Anonymously contributed:
*** LANL Director Makes $1M ***
-----------------------------
By ABQ Journal Staff on Thu, Apr 19, 2012
The director of Los Alamos National Laboratory now makes more than $1 million a year — about three times what the position paid before the lab’s management was privatized in 2006.
LANL director Charles McMillan’s compensation was $1,081,059 in 2011. The amount, which apparently includes health insurance, pension costs and other benefits, is public because the lab has to provide what’s paid to top officials as a condition of accepting money under the federal stimulus program.
That’s up from the $800,348 for McMillan’s predecessor Michael Anastasio in 2009, the federal reports show.
The Nuclear Watch New Mexico group called attention to the latest salary figures Wednesday.
“We specifically call upon Los Alamos lab to fully explain to northern New Mexicans why it needs to cut some 600 jobs while at the same time the for-profit management corporation is enjoying record profits and the director’s salary has nearly tripled in six years,” said Nuclear Watch director Jay Coghlan.
The lab, citing flat or reduced budgets, recently cut its payroll by about 560 jobs with a voluntary buyout plan. LANL’s budget is about $2.2 billion this year, about $300 million less than the previous year.
Coghlan’s press release noted that in 2005 — when the lab was still operated as nonprofit entity by the University of California — the director’s job paid $348,000.
In 2006, the lab’s management contract was awarded to the for-profit Los Alamos National Security LLC, a consortium that includes the university, Bechtel Corp. and other companies.
The federal reports still show Sandia National Laboratories, run by Lockheed Martin, paying its director $1.7 million, the same as in 2009.
But it’s possible the compensation rate may actually be different now. Paul Hommert replaced Tom Hunter in 2010, but the online stimulus money reports continue to list Hunter as the top executive making $1.7 million.
No comment was available from LANL officials Wednesday. A Los Alamos lab spokesman said in 2009, when the stimulus money reports first showed the lab directors’ salaries, that not all of their compensation comes directly from taxpayer money, with a portion coming from the private corporations that manage the labs.
--
www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/04/19/north/
lanl-director-makes-1m.html
Comments
Almost all of his salary comes from the tax-payers. This needs to change.
April 22, 2012 9:22 PM
Yes, the story makes this absolutely clear. Lots of knee-jerk outrage here.
But just about what the men's basketball coach at UNM was making in 2007.
The presidents of western democracies recieve multimillion dollar payoffs from friends they have served after they leave office. SecDOEs ain't worth a wooden nickel.
All is well in corporate American boardrooms.
( Charlie 'MIT' McMillan )
The average staff member making around $100k+ after 30 years of service credit has a 'lump sum' pension worth slightly over a million (even though TCP1 no long allows 'lump sum' disbursements).
McMillans pension 'lump sum' value at his high salary would be far more than this. Telling the press that the reason McMillan's salary is so large is because of "pension and benefits" is a sad joke!
McMillan is making over a million a year in cold, hard cash. The fact that LANS PR is trying to obfuscate this information is disgusting but that's how Bechtel and the LANS upper management team rolls.
April 23, 2012 4:02 PM
You are seriously confused. No one gets a "salary from LANL" - every employee of LANL gets a salary from LANS (they are employees of LANS, not LANL). So, any "bonuses on top of that from there (sic) parent companies (LANS)" are just bonuses paid by the same employer. The only difference is whether the payments are reimbursed by DOE/NNSA under the contract salary provisions. Regular salary = yes. Bonuses paid to upper level management = no. At least try to get your facts straight.
( Charlie 'MIT' McMillan )
April 23, 2012 9:57 AM
OK McMillan. Where's the money? Is it a secret or are you just hiding it? Show your employees the money if you want us to follow it.
The fee is still taxpayer money. If we all, not just managers are doing so great then how come we do not get a slice of the fee as a bonus as well. It still stinks and induces the managers that get bonuses to look out for the parent organizations.
April 24, 2012 4:01 PM
The fee is taxpayer money, but comes out of the award fee that LANS and it's members are free to spend any way they like. Again you are confused: LANS is NOT a "parent company" - it is your employer. Bechtel, UC, and the rest are "parent companies," i.e., the members of the LLC called "LANS." Get it yet? You don't "get a slice" since you are a regular employee with no contractual commitment to the corporate management board of LANS, which upper level managers have. Of course upper managers are going to "look out for" the corporation they are under specific contract to. Get a clue about corporate America, because you are now part of it.
April 25, 2012 9:17 AM
The National Labs are nothing more than locations where research is carried out by private corporations with US government funding. Nothing particularly unique or special about that. Get over yourselves.
They don't want the regular staff or the public to know the ways in which they are 'pig-ing out' now that a profit based corporation is controlling the labs. You'll have more success finding the compensation of companies on Wall Street than you will with these highly secretive frankenstein-like corporate entities.
That's exactly what LLNS has done this year and last. Obviously 1.5% won't change anyone's lifestyle, but it can still be appreciated.
April 27, 2012 12:01 AM
You know of some place where this is NOT true in corporate America? Pretty naive.
The amount reported to DOE was total compensation as of the time of the report, not a W-2 statement of earnings to date.
The blog claim of his salary is false, as is 10:02 AM's comment. Object to his salary if you want, but get the facts. 6:50 PM is most accurate.
May 1, 2012 8:02 AM
So what do you have to gain in "protecting" McMillan's salary? Who are you, his financial adviser, attorney, or worst yet, Rich Marquez?
May 4, 2012 6:20 AM
Boy, you've really gone far over if you think telling the truth is "protecting" Mcmillan. Anyone who is against the lying witch hunt is suspect, huh? Go look at yourself in the mirror and see if you recognize him.