________
Did anyone else notice that, seemingly without a word,
the UHC accounts started reading LANS as employer
rather than UC in early May. I received an
"explanation of services" letter from UHC and noted
that my employer was LANS. This was dated early May
for services in April. The UHC person I talked to had
"no clue" why or when the changeover in employer had
occurred, even though we obviously don't start as LANS
employees til June 1. A call to the LANL benefits
office confirmed that this "change" had been made in
early May. Why? And why no word (unless I missed it)
about the premature change?
And did anyone notice that on today's pay stub a
small, oh so small, note about an increase in costs
for life insurance through LANS?
Has there been a notice on this other than small type
on a pay stub no one looks at?
A harbinger of things to come? News ways of doing
business"? What other surprises are there upcoming
from LANS that will be "substantially equivalent" to
what we had?
UC: Pension promises will be kept
ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor
Laboratory retirees, including many elderly couples, nearly filled the Duane Smith Auditorium Tuesday evening. They heard the first direct communication from the University of California since learning indirectly in January that the university was proposing to spin them off into a separate retirement plan within the system.
Judy Ackerhalt, UC's executive director of human resources and benefits from the Office of the President, discussed the two main issues, pensions and benefits, with the help of staff and other responsible officials.
Judging by the number of questions asked, there was a high degree of interest in UC's still indefinite plans for the pensions for retirees of Los Alamos National Laboratory.
[...]
Auf Wiedersehen, Los Alamos
[Note: This was posted to www.fas.org originally and not written for the LANL blog. -Doug]
Auf Wiedersehen, Los Alamos
Today, May 31, 2006 marks the end of the University of California as the sole manager of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), after a 63-year run. Tomorrow LANL will come under the management of Bechtel, the University of California, BWX Technologies, and Washington Group International, collectively known as Los Alamos National Security (LANS), LLC, a private, for profit enterprise.
When nuclear testing ended in 1992 Laboratory personnel scrambled to find new missions for the institution. The 1990s transition to the Stockpile Stewardship Program of maintaining our nuclear weapons without testing made a lot of people nervous. Some critics initially doubted this program, but more weapons specialists are now putting their faith in it. Los Alamos is at a turning point not only with a new managing entity, but in the fundamental way that weapons are designed, fielded, and managed. If successful, the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program may reinvigorate some of the lost mission or give impetus to a new mission in a focused and tangible way for the first time since testing ended.
The Stockpile Stewardship Program, by all reliable accounts, is working well enough to support yearly weapons certification. And RRW may reinvigorate excitement among employees and facilitate something of a return to normalcy and respite from the turmoil of the last several years that included the Wen Ho Lee incident, charges of missing classified computer drives, and other managerial problems that demoralized employees and drove out a good number of staff.
But change is inevitable. And usually change is good. LANS should seek to preserve what science and basic research it can. And in doing this, LANL’s new managers need to reinvigorate the scientific mentoring culture that once permeated the institution. Rather than driving the final nail in the coffin of basic research and freedom of academic science at the Department of Energy Labs, this management change should be turned into an opportunity for the national laboratories and the Department of Energy to reinvigorate their missions, clean up their operating structure and oversight methods, motivate and reward their staff members, clarify their responsibilities in the post-Cold War era, and develop a strategy that maximizes return and value for every dollar invested in the national labs. Such a model will command respect from both complex supporters and critics.
(Anne Fitzpatrick spent two tenures at Los Alamos during her career, as a graduate research assistant in the mid-1990s and later as a Technical Staff Member)
Auf Wiedersehen, Los Alamos
Today, May 31, 2006 marks the end of the University of California as the sole manager of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), after a 63-year run. Tomorrow LANL will come under the management of Bechtel, the University of California, BWX Technologies, and Washington Group International, collectively known as Los Alamos National Security (LANS), LLC, a private, for profit enterprise.
When nuclear testing ended in 1992 Laboratory personnel scrambled to find new missions for the institution. The 1990s transition to the Stockpile Stewardship Program of maintaining our nuclear weapons without testing made a lot of people nervous. Some critics initially doubted this program, but more weapons specialists are now putting their faith in it. Los Alamos is at a turning point not only with a new managing entity, but in the fundamental way that weapons are designed, fielded, and managed. If successful, the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program may reinvigorate some of the lost mission or give impetus to a new mission in a focused and tangible way for the first time since testing ended.
The Stockpile Stewardship Program, by all reliable accounts, is working well enough to support yearly weapons certification. And RRW may reinvigorate excitement among employees and facilitate something of a return to normalcy and respite from the turmoil of the last several years that included the Wen Ho Lee incident, charges of missing classified computer drives, and other managerial problems that demoralized employees and drove out a good number of staff.
But change is inevitable. And usually change is good. LANS should seek to preserve what science and basic research it can. And in doing this, LANL’s new managers need to reinvigorate the scientific mentoring culture that once permeated the institution. Rather than driving the final nail in the coffin of basic research and freedom of academic science at the Department of Energy Labs, this management change should be turned into an opportunity for the national laboratories and the Department of Energy to reinvigorate their missions, clean up their operating structure and oversight methods, motivate and reward their staff members, clarify their responsibilities in the post-Cold War era, and develop a strategy that maximizes return and value for every dollar invested in the national labs. Such a model will command respect from both complex supporters and critics.
(Anne Fitzpatrick spent two tenures at Los Alamos during her career, as a graduate research assistant in the mid-1990s and later as a Technical Staff Member)
State legislators want UC to return some pay
SACRAMENTO
State legislators want UC to return some pay
Lockyer is asked to recover funds that weren't OKd
Tanya Schevitz, Todd Wallack, Chronicle Staff WritersWednesday, May 31, 2006
Two state senators asked the state attorney general Tuesday to recover state money that they said the University of California gave executives and other key employees without proper approval from the governing Board of Regents.
Sens. Abel Maldonado, R-Santa Maria (Santa Barbara County), and Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, who are members of the Senate Education Committee, wrote Attorney General Bill Lockyer and urged him to investigate how much state money was used in compensating executives and other highly paid employees in violation of UC policies. They then asked him to seek repayment.
"Give the people their money back for all the things that UC President Robert Dynes and UC did," Maldonado said later. "It is all about accountability. I've heard from the regents about accountability, accountability, and I've seen nothing."
[...]
Tomorrow's the big day
Submitted by "Sir Roderick Spode, 8th Earl of Sidcup"
______________________________________________
Tomorrow's the big day. A new life begins at LANL. When y'all go home tonight you need to set the alarm an hour earlier than normal, polish those 10 year shoes, pick out your best bolo tie, and be ready to show up for work a good 45 minutes early in the morning. It's going to be your first day at work as a brand new at-will employee of LANS, LLC. Suggestion: make it a 'be nice to your boss' kind of a day. Another recommendation for your first new day at work: don't ask about the state of the LLC's finances. Conversations about the budget for FY07 are strictly Verboten. Oh, and hone those writing skills! Rumor has it that LANS, LLC is looking for a fresh infusion of Letters to the Editor for the NewsBulletin. The more scathing, the better!
'Nuff said. Have a good day at work.
______________________________________________
Tomorrow's the big day. A new life begins at LANL. When y'all go home tonight you need to set the alarm an hour earlier than normal, polish those 10 year shoes, pick out your best bolo tie, and be ready to show up for work a good 45 minutes early in the morning. It's going to be your first day at work as a brand new at-will employee of LANS, LLC. Suggestion: make it a 'be nice to your boss' kind of a day. Another recommendation for your first new day at work: don't ask about the state of the LLC's finances. Conversations about the budget for FY07 are strictly Verboten. Oh, and hone those writing skills! Rumor has it that LANS, LLC is looking for a fresh infusion of Letters to the Editor for the NewsBulletin. The more scathing, the better!
'Nuff said. Have a good day at work.
UC regents must be held accountable
THE Board of Regents has so far escaped serious scrutiny in the compensation scandals that have engulfed the University of California and its president, Robert Dynes. As a result, the regents could have easily designated Dynes to serve as their scapegoat this month. It is appropriate they did not.
