BLOG purpose

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. Opinions not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

LLNS Board of Governors. So is it really worth $40+ million a year?

LLNS Board of Governors. So is it really worth $40+ million a year?

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Norman Pattiz 
Chairman; Regent, University of California; Founder, Westwood One, Inc.; Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Courtside Entertainment Group; Chief Executive Officer, PodcastOne and PodCastOne Sales

Craig Albert 
Vice Chairman; President, Bechtel Nuclear, Security & Environmental, Inc.

Kimberly Budil 
Vice President for Laboratory Management, University of California; Chair of the Nominations and Compensation Committee

John Howanitz 
General Manager/Senior Vice President, Bechtel Nuclear, Security & Environmental, Inc.

Robert Powell 
Distinguished Professor of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science and of Food Science and Technology at the University of California, Davis; Chair of the Science and Technology Committee

Bob McQuinn 
President and Project Manager of Nuclear Waste Partnership, LLC

Jeffrey Wadsworth 
President and Chief Executive Officer, Battelle Memorial Institute


INDEPENDENT GOVERNORS

Kevin Chilton 
General (Retired), U.S. Air Force

Donald Kintzer 
Partner (Retired), PricewaterhouseCoopers; Chair of the Ethics and Audit Committee

Steve Koonin 
Director of New York University’s Center for Urban Science and Progress; Chair of the Mission Committee

Richard Mies 
Admiral (Retired), U.S. Navy; Former Commander in Chief, U.S. Strategic Command

The Honorable Ellen Tauscher 
Strategic Advisor for Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC; Former Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, California 10th Congressional District; Former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security; Former Special Envoy for Strategic Stability and Missile Defense


ADVISORY MEMBERS

Michael Anastasio 
Laboratory Director (Emeritus), Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore national laboratories

Robert DeGrasse 
Vice President and Manager Government Affairs, Bechtel National, Inc.; Chair of the Business, Operations, and Security Committee

Bruce Varner 
Chairman, The Regents of the University of California; Partner, Varner & Brandt, LLP

Craig Weaver 
Senior Advisor, Bechtel Nuclear, Security & Environmental, Inc.

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

No.

Seriously. It's been 7 1/2 years since the transition. That's over $300 million dollars. What have they done for this money?

Anonymous said...

Who are you kidding?
Of course, they are worth every penny of $40+ million a year.

Just one obvious benefit from this expense is in another thread about renaming DOE. Mies (who presumably is very well compensated for his service on the LLNL board) was the leader of the heavy hitters on the Congressional panel that looked at all the issues in NNSA. After careful study of the matter, they offered some most useful recommendations, including that DOE be renamed.

How it could not be a blatant conflict of interest for Mies, who had a very distinguished military career, to serve in this capacity is troubling. Nevertheless, keep the $40+ million a year flowing, put together another study panel, and lay out more recommendations about renaming Departments. But, uppermost of these is to keep the $40+ million a year flowing.

Anonymous said...

For a lab that spends $1.5B on 6300 employees who collectively accomplish what 1000-2000 could in the private sector, this is a dumb question...

Anonymous said...

Some of these people have absolutely no tangible achievement under their belt. They have promoted for being mediocre and doing nothing. You see the underside of diversity. They pick people not on merit, but rather, on the people who lack real leadership ability or experience that they are essentially a puppet for someone else.

Anonymous said...

For a lab that spends $1.5B on 6300 employees who collectively accomplish what 1000-2000 could in the private sector, this is a dumb question...

Thoughtful comment, congratulations.
Now if you would just name the private sector company which could do that work with 1000-2000 people, then I would not consider you to be dumb.

Anonymous said...

Bob McQuinn, former LANL Associate Director of High Hazard Operations. He had a drum explode at LANL under his watch in 2008; he left LANL just in time to salvage his career to claim he fixed LANL nuclear facilities, just before they all went inoperational.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, hold past managers responsible for employees' mistakes. Typical "It can't be my fault. I was just following orders!" Nuremberg trials. anyone? Mangers are always guilty; workers who screw up are always innocent. Yeah, we get it.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, hold past managers responsible for employees' mistakes. Typical "It can't be my fault. I was just following orders!" Nuremberg trials. anyone? Mangers are always guilty; workers who screw up are always innocent. Yeah, we get it.

