Why is Livermore different?
Not everyone has a lot of days of unused vacation just sitting around to burn during the impending stand down, and Parney once again demonstrates his concern for his employees by permitting vacation advances. LANL issued guidance (below) specifically forbids this.
'The memo also stipulated:
• Employees with adequate vacation balances will be able to record vacation on timecards for the weeks starting Oct. 21 and Oct. 28 if they wish. Vacation advances or other paid leave (sick, jury duty, etc.) will not be allowed, with the exception of employees currently on long-term sick leave.
McMillan concluded his memo by saying, “I understand the turmoil this creates for you, your families, and the region. I urge you make plans with a possible furlough in mind,” McMillan wrote.'
Comments
"NNSA has asked the Laboratory to initiate an orderly shutdown in support of minimum safe and secure operations no later than Oct. 21, and to maintain that status until Nov. 1. However, due to limited financial reserves, the Laboratory will initiate safe and secure operations beginning Oct. 15. NNSA will provide additional guidance should the lapse in appropriations continue past Nov. 1. The Laboratory has developed a list of critical personnel who will continue to report to work, but all other employees will be furloughed (leave without pay – LWOP). At this time, we have not received permission from DOE/NNSA to use accrued vacation in lieu of LWOP. We will communicate NNSA’s decision as soon as it becomes available."
What is the story? LANL can use vacation, Sandia may not use vacation and LLNL doesn't know? WTF?
October 10, 2013 at 7:30 PM
This all brought to you courtesy of the taxpayer funded "One NNSA" and other interested parties.
It is why LLNL employees should still be managed under contact 48 by UC alone, rather than whipsawed under NNSA directions by an impotent LLC.
THE REGENTS MUST INFORM NNSA THAT THEY WILL NO LONGER PARTICIPATE IN THE LLC AND THAT THEY WILL NOT ACCEPT CONTRACT EXTENSIONS, THAT THEY WILL LET CONTRACT 48 AND THE LLNS LLC EXPIRE.
Then they can offer to manage the whole shebang again as a single entity or to walk away.
It does not work now.
Then they can offer to manage the whole shebang again as a single entity or to walk away.
October 11, 2013 at 5:48 PM
UC wanted to walk away completely when the LLCs were formed, but were convinced by DOE/NNSA that their presence was in the best interest of their "former" employees. No way they would agree now to redo the past. The Regents would vote it down in a heartbeat, and the faculty would be 100% opposed also. That ship has sailed.
You are incorrect.
UC was behind the creation of the LLCs. It was a UC idea to try and save UC involvement in the LANL contact. The RFPs for LANL and LLNL did not require an LLC to bid on the contracts - the RFPS only required that the entity be separate from the parent organization. Specifically it required "...any bidder for the LANL or LLNL contract be organized as a distinct, special-purpose legal entity dedicated exclusively to the performance of the contract."
UC could have created a wholly UC owned LLC - Univ of Chicago did this for its bid on ANL. However, UC needed a strong industrial partner in order to win the LANL contract over the Lockheed Martin-Univ of Texas team. This meant UC (a public non-profit entity) getting in bed with a private for-profit company. UC felt the LLC was the easiest way to do this, and share the now huge management fee with the industrial partners. UC didn't need to go this route for LLNL - since there was no real competition bidding on it (the NsTec/Grumman team didn't even have an academic partner in their LLC, which was a non-starter with NNSA for someone running a research lab). Unfortunately for LLNL staff, the industrial partners wanted a package ($$$$) deal.
This is all explained in this official report prepared back in 2007 for the UC staff.
http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/reports/ac.labguide.0807.pdf
The story makes for a good read, especially the part about where the independent governors each get $50,000 per year for serving on each board. Well, at least they did in 2006, you would think that they would have had some raises by now. Oh, and they get all expenses paid on top of that. And, they can do other jobs also.
Say, serving on the Congressional panel to examine the current NNSA lab management structure. Interesting how POGO and others missed this.
http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/minutes-index/index.html
October 12, 2013 at 10:06 PM
But not for UC running the weapons labs.
Now there is a group that has a solid grasp of weapons science.
October 13, 2013 at 10:55 AM
I find it hard to believe that the UC Regents chose Napolitano, or that the faculty will support her. She is the architect of much of the paranoia and loss of privacy since 9/11. On the other hand, you may be right; "UC - Homeland Security University."
October 14, 2013 at 2:07 PM
They have a reputation for running full and open searches. Surely you are not suggesting that the process was flawed. If so, that could explain much of what has happened to LANL in the last two years.
I find it hard to believe that the UC Regents chose Napolitano.
October 14, 2013 at 2:07 PM
They have a reputation for running full and open searches. Surely you are not suggesting that the process was flawed. If so, that could explain much of what has happened to LANL in the last two years.
October 15, 2013 at 10:21 AM
At least Napolitano had the good sense not to claim in her first press interview that she was the only person in the country that was qualified for the job. The groans that went up after McMillan made that rookie error still echo on the mesa.
The regular blows struck by Congress and NNSA beginning in 2007 finally put the old girl down for good.
Soon our unilateral nuclear disarmament will be complete.
"Soon our unilateral nuclear disarmament will be complete"
What makes you think that 40-50 year old nuclear weapons delivered by 50-60 year old bombers and missiles is in any way not already unilateral disarmament?