This is from a different thread; however, it brings up the looming Office of Enforcement action over the Sellers cover-up. As described in the IG report, Charlie was aware of the ethical violations that led to Sellers' debarment from government contracting and yet continued to shield her for over a year.
Other than being caught by the IG, what was the direct punishment to LANS senior management employees for harboring the Beth Sellers "conflict of interest" secret for a year or so?
February 23, 2015 at 7:48 AM
Just wait. The next step in the process after the issuance of a report by the IG finding wrongdoing, is the involvement of the IG's Office of Enforcement. The IG is not toothless by any means.
February 23, 2015 at 9:04 AM
Comments
Back in the 90s, DOE Contractor employees went to jail for environmental violations. After that, DOE Complex Managers had a "come-to-Jesus" moment.
Charlie met with a few employees at RULOB yesterday informally to discuss the future of pit production and TA-55. The thing that struck me was his absolute nonchalant arrogant attitude about the WIPP incident. You get the impression he either doesn't care or doesn't understand the implications of shutting WIPP down. His was response was "everyone makes mistakes". Really Charlie, that's it.....
February 25, 2015 at 2:42 AM
In different meetings, Charlie has also given the clear impression that he either doesn't care or doesn't understand the implications of the year long plus TA-55 work stand down. The thing that struck many in the audience was his absolute nonchalant arrogant attitude about the future restart date.
It looks to have come down to ego and personal gain for his attention and the broader responsibilities of the position have been lost. Other than getting his multimillion dollar per year compensation and surrounding himself with an ever shrinking circle of doting and like-minded supporters, what DOES Charlie understand and care about?
"...According to the Inspector General, Bechtel and URS, the contractors involved in the matter, have refused to provide more than 4,500 documents to the Inspector General, claiming attorney-client privilege. I understand that the contractors have refused to provide these documents despite a clause in both the prime contract and subcontract which expressly consents to the provision of attorney-client privileged material to the Inspector General. I request that the Department provide a briefing to the Subcommittee about DOE's plans to address the contractors' lack of cooperation with the Inspector General's request. The briefing should also include the mechanisms that are available to the Department to hold the contractors accountable for their noncompliance, including withholding of fees and recovery of costs incurred by the Office of Inspector General. I request that this briefing be provided as soon as possible, but no later than October 31, 2014..."
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2014/10/21/doe-office-inspector-general-rewards-contractors-non-cooperation-donna-busches
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/10/f18/IG-0923.pdf
That's how he so effortlessly pulls his stuff off. And, no, he won't be gone in 6 months. He's going to be LANL's Director for his full 5 year term. The LANS Board of Governors will steadfastly refuse to ask him to resign no matter what he does. He's got them thoroughly conned.
February 25, 2015 at 7:58 PM
One more year of losing 90% of the award fee and not only will Charlie be gone, but so will Bechtel be gone from the LLC. Then the LLC will collapse and DOE/NNSA will be forced to rebid the contract immediately. What will happen in the interim? Anyone's guess.
The LANS Board of Governors, also make good money. You can argue all you want about how the contract change was bad for the nation, but have to admire the group of smart players made big money off it. Look at the salaries of the top managers now. If this whole thing comes to end in a year or two, so be it, the money has been made and they played it well.
February 26, 2015 at 3:42 AM
The only two viable candidates for the Board of Governors are, drum roll ......., Mike Anastasio and/or Glenn Mara. Batta bing batta boom. Remember those guys? Here they come to save the day!
Can't you just see him now? Tooling up the road from Santa Fe on his bike, all decked out in his red "leathers", rug held firmly in place by the helmet, and a side car holding the loot from all the previous "retirements."
High heat melts teflon. The fumes are toxic. Just watch.
February 24, 2015 at 8:09 PM
DOE Office of Enforcement is coming. Charlie is toast. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
"DOE Office of Enforcement is coming. Charlie is toast. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
February 26, 2015 at 9:32 PM"
Why should he care? He made millions and millions of dollars for himself and LANS. That is called winning baby! LANS will still come out with big profit and they got to screw America to boot! Can any of you losers get to say the same? By the way, and be honest about this, would you have not done exactly the same things as Charlie and all the others? Don't hate the player hate the game.
