This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email email@example.com
Suggest new topics here
Submit candidates for new topics here only. Stay on topic with National Labs' related issues. All submissions are screened first for ...
Saturday, December 28, 2013
"A legislative compromise should make it "less painful" for Washington to study the cost of modernizing its nuclear arsenal, one congressional source says. At issue is an Energy Department plan to create interoperable nuclear warheads capable of multiple tasks. The first such weapon that Energy contractors would develop would be called the IW-1, envisioned as having the ability to replace both the Air Force W-78 warhead -- currently fitted on ground-based ballistic missiles -- and the Navy W-88 warhead, used on submarine-based missiles. In Congress, the plan has prompted concerns from both sides of the aisle, with lawmakers suggesting that the Obama administration should first compare its cost to that of an alternative plan under which it would simply refurbish the existing two warheads." http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/compromise-bill-could-make-nuclear-warhead-cost-study-less-painful/
LLNL Wins Age Discrimination Lawsuit!! Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has won the age discrimination phase of a lawsuit alleging that 130 Laboratory employees were laid off improperly in 2008. In a verdict rendered last week in Alameda County Superior Court, a jury found that Laboratory managers had acted in good faith and followed their own policies and the law with regard to the ages of the laid off employees
Thursday, December 26, 2013
A journal article co-authored by a current employee at Sandia National Laboratories has been retracted: http://retractionwatch.com/2012/06/08/jacs-science-retracting-three-papers-from-leading-emory-chemist-craig-hill/
I’ve been offered a job at the lab and am going through the rigorous clearance screening process. I am not sure whether I should tell the HR department that my credit is not perfect. We lost our home during the recession and what followed was some pretty damaging stuff on our credit. The position that they are considering me for has access to proprietary information. Can you please ask other bloggers if they have any thoughts regarding this dilemma? Thank you in advanced. Signed, Midscore640
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
When is Monya Lane leaving? It was published she was leaving last June, but no date given and she is still here. I understand not having interim director Brett Knapp having to decide this but couldn't someone in Engineering who will probably remain with LLNL do a better job than Monya as a lame duck? Plus LLNL would save an AD salary!
Saturday, December 21, 2013
AF General re-assigned because of behavior during Russia trip And he was in charge of the nuclear forces. When will these guys learn to behave? * * *http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/report-us-air-force-general-drank-too-much-fraternized-with-foreign-women-in-moscow/2013/12/19/7f3cdba0-68ed-11e3-a0b9-249bbb34602c_story.html?hpid=z4
LANL contract not extended by NNSA http://www.lamonitor.com/content/lab-scores-89-percent-nnsa-performance-evaluation
Marylia Kelley said... http://nnsa.energy.gov/aboutus/ouroperations/apm/perfevals This link will lead you to the NNSA Memorandum of December 16, 2013 RE: LLNL, LLC's FY 2013 Performance Fee. As you will see, LLNS did not earn the "award term." However, the Performance Evaluation Report - upon which this memo is based - is not yet up on the web. Some of you will recall that last year, the Fee Determining Official (at that time, Neile Miller) gave LLNL management a "bump up" to allow them the "award term." She also gave LANL management an anomaly to give them the "award term." Congress was not amused - and so it may be particularly interesting to see the actual Performance Evaluation Reports this year. Tri-Valley CAREs will be watching for the FY 2013 Performance Evaluation Report, and will use the Freedom of Information Act to ensure its public availability if it is not posted by NNSA on the web in a timely manner.
How you rate the managers in the various directorates?
