Anonymously contributed:
From: LLNL Public Affairs Office
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 4:13 PM
To: E-line
Subject: MESSAGE TO EMPLOYEES FROM CHAIRMAN NORM PATTIZ
Members of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory community:
I am writing to let you know that George Miller has informed the Board of Governors that he will be stepping down as Laboratory director in October 2011. It is with mixed emotions that the LLNS board has accepted George's decision. While we deeply regret his decision, we respect and appreciate him for his contributions to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and to the nation and we wish him the best as he transitions to the next phase in his personal and professional life.
George has served as the Laboratory director since 2006, both under the longtime management of the University of California and as the first president of Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. Under his leadership, the Laboratory has delivered exceptional science and engineering in support of its program missions and has significantly improved its business and operations functions that support mission execution, all while transitioning to a new management environment. George has been fearless in tackling a variety of management and scientific challenges in the interest of national security and continuous improvement. He will leave a legacy of strong personal commitment to safety for employees that extends to both work and home experiences.
Replacing George is a daunting challenge. His long and dedicated leadership contributions to LLNL and national security will be difficult to replicate. Under the leadership of the University of California, we will conduct the search for a new director.
Please join me in expressing our appreciation and gratitude to George for his dedicated service to the country and to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. While I know a change in leadership can be difficult, we can best express our appreciation to George and our commitment to LLNL by staying focused on the Laboratory's critical missions and supporting George as Laboratory director through the remainder of his term.
Regards,
Norman J. Pattiz
Chairman
LLNS Board of Governors
April 12, 2011 9:31 PM
55 comments:
So now the hunt begins for the replacment. Will it be a Bechtel shill, will it be promotion from within or from outside of the gate? One thing for sure, LANL had better hope it's not Moses. He had the rest of the lab supporting NIF. If he takes the reins, he'll find away to have LANL support the entire lab.
UC makes the decision on the Lab director at LLNL and LANL. Here’s why. In the May 20, 2010 minutes of the UC Regents Joint meeting of the Committees on Finance and DOE Labs, it is stated that the University’s net share of Los Alamos National Security (LANS) and Lawrence Livermore National Security (LLNS) LLC income earned between September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2010 was $29.5 million. While 70% of this is used to fund UC research at the labs, it was recommend that “$2 million be approved in supplemental compensation for certain LANL and LLNL employees.”
“Regent Island expressed his pride in the Laboratories, which provide public service of the highest quality. He asked about the supplemental compensation proposed in the recommendation. He asked if this was bonus or incentive compensation. Executive Vice President Darling recalled that, when the partnership was formed with the University, Bechtel, Babcock & Wilcox (BWXT), and URS Corporation, the employees who were to be located at LANL and LLNL by each partner became the financial responsibility of that partner for the increment of their salary defined by market-competitive studies over and above the Department of Energy (DOE) reimbursement. The amount proposed for supplemental compensation represents those payments as well as annual incentive compensation, approved by the LLC board of directors annually, based on goals and performance.
Regent Island asked how much of the $2 million expenditure listed in the item was for supplemental compensation and how much for incentive compensation. Mr. Darling responded that employees are eligible for incentive compensation for about 20 percent of their base salary.”
I wonder which LLNL and LANL employees they were talking about…
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/minutes/2010/joint52.pdf
One other point on UC's role in picking the Lab Director. The contract between the LLNS and NNSA caps the Lab Director’s salary – Contract 44, Clause H-35, (2) (IV) (B)
“(B) Notwithstanding any other term or condition set forth in the Contract, the reimbursable compensation for each of the Contractor’s Key Personnel, shall not exceed (i) $693,951 benchmark in effect at the time of Contract award (i.e., the Contract’s effective date)…”
So UC could give the Lab director an additional 20% ($138K if he was getting the max) for their annual salary out of the UC’s share of the management fee. That was back in 2007. I’m sure the Lab Director's salary has gone up since then, given the “high” marks LLNS has received on its “management” of LLNL from the NNSA site office.
The next LLNS director will be Charlie McMillian. He will move back in the house he still has in Livermore with the family he still has in Livermore. It is a done deal. The big question is who will be the next LANS director?