Dynes, a distinguished research physicist, has been a lackluster UC president since he was tapped for the job three years ago. He also has been an indifferent administrator, evidenced by the numerous perks, payoffs and golden parachutes that UC officials have approved the last three years.
[...]
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Letter in Newsbulletin: The Future of the Lab
May 22, 2006
The future of the Lab
Now that we have made our decisions after months of fretting over the details of retirement plans, it's time to turn our attention to a much more important question. What will the Lab be like after the transition is complete? Some things I've heard over the last few months make me concerned, even skeptical about the future of the Lab.
First, I don't believe a model of a profit-driven enterprise can benefit the Lab. Certainly there are processes employed by the best companies that could greatly improve the Lab, but there are fundamental differences in the purpose of a national laboratory that require unique approaches. We are required to charge our customers the cost of our work, not more, not less. Unless we sell pits for $1 billion each, we will never make a profit nor should that be a goal.
More importantly, the 20 some "key personnel" are my greatest concern. If they are going to focus on the award fee and their bonuses, the Laboratory is doomed. Their sole mission must be to create an environment that makes the Lab the institution at which scientists, engineers, technicians and support staff would most like to spend their careers while convincing the National Nuclear Security Administration, Congress and the American public that we are taking care of the taxpayer's dollars, the environment, our workers and our neighbors.
The Department of Energy believes it will take seven years to make the needed changes. How many of the "key personnel" are committed to seven years at the Lab? If any of them think they can straighten things out in a couple of years and move on, I have a simple request: don't bother starting and give us someone who cares. Recreating the Lab that once was will take years, driving it into the ground can be accomplished in short order. Jim Collins in "Good to Great" described the great leaders in corporate America, identified through extensive research, as incredibly ambitious but their ambition is first and foremost for the institution, not themselves. In our case, the institution is LANL, not LANS.
--Duncan Hammon
The future of the Lab
Now that we have made our decisions after months of fretting over the details of retirement plans, it's time to turn our attention to a much more important question. What will the Lab be like after the transition is complete? Some things I've heard over the last few months make me concerned, even skeptical about the future of the Lab.
First, I don't believe a model of a profit-driven enterprise can benefit the Lab. Certainly there are processes employed by the best companies that could greatly improve the Lab, but there are fundamental differences in the purpose of a national laboratory that require unique approaches. We are required to charge our customers the cost of our work, not more, not less. Unless we sell pits for $1 billion each, we will never make a profit nor should that be a goal.
More importantly, the 20 some "key personnel" are my greatest concern. If they are going to focus on the award fee and their bonuses, the Laboratory is doomed. Their sole mission must be to create an environment that makes the Lab the institution at which scientists, engineers, technicians and support staff would most like to spend their careers while convincing the National Nuclear Security Administration, Congress and the American public that we are taking care of the taxpayer's dollars, the environment, our workers and our neighbors.
The Department of Energy believes it will take seven years to make the needed changes. How many of the "key personnel" are committed to seven years at the Lab? If any of them think they can straighten things out in a couple of years and move on, I have a simple request: don't bother starting and give us someone who cares. Recreating the Lab that once was will take years, driving it into the ground can be accomplished in short order. Jim Collins in "Good to Great" described the great leaders in corporate America, identified through extensive research, as incredibly ambitious but their ambition is first and foremost for the institution, not themselves. In our case, the institution is LANL, not LANS.
--Duncan Hammon
UC, LANS announce meetings for LANL retirees
ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor
The University of California and Los Alamos National Security have scheduled two informational meetings in the area to discuss transitional matters with Los Alamos National Laboratory retirees.
The meetings will include presentations by Judy Ackerhalt, UC's executive director of human resources and benefits from the Office of the President, Ben Glover from LANS, and Dayna Riley of Hewitt Associates.
LANS selected Hewitt Associates, a global human resources outsourcing and consulting firm, through a competitive process to administer benefits and respond to questions from retirees about health insurance.
| |
[...]
Full Story
Energy Department To Allow Contractors To Police Their Own Workplace Safety Conditions
One more:
Employees of the Department of Energy and the 100,000 workers employed by DOE contractors who maintain the nuclear arsenal, dismantle surplus weapons, dispose of excess radioactive materials, clean up old facilities and conduct energy research are not covered by OSHA. This lack of independent oversight has had predictable results over the past fifty years.
Thousand of "nuclear veterans" received deadly radiation and toxic chemical exposures building this nation's cold war nuclear arsenal, and others were subject of human radiation experiments. Despite the research and warnings of unions, such as the Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers, that their members were becoming sick and dying, the hazards of these facilities and the effects on their employees were ignored for decades. In 2000, after DOE admitted the harm caused to thousands of cold war veterans, Congress finally passed the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act (EEOICPA) which established a compensation program for former nuclear workers.
[...]
Full Story
Employees of the Department of Energy and the 100,000 workers employed by DOE contractors who maintain the nuclear arsenal, dismantle surplus weapons, dispose of excess radioactive materials, clean up old facilities and conduct energy research are not covered by OSHA. This lack of independent oversight has had predictable results over the past fifty years.
Thousand of "nuclear veterans" received deadly radiation and toxic chemical exposures building this nation's cold war nuclear arsenal, and others were subject of human radiation experiments. Despite the research and warnings of unions, such as the Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers, that their members were becoming sick and dying, the hazards of these facilities and the effects on their employees were ignored for decades. In 2000, after DOE admitted the harm caused to thousands of cold war veterans, Congress finally passed the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act (EEOICPA) which established a compensation program for former nuclear workers.
[...]
Full Story
Cheap new labor
Doug,
Saw this graph in the latest issue of Federal Computer
Week (May 22). According to the web site
Collegegrad.com, LANL is expecting to hire a large
number of college grads next year. Perhaps this cheap
new labor is how LANS plans on solving our FY '07
budget crisis?
Monday, May 29, 2006
Make salary decisions about UC brass public
S.F. LAWMAKER'S BILL SHOULD BE FAST-TRACKED, SIGNED BY GOVERNOR
Mercury News Editorial
The executive-pay scandals that have rocked the University of California have exposed a culture of greed, excess and secrecy at the top echelons of the nation's premier public university system. Top officials granted lavish perks willy-nilly behind closed doors to senior managers with little regard for the public interest or taxpayers' dollars.
[...]
Full StoryDepartment of Energy To Elminate Worker Protection Office
In what may be the waning months of a prematurely lame-duck Republican administration, the orders seem to have gone out from corporate headquarters: Identify any agencies that are doing a good job, or have the potential to do a good job (especially those that might benefit workers) -- and kill them.The Department of Energy has revealed a plan to eliminate its office for environment, safety and health. The office was created 20 years ago to respond to radioactive contamination of workers as a result of cold war weapons production. Most of the office's current worker safety and health functions would be transferred to an office dealing with security. The current department is headed by an Assistant Secretary, a political appointee, whereas the security agency is headed by a career DOE employee.
Full Story
Friday, May 26, 2006
LANSL's mission: Food for thought...
ElBaradei: "Nuclear Feeds Nuclear."
Le Nouvel Observateur
Friday 26 May 2006
The IAEA director deems that the great powers must choose between renouncing nuclear weapons and accepting eventual proliferation.
The United States and the other powers refusing to renounce their nuclear arsenals thus encourage other countries to follow their example, and the world could soon have to face a multitude of countries endowed with nuclear weapons, Mohamed ElBaradei warned Thursday, May 26.
"Nuclear feeds nuclear. As long as certain countries continue to insist on the indispensable character of nuclear weapons for their security, other countries will want to procure them. It is impossible to escape this simple truth," declared the International Atomic Energy Agency's director general.
Crossroads
"We have reached a crossroads with regard to nuclear weapons. Either we begin to distance ourselves from a security based on nuclear weapons or we must resign ourselves to the prediction formulated by President (John F.) Kennedy in the 1960s of a world with 20-30 nuclear powers," continued the 2005 Nobel Peace Laureate, speaking before a group of International Relations students at Johns Hopkins University.
These statements take on a particular resonance in view of the crisis related to Iran's nuclear program. The United States demands that Iran renounce its nuclear ambitions. Washington suspects Teheran of seeking to endow itself with nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian program - which Iran denies.