LLNL receives annual performance scores 12/20/13 The Laboratory has received the scores determined by the NNSA Fee Determination Official for fiscal year 2013, earning an overall 87 percent of the total fee, or $41.3 million. We are pleased NNSA recognizes the Lab's continued strong performance in programs, operations and infrastructure, but we are disappointed an award term was not given. For the three program-related performance objectives (mission and science), the Laboratory earned two ratings of "very good" and one rating of "excellent." The Operations and Infrastructure Performance Objective received a rating of "very good." For the Contractor Leadership Performance Objective, the Laboratory earned a rating of "satisfactory." Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, holds a seven-year contract to manage the Laboratory, with four consecutive one-year award terms already earned, taking the contract to 2018. Additional award terms could extend the contract through 2026. We understand NNSA will issue a detailed report on the PER at a later date. We will address the findings of the report at that time. -- Bret Knapp (Acting LLNL Director)
Our latest column from the Fissile Materials Working Group explores lessons from Australia, because no country should be complacent about nuclear and radiological terrorism. I hope you find it of interest! Best, Janice Nuclear security lessons from Australia: http://thebulletin.org/nuclear-security-lessons-australia -- Janice Sinclaire Internet Outreach Coordinator
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Ken Moody AAAS Fellow Award Congratulations to Ken for this acknowledgement of his contributions to science and actinide research. It begs me to wonder how and why he is still there at the lab so long. I would have expected management and the sniper culture adopted by the mediocrity to have done him in or chased him out. The hollow acknowledgment by the lab are more than compensated by his recognition in the broader community. He serves as an exemplar and beacon for scientific excellence despite to strive for institutional and technical failure and mediocrity around him. Congratulations to Ken Moody.
Robert Peurifoy, a retired Sandia vice president who worked on the B-61, disagrees with current Sandia President Paul Hommert and questions the need for the LEP. From the recent December 2013 Issue of "Physics Today": Costing up to $10 billion over a dozen years, the refurbishment of what is planned to be the last class of US nuclear bombs is the lowest-cost option for extending its life for several decades, officials from the Departments of Defense and Energy insist. But some critics of the B-61 life extension program (LEP) question whether the program is necessary. At least one of the modifications planned for it—a new guided tail kit supplied by the US Air Force—would increase its military capabilities, not just ensure its reliability and safety. Sandia National Laboratories director Paul Hommert warned lawmakers during the hearing that without the LEP, the B-61 will reach a point where it will no longer be reliable “in the next decade.” Robert Peurifoy, a retired Sandia vice president who worked on the B-61, questions the need for the LEP; he says there has been little discussion of whether observations of the aging weapons components warrant their replacement. “I want to know what the surveillance findings are for each component. If they are dying, you’ve got to replace them. But I’m not willing to replace them just so NNSA and the labs can extract money from the taxpayer,” he says in an interview. Peurifoy says the B-61’s ground proximity radar has been “stigmatized” by the NNSA and the weapons labs because it contains vacuum tubes. Indeed, Hommert held up a B-61 vacuum tube and a newly developed replacement solid-state radar during his October testimony. Peurifoy says he has seen no evidence that the tubes are failing or about to fail. “Until I do, I’d leave the radars alone,” he says. But Peurifoy downplays the benefits of reducing the amount of highly enriched uranium contained in the bombs. “There are lower-yield versions of the B-61 in the stockpile right now. If you want lower yields, use them.” He dismisses the argument that less highly enriched uranium contained in the warheads reduces the danger if a B-61 were to fall into the wrong hands. “NNSA and the labs are quite good at obfuscation. They use rubber words [like] security,” he says. “Security means you maintain possession. You don’t lose a weapon. If you lose a weapon, you should not be too concerned about the distinctions about what it contains. You’d better get the goddamned weapon back.”