March 12, 2015 at 8:56 PM

Managers are ultimately responsible for the actions of their employees. They signed up to this. Always has been, always will be. That's why they are paid the "big bucks".

Anonymous said...

More stealth deletions by Scooby of posts that do not violate the rules. Heckuva job, Scooby!

Anonymous said...

Adapted from debate quip to Dan Quayle.

"I served with J. K.
I knew J. K.
J. K. was a friend of mine.
Senator, you're no J. K."


A different J.K. once served in the role of this LLNL Board. Jud King was from a bygone era of Lab management by UC.

Anonymous said...

"Managers are ultimately responsible for the actions of their employees. They signed up to this. Always has been, always will be. That's why they are paid the "big bucks".

March 13, 2015 at 4:01 AM"

False, there is a social contract that workers will also do their part to insure the companies success. It is understood that if the company does not make a profit than the company goes away and so do the workers so it is in the workers best interest to make sure that a profit can be made. Somehow in some strange way this social contract between the company and the workers has broken down at the labs. The contract about who runs or manages the lab has changed yet we can all agree that the labs have still remained huge failures. Lets look at the facts, the managers have changed however the workforce has not changed.

Anonymous said...

It is interesting to find out how much are the annual salaries or stipends given to these executives and compare it against the 1-2% salary increase for the peons. Then lets talk about employee morale at the Labs.

Anonymous said...

So your morale is low because the corporate board members make a lot more money than you do?

I'm not the person you addressed, but yes, my morale is lower because the corporate board members make a lot of money. Due to the increased management fees and overhead rates, I need to bring in more money. I need to work harder just to pay the salaries of the corporate board members. I wouldn't mind how much they earned if I received an appropriate return on investment. But I don't. I receive nothing. In fact, I receive a negative return on investment due to the additional oversight.

Anonymous said...

Boo Hoo. Go home to Mommy.

Anonymous said...

I'm not the person you addressed, but yes, my morale is lower because the corporate board members make a lot of money. Due to the increased management fees and overhead rates, I need to bring in more money. I need to work harder just to pay the salaries of the corporate board members. I wouldn't mind how much they earned if I received an appropriate return on investment. But I don't. I receive nothing. In fact, I receive a negative return on investment due to the additional oversight.

March 14, 2015 at 12:31 PM

Oh God, excuse me but you are not an investor or a stock holder, you are a worker. You do not get a return. If you do you job your "return" is that you get paid and you will not be fired. If you cannot bring in money to cover yourself and the overhead than remember that are are numerous people out there who would love to have the opportunities you have been given will be more than happy to take your place and do it for less than you are paid. Grow up, we are for profit company and must play by the rules of the real world.

Anonymous said...

Grow up, we are for profit company and must play by the rules of the real world.

March 14, 2015 at 9:42 PM

You keep saying that but you are wrong. How does LLNSLANS make "profit"? Do you even understand this question? What "profit"?? The only "profit" is award fee for meeting PBIs set by DOE/NNSA. Do you get it??? These PBIs cannot be met without worker involvement and commitment, and it is not making and selling widgets! This is not the "real world": it is just an insane version of it where the government controls everything and the contractors get to jump through government hoops. There is no free market, no product being sold to anyone, no competition, and no accountability of management for failure. You grow up and recognize that you are delusional.

Anonymous said...

All the lab losers who constantly whine about how they must bring in large amounts of funding to help pay for management and overhead disgust me.

If these lab losers don't can't handle the requirements for their job then they should just leave and let some better and brighter people take over their positions.

Anonymous said...

11:37 you wouldn't last 6 months in a non-management position. You are a phony.

Anonymous said...

f these lab losers don't can't handle the requirements for their job then they should just leave and let some better and brighter people take over their positions.

Considering your writing skills, you must be one of our high level managers with a BS.