Alternative System
Furthermore, ElBaradei emphasized that efforts aimed at controlling international technology and knowledge transfers were more and more complicated by the development of information techniques.
In the end, these efforts against nuclear proliferation "will only delay the inevitable," ElBaradei predicted.
He consequently invited the students who made up his audience to establish "an alternative system of collective security ... that eliminates the need for nuclear deterrence."
"Only when the nuclear powers have succeeded in no longer being dependent upon these weapons for their security will the threat of nuclear proliferation from other countries be significantly reduced," insisted ElBaradei.
He said he was himself incapable of presenting an alternative system.
Nonetheless, he added, if the international community intensified its efforts to improve living standards in developing countries, "the probability of a conflict will drop immediately."
-----
Letters to the editor - Attack on Iran wouldn't end there
-THE NEW MEXICAN, May 29, 2006
What if the United States nuked Iran? Where could this "completely nuts" plan lead?
(1) A million Iranians are killed outright from 400 targeted blasts.
(2) Airborne radioactive particles and heavy fall-out contaminate neighboring countries and the world multiplying cancer rates, immune-deficiency diseases, and birth defects.
(3) Many millions more of the world's people hate America.
(4) Iran counter-attacks, sending its substantial army into Iraq.
(5) Disruption of oil supplies sends oil prices through the roof, plunging the world into economic chaos.
(6) Chaos provides the pretext for Bush to claim dictatorial rule, declare marshal law, continue spying on Americans, imprison without charge, torture, rape the Treasury, and shred the Constitution.
(7) Enormous U.S. financial debt to China comes home to roost when China, dependent on Iranian oil, retaliates by collapsing our economy.
(8) China and/or Russia, also dependent on Iranian oil, launch retaliatory nuclear strikes.
(9) Hostilities escalate to all-out nuclear war.
(10) Nuclear winter extinguishes life on Earth.
-Marilyn Gayle Hoff, El Prado
So, place your bets: At which stage will we pull out of the game? Pick a number between 0 and 10.
[-Editor. OK, full disclosure: my preference is "0."]
Le Nouvel Observateur
Friday 26 May 2006
The IAEA director deems that the great powers must choose between renouncing nuclear weapons and accepting eventual proliferation.
The United States and the other powers refusing to renounce their nuclear arsenals thus encourage other countries to follow their example, and the world could soon have to face a multitude of countries endowed with nuclear weapons, Mohamed ElBaradei warned Thursday, May 26.
"Nuclear feeds nuclear. As long as certain countries continue to insist on the indispensable character of nuclear weapons for their security, other countries will want to procure them. It is impossible to escape this simple truth," declared the International Atomic Energy Agency's director general.
Crossroads
"We have reached a crossroads with regard to nuclear weapons. Either we begin to distance ourselves from a security based on nuclear weapons or we must resign ourselves to the prediction formulated by President (John F.) Kennedy in the 1960s of a world with 20-30 nuclear powers," continued the 2005 Nobel Peace Laureate, speaking before a group of International Relations students at Johns Hopkins University.
These statements take on a particular resonance in view of the crisis related to Iran's nuclear program. The United States demands that Iran renounce its nuclear ambitions. Washington suspects Teheran of seeking to endow itself with nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian program - which Iran denies.
Alternative System
Furthermore, ElBaradei emphasized that efforts aimed at controlling international technology and knowledge transfers were more and more complicated by the development of information techniques.
In the end, these efforts against nuclear proliferation "will only delay the inevitable," ElBaradei predicted.
He consequently invited the students who made up his audience to establish "an alternative system of collective security ... that eliminates the need for nuclear deterrence."
"Only when the nuclear powers have succeeded in no longer being dependent upon these weapons for their security will the threat of nuclear proliferation from other countries be significantly reduced," insisted ElBaradei.
He said he was himself incapable of presenting an alternative system.
Nonetheless, he added, if the international community intensified its efforts to improve living standards in developing countries, "the probability of a conflict will drop immediately."
-----
Letters to the editor - Attack on Iran wouldn't end there
-THE NEW MEXICAN, May 29, 2006
What if the United States nuked Iran? Where could this "completely nuts" plan lead?
(1) A million Iranians are killed outright from 400 targeted blasts.
(2) Airborne radioactive particles and heavy fall-out contaminate neighboring countries and the world multiplying cancer rates, immune-deficiency diseases, and birth defects.
(3) Many millions more of the world's people hate America.
(4) Iran counter-attacks, sending its substantial army into Iraq.
(5) Disruption of oil supplies sends oil prices through the roof, plunging the world into economic chaos.
(6) Chaos provides the pretext for Bush to claim dictatorial rule, declare marshal law, continue spying on Americans, imprison without charge, torture, rape the Treasury, and shred the Constitution.
(7) Enormous U.S. financial debt to China comes home to roost when China, dependent on Iranian oil, retaliates by collapsing our economy.
(8) China and/or Russia, also dependent on Iranian oil, launch retaliatory nuclear strikes.
(9) Hostilities escalate to all-out nuclear war.
(10) Nuclear winter extinguishes life on Earth.
-Marilyn Gayle Hoff, El Prado
So, place your bets: At which stage will we pull out of the game? Pick a number between 0 and 10.
[-Editor. OK, full disclosure: my preference is "0."]
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Letters to the Sacbee
The ivory -- and gold -- tower
Re "UC Chief Dynes battles to keep job," May 18: Once again the arrogant and ignorant Education Establishment rears its ugly head and states to heck with taxpayers.UC chief Robert Dynes and his ilk steal from us and stand on a pedestal and claim their entitled to it. What will our children learn from them? That it pays to steal from us who must really work for a living to keep the ivory towered, privileged education establishment well provided for?
Barbara Kerr and her minions must be laughing all they way to the ballot box. They aspire to hijack the entire California budget in order to brainwash our children. Most teachers are public school graduates. If we had tested them and flunked them -- as they most assuredly would have -- maybe we could have a public school system more interested in teaching the truth rather than turning them into goose-stepping little liberals.
But I digress. Dynes should be fired. The education establishment should be held accountable and start spending more on real education.
- Patrick Davis, Fair Oaks
Dynes failure at UC
Robert Dynes blames ignorance of the rules and a culture of overactive secrecy and paranoia for actions he took that were not authorized by the University of California Board of Regents. At the same time, a blue-ribbon panel of Californians in an advertisement in The Bee, argue that Dynes policy exceptions are trivial in amount and perhaps necessary for UC to be competitive. They note that UC is a community of the greatest minds in the world.All of the above points are undoubtedly well taken. But they only compound the problem, which is that Dynes, the head of these great minds, turns out to be someone who never learned that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and that paranoia and overactive secrecy are not leadership.
The UC community has known for a decade that transparency in employment practices was required by the regents. Dynes chose to ignore this ultimatum. Because of that, and the fact that his pitiful explanation only magnifies his guilt, he must be removed.
- Norman D. Clayton, Sacramento
The cozy UC club
Re "Regents back UC president," May 19: Of course, the regents back the gross overpayments and inappropriate perks so widely granted within the University of California system. It's a cozy little club, and they benefit as well.I am absolutely sick of hearing that we need to pay inflated salaries and offer absurd incentives to attract "top people." I say fire them all, regents included, and start fresh with a "second-rate" team. We'll all be better off.
The UC system exists to educate Californians, not to enrich a chosen few or to win a one-upmanship contest with other universities.
- Neil J. Rubenking, Davis
The Celeste Rose debacle
Re "How UC courted exec, then paid her $460,000 to go away," May 16: have long wondered about the competency and just plain common sense of the majority of academe. I don't know which has been worse, the steady increase in the cost of higher education, making college unaffordable for most or unavailable for others, or the poisoning of our children's minds by the liberal drivel they receive.The Celeste Rose debacle best illustrates the utter helplessness of the University of California administration. It absolutely defies any attempt at understanding how any of it came about, step by step, over 10 years. But is hers the only example of ludicrous conduct by the administration? Not hardly, we now learn. And what are regents doing during all this, besides sitting on their fat perks?
