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...
Comments
On one hand, it seems that Management should be "held accountable" for things that happen within their organization. The Manager failed by either knowing about it and not responding, or by allowing such poor communication to exist that he didn't know what was going on.
But by that logic, we'd fire them all, up through the President, who owns the organization at the top level. This probably isn't right either.
How to draw the line? I'd be interested to know how much annual budget this guy is responsible for. If the conference debacle was worth 0.1% of that, he should be responsible; seems like you ought to be able to manage at 1 part in 1000.
For less than that, I'd require an independent management review. That would make his life miserable for a while, and motivate him to pay more attention.
Science is slowly suffocating. Meanwhile, I see no cut-backs in the extensive travel that is allowed for the upper management team. The lab Directors still travel in first class and only stay at the best hotels.