Skip to main content

IS ULM ABOVE THE LAW??????

Anonymous said...


FR was escorting uncleared personel through a Q only area the other day, this person was busy taking pictures when FR left them alone in the area; the FPOC found the person wondering around with the camera and ask them who was escorting them, they replied FR; when FR return the fpoc then asked him why he wasn't notified of such activity and why the proper signs where not put out to notify building personal of the uncleared visitor; FR blamed his secretary for the mix up. AGAIN IS ULM ABOVE THE LAW???????

July 12, 2009 2:37 PM

Comments

Anonymous said…
If this is true, he should be given a big time security infraction and live by the rules that the rest of us live by. I can't believe this. It really sets a bad example. Shame on you FR!!!
Anonymous said…
Blaming his secretary -- a true leader would take personal responsibility for his mistake.
Anonymous said…
It is not just ULM. Some MLM do it too. Policies for them are something they hide behind when it is convenient. They violate them when no one is watching (or when they think no one is watching).
Anonymous said…
Hmm..I didn't see that behavior before the layoffs. Perhaps security is getting more lax.
Anonymous said…
Has this been reported as a secutity incident or will it forever remain just a rumor?
Anonymous said…
Hey, Next time do what you're supposed to and call a PSO. If not, one one's accountable for anything, at least that way there is no excuse, they would not show you any, neither would a true bad guy. For all you know you just failed a test.
Anonymous said…
To the author of the initial post,

Report the incident to your security rep ASAP. You are violating security policy by not doing so and your Q clearance should be in question.
Anonymous said…
LNL Employee Concerns Program


It is the policy of the Laboratory that Lawrence Livermore National Security employees and subcontractors are encouraged to bring forward good faith concerns of improper activity that constitute a threat to security, health, safety or the environment, as well as those that constitute waste, fraud and abuse. While employees are encouraged to bring concerns to their immediate supervisor, they also may raise their concerns to management throught the Employee Concerns Program. The Laboratory is committed to addressing all such concerns in an independent and objective manner. Individuals will not be reprimanded, disciplined, or otherwise retaliated against as a result of using this policy.

A concern may be initiated either verbally or in writing by:

* Calling LLNS' ECP (24 Hour) Helpline at (877) 516-3383

* Sending an email to employeeconcerns@llnl.gov

* Sending a written concern to either of the following addresses:

LLNL Staff Relations
P.O. Box 808, L-708
Livermore, CA 94551-9900

LLNL, Independent Audit & Oversight Department
P.O. Box 808, L-705
Livermore, CA 94551-0808

LLNS Employees or subcontractors who wish their identities to remain confidential should make this known during the initial written or verbal submission of the concern.
Anonymous said…
Someone needs to straps on some BRASS BALLS around there and do the right thing for a change!!

WHY wasn't FR IMMEDIATELY reported?
WHY hasn't security been notified???
WHY hasn't a paper trail been created to document such an infraction????
Oh wait, you retained 'THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST'...right George???!!!

IF it had been any other individual you WOULD have made an example of them and FIRED them, THEN wrote a NEW and improved SOP!!!

WHO is going to challenge this (fool!) and push for IMMEDIATE disciplinary action up to and including HIS termination?????
Anonymous said…
"Is ULM above the law?", you ask.

Don't be silly. Do you even need to ask that question? Kings and princes are always above the law.

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

tcp1 looking good

I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...