I applaud The Bee for making public these absurd abuses of the public trust, but nothing seems to be resulting. When are some of these overpriced and incompetent wasters of taxpayer money going to reform or be sacked?
- John Antypas, Lincoln
Strip out the site-specific references and fill in the blanks
Please post the following anonymously:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A GOOGLE search for the famous letter from Lord Wellington -- expressing his frustration with bean counters and pencil pushers in London -- produced not only the desired document, in itself so apropos of every DOE site, but also a link to your wonderful blog. If I did not myself work at Savannah River Site, where every new management imperative, process, or requirement makes it harder to do a good job, I would write off the contents of this site as a bunch of whiny-ass malcontents. But, I'm sad to say that you could probably strip out the site-specific references and fill in the blanks with the names of any and every DOE lab in the country and no one would take exception.
Good job on the blog and on the substantial backbone demonstrated by you folks out there.
In a quagmire of DOE ineptitude,
A friend from SRS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A GOOGLE search for the famous letter from Lord Wellington -- expressing his frustration with bean counters and pencil pushers in London -- produced not only the desired document, in itself so apropos of every DOE site, but also a link to your wonderful blog. If I did not myself work at Savannah River Site, where every new management imperative, process, or requirement makes it harder to do a good job, I would write off the contents of this site as a bunch of whiny-ass malcontents. But, I'm sad to say that you could probably strip out the site-specific references and fill in the blanks with the names of any and every DOE lab in the country and no one would take exception.
Good job on the blog and on the substantial backbone demonstrated by you folks out there.
In a quagmire of DOE ineptitude,
A friend from SRS
"Science" at LANL, however we may define it, is likely to be de-emphasized
Is plutonium pit production somewhat toxic to science? (comment on CMRR
thread at LANL: The Real Story)
Dear Doug –
I find myself in agreement with those contributors who suggest that the
plutonium pit production mission, among related pending changes, is
likely to dramatically change the culture at LANL.
The change may not be linear. It's possibly there could be relatively
big cultural changes once (unknown) thresholds are passed.
Especially as pit production grows, "science" at LANL, however we may
define it, is likely to be de-emphasized for a variety of
straightforward financial and programmatic reasons, as already mentioned
by various commenters on this blog. These reasons might include (the
following estimates vary widely in precision; perhaps other contributors
can improve them):
* A likely decline in overall budget and purchasing power in real dollar
terms, both at LANL specifically and in the NNSA budget as a whole. The
country is broke and there are a lot of other competing priorities, and
annual inflation is now a nontrivial factor. Ballpark decline: at least
10% over the next 3 years, or at least $200 M/year after 3 years.
Inflation alone is highly likely to account for this much.
* LANS must pay gross receipts taxes, unlike UC. Ballpark increase: $75
M/year?
* Isn't there now an imperative for NNSA and LANS to pay into employees'
pensions which wasn't there before? I am not sure of this but as a
placeholder perhaps $80M/year would work as a guess.
* Won't there be increases in salaries of upper management and some
smaller increases for middle management? Ballpark: $10 M/year.
* Aren't there to be more organizational units, and hence more managers,
an overhead function? If real, put $10 M/year here.
* There are likely to be increases in security costs due to increased
special nuclear materials handling for pit production. Ballpark: $10 M.
* There is likely to be an increase in management fee, aka profit.
Ballpark increase: $60 M.
* There are slated to be increases in annual funding for construction
projects at LANL. Over the next 3 years, the increase in the sum of
“Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Programs” [RTBF] and
“Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities” [FIRP] at LANL is about
$160 M. This is an annual figure.
The total impact of these changes on the overall program funding
available at LANL is fairly large. These numbers sum to an impact of
about a negative $600 M/year 3 years out. Help me out here if I've made
some mistake. Whatever the number, it's large.
The effective programmatic shrinkage at LANL, however great it turns out
to be, is likely to disproportionately take place in portions of the
budget which are NOT pit certification and production, which is now
LANL's greatest importance to NNSA. There could even be hidden increases
in the budget for manufacturing and related engineering work.
About what percent of LANL's total effort is "science" today? This isn't
easy to estimate precisely because of the ambiguity contained in the
term "science," but I would say, based on NNSA and UC data, that about
one-third of current UC employees at LANL are working scientists.
Overall perhaps one-fourth of the personnel at LANL are working
scientists. (It's easier to work from personnel categories than from
budget categories to get at this elusive fraction.) The exact fraction
doesn’t affect the overall argument, but the smaller the fraction of
LANL devoted to "science," the greater the relative impact of these
programmatic declines, because the manufacturing missions will be
protected and indeed are a major reason for some of the budgetary and
institutional changes -- perhaps for most of them.
Bottom line: science at LANL will decline, and quite likely at a greater
fractional rate than the LANL budget as a whole. It could fall from
about one-third of the lab’s effort to what -- about one fifth?
One-sixth? A different way of saying this is that as LANS takes over,
and as manufacturing missions grow (some of this is visible growth, i.e.
construction) the overhead for science at LANL is likely to rise,
producing less science for the same money.
If this is anywhere near true, these changes would seem to transform
LANL from what LANL employees have understood to be a science lab,
albeit one with high overhead and some manufacturing, to something
closer to a manufacturing center, again with high overhead, that does
some science on the side.
Plutonium, with its panoply of costs, is fairly toxic to non-plutonium
science, especially in larger doses.
We can be sure that pit production already dominates the consciousness
of the LANS corporate board, because contract continuation is likely to
be contingent upon success in that mission more than any other single
one. I would say that re-starting the production of nuclear weapons –
including the RRW program and the associated awakening of the
“responsive infrastructure” – is NNSA’s highest single priority.
DOE auditors provided us here a printout of current contracts in which
the value of the current LANS contract is shown at $36.6 billion
dollars. Bechtel is the sole recipient or partner in DOE/NNSA contracts
valued at nearly $100 billion in that same spreadsheet. For WGI it's $58
billion, and for BWXT it's $63 billion (some of these contracts
overlap). These are now essentially "no-bid" contracts. Needless to say,
this is a lot of money. These companies will do practically anything to
keep these huge contracts. This too will change the LANL culture. If you
get in the way of a multi-billion dollar funding stream, watch out.
Again, assuming any of this is anywhere near right, LANL's reputation as
a science institution is poised to fall (further). The quality of
science and scientists LANL can attract and keep is likely to drop as
well, as are various blinders. Won't LANL just be a dirty industrial lab
engaged in a dirty business, fouling its own nest in the process?
NNSA's plans du jour are to eventually abandon LANL’s plutonium mission,
about the time existing facilities wear out. The House Appropriations
Committee would prefer to skip some of the wasteful and "irrational"
higher-capacity pit production steps at LANL, especially the CMRR
facility, a ~ $1 B project tied to other major facility upgrades at LANL
in what must be about a ~$2 B package. They would prefer to go straight
on to a shiny new bomb factory in the desert somewhere, likely Nevada.
My own take on this is that the CMRR project is indeed irrational 57
ways to Sunday, both in detail and as policy. It is a terrible and
unnecessary boondoggle that will hurt LANL, damage U.S. national
security, and waste a gob of money. But unlike Mr. Hobson I don't want a
shiny new bomb factory. Even if one wants to keep nuclear weapons, and I
don't, neither is needed for a long time.
LANL and the town of Los Alamos do not have an easy future ahead under
any scenario, but some scenarios are worse than others. Especially given
that the House wants the CMRR project stopped, it might behoove NNSA and
LANS not to start it yet.