February 27, 2015 at 5:25 PM
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." I dealt personally with Mara and Mcmillan at LANL. Mara was dismissive of problems. Mcmillan wanted to deal with them but was unable to do so competently.
February 27, 2015 at 3:19 PM
How someone (McMillan) can go to the Air Force Academy and toot his horn about himself and LANL, at a time the Lab he "leads" is in such disarray, confusion, and avoiding lawsuits is beyond words, but let me try in one word: Disgusting.
How about Deputy Directors and other senior lab management? If one uses the time lapse from mismanagement event(s), to actual departure from their lab, and considers terms of departure, as in not escorted out the gate, and instead given "parting is such sweet sorrow" themed send offs, then we have another big "nope".
Now compare the swiftness of "worker bee" escorts out the gate. Like Mel Brooks said, "It's good to be the king", or a member of the LANSLLNS royal family. The question is how long will it go on like this in LANSLLNS world?
The new LANL management culture, at least since the contract change, is to have as little interaction as possible with non-managers. This goes down even to the group level. I have heard from a few ex-managers that management training and meetings strongly emphasis a loyalty approach to management. The highest calling is to back up your fellow manager at all costs. He said the trainings are almost cult like in their ra-ra-ra for management and whatever happens there can never be a voice of dissent. When there is a discussion of a possible future manager it focuses exclusively on if the person will be loyal. Oddly enough the question of actual leadership never comes up.
You could not make up a worse management culture than this and of course this leads to the total dysfunction you see at LANL.
February 28, 2015 at 9:48 AM
Certainly not globally true. Within three weeks of the contact change at LANL, our new AD, who came from another site, asked to be invited to one of our Group meetings so he could introduce himself and listen to our concerns. He was personable, listened and took notes, and actually followed up on some issues that were raised. He is retired and no longer at LANL and is sorely missed.
Certainly not globally true. Within three weeks of the contact change at LANL, our new AD, who came from another site, asked to be invited to one of our Group meetings so he could introduce himself and listen to our concerns. He was personable, listened and took notes, and actually followed up on some issues that were raised. He is retired and no longer at LANL and is sorely missed.
February 28, 2015 at 11:08 AM
Agreed we all have fond memories of some great managers/leaders who not cared about the job but also inspired the best from the people under them. Sadly they are pretty much all gone now. One thing that grates me is that when I mention on of these former managers and how good they where is just how bad current management reacts. They go off on a tirade of comments along the lines of, "a softie that did not get it", "someone who was living in the past", "someone who should not have been in a DOE lab", " he/she was good with people but had no political skills", "They did not understand how to survive", " they where nice as a person but was not willing to get their hands dirty", "the person was a self-rightist bastard who does not understand the nature of the new lab" and "thy did not do what was needed to move up"
February 28, 2015 at 8:39 AM
A example of poor leadership is someone who relies on a subordinate to make decisions for them. McMillan is only a figurehead.
The "Us" are the irreplaceable management team and the "Them" are the non-management staff who are viewed by LANS as replaceable cogs.
Pre-LLC it didn't used to be like this. It's sad to watch this sick, perverted management culture play out.
February 28, 2015 at 9:32 PM
Just more wishful thinking and bitching with no ideas or original thoughts, thanks. "Best and the brightest" indeed. Either you are not a LANS/LLNS employee, or you lack the capacity to recognize the irony of your own stupidity, and should never have been hired.
February 28, 2015 at 9:32 PM"
There is no desire to hire or retain the best and brightest.
February 28, 2015 at 10:19 PM"
Indeed, The idea that the labs should be hiring the "best and brightest" is usually misunderstood by staff to mean that they personally are the "best and brightest" and as such are entitled, arrogant, and lazy. This is the kind of attitude that breeds contempt for management, one of the reasons managers do not wish to interact with staff, and one of the reasons the labs are so hard to manage. We should change the idea to "to the best, most capable and willing". We can all agree that the current crop of staff is very problematic and the reason that labs are struggling. Another poster stated it rather well. It is like an minimal that has been allowed to roam free for a good part of its life, it just can never adapt to being in a cage.