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Statistical Impact of Disproportionate Age Discrimination at Lawrence Livermore Lab *************************************************************************************************************************************** The plaintiffs in Phase II of our trial Andrews v. Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS) have suffered emotional distress, humiliation, and feelings of inadequacy as a result of their illegal layoffs from Lawrence Livermore Lab (LLNL) in 2008. The disproportionate layoff of workers age 40+, leading to disparate age discrimination at LLNL, can be illustrated through statistical analysis. To that end, plaintiff’s expert witness, statistics Professor William Lepowsky, came to the conclusion that the odds of so many older employees, over age 40, being laid off were “1 in 1,091,000.” The emotional and statistical significance of this layoff are at the heart of our case. Andrews vs. Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC is a unique case that began with Judge Robert Freedman separating the trial into two Phases. Phase I focused on breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing at LLNL. Our plaintiffs prevailed in Phase I with an award of $2.7 million for plaintiffs Elaine Andrews, Marian Barraza, Mario Jimenez, Greg Olsen, and James “Rocky” Torrice. Statistician: Professor William Lepowsky Professor Lepowsky has taught statistics and mathematics for 45 years at Laney College in Oakland, California. He is not a professional expert witness, like the statistician hired by LLNS defense team, but rather a professional educator with an esteemed background. Professor William Lepowsky’s qualifications include: B.A., Harvard College 1967; Major Mathematics M.A., U.C. Berkeley 1968; Department Mathematics (graduated summa cum laude) M.A., U.C. Berkeley 1976; Department Statistics Qualified as expert witness to testify in the California court system and the Federal courts “Statistical Significance” Key to Disproportionate Age Discrimination One of the most important aspects of Andrews v. Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC is the utilization of statistical analysis brought forth by Professor Lepowsky. Professor Lepowsky’s statistical analysis illustrates that LLNS discriminated against older workers, 40+, during the layoff in 2008. To this end Professor Lepowsky utilizes “statistical significance” the probability that an effect is not likely due to just chance alone. Lawrence Livermore Lab’s Faulty Layoff Unit Statistical Analysis The basis for LLNL’s statistical argument was their creation called the Layoff Unit. 273 Layoff Units were created by LLNS line managers, the decision makers in the layoff process, as a means of grouping employees. Layoff Units were not recognized within the rules for layoffs or within the plaintiff’s contracts. According to Professor Lepowsky, the Layoff Units do not accurately represent the layoff in 2008. A few of the characteristics of LLNS Layoff Units: Nearly 20% of the 273 Layoff Units (48) had only one employee More than 25% of the 273 Layoff Units (72) had only one or two employees Nearly 50% of the 273 Layoff Units (125) had five or less employees 30% of the employees that were classified in Layoff Units were assigned to 1% of the Layoff Units Statistical Analysis Process In Professor Lepowsky’s statistical analysis, Layoff Units were not used. Instead, Professor Lepowsky utilized the following process in his statistical analysis: Workforce: 40% of the workforce was not eligible for layoff. These “excluded” workers were chosen solely by LLNS line managers. Professor Lepowsky identified who could be laid off Comparison: compare “like” employee positions such as physicists with physicists and engineers with engineers Where Workforce Worked: identify where the workers work and which line managers they worked for at the lab Job Code: group workers by the same job code Classifications: group and classify workers by directorate, division, or department Vital to the analysis is the fact that every employee analyzed by Professor Lepowsky is tied to a decision maker, line manager at the lab. The disparity of sizes of the Layoff Units, used by LLNS in their analysis, was a major reason why Professor Lepowsky did not accept the Layoff Unit analysis. The importance being the fact that Layoff Units did not compare employees with like characteristics. Statistical Significance Points to Age Discrimination The following are key statistics and information that support the assertion that disproportionate age discrimination was prevalent during the 2008 Lab layoff. According to Professor Lepowsky, the exclusion process favored employees under the age of 40 to a statistically significant degree and it hurt employees over the age of 40 to a statistically significant degree. The statistical impact is evident within the numbers. Excluded Employees: line managers chose who would be excluded or safe from the layoff. Of those excluded as of May 22, 2008: 54.1% were 39 years old or younger and 40.6% were 40 years old or older Excluded Employees Standard Deviation: of all employees analyzed by directorate, division, or department at all levels the layoff had a statistically