If anyone is interested, here are some relevant links on our (Los Alamos
Study Group) web site:
Declining Federal Oversight at Los Alamos, Increasing Production
Incentives: A Dangerous Divergence. Presentation to the Defense Nuclear
Safety Board (DNFSB), 3/22/06. http://www.lasg.org/DNFSBMar06.htm
U.S. Enters New Nuclear Age as Bush Seeks Funds for New Generation of
Nukes (3/2/06): http://www.lasg.org/DemNow3-2-06.htm United States
Military Spending (2/10/06): http://www.lasg.org/MilitarySpending.htm
Expansion of LANL Waste Disposal: Lots of Mostly New-Made Waste
(1/25/06): http://www.lasg.org/waste/TA54LLW.htm and
http://www.lasg.org/waste/expansion.htm
About the LANS partners (1/18/06):
http://www.lasg.org/technical/LANS.htm and
http://www.lasg.org/technical/WeaponsComplexTable.htm
DOE Manager To Hear Advisory Board, Citizen Concerns Regarding Nuclear
Disposal; Secretive Disposal Plans Face Scrutiny, Censure (1/24/06):
http://www.lasg.org/PressRelease01-24-06.htm
Sweeping Plan to Build New Warheads to Be Part of Bush Nuclear Budget;
Los Alamos Is Pivotal Site; Weapons head Linton Brooks’ remarks in
Livermore imply that $4 billion Los Alamos plutonium “pit” program is
now primarily aimed at producing new warheads (2/6/06)
http://www.lasg.org/PressRelease02-06-06.htm
The campaign for & against plutonium manufacturing & new weapons is
heating up (4/7/06)
http://www.lasg.org/ActionAlerts/ActionAlerts2006.htm#AA59
Sincerely,
Greg Mello
--
Greg Mello
Los Alamos Study Group
2901 Summit Place NE
Albuquerque, NM 87106
505-265-1200 voice
505-265-1207 fax
505-577-8563 cell
(signal very weak in the office; messages
on cell phone may not be received promptly)
gmello@lasg.org
www.lasg.org
thread at LANL: The Real Story)
Dear Doug –
I find myself in agreement with those contributors who suggest that the
plutonium pit production mission, among related pending changes, is
likely to dramatically change the culture at LANL.
The change may not be linear. It's possibly there could be relatively
big cultural changes once (unknown) thresholds are passed.
Especially as pit production grows, "science" at LANL, however we may
define it, is likely to be de-emphasized for a variety of
straightforward financial and programmatic reasons, as already mentioned
by various commenters on this blog. These reasons might include (the
following estimates vary widely in precision; perhaps other contributors
can improve them):
* A likely decline in overall budget and purchasing power in real dollar
terms, both at LANL specifically and in the NNSA budget as a whole. The
country is broke and there are a lot of other competing priorities, and
annual inflation is now a nontrivial factor. Ballpark decline: at least
10% over the next 3 years, or at least $200 M/year after 3 years.
Inflation alone is highly likely to account for this much.
* LANS must pay gross receipts taxes, unlike UC. Ballpark increase: $75
M/year?
* Isn't there now an imperative for NNSA and LANS to pay into employees'
pensions which wasn't there before? I am not sure of this but as a
placeholder perhaps $80M/year would work as a guess.
* Won't there be increases in salaries of upper management and some
smaller increases for middle management? Ballpark: $10 M/year.
* Aren't there to be more organizational units, and hence more managers,
an overhead function? If real, put $10 M/year here.
* There are likely to be increases in security costs due to increased
special nuclear materials handling for pit production. Ballpark: $10 M.
* There is likely to be an increase in management fee, aka profit.
Ballpark increase: $60 M.
* There are slated to be increases in annual funding for construction
projects at LANL. Over the next 3 years, the increase in the sum of
“Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Programs” [RTBF] and
“Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities” [FIRP] at LANL is about
$160 M. This is an annual figure.
The total impact of these changes on the overall program funding
available at LANL is fairly large. These numbers sum to an impact of
about a negative $600 M/year 3 years out. Help me out here if I've made
some mistake. Whatever the number, it's large.
The effective programmatic shrinkage at LANL, however great it turns out
to be, is likely to disproportionately take place in portions of the
budget which are NOT pit certification and production, which is now
LANL's greatest importance to NNSA. There could even be hidden increases
in the budget for manufacturing and related engineering work.
About what percent of LANL's total effort is "science" today? This isn't
easy to estimate precisely because of the ambiguity contained in the
term "science," but I would say, based on NNSA and UC data, that about
one-third of current UC employees at LANL are working scientists.
Overall perhaps one-fourth of the personnel at LANL are working
scientists. (It's easier to work from personnel categories than from
budget categories to get at this elusive fraction.) The exact fraction
doesn’t affect the overall argument, but the smaller the fraction of
LANL devoted to "science," the greater the relative impact of these
programmatic declines, because the manufacturing missions will be
protected and indeed are a major reason for some of the budgetary and
institutional changes -- perhaps for most of them.
Bottom line: science at LANL will decline, and quite likely at a greater
fractional rate than the LANL budget as a whole. It could fall from
about one-third of the lab’s effort to what -- about one fifth?
One-sixth? A different way of saying this is that as LANS takes over,
and as manufacturing missions grow (some of this is visible growth, i.e.
construction) the overhead for science at LANL is likely to rise,
producing less science for the same money.
If this is anywhere near true, these changes would seem to transform
LANL from what LANL employees have understood to be a science lab,
albeit one with high overhead and some manufacturing, to something
closer to a manufacturing center, again with high overhead, that does
some science on the side.
Plutonium, with its panoply of costs, is fairly toxic to non-plutonium
science, especially in larger doses.
We can be sure that pit production already dominates the consciousness
of the LANS corporate board, because contract continuation is likely to
be contingent upon success in that mission more than any other single
one. I would say that re-starting the production of nuclear weapons –
including the RRW program and the associated awakening of the
“responsive infrastructure” – is NNSA’s highest single priority.
DOE auditors provided us here a printout of current contracts in which
the value of the current LANS contract is shown at $36.6 billion
dollars. Bechtel is the sole recipient or partner in DOE/NNSA contracts
valued at nearly $100 billion in that same spreadsheet. For WGI it's $58
billion, and for BWXT it's $63 billion (some of these contracts
overlap). These are now essentially "no-bid" contracts. Needless to say,
this is a lot of money. These companies will do practically anything to
keep these huge contracts. This too will change the LANL culture. If you
get in the way of a multi-billion dollar funding stream, watch out.
Again, assuming any of this is anywhere near right, LANL's reputation as
a science institution is poised to fall (further). The quality of
science and scientists LANL can attract and keep is likely to drop as
well, as are various blinders. Won't LANL just be a dirty industrial lab
engaged in a dirty business, fouling its own nest in the process?
NNSA's plans du jour are to eventually abandon LANL’s plutonium mission,
about the time existing facilities wear out. The House Appropriations
Committee would prefer to skip some of the wasteful and "irrational"
higher-capacity pit production steps at LANL, especially the CMRR
facility, a ~ $1 B project tied to other major facility upgrades at LANL
in what must be about a ~$2 B package. They would prefer to go straight
on to a shiny new bomb factory in the desert somewhere, likely Nevada.
My own take on this is that the CMRR project is indeed irrational 57
ways to Sunday, both in detail and as policy. It is a terrible and
unnecessary boondoggle that will hurt LANL, damage U.S. national
security, and waste a gob of money. But unlike Mr. Hobson I don't want a
shiny new bomb factory. Even if one wants to keep nuclear weapons, and I
don't, neither is needed for a long time.
LANL and the town of Los Alamos do not have an easy future ahead under
any scenario, but some scenarios are worse than others. Especially given
that the House wants the CMRR project stopped, it might behoove NNSA and
LANS not to start it yet.
If anyone is interested, here are some relevant links on our (Los Alamos
Study Group) web site:
Declining Federal Oversight at Los Alamos, Increasing Production
Incentives: A Dangerous Divergence. Presentation to the Defense Nuclear
Safety Board (DNFSB), 3/22/06. http://www.lasg.org/DNFSBMar06
U.S. Enters New Nuclear Age as Bush Seeks Funds for New Generation of
Nukes (3/2/06): http://www.lasg.org/DemNow3-2
Military Spending (2/10/06): http://www.lasg.org/MilitarySp
Expansion of LANL Waste Disposal: Lots of Mostly New-Made Waste
(1/25/06): http://www.lasg.org/waste
http://www.lasg.org/waste
About the LANS partners (1/18/06):
http://www.lasg.org/technical
http://www.lasg.org/technical
DOE Manager To Hear Advisory Board, Citizen Concerns Regarding Nuclear
Disposal; Secretive Disposal Plans Face Scrutiny, Censure (1/24/06):
http://www.lasg.org/PressRelea
Sweeping Plan to Build New Warheads to Be Part of Bush Nuclear Budget;
Los Alamos Is Pivotal Site; Weapons head Linton Brooks’ remarks in
Livermore imply that $4 billion Los Alamos plutonium “pit” program is
now primarily aimed at producing new warheads (2/6/06)
http://www.lasg.org/PressRelea
The campaign for & against plutonium manufacturing & new weapons is
heating up (4/7/06)
http://www.lasg.org/ActionAler
Sincerely,
Greg Mello
--
Greg Mello
Los Alamos Study Group
2901 Summit Place NE
Albuquerque, NM 87106
505-265-1200 voice
505-265-1207 fax
505-577-8563 cell
(signal very weak in the office; messages
on cell phone may not be received promptly)
gmello@lasg.org
www.lasg.org
Today was the (little-announced and not-reminded) first day...