How many LANSLLNS college recruiting trips are you scheduled to attend to share your words of wisdom?
March 1, 2015 at 7:21 AM
If only that were true... If it were going to happen, why has it not happened already? If enough good people were to leave, the LLCs would never again have a chance of passing the contract PBIs and would founder and die. One can only hope...
Another issue they overlooked is that LANL is not competitive with "real" industry on many levels. LANS is losing facility Cognizant System Engineers (CSEs) again by the droves. Who needs to put up with the constant interviews and interrogations by the DOE-IG, DNFSB, DOE LASO Office, LANS Management, etc. following the WIPP incident or at any of the LANS nonoperational nuclear facilities (i.e. WETF, TA-55, Area G, RANT, WCRRF, etc). It's no longer interesting to work or challenging at the LANS nuclear facilities.
Just before the 2013 LLNS SSVSP was announced, a semi-detailed workforce population/retention vs year spreadsheet went out in the ~Spring of 2013. Has anyone seen the comparable 2014 or 2015 workforce spreadsheets?
March 2, 2015 at 5:06 AM
So were Bradbury, Agnew, Kerr, Hecker, Browne, Nanos, Kuckuck, and Anastasio. Some great, some horrible. What's your point?
March 2, 2015 at 5:16 PM
Really?? Name one "accomplishment."
In what future year then, will this accomplished and highly compensated LANS Director take ownership for activities at LANL? Which LANS "dysfunctional" "mid level" managers coerced Senior level LANS managers and Charlie to harbor the Beth Sellers conflict of interest secret for a year? Dysfunctional or not, that is some mid level management clout.
Correct!
Correct!
March 7, 2015 at 4:46 PM
Yeah, talk loudly and carry no stick. Your "enlightened scientist/engineer/technicians" got nothin'. You are all loser sheep.
ROFLAL...Please are these the same
"enlightened" scientists, engineers, technicians, who lost disks, or hid them behind copying machines, mishandled classified data, stole mustangs, burned part of the town, blinded students with lasers, cannot get NIF working, think organic and inorganic are the same and lost 90% of the fee. Sounds real "enlightened" to me. You can bash management all you want but without them they would have just closed at least one of the labs by now.
Accidents occurred under the less expensive UC management of the Labs. Under the more expensive LANSLLNS management, jumbo size accidents are occurring and less work is being accomplished.
How is LANSLLNS management a path to salvation for the Labs again? I suppose they did help DOE and NNSA see the light.
Nice litany of bad stuff. You realize that about 60% of it never happened. NIF and LANL??? Nice try.
...not to mention stolen mustangs, and burning the town down. Clueless.
March 8, 2015 at 6:11 PM"
Clueless!? The perception is that the problems at LANL/LLNL are due to scientists, engineers, and technicians not the management. Below was from 2007 and it is still believed and will likely always be believed. As many managers at LANL say the "only thing that matters is perception and perception is reality."
Remember the words of US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman
"Asked by Representative David Loebsack (D-Iowa) to sum up the cultural impediment to security at the nuclear weapons facility, Bodman responded bluntly.
"Arrogance," he said. "Arrogance of the chemists and physicists and engineers who work at Los Alamos and think they're above it all." Bureaucratic issues are not "at the heart of the problem," he told the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee. "The heart of the problem is a cultural issue at Los Alamos. 2007" http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/bodman-blames-scientists-for-problems-at-los-alamos/
Sorry LLNL but whatever is said about LANL goes for LLNL, it is just the way it works and I think we have all seen enough evidence to to agree on this point. If the perception is that scientists are the problem...than the reality is that scientists at both LANL and LLNL are the problem and this is not going to change.
Please explain how I am the one that is clueless? Perhaps one could say that I am just observant. I never said that I approve of how things are, I only state an obvious conclusion with the empirical evidence as given. I know someone will say that I am weak and not willing to try and change the way things are, however keep in mind that there have been others that tried and they are gone now, while others have embraced the new reality and profited very handsomely. You tell me what the lesson to be learned is?