On a different note, Volkswagen has just announced that EVERY full time worker (no matter of janitor or director) gets a 5900 Euro bonus.
Compare this with :
You do not get a return. If you do you job your "return" is that you get paid and you will not be fired. If you cannot bring in money to cover yourself and the overhead than remember that are are numerous people out there who would love to have the opportunities you have been given will be more than happy to take your place and do it for less than you are paid.


See the difference?

Anonymous said...

"u keep saying that but you are wrong. How does LLNSLANS make "profit"? Do you even understand this question? What "profit"?? The only "profit" is award fee for meeting PBIs set by DOE/NNSA. Do you get it??? These PBIs cannot be met without worker involvement and commitment, and it is not making and selling widgets!"

A large portion of the PBIs is for security and safety so the workers are a liability in this sense. As for the other PBIs most are very vague and can be met with minimal work.

"For profit" means a number of things (1) There is profit from the contract. (2) profit can also be leveraged from the parent companies through various means.
(3) personal profit of individual managers at the labs who point out to us that since we are corporation management must be compensated as much. (4) The perception that a corporate mindset can be applied to everything including things that do not make widgets. In fact most modern corporations do make widgets.

Anonymous said...

(2) profit can also be leveraged from the parent companies through various means.

Wrong, and forbidden by the LLC structure. Profit flows from the LLC to the parent companies, never the reverse.

Anonymous said...

"(2) profit can also be leveraged from the parent companies through various means.

Wrong, and forbidden by the LLC structure. Profit flows from the LLC to the parent companies, never the reverse.

March 15, 2015 at 1:05 PM"

You are correct the profit is leveraged from the parent companies. Just like Halliburton, Blakwater, or Xe, the reason they even want they contract to run Iraq, LANL, or Syria is to leverage money on top of their stated contract profit for what they are "suppose to deliver". They are extremely good at it and know how to play the game. Why do you think are overhead cost so much? You have to admire the players who take advantage or arbitrage the situation as it is presented. You can hate the players that did well and be bitter or you can emulate them, learn the game and be happy and very very rich. Ha, ha, ha, suckers. I ain't saying nothing new, read Deuteronomy bitches, it was the first how to get rich book, all you need to do is just read between the lines, get me player?

Anonymous said...

If you are smart enough to make it into the ranks of lab management then you enjoy the rewards of your hard work. If not, then stop complaining and keep working hard to bring in the necessary funds required to support your salary and rich benefits else you will be replaced.

Whining is for losers. Winners enjoy the cash rewards. The best cream rises to the top. Always has, always will.

Anonymous said...

" If you are smart enough to make it into the ranks of lab management then you enjoy the rewards of your hard work. If not, then stop complaining and keep working hard to bring in the necessary funds required to support your salary and rich benefits else you will be replaced.

Whining is for losers. Winners enjoy the cash rewards. The best cream rises to the top. Always has, always will.

March 15, 2015 at 10:32 PM"

Although I suspect that the post may be cynicism it does have a core of truth to it. If you have a problem with the way the labs are than it is up to you to make your life better. You are free to choose to move elsewhere or except the way things are and enjoy you life for what it is. It is still better than what most of humanity deals with and as we have seen complaining about it will not change anything. Many of you think things could be better at the labs but this sort of thinking has been around for 15 years and it is time to accept that it is not getting better and will never go back to the way it was. It may not seem fair, it may not seem right, but it is the way it is. You however have a choice and freewill, you can only tilt at windmills for so long. Do not waist you life if you on unhappy, there are some many other things for you.

Anonymous said...

"(2) profit can also be leveraged from the parent companies through various means.

Wrong, and forbidden by the LLC structure. Profit flows from the LLC to the parent companies, never the reverse.

March 15, 2015 at 1:05 PM"

With respect to the LANS and LLNS LLCs, UC puts the majority of its half of the management fee back into joint UC campus-lab projects. Specifically through the UC Laboratory Fees Research Program.

Unfortunately due to the LANL fee reduction, Spring 2015 request for proposals under the program have been postponed.

http://ucop.edu/research-initiatives/programs/lab-fees/index.html

Anonymous said...

With respect to the LANS and LLNS LLCs, UC puts the majority of its half of the management fee back into joint UC campus-lab projects. Specifically through the UC Laboratory Fees Research Program.