Doug, could you put up this paragraph and link? You can put my name
on it.
Mark Galassi
___________________________________
LANS has done little to inform us about the transfer from UC 4??(?) to
the LANS 401(k) -- there has been little info on rollovers, and the
prospectus from Fidelity could have more info.
Still, today was the (little-announced and not-reminded) first day in
which we could set up contributions on the Fidelity web site, and I'll
bet a lot of people are not set up to do so. Since the market is
correcting down, those people who like to invest as the market goes
down might want to start regular contributions as soon as possible, so
I urge everyone to set up their Fidelity web account so they have the
option to do so.
When I went in there I saw that they give you the option of
"after-tax" contributions. I've never seen this, and it did not
impress me much since it has none of the capital gains tax advantages
of the Roth, and even worse: investment income at retirement might be
your ordinary tax bracket instead of the capital gains rate.
I looked around a bit, and found that some guy in his blog did one
example calculation. I don't know how good his calculation is, or if
it applies to us, but maybe it would make for a useful thread on this
blog, as people try to customize it to the LANS 401(k) after-tax
approach.
http://2million.blogspot.com/2006/05/are-after-tax-401k-contributions-good.html
on it.
Mark Galassi
___________________________________
LANS has done little to inform us about the transfer from UC 4??(?) to
the LANS 401(k) -- there has been little info on rollovers, and the
prospectus from Fidelity could have more info.
Still, today was the (little-announced and not-reminded) first day in
which we could set up contributions on the Fidelity web site, and I'll
bet a lot of people are not set up to do so. Since the market is
correcting down, those people who like to invest as the market goes
down might want to start regular contributions as soon as possible, so
I urge everyone to set up their Fidelity web account so they have the
option to do so.
When I went in there I saw that they give you the option of
"after-tax" contributions. I've never seen this, and it did not
impress me much since it has none of the capital gains tax advantages
of the Roth, and even worse: investment income at retirement might be
your ordinary tax bracket instead of the capital gains rate.
I looked around a bit, and found that some guy in his blog did one
example calculation. I don't know how good his calculation is, or if
it applies to us, but maybe it would make for a useful thread on this
blog, as people try to customize it to the LANS 401(k) after-tax
approach.
http://2million.blogspot.com
Hearing the "R" word
A comment from the
http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2006/05/what-great-way-to-start-day.html
post:
_________________________________________
Anyone have the figure for how many folks accepted/declined employment with LANS? Of those that accepted employment, what the TCP1 and TCP2 splits were? Need to start figuring how that is going to play out. Hearing the "R" word being tossed around.
http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2006/05/what-great-way-to-start-day.html
post:
_________________________________________
Anyone have the figure for how many folks accepted/declined employment with LANS? Of those that accepted employment, what the TCP1 and TCP2 splits were? Need to start figuring how that is going to play out. Hearing the "R" word being tossed around.
Editorial: Bar lowered for Dynes
UC Board of Regents
Issue date: 5/25/06 Section: Opinion
The recent controversy over whether the UC Board of Regents should ask UC President Robert Dynes to resign is an illusion. The situation has been carefully handled to look as though Dynes and the regents were at odds, but in reality the only ones wronged were the students.
While the regents claim Dynes understands the gravity of overcompensating executive employees with hundreds of millions of dollars, remember that the amount of money paid out in overcompensation in 2004-2005 alone works out to approximately $1,000 per UC student. This situation is yet another example of the disconnect between the regents and the students.
[...]
Full Article
The recent controversy over whether the UC Board of Regents should ask UC President Robert Dynes to resign is an illusion. The situation has been carefully handled to look as though Dynes and the regents were at odds, but in reality the only ones wronged were the students.
While the regents claim Dynes understands the gravity of overcompensating executive employees with hundreds of millions of dollars, remember that the amount of money paid out in overcompensation in 2004-2005 alone works out to approximately $1,000 per UC student. This situation is yet another example of the disconnect between the regents and the students.
[...]
Full Article
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
What a great way to start the day!
Please post anonymously.
After traversing the parking lots for 20 minutes, I finally
parked on a yellow striped area. After getting into the 'pod',
I wander to my office, passing the always closed between 8 a.m and
8:30 a.m. bathrooms. Who needs those in the morning, anyway?
Finally, the pleasant trek to my office, through trash can lined hallways,
since our trash is picked up only once a week.
What a great way to start the day!
-Thanks for the opportunity to vent.
House panel cuts CMRR funds
Submitted by Anonymous:
___________________________________
Doug,
This article from Sunday's Los Alamos Monitor about
plutonium production seems news worthy. In the end, I
believe both Congress and NNSA will decide to use LANL
as the "Super Plutonium Pit Production Center" due to
evolving budgetary constraints. When this occurs, it
will radically change the culture of both LANL and the
whole town-site.
http://lamonitor.com/articles/2006/05/19/headline_news/news01.txt
..................................................
House panel cuts CMRR funds - LA Monitor, May 21, 2006
A House of Representatives subcommittee working up a
version of next year's budget for the nuclear weapons
program proposes deep cuts in a key construction
project at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
[...]
___________________________________
Doug,
This article from Sunday's Los Alamos Monitor about
plutonium production seems news worthy. In the end, I
believe both Congress and NNSA will decide to use LANL
as the "Super Plutonium Pit Production Center" due to
evolving budgetary constraints. When this occurs, it
will radically change the culture of both LANL and the
whole town-site.
http://lamonitor.com/articles
..............................
House panel cuts CMRR funds - LA Monitor, May 21, 2006
A House of Representatives subcommittee working up a
version of next year's budget for the nuclear weapons
program proposes deep cuts in a key construction
project at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
[...]
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Has UC already planned for the spin off of lab pensions?
Submitted by Anonymous:
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
Readers should check out the UC Regents presentation (pdf attached UCRP contributions). Note that the slides indicated the proposed contributions only include campuses and medical centers (starting on slide #3). Has UC already planned for the spin off of lab pensions? LANL and LLNL UCRS members should request a funding curve.
Hewitt is the favorite firm for the UC and DOE. They have interesting documents on their website such as (2nd pdf file attached total retirement pg 6). Note that in March of 2003 Hewitt had completed a pension study with 18 of 23 companies that had defined benefit plans (DBPs). In 2004 the LANL / LLNL Ben val study didn't include a single company with a defined benefit plan. Did DOE direct the comparator group to NOT include any DBPs? The LLNL contract website now includes this very sub-standard ben val study.
Hewitt seems to be a hired gun and can give any numerical result the paying client wants. Their assumptions have obvious flaws especially ignoring COLAs and other parameters such as interest rates and rates of return. To be complete, many simulations and cases need to be calculated to show the effects of certain assumptions and estimates.
It is obvious to LANL employees (especially trained in mathematics/engineering/science/business) that results are being tailored to the results desired. Numbers don't lie, but results can be manipulated with assumptions and "spun" or presented in the best light or to obscure important details. You will find client friendly documents on Hewitt pages about how to; not over pay employees that are not going to leave, how to rely on social security for your total retirement funding, and to control medical costs.
I think the UC finance committee should require a second and more independent review of these results being presented in public and being used as the basis of actions to our 40 billion dollar pension fund. This is open bias and UCRS members deserve better.