March 8, 2015 at 10:01 PM
This isn't the first time you've spouted this nonsense. Start with a false statement and then use it as evidence to support YOUR ideas. Using Bodman as support is pathetic. He was as clueless as you are.
"...Bureaucratic issues are not "at the heart of the problem."..."
No you are not clueless, just very devoted to LANSLLNS management or not able to comprehend what you have quoted. You packaged up out of context Bodman comments from 2007, then "pole vaulted" to the present day to make pro-LANSLLNS management, anti-Scientist/Engineer/Technician statements.
Bodman's "Bureaucratic issues are not "at the heart of the problem" 2007 comment was not a thumbs up reference to LANL Management performance. Bodman was actually defending or as the story puts it, "...Waving off the suggestion that an unwieldy Energy Department bureaucracy has caused continuing security problems..." (unwieldy: difficult to handle, control, or deal with because of being large, heavy, or complex)
Jan. 31, 2007
"..."I feel a little bit like this is ‘Groundhog Day,'" said Representative John Dingell (D-Mich.). "We seem to be waking up over and over to experience the same events with regard to security at the national laboratories." Los Alamos has "proven itself incapable" of managing security, he said..."
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/lawmakers-slam-los-alamos-security/
May 14, 2014
"Nuclear Weapons Complex Reform Could Mean Pay Cut For Contractors"
"...Lately these contracts have been under increased scrutiny due to repeated cost overruns, delays and security failures across the nuclear weapons complex. In one of the most dramatic examples, an 82-year-old nun and two other peace activists in 2012 were able to infiltrate the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tenn., where bomb-grade uranium is stored.
Associate Deputy Energy Secretary Bruce Held has been questioning whether what he describes as "large fees" currently paid to manage the weapons sites are the best way to motivate all players involved.
Performance at the national labs might actually improve, the former CIA officer says, if less money went toward the fees meant to motivate the management companies that run the sites, and if more funds went directly to the scientific work that the facilities conduct.
"What motivates the people at the national laboratories is excellence in science and bringing excellence in science to the interest of the nation … They're not motivated by profit incentives," Held told Global Security Newswire in a recent interview. "They're human beings, they need a salary -- you can motivate them at the margins by giving them a pay raise or a pay decrease or something like that -- but their core motivation and what makes them tick is scientific excellence.
"So if I have a choice between a dollar of fee for the … contractor that runs it, or a dollar in lab-directed research and development and I want to motivate scientific excellence, I'd go with" the dollar in lab-directed research and development, Held continued..."
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/nuclear-weapons-complex-reform-could-mean-pay-cut-contractors/
"...Bureaucratic issues are not "at the heart of the problem."..."
No you are not clueless, just very devoted to LANSLLNS management or not able to comprehend what you have quoted. You packaged up out of context Bodman comments from 2007, then "pole vaulted" to the present day to make pro-LANSLLNS management, anti-Scientist/Engineer/Technician statements.
Bodman's "Bureaucratic issues are not "at the heart of the problem" 2007 comment was not a thumbs up reference to LANL or LLNL Management performance. Bodman was actually defending or as the story puts it, "...Waving off the suggestion that an unwieldy Energy Department bureaucracy has caused continuing security problems..." (unwieldy: difficult to handle, control, or deal with because of being large, heavy, or complex)
Jan. 31, 2007
"..."I feel a little bit like this is ‘Groundhog Day,'" said Representative John Dingell (D-Mich.). "We seem to be waking up over and over to experience the same events with regard to security at the national laboratories." Los Alamos has "proven itself incapable" of managing security, he said..."
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/lawmakers-slam-los-alamos-security/
DOE and NNSA are just about ready to dump the business model LANSLLNS are operating under for a science and engineering focused model. Read below.
May 14, 2014
"...Nuclear Weapons Complex Reform Could Mean Pay Cut For Contractors..."
"... Lately these contracts have been under increased scrutiny due to repeated cost overruns, delays and security failures across the nuclear weapons complex..."
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/nuclear-weapons-complex-reform-could-mean-pay-cut-contractors/