significant impact on employees over the age of 40. Ranging from 3.34 to 4.09 well above the agreed upon 2.0 Standard Deviation Layoff Policy: the “different employees, different policies” assertion by LLNS is not correct. There was one layoff with specific rules that were broken by LLNS 1 in 645,000: the probability (chance) that older workers in Directorate and Job Code were “over selected” for layoff if the process of layoff equally impacted young and older workers. Equal to 4.66 Standard Deviations 1 in 1,091,000: the probability that older workers in Division and Job Code were “over selected” for layoff. Equal to 4.77 Standard Deviations 1 in 76,000: the probability that older workers in Department and Job Code were “over selected” for layoff. Equal to 4.20 Standard Deviations Termination Percentages: 6.6% of employees 39 and younger were terminated vs employees 40 and older who were terminated at a rate of 11.5% In the final analysis according to Professor Lepowsky, “The disparity between old and young in selection rates (for layoff) is statistically significant.” ********************************************************************************************************************************************** Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli, & Brewer If you are interested in information regarding this case or If you suspect that you, have been the victim of workplace age discrimination, wrongful termination, harassment, or retaliation please contact attorney J. Gary Gwilliam or attorney Randall E. Strauss of the law firm of Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli, & Brewer at (510) 832-5411 ext. 233 or GGwilliam@giccb.com
By scooby at December 17, 2013
Monday, December 16, 2013
This news article below deserves top billing, if nothing else than to better inform DOE contractor employees about a major hack at DOE HQ that the DOE still hasn't properly informed people about! It was a serous breach of security involving lots of personal information .... *** Free Beacon - Dec 13, 2012 *** IG: Personal Information Stolen from 104,179 after Energy Department Cyber Attack -- Hackers breached system with ‘relative ease’ .... The Energy Department also underreported the significance of the breach, saying only 53,000 employees were affected prior to the IG’s investigation. As a result, many employees were not informed that their personal information was stolen. The department is still in the process of notifying all of its employees. “We also found that the extent of PII stolen was much more extensive than that originally reported by the Department,” the IG said. “Breached information exceeded just names, dates of birth and Social Security numbers as initially reported by the Department,” they said. “In particular, we noted through investigation or discussions with officials that select bank account numbers, places of birth, education, security questions and answers, and disabilities were also included in the loss of information.” .... freebeacon.com/ig-personal-information-stolen-from-104179-after-energy-department-cyber-attack/
Hi there, I’ve been offered a job at the lab and am going through the rigorous clearance screening process. I am not sure whether I should tell the HR department that my credit is not perfect. We lost our home during the recession and what followed was some pretty damaging stuff on our credit. The position that they are considering me for has access to proprietary information. Can you please ask other bloggers if they have any thoughts regarding this dilemma? Thank you in advanced. Signed, Midscore640
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Nuclear Weapons & Materials Monitor Todd Jacobson Dec 6, 2013 The University of California has formed a committee to search for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s next director,, and the group will solicit input from employees at its first meeting in January, Norm Pattiz, the chairman of the UC Board of Regents Committee on Oversight of the DOE Laboratories, said in a message to employees this week. Pattiz will chair the 17-member search committee, which will take nominations through the end of January. Parney Albright abruptly resigned last month as the lab’s director effective Nov. 1. “LLNL has a stellar record of outstanding science, engineering and technology in support of the nation, and the selection of a visionary leader is critical to the Laboratory’s continued success,” Pattiz said in his message to employees. “I can assure you that the selection of your next leader is a responsibility that all of us involved in the search process take very seriously. Collectively, we will have an impressive group of individuals providing advice and counsel, and I am confident that we will have an exceptional outcome.” Joining Pattiz on the search committee is former NNSA Administrator Linton Brooks; Bechtel Systems and Infrastructure President Craig Albert; Livermore Global Security Manager Kim Budil; Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC Board of Governors Executive Committee member William Frazer; UC Provost and Executive Vice President Aimee Dorr; UC Vice President of Laboratory Management Glenn Mara; University of California-Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi; former