LANSBert
Submitted by Anonymous:
_____________________________________
Hi Doug, Here’s something that reflects one of my fears for the LANS environment:
_____________________________________
Hi Doug, Here’s something that reflects one of my fears for the LANS environment:
UC didn't sign off on sabbatical pay
Audit finds customs were not followed for chancellor
By Eleanor Yang
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
May 23, 2006
New questions are being raised about a controversial $248,000 payout UC San Diego Chancellor Marye Anne Fox received last year for a sabbatical she said she earned at a previous institution.
By Eleanor Yang
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
May 23, 2006
New questions are being raised about a controversial $248,000 payout UC San Diego Chancellor Marye Anne Fox received last year for a sabbatical she said she earned at a previous institution.
Details from an audit presented to University of California regents last week show the decision to pay Fox for the sabbatical before she took it – an unprecedented practice for the university – appears to have lacked ultimate approval by the university.
UC administrators said the university's practice is to honor the sabbatical credits earned at previous institutions for certain recruited administrators. That means providing them with the opportunity to take a year's sabbatical to conduct research and be paid the appropriate amount during that time.
[...]
Dynes responsible for fiscal woes
For neglecting duties to students, UC president should face harsher penalties from regents
By Jason O'Bryan
DAILY BRUIN COLUMNIST
jobryan@media.ucla.edu
Over 208,000 students just got screwed over all at once. And they probably didn't even realize it.
At the UC Board of Regents' May 18 meeting, which addressed the recent compensation scandal and the possible culpability of University of California President Robert Dynes, the regents decided to give Dynes their support. In a press release, the regents acknowledged that they hold Dynes accountable, but are convinced that he can correct the problem.
But "accountability" apparently means nothing, because while all sides agree that there have been large monetary transgressions, the man responsible is keeping his post without so much as a pay dock or an ultimatum. The regents are not acting as though they answer to the students and taxpayers of California, making this just the most recent example of how, in the UC system, the students lose.
[...]
Full Story
Monday, May 22, 2006
Can you afford to retire?
At UC, you get what you pay for
May 22, 2006
Re "The value of big-buck professors," Opinion, May 18
Michael H. Schill sidesteps the issue about compensation in the University of California system. The issue is not what a professor or administrator should be paid but whether any compensation package was properly approved.
If the UC administration violates the Board of Regents' policy that it must approve compensation packages, what should be done to those who violate the policy?
If compensation or benefits have been paid without the proper approval from the regents, it should be returned.
As a UC Berkeley and UC Hastings College of Law graduate, the entire controversy looks like total arrogance to me.
[...]
Full Story
Re "The value of big-buck professors," Opinion, May 18
Michael H. Schill sidesteps the issue about compensation in the University of California system. The issue is not what a professor or administrator should be paid but whether any compensation package was properly approved.
If the UC administration violates the Board of Regents' policy that it must approve compensation packages, what should be done to those who violate the policy?
If compensation or benefits have been paid without the proper approval from the regents, it should be returned.
As a UC Berkeley and UC Hastings College of Law graduate, the entire controversy looks like total arrogance to me.
[...]
Full Story
Sunday, May 21, 2006
How about posting this article on your blog?
Submitted by Anonymous:
_________________________________
Forget about the Lab's self-serving press release. How about posting this article on your blog?
Saturday, May 20, 2006
LANL Suits Settled for $12M
By John Arnold
Journal Staff Writer
The University of California and a group of Hispanic and female Los Alamos National Laboratory employees have agreed to settle a pair of class action discrimination lawsuits at a cost of $12 million.
If the proposed agreement is approved by a federal judge, some 5,500 current and former lab employees will be eligible to receive payouts from the settlement. Parties in the case are still negotiating attorney fees.
UC manages LANL for the U.S. Department of Energy and employs about 9,500 people in Los Alamos. DOE will reimburse UC for the cost of the settlement, according to UC spokesman Chris Harrington.
The suits which allege pay disparities stemming from years of racial and gender discrimination were filed separately by six female LANL employees, the Hispanic Roundtable of New Mexico and a LANL labor union in 2003 and 2004, before being consolidated into a single case.
Attorneys representing employees in the case called the settlement agreement a milestone and said their clients "risked their careers" for equal pay.
"They succeeded in forcing the University of California to acknowledge that it owes compensation to the women and Hispanic employees that have been treated unfairly," attorney John C. Bienvenu said in a written statement released on Friday.
But LANL maintains that it committed no wrongdoing and has policies in place that prohibit pay discrimination.
Any pay disparities "were the result of legitimate business factors unrelated to sex or race," according to a court document that seeks preliminary court approval of the agreement.
"The settlement was done to avoid costly litigation that would have potentially cost millions and millions of dollars and would have taken potentially years to reconcile," lab spokesman James Rickman said by phone Friday.
In 2003, a LANL study known as the Welch Report found significant pay disparities for four out of 30 worker groups that it evaluated, with workers in those groups earning about 1.5 percent to 2.3 percent less than their white male counterparts.
The employees who later sued the lab alleged that the Welch report actually understated the disparity.
Loyda Martinez, a lead plaintiff in the case, said in a written statement that New Mexico is ranked among the highest in the nation for the percentage of women, especially women of color, living in poverty.
"The Los Alamos National Laboratory has been here for 64 years and with these statistics should be ashamed," she said.
Under the terms of the agreement, regular, limited-term and short-term employees who worked at the lab between Dec. 10, 2000, and the date the settlement gets preliminary court approval are eligible to file claims for compensatory damages and back pay.
In addition to the monetary relief, the lab agreed to implement a new hiring policy to help correct pay disparities and will undertake "best efforts" to provide child-care services to lab workers. The lab also committed not to retaliate against employees who participated in the lawsuit.
The agreement comes as UC prepares to hand over management duties on June 1 to a new contractor, Los Alamos National Security, a new limited liability corporation led by Bechtel National and UC.
"This settlement comes at a critical moment for one of the nation's most prominent national laboratories," said Laura Barber, a lead plaintiff in the case. "We are confident that this settlement will send a message to the current and future operator of Los Alamos National Laboratory, as well as other government contractors, that women are entitled to equal pay for equal work."
Last year, Barber filed another federal lawsuit that accused lab managers of retaliating against her for filing the discrimination lawsuit.
The retaliation lawsuit will be dismissed, under the proposed settlement, said Barber's attorney, Patrick D. Allen.
Yolanda Garcia, Loyda Martinez, Gloria Bennett and Yvonne Ebelacker are the other lead plaintiffs in the discrimination suit.
If approved, their settlement won't be a first for UC-run national laboratories. In 2003, UC agreed to a $10 million settlement to more than 3,000 female employees at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. That settlement also included $8.2 million in attorney fees.
_________________________________
Forget about the Lab's self-serving press release. How about posting this article on your blog?
Saturday, May 20, 2006
LANL Suits Settled for $12M
By John Arnold
Journal Staff Writer
The University of California and a group of Hispanic and female Los Alamos National Laboratory employees have agreed to settle a pair of class action discrimination lawsuits at a cost of $12 million.
If the proposed agreement is approved by a federal judge, some 5,500 current and former lab employees will be eligible to receive payouts from the settlement. Parties in the case are still negotiating attorney fees.
UC manages LANL for the U.S. Department of Energy and employs about 9,500 people in Los Alamos. DOE will reimburse UC for the cost of the settlement, according to UC spokesman Chris Harrington.
The suits which allege pay disparities stemming from years of racial and gender discrimination were filed separately by six female LANL employees, the Hispanic Roundtable of New Mexico and a LANL labor union in 2003 and 2004, before being consolidated into a single case.
Attorneys representing employees in the case called the settlement agreement a milestone and said their clients "risked their careers" for equal pay.
"They succeeded in forcing the University of California to acknowledge that it owes compensation to the women and Hispanic employees that have been treated unfairly," attorney John C. Bienvenu said in a written statement released on Friday.
But LANL maintains that it committed no wrongdoing and has policies in place that prohibit pay discrimination.
Any pay disparities "were the result of legitimate business factors unrelated to sex or race," according to a court document that seeks preliminary court approval of the agreement.