Best wishes George. sorry to see you go.
The next LLNS director will be Charlie McMillian.
Nope. LANS all the way.
The big question is who will be the next LANS director?
April 13, 2011 6:23 PM
Oh please, not Knapp...
Knapp is the only one who can go head-to-head with Moses. Wouldn't it be interesting to make him director of LLNL?
Next LLNL Director - Dr. Steven Koonin, currently DOE Under Secretary for Science.
Knapp is the only one who can go head-to-head with Moses. Wouldn't it be interesting to make him director of LLNL?
April 13, 2011 8:26 PM
Knapp does not have credentials or "intelligence" to become the LANS/LLNS Director. To think or even fathom that Knapp could rise to become a LLNS/LANS Director would be likened to Donald Trump becoming President of the United States. God save us! I can imagine Knapp eliminating the surrounding Pueblos to deal with them. The destruction that Knapp would level on the community and workers would be "devastating" to LANS.
My opinion is that Bob Goodwin will be "crowned" the LLNS Director and MacMillan will be "knighted" LANS Director. It's already been decided, the selection committee is only "going through the motions" and wasting taxpayer money.
Make that "Bruce" Goodwin. Sorry Bruce, you going to be the next LLNS Director and we don't even know your name.
Knapp is referred to as "Hell Boy" here in the trenches at LANS, to give you some idea of what workers think of him. He makes Nanos look like St. Francis of Assisi.
UC needs to pick an outsider for LLNL with a broader view of the scientific community and skill to turn LLNL into a real multi-program/sponsor Federally Funded Research & Development Center (FFRDC), instead of a dying NNSA national lab. George was making progress on this transition, but an insider out of the weapons program with a vision of besting LANL will kill it.
LLNL needs someone with some nuclear weapons or theoretical physics experience on their resume, but definitely a strong science background and large organization management sucess.
The future of LLNL is not nuclear weapons but basic/applied science - NIF, Supercomputers, and LVOC. Weapons and nuclear work will still be the core, but a very small core when compared to LANL.
UC needs to pick an outsider for LLNL with a broader view of the scientific community and skill to turn LLNL into a real multi-program/sponsor Federally Funded Research & Development Center (FFRDC), instead of a dying NNSA national lab.
April 14, 2011 5:24 PM
What is your evidence that this is even possible? When has it ever happened before? There is no constituency outside of NNSA, but inside DOE, for another FFRDC. If NNSA decides LLNL is unnecessary to its mission, LLNL will simply close. There is absolutely nothing LLNL can do other than nuclear weapon research, that cannot be done better and cheaper at PNL, LBNL, ANL, BNL, and a host of other major DOE contractors that aen't FFRDCs. Pure wishful thinking. UC isn't "picking" then next LLNL Director, although it has majority say in it. It cannot overrule a veto of the LLNS Board. "For profit" is here to stay, and so is NNSA. Comport to their mission or you are history. DOE/NNSA owns every square inch of LLNL, regardless of who runs it.
April 14, 2011 7:24 PM
If you know your Lab history, you’ll remember that LLNL existed before NNSA, and before DOE. In fact is was born as a division of the UC Berkeley Radiation Laboratory (Site 100) at a closed naval aviation station in Livermore (Site 200) and eventually expanding to an explosives testing area near Tracy (Site 300).
Also, it is already an FFRDC per Contract 44 between LLNS and NNSA clause I-117 below…
(a) Pursuant to 48 CFR 35.017-1, this contract constitutes the sponsoring agreement between the Department of Energy and the contractor, which establishes the relationship for the operation of a Department of Energy sponsored Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC).
(b) In the operation of this FFRDC, the contractor may be provided access beyond that which is common to the normal contractual relationship, to Government and supplier data, including sensitive and proprietary data, and to Government employees and facilities needed to discharge its responsibilities efficiently and effectively. Because of this special relationship, it is essential that the FFRDC be operated in the public interest with objectivity and independence, be free from organizational conflicts of interest, and have full disclosure of its affairs to the Department of Energy.
