Fired Los Alamos nuclear expert files appeal
Center for Public Integrity - August 22nd
A
former Los Alamos nuclear policy expert has filed an appeal in a
whistleblower case to Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, arguing that the
Energy Department had abused its power to label documents secret and
retaliated against him for expressing his views.
James E. Doyle
was fired July 8 after spending 18 months trying to force Los Alamos
officials to reverse their ruling that an article he published in a
foreign journal, which questioned the rationale for nuclear deterrence,
had disclosed state secrets. The Center for Public Integrity first
reported on Doyle's case last month...
news.yahoo.com/ fired-los-alamos-nuclear-expert-090000252.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days
-
LGBT intolerance problem at Sandia? I was just checking glassdoor.com and noticed several comments suggesting intolerance to LGBT at Sandia...
-
So did you SSVSP and why? Give details.
-
“Raise a concern, get blackballed then lose your job and benefits…” “…instead of raising your concerns just leverage on your skills and go t...
27 comments:
I don't get this case. LANL and NNSA supposedly reviewed and cleared Doyle's paper for publication. He followed all the rules. Then they later declare it "classified" and prosecute him?
Did someone high up with different political views at LANL or the NNSA later find out about Doyle's dovish views and want retribution?
What the real story here? Anyone know?
I don't know the details of this one, however, why is this any different than all the other folks LANL/LANS has "screwed over" over the years? It's business as usual for LANL/LANS.
What the real story here? Anyone know?
August 23, 2014 at 10:40 AM
Yes, lots of people know, including the feds. But you won't see it here.
"Todd Kauppila? What? Whose Todd Kauppila?"
( LANL's UC Overseers - Adm. Nanos era )
Kinda like the issue with the girl shooting the Protective Force Serving Our Country Dillon 134D Gatling Gun, 50 rounds per second, 3000 rounds per minute....one news article and POOF! Gone AKA David Copperfield style!
It sounds like someone in the LANL Classification Group should be fired for mis-classifying Doyle's paper. But no, let's fire the messenger, typical LANL approach!
If people were fired for misclassification, no one would do classified work. And certainly no one would agree to be a classifier.
"...If people were fired for misclassification, no one would do classified work. And certainly no one would agree to be a classifier..."
The classifier person that approves or disapproves material for outside publication has what value then?
I compose an IWS for a programatic experiment and it is approved. I perform the experiment following the approved IWS procedure. My IWS is subsequently rejected. I am then in violation for conducting the experiment retroactively?
If people were fired for misclassification, no one would do classified work. And certainly no one would agree to be a classifier.
August 27, 2014 at 10:41 AM
At the same time, a reverse decision by the Classification Office on a paper (i.e. Unclassified to Secret) should not result in the firing of the person who submitted the paper.
I suspect the LANS employee was on someone's list well before the classification event. LANS likely determined the NNSA Los Alamos Field Office was either on board with the decision to get rid of him or would not contest the LANS decision to do so.
Let's remain in the real world for just a moment. As pointed out at the top of this thread, it's pretty obvious that DOE won't get away with this IN COURT, given the facts that we all know. The case never would have made it this far unless there was something else going on.
For example, if the guy did in fact divulge something classified, and knew that it was classified (by virtue of his experience in the subject), then there could be a case against him, even if the classifier screwed up. I am NOT suggesting this is the case, only that it is one example of how there could be other significant information that we are not privy to that could make the "government" case winnable.
"...The case never would have made it this far unless there was something else going on..."
I disagree. This could simply be a product of bold behavior on the part of LANS, no local NNSA opposition, and an unsupported if not abusive application of "at will" employment policy.
Can there be more to the story? Yes LLNS may have a set of shrink wrapped trumped-up violations taken off the shelf and used for his dismissal.
...LANS may have a set of shrink wrapped...
At the same time, a reverse decision by the Classification Office on a paper (i.e. Unclassified to Secret) should not result in the firing of the person who submitted the paper.
August 28, 2014 at 4:22 AM
This sets a precedent for the technical staff at LANS. New LANS (undeclared but in effect) Policy:
Any paper submitted to an open conference that results in a reverse decision (from unclassified to classified at any level or category) by the Security Classification Group will result in your termination from LANL.
"...Any paper submitted to an open conference that results in a reverse decision (from unclassified to classified at any level or category) by the Security Classification Group will result in your termination from LANL..."