Strategic Command chief Adm. Rich Mies; UC-Davis professor Bob Powell; UC Board of Regents Chairman Bruce Varner; former Argonne National Laboratory Director Bob Rosner; UC President Janet Napolitano; UC-Berkeley nuclear engineering professor Karl Van Bibber; Texas A&M nuclear engineering professor Marvin Adams; LLNS Assistant Secretary to the Director for Laboratory Governance Ann Willoughby; and former Los Alamos and Livermore Director Mike Anastasio. A screening task force chaired by Adams has also been formed, and Pattiz said the task force “will ensure that we are looking at a broad and diverse spectrum of potential candidates and will recommend a pool of candidates for consideration by the Search Committee.” Bret Knapp, who has headed up Los Alamos’ weapons program since 2011, is currently serving as the lab’s acting director, but industry officials say he is not likely to be a candidate for the permanent position. Several interesting candidates from the lab’s last search could emerge as candidates once again, including Bruce Goodwin, who after heading up the lab’s weapons program for years was named the head of the lab’s Center for Global Security Research and the lab’s National Security Office May 1. UC could also make another push for Oak Ridge National Laboratory Director Thom Mason, one of the most widely respected lab directors in the DOE complex. Industry officials have suggested other possible candidates could include former Oak Ridge National Laboratory Thomas Zacharia, now the head of the Qatar Science and Technology Park, as well as Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Deputy Director for Science and
A budget deal has been reached! Is this bad news for the labs? Is the NNSA going to get the sequester cuts? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/11/us/politics/party-leaders-indicate-deal-is-reached-on-budget.html?_r=0
LLNS has found a way to transfer moneys already earned by the worker to their coffers. Gee, if they were half way competent, they could also charge an administrative and record keeping fee on time card submissions, sick leave, vacation, etc. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9eIrcyRIQxya0x0Z042dEU1REE/edit?usp=sharing
Kennette Benedict has posted a terrific piece on how nuclear disarmament will make us (and our economy) stronger. I hope you find it of interest! Best regards, Janice Why vote for disarmament? http://thebulletin.org/why-vote-nuclear-disarmament -- Janice Sinclaire Internet Outreach Coordinator
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
The central matter facing UC as they search for the next Director is should LLNL be uniquely focused on weapons work, or expanding its sponsor suite. This question has been danced around since the transition, but still remains an open subject. In the last six years, between the two facilities, six leaders have been tasked with program funding diversification in an effort to migrate towards a multi-sponsor lab (LLNL: Doesburg, Albright, Warner; LANL: Beason, Reese, Wallace). Internally some have regarded this as a fool’s errand, while others have watched SNL benefit from non-weapons programmatic projects. In its typical schizophrenic fashion, NNSA has sent mixed signals on how these efforts are viewed – derisively calling them work for “others” and simultaneously making a big deal out of the cooperation agreement that was signed with DOD, DHS, and IC. The multiple attempts by multiple lab leaders to move the needle on WFO funding have led to very limited success, and in most cases have actually decreased external support. As the next Director is selected, it is worth a critical examination of why WFO only increased under one of the above six leaders. Perhaps the enterprise is not ready for diversification, and should uniquely focus on weapons work. From all accounts, this is clearly the path that LANL has taken most recently, and maybe LLNL should follow that lead as well.
By scooby at December 10, 2013
Monday, December 9, 2013
Weapon Complex Monitor December 5, 2013 The University of California has begun the search for a new Vice President for Laboratory Management after Glenn Mara recently announced his retirement. Mara took over as the head of UC’s lab management efforts last year, replacing Bruce Darling. Mara has served at both Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, last serving at Los Alamos as the head of its weapons program until 2008. He left Livermore in 2004 after serving as the lab’s deputy director of operations. He is expected to remain in the position until a successor is chosen. In a job posting released yesterday seeking nominations and applications for Mara’s job, UC officials gave no timeline for the search, but outlined the job’s requirements. “The Vice President should have an outstanding record of accomplishment in a scientific program, engineering, and/or the operations and administration disciplines that underwrite the mission of the three laboratories [LBNL, LLNL, LANL],” UC said in the posting. “He/she should also have knowledge and experience in the operations of, and relationships with, the DOE, NNSA, and Office of Science, and those organizations’ senior leadership and approach to their laboratory system.”