(c) Unless otherwise provided by the contract, the contractor may accept work from a nonsponsor (as defined in 48 CFR 35.017) in accordance with the requirements and limitations of DOE Order 481.1, Work for Others (Non-Department of Energy Funded Work) (see current version).
(d) As an FFRDC, the contractor shall not use its privileged information or access to government facilities to compete with the private sector. Specific guidance on restricted activities is contained in DOE Order 481.1.
Last, as per the partnering agreement that established LLNL, UC is the controlling partner. See – “An Introductory Guide to UC’s Ties to LANS LLC and LLNS LLC and their Management of the Weapons Labs at Los Alamos and Livermore, prepared by UC Academic Council Chair Oakley and University Counsel Bill Eklund (8/07)
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/ac.labguide.0807.pdf
as discussed in this document;
“The LLNS Board of Governors has a total of 16 positions, also with six of these Governors constituting an Executive Committee…
All decisions of [the] Board are made by the Governors on the Executive Committee. The other Governors are advisory to the Executive Committee and do not have voting rights.
UC is entitled to appoint three Governors to [the] Executive Committee, including the Chair (the “UC Governors”). Bechtel is also entitled to appoint three Governors to [the] Executive Committee, including the Vice Chair (the “Bechtel Governors”). However, one of the Bechtel Governors must be a representative of BWXT or WGI [now B&W, and URS], who is nominated jointly by [B&W] and [URS] each year, and who must be approved and appointed by Bechtel…
The UC-appointed Chair has tie-breaking authority over most decisions of the Executive Committee, with certain exceptions…
The LLNS Board, but not the LANS Board, includes in addition a Governor appointed by Battelle (the “Battelle Governor”). The Battelle Governor is non-voting and merely advisory to the LLNS Executive Committee…
Under both the LANS and LLNS LLC Agreements, the positions of President/Laboratory Director and Deputy Laboratory Director are filled by joint action of the Chair and Vice Chair of the Executive Committee, with UC nominating the President/Laboratory Director and Bechtel nominating the Deputy Laboratory Director.”
There is absolutely nothing LLNL can do other than nuclear weapon research, that cannot be done better and cheaper at PNL, LBNL, ANL, BNL, and a host of other major DOE contractors that aren't FFRDCs.
Holy head scratch! Every organization you cite is in fact also an FFRDC. Please see http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ffrdclist/.
"The big question is who will be the next LANS director?" - 6:24 pm
Pete Nanos will be the next LANL Director. Don't laugh, I'm dead serious about this! ;-(
April 14, 2011 7:24 PM
If you know your Lab history, you’ll remember that LLNL existed before NNSA, and before DOE. Also, LLNL is already an FFRDC per Contract 44 between LLNS and NNSA clause I-117 below…
“(a) Pursuant to 48 CFR 35.017-1, this contract constitutes the sponsoring agreement between the Department of Energy and the contractor, which establishes the relationship for the operation of a Department of Energy sponsored Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC).”
Last, as per the partnering agreement that established LLNS, UC is the controlling partner of LLNS.
UC is entitled to appoint three Governors to the Executive Committee, including the Chair. Bechtel is also entitled to appoint three Governors to the Executive Committee, including the Vice Chair. However, one of the Bechtel Governors must be a representative of B&W or URS, who is nominated jointly by B&W and URS each year, and who must be approved and appointed by Bechtel.
The UC-appointed Chair has tie-breaking authority over most decisions of the Executive Committee, with certain exceptions.
Under the LLNS LLC agreement, the positions of President/Laboratory Director and Deputy Laboratory Director are filled by joint action of the Chair and Vice Chair of the Executive Committee, with UC nominating the President/Laboratory Director and Bechtel nominating the Deputy Laboratory Director.
"Pete Nanos will be the next LANL Director. Don't laugh, I'm dead serious about this! ;-(
April 14, 2011 10:34 PM"
No that would make LANS look bad. Why do you say this?
There is absolutely nothing LLNL can do other than nuclear weapon research, that cannot be done better and cheaper at PNL, LBNL, ANL, BNL, and a host of other major DOE contractors that aren't FFRDCs.