Another tool in the "at will" or termination of employment chest. Can't use the same M.O. every time. LANSLLNS (not a typo) are free to do as they please when they please. But your job is safe right?
The NNSA Field Office concept is a failure. You are not in a "Field" office if you are a quasi permanent fixture on site. The field offices should be dissolved or each member placed on an annual rotation to other DOE/NNSA facilities. Objectivity and being too cozy through excessive familiarity don't mix.
NNSA Los Alamos Field Office has no classification expertise. DOE HQ Office of Classification controls classification at LANL, and can (and has) reverse decisions by the LANL Classification Officer.
"...NNSA Los Alamos Field Office has no classification expertise. DOE HQ Office of Classification controls classification at LANL, and can (and has) reverse decisions by the LANL Classification Officer..."
The question is did the NNSA Los Alamos Field Office have knowledge of the pending dismissal given the original classification release and later reversal of the classification? Did other DOE HQ "reversals" result in LANL employee dismissals?
"...NNSA Los Alamos Field Office has no classification expertise. DOE HQ Office of Classification controls classification at LANL, and can (and has) reverse decisions by the LANL Classification Officer..."
What "expertise" does the NNSA Los Alamos Field Office have that justifies their role in grading LANS performance every year?
If they generally don't have laboratory expertise on operations and policy, what is left beyond a rubber stamp or endorsement of a LANS self-assessment report?
"...what is left beyond a rubber stamp or endorsement of a LANS self-assessment report?..."
Or a LLNS self-assessment report to be fair. Same situation.
So.... you can now retroactively get fired by LANS for not following some unknown policy that will be issued at some future date?
Wow! That's a pretty sleazy way to fire employees you don't like. How do they get away with this stuff?
"...Wow! That's a pretty sleazy way to fire employees you don't like. How do they get away with this stuff?.."
The "sleaze factor" is getting worse at LANS and LLNS.
Time for a structural reset.
"Time for a structural reset.
September 3, 2014 at 6:15 PM"
False, it is time to bring this to prime time and make it standard operational procedure everywhere. You had your chance to move into the elite management but it is just too late now. Time to roll out the big plan nationwide. When you play with with big fish and you got to be biggest or you all be eaten. Way of the world, how it is, how it always be, and how it should be. Either you be Noah, an animal, or treadin water. They teach this is the management classes, but cha-all woudn't no nothing about that. You all better bring it if you want to make in the new lab. My anaconda don't want none unless you got buns, hun.
borrowed from another post in response to the same type of "elite management" nepotism:
"...Those corporate managers at Enron played to win too. By your logic they are heroes and those employees and mom and pop investors that lost their life savings were losers..."
"...Those corporate managers at Enron played to win too. By your logic they are heroes and those employees and mom and pop investors that lost their life savings were losers..."
Hello...hello, yes they are heroes
and the rest are losers. We all play the game, and some are just better than others. Right and wrong have no meaning only perception matters and perception is reality. So than reality is that if you make a lot of money you are a winner, if not you are a loser. There is no two ways about this, we all agree to these terms, we all abode by these rules, we all joined the system where this is the reality. If you lose that is is one you and no one else. Time to wake up people, we are a corporation now. Corporations serve one purpose and that is to make money. There is no good or evil in a corporation, there is no higher purpose, there is no public service. It makes money or it does not. The labs have been made corporate so this is the reality. If you do not like it than leave but you have no right whatsoever to judge it or the people that have profited from this.
"... reality is that if you make a lot of money you are a winner, if not you are a loser. There is no two ways about this..."
The attitude of a wealthy prostitute. How appropriate.
"The attitude of a wealthy prostitute. How appropriate.
September 5, 2014 at 8:45 AM"
Ahh excuse me, you can say we are all prostitutes, businessmen, entrepreneurs, inventors, players, or whatever, in the end it is if you make the money. There is no difference between a wealthy prostitute and a wealthy entrepreneur, however there is a big difference between a wealthy person and a non-wealthy person. The labs are a LLC for a reason and it is not going to change. You have no right to judge, or in reality complain because you did not cash in.
"...There is no difference between a wealthy prostitute and a wealthy entrepreneur..."
1. A prostitute provides a private service for a profit
2. An entrepreneur sells or promotes ideas for a profit
3. An unethical manager has private allegiances
or business practices that contradict his
institutional responsibilities for a profit
If you think all 3 profit styles are the same, you have been brainwashed by the LLC to feel good about your actions or that of your buddies. Very sad.
Post a Comment