Friday, December 6, 2013
Moral of the story, KEEP VOTING DEMOCRATIC! Detroit is all Democratic (Spendocratic) and Union even in the State Constitution to leave Union pensions alone. "Even for those who think this common sense has been a long time coming, it’s a tough hit for Detroit city workers at or near retirement age. Not only does it mean they’ll get less than they were promised, the news comes late in their lives, at a time when they have little way to make up for it. And they won’t be the last, given the unfunded pensions across this country". Good luck with your pension with Democrats running (into a grave) California. Second moral: You voted for Spendocrats and soon you will get what you deserve. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- http://nypost.com/2013/12/06/detroit-and-the-impact-on-pension-reform/
By J. Gary Gwilliam “The odds of this many older employees, over 40, being laid off were 1 in 1,091,000.” – Randall Strauss attorney Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli, & Brewer In order to understand the injustice of the Lawrence Livermore National Security (LLNS) layoffs of 430 employees in 2008, it is essential to weigh some of the initial facts surrounding this case. Phase II of our trial Andrews v. Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS) and Lawrence Livermore Lab, the second trial for the five plaintiffs, focuses on disproportionate age discrimination claims. Facts Surrounding Lawrence Livermore Lab Layoffs The following facts begin to paint a picture how LLNS disproportionately laid off workers 40+ in an age discriminatory manner. Layoff History: prior to the LLNS layoffs in 2008, Lawrence Livermore Lab had not had a layoff in over 30 years How Many Laid Off: LLNS laid off 430 employees Lawrence Livermore National Security: LLNS a private company, that includes investors University of California and Bechtel, is tasked with managing Lawrence Livermore Lab. LLNS is not the government Department of Energy: DOE did not order the layoff of workers at Lawrence Livermore Lab (LLNL) 3161 Planning: this is a plan required by law to be developed whenever there is a possibility of a layoff. The DOE informed all the national security labs in the U.S. to begin preparing 3161 plans. October 2007 the DOE informed LLNS to prepare their plan Goal of 3161: the goal of the 3161 plan was to do everything possible to avoid a layoff Layoff Decisions: the DOE allowed LLNS to decide how many employees would be laid off if anyone at all Plaintiff’s Job Performance: the plaintiff’s job performance was not an issue in this case Performance Ratings: all plaintiffs were rated good to excellent in their job performance reviews by management before the layoffs. Workers made life long contributions, stayed current in their job skills, and accrued seniority which was considered an asset at the lab Job Functions: all job functions performed by laid off plaintiffs continued after they were let go The plaintiffs’ work was above standards and relevant to the Lab’s success. They were not slackers, they maintained their skills through continuous training, and these plaintiffs cared about the quality of their work and were proud of their contributions to the success of Lawrence Livermore Lab. Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli, & Brewer If you are interested in information regarding this case or if you have questions about legal issues with your employment, please contact attorney J. Gary Gwilliam or attorney Randall E. Strauss of the law firm of Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer 510-832-5411 ext. 233 or GGwilliam@giccb.com
Thursday, December 5, 2013
As agreed among the Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS) partners, the University of California (UC) is responsible for leading the search for the next LLNL Director. Today, UC Regent and Chairman of the LLNS Board of Governors Norman Pattiz announced the commencement of the LLNL Director search process. In a letter to employees requesting nominations for and asking for comments on the position, Pattiz indicated: "The University's search process will be similar in scope and breadth to those of prior Director searches for all three UC-affiliated labs -- Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos (LANL) and Lawrence Berkeley (LBNL) national laboratories. The process includes use of a Search Committee and a Screening Task Force, both of which include LLNL colleagues." In addition, an executive search firm has been hired. A number of actions have been accomplished or are in the planning stages: - Chairman Pattiz and UC President Janet Napolitano have approved the Search Committee as directed by UC Regents policy. - The position has been posted on LLNL and UC jobs websites and will be listed on LANL, LBNL, other national lab, and LLC partner jobs websites. The job posting is also being advertised nationally on respected science, higher education, social media, and diversity outreach websites. - The Search Committee will be at LLNL in January for "Lab Day" to hear from employees, management and the Livermore Field Office manager. The Committee will use input from Lab Day to further develop selection criteria to be used to assess the