Holy head scratch! Every organization you cite is in fact also an FFRDC. Please see http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ffrdclist/.
April 14, 2011 9:14 PM
Precisely the point. Who needs another one to do the same work? LLNL is headed towards redundancy with those institutions.
April 15, 2011 9:44 AM
All of the nuclear weapons design work done at LLNL could be done at LANL. There is no technical reason for LLNL to do nuclear weapons design work, especially given how small the stockpile is and that SNM is leaving LLNL.
It is a political decision to have two physics labs - in the '90s when there was talk of "greening" LLNL it was really UC that pushed back against having LANL as the sole weapons lab. They wanted peer review for the lab's work if they were going to be on the "hook" for management of design work. I even remember talk that LLNL might have a building at LANL, as a separate LLNL run home for our weapons program in order to move this work out of Livermore (silly idea yes).
On the other hand, the science and basic research at LLNL, could be done elsewhere (good luck moving NIF), but this could be said of all science and basic research in DOE. Heck, why not just have one huge Office of Science national lab and close all the rest.
I even remember talk that LLNL might have a building at LANL, as a separate LLNL run home for our weapons program in order to move this work out of Livermore (silly idea yes).
April 15, 2011 3:45 PM
LLNL already has a building at LANL. Anastasio, MacMillan and Knapp are sitting in it! I will never accept these guys as LANL workers until they stop saying "at Livermore, at Livermore, at Livermore, at....."
On the other hand, the science and basic research at LLNL, could be done elsewhere (good luck moving NIF), but this could be said of all science and basic research in DOE. Heck, why not just have one huge Office of Science national lab and close all the rest.
April 15, 2011 3:45 PM
This is not an argument for keeping LLNL open, it is an argument for closing it! Redundancy in federally funded research institutions is good? Try selling that to the taxpayers.
April 13, 2011 8:26 PM
We don't want the JA back LANS , you keep him. We want a Bechtel employee as the director, one that owes no one any favors of any kind for any reason and one that will streamline all of LLNL faults.
"We want a Bechtel employee as the director, one that owes no one any favors of any kind for any reason and one that will streamline all of LLNL faults.
April 16, 2011 6:14 AM"
So no science only bridge building,
great.
"... needs to pick an outsider for LLNL with a broader view of the scientific community and skill to turn LLNL into a real multi-program/sponsor FFRDC."
Wrong. LLNL's core competency is weapons.
Everything else is filler, "sandboxes" brought in to retain talent to support weapons. LLNL does have the congressional support within the California delegation to become an effective FFRDC. LLNL cannot compete in Congress with the East Coast mafia, ORNL, LANL, PNL and the renewable energy lab.
Those congressional delegations see their funding as a birthright, that they will fight to the death for, even if they are not qualified to do the work.
LLNL has no such support and consistently loses in open competition in Congress. LLNL over the years lost leadership magnetic fusion, renewable energy, accelerator technology, precision conventional weapons, biotechnology, infomatics, precisely because these programs were better supported by the congressional delegations of competing labs.
The California congressional Democrats who will even acknowledge LLNL exists, particularly, Feinstien, are lukewarm in their support.
Its weapons or nothing.
Anything else is poor strategy.
"DOE/NNSA owns every square inch of LLNL, regardless of who runs it...
True, and its incompetence stains every square millimeter.
"..All of the nuclear weapons design work done at LLNL could be done at LANL... "
This is also true in reverse. In fact, the LLNL staff is regularly superior in output, design and effectiveness and peer reviews. The outcome of the last true design process showed this.
The real dilemma is the neither is what it once was, the talent that learned from design and testing is now retiring and has not be replaced and neither can be trusted to press on alone. Especially without the harsh discipline of testing.
"..All of the nuclear weapons design work done at LLNL could be done at LANL... "
This is also true in reverse. In fact, the LLNL staff is regularly superior in output, design and effectiveness and peer reviews.
April 16, 2011 9:45 AM
Kinda hard without Cat I SNM. That ship has sailed.
“This is also true in reverse. In fact, the LLNL staff is regularly superior in output, design and effectiveness and peer reviews.”