"The settlement was done to avoid costly litigation that would have potentially cost millions and millions of dollars and would have taken potentially years to reconcile," lab spokesman James Rickman said by phone Friday.
In 2003, a LANL study known as the Welch Report found significant pay disparities for four out of 30 worker groups that it evaluated, with workers in those groups earning about 1.5 percent to 2.3 percent less than their white male counterparts.
The employees who later sued the lab alleged that the Welch report actually understated the disparity.
Loyda Martinez, a lead plaintiff in the case, said in a written statement that New Mexico is ranked among the highest in the nation for the percentage of women, especially women of color, living in poverty.
"The Los Alamos National Laboratory has been here for 64 years and with these statistics should be ashamed," she said.
Under the terms of the agreement, regular, limited-term and short-term employees who worked at the lab between Dec. 10, 2000, and the date the settlement gets preliminary court approval are eligible to file claims for compensatory damages and back pay.
In addition to the monetary relief, the lab agreed to implement a new hiring policy to help correct pay disparities and will undertake "best efforts" to provide child-care services to lab workers. The lab also committed not to retaliate against employees who participated in the lawsuit.
The agreement comes as UC prepares to hand over management duties on June 1 to a new contractor, Los Alamos National Security, a new limited liability corporation led by Bechtel National and UC.
"This settlement comes at a critical moment for one of the nation's most prominent national laboratories," said Laura Barber, a lead plaintiff in the case. "We are confident that this settlement will send a message to the current and future operator of Los Alamos National Laboratory, as well as other government contractors, that women are entitled to equal pay for equal work."
Last year, Barber filed another federal lawsuit that accused lab managers of retaliating against her for filing the discrimination lawsuit.
The retaliation lawsuit will be dismissed, under the proposed settlement, said Barber's attorney, Patrick D. Allen.
Yolanda Garcia, Loyda Martinez, Gloria Bennett and Yvonne Ebelacker are the other lead plaintiffs in the discrimination suit.
If approved, their settlement won't be a first for UC-run national laboratories. In 2003, UC agreed to a $10 million settlement to more than 3,000 female employees at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. That settlement also included $8.2 million in attorney fees.
Friday, May 19, 2006
Settlement reached in class actions
X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 14:58:12 -0600
To: LANL-ALL@lanl.gov
From: Public Affairs Office - LANL Notices <paonotices@lanl.gov>
Subject: LANL-ALL1085: Settlement reached in class actions
Sender: owner-lanl-all@maillist.lanl.gov Please note the following:
Settlement reached in class actionsThe Regents of the University of California and a group of female and Hispanic employees have agreed to settle two class action lawsuits alleging employment discrimination at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Under the terms of the settlement, which has been submitted to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico for preliminary approval, the Regents have agreed to pay $12 million to current and former female and Hispanic employees at the Laboratory. The Regents also agreed to certain non-monetary relief.
The lawsuits were brought by a group of Laboratory employees and two organizations, on behalf of female and Hispanic employees of the Laboratory, alleging discrimination in pay, promotions and educational practices.
According to the settlement agreement, the Laboratory expressly disputes any allegation of discrimination or wrongdoing and does not admit any liability.The parties to the settlement have expressed satisfaction with the resolution and have asked the court to approve the settlement, and to permit notice of the settlement to be sent to the Laboratory's current and former employees who are entitled to claim compensation under the terms of the settlement.
--
Public Affairs Office
Los Alamos National Laboratory
P.O. Box 1663, Mail Stop C177
THIS IS A NOTIFICATION SYSTEM ONLY. PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MESSAGE. THANK YOU!
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Fidelity Mutual Fund choices for the LANS 401(k)
Submitted by Anonymous:
__________________________________
Doug,
Please post Anonymously:
I just picked up Morningstar reports on all the
Fidelity Mutual Fund choices for the LANS 401(k) from
the Los Alamos Smith Barney office. They are free
while they last. They're on the 4th floor of the LANB
building.
Also includes stock intersection reports - very
interesting.
__________________________________
Doug,
Please post Anonymously:
I just picked up Morningstar reports on all the
Fidelity Mutual Fund choices for the LANS 401(k) from
the Los Alamos Smith Barney office. They are free
while they last. They're on the 4th floor of the LANB
building.
Also includes stock intersection reports - very
interesting.
Regents back embattled UC president
By MICHELLE LOCKE
The Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO
University of California President Robert C. Dynes, under fire over millions of dollars in bonuses and other perks secretly paid to top executives, got the support of his board Thursday.
"He is the appropriate leader to resolve these issues and guide the university through this difficult chapter in its history," UC Board of Regents Chairman Gerald Parsky said.
Smiles and applause greeted the statement, read as the board held its regular meeting in San Francisco. Still, the regents had some stern words for their president, saying they "hold him accountable for the university's compensation problems and he has acknowledged his responsibility."
"I don't think it's letting President Dynes off easy at all," Parsky said outside the meeting.
[...]
Students, staff, lawmakers demand answers in executive pay flap
By MICHELLE LOCKE, Associated Press Writer
Thursday, May 18, 2006
(05-18) 10:22 PDT San Francisco (AP) --
University of California President Robert C. Dynes faced tough questions on his role in approving millions of dollars in perks quietly doled out to top executives.
Regents met behind closed doors to discuss the compensation issues with Dynes on Wednesday afternoon, and was expected to make a statement about Dynes' future Thursday. UC Board of Regents Chairman Gerald Parsky characterized the embattled president's responses as "very forthcoming and sincere."
[...]
UC chief raked as new pay deals are revealed
Latest audit shows scores more were made in secret
Tanya Schevitz, Todd Wallack, Chronicle Staff Writers
Thursday, May 18, 2006
UC regents and state lawmakers harshly criticized the University of California's pay practices Wednesday as an internal audit revealed scores of violations of university policy and UC President Robert Dynes admitted to a culture in his office of "trying to get away with as much as possible and disclose as little as possible."
University auditors told the UC Board of Regents they had found that 143 exceptions to the university's compensation policies had been made to give extra pay or benefits to 113 senior managers. That's on top of the 91 exceptions identified last month by PricewaterhouseCoopers auditors for a different group of UC executives.
The 54-page audit, presented at the regents' meeting at UC San Francisco, looked at compensation packages promised to 299 managers during the three years ending on Dec. 31, 2005.
The audit found that the university had skirted its own rules by granting extra vacation time, asking regents to approve large raises without informing them that the raises were beyond policy limits and giving large relocation incentive allowances to executives moving within California.
Three state senators told the regents in blunt terms that Dynes had broken the public's trust.
"President Dynes, it is not easy for me to look you right into the whites of your eyes and say it, but I am saying it to you today: You have had sufficient opportunity to implement accounting reforms and to get rid of compensation abuses in the university. Instead, it seems the problems have flourished under your watch," said Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, who sits on the state Senate education committee that has held hearings on the compensation controversy. "President Dynes, I look to you to exhibit leadership. I ask you to resign."
[...]
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
700 at UC awarded $23 million in exit pay
Lucrative deals for faculty, staff, some with legal claims
Tanya Schevitz, Todd Wallack, Chronicle Staff Writers
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Tanya Schevitz, Todd Wallack, Chronicle Staff Writers
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
When UC Berkeley Associate Athletic Director Mark Stephens was passed over for a promotion at Cal last year, the university promised to keep him on the payroll, giving him $183,000 over three years while letting him take a full-time job somewhere else.
Two years ago, UC Davis agreed to give a medical professor, Dr. Casey Daggett, $150,000 in exchange for his resignation and a promise to drop all his legal claims against the university.
In 2002, the UC Berkeley athletic department forced administrator Kevin Reneau to step down but agreed to keep him on the payroll for 2 1/2 years at $86,000 per year so he could reach retirement age and his family could qualify for health care benefits.
During the past five years, UC has negotiated at least 700 separation agreements worth about $23 million, UC spokesman Paul Schwartz said Tuesday in response to a public records request by The Chronicle. The totals were actually higher, he said, because the figures omitted other agreements with employees at UC's three national laboratories or those that involved existing litigation.
[...]
Today!