March 16, 2015 at 5:17 AM

But this has nothing to do with "profit" for the LLCs, which was the topic.

Anonymous said...

I ain't saying nothing new, read Deuteronomy bitches, it was the first how to get rich book, all you need to do is just read between the lines, get me player?

March 15, 2015 at 10:19 PM

Cynicism, self-righteousness, and ignorance supported by Bible-thumping. How original.

Anonymous said...

But this has nothing to do with "profit" for the LLCs, which was the topic.

March 16, 2015 at 9:37 AM

--------

I think you may not understand how the two LLCs are set up. They each receive a fee for managing their respective labs. For LLNL it's around $40 million a year. What the partners do with that money is up to each individual entity.

Bechtel, URS, BWXT are profit making entities and this fee is revenue. So subtracting any cost they have for operating within the LLC (bonuses and retention incentives to key staff) from this revenue leaves "profit." These companies get to use this profit as they see fit.

UC is a not-for-profit entity. It uses the management fee to cover the operating costs of the UC Laboratory Management Office in UCOP, additional salary bumps for key UC controlled positions at the Labs (ie Director) and the aforementioned joint campus-Lab research program.

So to be technically accurate there is "no" profit to the LLCs from the NNSA contracts to run LANL and LLNL - only a management fee. What they do with this fee determines if its profit or revenue for covering activities (oversight, research, etc) associated with the Labs.

Anonymous said...

March 16, 2015 at 9:37 AM,

Here's a good reference paper from UC on the Lab LLCs. It discusses the fee arrangement, which is excerpted below...

http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/reports/ac.labguide.0807.pdf

------------
Fee Distribution.

Each Company [LANS LLC and LLNS LLC] is paid a modest fixed fee as well as a larger performance-based fee for its services. A maximum available fee at each Laboratory sets an upper limit on the amount of fee that can be earned each year...

The fee earned by each Company is distributed to the four Members of the Companies, after deducting costs of certain key personnel compensation supplements and certain other non-reimbursable costs. Slightly different fee distribution formulas are used at Los Alamos and Livermore, as set forth in the LLC Agreements. Briefly, at LLNL the net income of the Company, consisting of the earned fee as reduced by deduction of all nonreimbursable costs, is allocated to the four Members according to a negotiated, fixed formula. At LANL the earned fee and any nonreimbursable costs are allocated separately to the Members, according to somewhat different negotiated formulas.

The Companies, as LLCs, are taxed as partnerships for federal income tax purposes. This means the Companies themselves do not pay federal income taxes, because they are treated as “pass-through entities,” and the Members pay income tax only on their shares of the fees, in accordance with their particular tax circumstances.

The University, as a nonprofit public research university, pays no federal income tax on its fee share and dedicates its net fee share to research and other purposes consistent with this status. The corporate partners, as for-profit organizations, are subject to income tax on their share of the net income distributed to them. This accommodation of the distinct tax statuses of the University and its partners is one example of the advantages of the LLC structure of the partnership.
-------------

Anonymous said...

So to be technically accurate there is "no" profit to the LLCs from the NNSA contracts to run LANL and LLNL - only a management fee. What they do with this fee determines if its profit or revenue for covering activities (oversight, research, etc) associated with the Labs.

March 16, 2015 at 11:14 AM

Except when 90% of the management fee is lost, such as at LANL.

Anonymous said...

The very best "profits" to be made at the labs is in the management positions that have seen the salaries and perks continue to rise year after year as all other salaries have stagnated since the LLC takeover.

Anonymous said...

March 21, 2015 at 9:46 PM

And this is different from the rest of America how?

Anonymous said...

"...And this is different from the rest of America how?..."

The rest of corporate America is not able to suck on the bosom of DOE/NNSA with a repeatedly failed "pay more get less" business model and still receive an award fee every year. A real American company would have faced bankruptcy for gross negligence on the WIPP disaster. A real American company would realize excessive asymmetrical salary growth for managers would mean their science and engineering "golden geese" would vote with their feet. LANSLLNS managers don't have to worry about such things. Mama is always going to be there. That is the difference but you knew this already.

Blog Archive