LOL…Not true from my perspective. After FPU of many LLNL systems we were constantly correcting design problems. I did not find this the case with the majority of LANL designs.The W79 was a real beauty:)
LLNL has clearly been the innovator in nuclear weapon design. It started when Livermore showed LANL how to put a nuke on a missile.
During the last hurrah of nukes in the 1980s, Livermore was so far out in front of Los Alamos in design improvements that DOE chose LANL for designs only because both labs had to be supported. The Trident's going to LANL could not be jujstified by any techical reason.
Don't forget that LLNL was founded due to the LANL's complacency with the status quo.
"Don't forget that LLNL was founded due to the LANL's complacency with the status quo."
Say what you will but, I'm not about to let experience cloud my judgment :)
"April 16, 2011 10:35 PM"
Is that you Brett?
Mike?
Charlie?
April 16, 2011 10:35 PM
You are right on. LANL hasn't had a new thought since the B61.
You are right on. LANL hasn't had a new thought since the B61.
April 17, 2011 7:28 PM
I actually had a LLNL weapons person say to me in the early 90's "LLNL makes innovative designs - LANL makes B61's." Well, we see what persists in the stockpile. B61, W76, W80, W88. All the LLNL "innovations" are in the history files as interesting but impractical.
LLNL innovations are are exemplified by the number of Excaliber X-ray laser satellites now orbiting the Earth. Courtesy of the US Taxpayer.
I can't believe that you retired LANL and LLNL Labites still argue about who is best . . . have you noticed that it is OVER guys. These once-great Labs are burned out hulks of what they used to be. My only question is when will D'Agostino leave Federal employment and take a Bechtel sweetheart thank you job for vigorously supporting the demolition of NNSA Labs? He would just be following a long line (and I name just a few) of those who got Bechtel jobs for their stellar performance during the LANL/LLNL transition: Thomas Gioconda, Steve Liedle, Parney Albright, Steve Wuthrich, Harold Conner, and Tyler Przbylek - general counsel and chief operating officer for NNSA at the time of the transition - you know the DOE contract manager (lawyer?) who engineered this disaster and went to work for Fermilab after retiring from NNSA!
I can't believe that you retired LANL and LLNL Labites still argue about who is best . . .
April 19, 2011 7:27 PM
Sad commentary, because both labs are still good, but only if their employees want them to be good. Otherwise they WILL become "burned out hulks of what they used to be". It used to be that no matter how bad management was, and believe me there were plenty of really bad managers during the "gravy days," the ongoing commitment of the employees to their service to the country, and their faith in their comrades, made any lousy management survivable. It seems that ethic among the employees has gone. Sad for the labs and sad especially for the country, who could always count on the labs to get it done. I fear that the end of that era has arrived not because of the employees losing a battle, but because of them not caring anymore. Unity among employees is the answer, but maybe it is too late.
"Unity among employees is the answer, but maybe it is too late."
Humm...sounds like a spiel from a Union Organizer.
"Unity among employees is the answer, but maybe it is too late."
Humm...sounds like a spiel from a Union Organizer.
April 20, 2011 5:46 AM
You are obviously too young to have been employed at LANL or LLNL back when employees stuck together, worked together to minimize the effects of stupid management, supported each other's projects, and were only too glad to assist with advice and expertise whenever they could. This ad hoc multidisciplinary environment was one of the main drivers for the greatness of the labs. Not unions. The pigeon-holing that started with the tightening of programmatic accounting rules in the mid-80's ended all that. It might be established again, but it would require guts on the part of employees. So it goes...
Heard today that UC had made MacMillian offer of his choice of lab directors at either LLNL or LANL. The other one goes to Younger. Who wins in this deal?
If LLNL gets Mcmillan, and LANL gets Younger, Mcmillan wins and LANL wins. LLNL loses.
"Heard today that UC had made MacMillian offer of his choice of lab directors at either LLNL or LANL. The other one goes to Younger. Who wins in this deal?
April 20, 2011 8:19 PM"
I am not buying it. Maybe LANS has made an offer this week but LLNLS is separate company and will have to go through the whole procedure in a different search and different timeline.