candidates during the search process to determine the best individual for the position. - Letters requesting nominations are being sent to senior leaders in Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, and Department of Defense, national laboratory directors; past LLNL, LANL and LBNL directors; the LLNS Board of Governors; UC leadership; appropriate federal, state and local elected officials, and selected research university presidents. - The Screening Task Force has been formed to assist the Search Committee. It is chaired by Professor Marvin Adams, Texas A&M University, and will consist of a cross-section of LLNL employees, representatives from LANL and LBNL, and noted scientists and administrators who are knowledgeable about LLNL, its scientific work and its role as a DOE/NNSA national laboratory, and who are informed about the relevant LLNL scientific areas. - A moderated questions and answers forum has been posted. In his letter to employees, Pattiz stated: "LLNL has a stellar record of outstanding science, engineering and technology in support of the nation, and the selection of a visionary leader is critical to the Laboratory's continued success. I can assure you that the selection of your next leader is a responsibility that all of us involved in the search process take very seriously. Collectively, we will have an impressive group of individuals providing advice and counsel, and I am confident that we will have an exceptional outcome." To be given full consideration, nominations and applications for the LLNL Director should be submitted no later than January 31, 2014 in accordance with the nominations & applications instructions provided. https://www.llnl.gov/director-search/
Double standard for lab upper management? LANL Employees File Complaint Against Former Supervisor - Los Alamos Daily Post, Dec 4th 2013 ..."This was a horrifying situation, Erika was assaulted by her high ranking employer who demanded sex ... she complained to high level Laboratory officials who did nothing to help her, instead they rewarded the perpetrator by allowing him to retire with full benefits," Day told the Los Alamos Daily Post today. "Mr. Stanford supervised both Erika and her husband William and he knew William was aware of what he was doing and he didn't care. His behavior was that of a pig and the Lab took no action to step in and stop it."... http://www.ladailypost.com/content/lanl-employees-file-complaint-against-former-supervisor Why did the executive management at LANS continue to protect this "pig" (sexual harasser?) Why do the regular staff get bombarded with online training, etc. regarding sexual harassment but when it actually happens, it is usually the managers who are found to be the culprits? And does the name of Rick Marquez ring a bell for anyone? The stories about his "hot pursuits" at LANL are legendary and long running!
Marvin Adams Screening Task Force Chairman HTRI Professor of Nuclear Engineering Director, Institute of National Security Education and Research Texas A&M University William Jeffrey President & CEO, HRL Labs, LLC Former Director National Institute of Standards and Technology Steven Beckwith LLNS Board of Governors Vice President for Research & Graduate Studies University of California Office of the President Michael Nacht Thomas and Alison Schneider Professor of Public Policy University of California, Berkeley Frances Alston Director Environment, Safety & Health Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Natalie Roe Physics Division Director Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory John Browne Director Emeritus Los Alamos National Laboratory John Sarrao Associate Director Theory, Simulation & Computation Los Alamos National Laboratory Robert Byer Co-Director Stanford Photonics Research Center Department of Applied Physics Stanford University Cliff Shang Director of Laboratory Strategic Infrastructure Weapons & Complex Integration Directorate Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory John Edwards Associate NIF Director for ICF & HED NIF & Photon Science Directorate Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Bruce Tarter Director Emeritus Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Mary Gilly Vice Chair Universitywide Academic Senate University of California Office of the President Larry Welch Trustee Emeritus and Senior Fellow Institute for Defense Analyses Omar Hurricane Distinguished Member of Technical Staff Weapons & Complex Integration Directorate Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Crystal Jaing Scientist Group Leader, Applied Genomics Physical & Life Sciences Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Ann Willoughby (Staff to Task Force) LLNS Assistant Secretary Director Laboratory Governance UC Laboratory Management Office November 30, 2013 at 8:22 AM
Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days
Another Scandal Former LANL scientist indicted for making false statements SANTA FE, N.M. — A former top scientist with Los Alamos National ...
The University of California (UC) continues its reign in running the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The announcement was finally mad...
At LLNL, will DTED completely swallow up NSED?