If LLNL gets Mcmillan, and LANL gets Younger, Mcmillan wins and LANL wins. LLNL loses.
April 20, 2011 9:41 PM
It's about time LLNL loses on something. LANL paid dearly during Anastasio's reign.
"...it's about time LLNL loses on something..."
1. LLNL's effective UC contract 48 was also terminated because of a long list of misteps taken at LANL.
2. Cat 1 SNM were removed.
3. LLNL, too, was lied to by Tyler Pryzbylek.
4. LLNL, too, has a 2 year salary freeze.
5. LLNL, too, suffers from inane, inexperienced B-team senior managers cast off by industrial partners.
6. LLNL, too, suffers under the merry scrutiny of DOE site office pretenders.
In short, Mike was popular at LLNL and remained an auslander at LANL.
We both have done penance recently for our perceived sins.
Oh yeah.
7. 1800 full-time and contract personnel were laid off.
Worst of all,
8. Dr. Post did not bring Markie to "bring your daughters to work day".
It will be helpful if either lab is lead by a genuinely nice person. The Kuckucks, Hausmanns and Maras of the world make life so much more pleasant than the Woods, Tellers, Moses and Emmetts.
Driven prima donnas require so much attention. Lets hope we get a humble workman.
"...it's about time LLNL loses on something..."
May 1, 2011 7:47 AM
Everything, absolutely everything that LLNL has endured pales in comparison to LANL gaining Bret Knapp. To say this "person" is abominable is an understatement.
In short, Mike was popular at LLNL and remained an auslander at LANL. We both have done penance recently for our perceived sins.
May 1, 2011 7:47 AM
The problem with Mike is that he, Knapp, and MacMillan continued to be "Livermorons". They refused to eat the red or green chili. I would frequently hear Knapp and McMillian at meetings saying "at Livermore, at Livermore, at Livermore". I will never forget when John Pedicini asked Anastasio during an RRW meeting if he was supporting LLNL or LANL? The problem is that there were not accepted but rather they refused to join the LANL ranks, by running back and forth to their homes in California and being "best buddies" with the competition back in California. They were obviously placed at LANL to break the back of the arrogant workers at LANL and shut the place down.
LLNL innovations are are exemplified by the number of Excaliber X-ray laser satellites now orbiting the Earth. Courtesy of the US Taxpayer.
April 19, 2011 6:53 PM
Don't forget all the Brilliant Pebbles too!
It will be helpful if either lab is lead by a genuinely nice person. The Kuckucks, Hausmanns and Maras of the world make life so much more pleasant than the Woods, Tellers, Moses and Emmetts.
Driven prima donnas require so much attention. Lets hope we get a humble workman.
May 1, 2011 7:58 AM
You won't get "humble" in a Lab Director. Kuckuck had his marching orders from UC at LANL: Prevent an all-out revolt by the staff, try to heal some of Nanos' inflicted wounds, and keep a low profile. He carried them out admirably, if boringly. A good man who could have been great if he had been allowed to be. Mara wasn't at LANL very long, but I remember a meeting where he (with Mcmillan at his side) was advised strongly by experts that he would be violating DOE policy with his intended path. He looked at Mcmillan and shrugged, and went ahead. He came off as the quintessential used-car salesman, never too offensive, but never too truthful or believable either.
It is not clear that either organization has candidates in place to replace Mike or George.
The system is just not working.
Unless people can create their own ideas, ala RRW, and test them to understand them, they will not stay put.
I will never forget when John Pedicini asked Anastasio during an RRW meeting if he was supporting LLNL or LANL.
You of course imply an answer, or divination of the 'true' answer if unspoken. Mike has been dedicated to LANL's successful performance. That doesn't mean he has to agree with every technical assessment of J.P.
Pedecini has been very outspoken. It seems to run in the family. John has been right more often than wrong, however, when he is wrong, he is really wrong, and is not happy to admit it when presented with proof. That type of person can inspire loyalty and admiration, but can lead to absolute ruin also. It is always bad when someone become a legend in his own mind. Self-doubt can be a valuable trait. John doesn't have any.
Post a Comment