SPSE Newsletter #1, April 2000
Editor: Patrick Weidhaas and Sue Koopman
P.O. Box 1066, Livermore, CA 94551
925-449-4846

Contents:

President's Corner
A Tale of Two Citizens

The tale of Wen Ho Lee and John Deutch is still unfolding; the last chapter has not been written. Yet, already this tale contains all the ingredients of high suspense: nuclear weapons espionage, missing computer tapes, CIA secrets, porno sites, cover-ups, politics, and hypocrisy.

Chapter 1: Suspect Lee
The first chapter in this tale is well known. It describes the events surrounding Taiwanese-born, naturalized American computer scientist, Wen Ho Lee, who has been at the center of a storm over allegations that he leaked nuclear weapons secrets to China.

Chapter 2: Suspect Deutch
Perhaps less well known is our tale's other principal character, John Deutch, who we introduce in this second chapter. A chemist by background, John Deutch held high positions at the Department of Energy during the Carter administration. From May 1995 until December 1996, he was the Director of the CIA. In contrast to the quiet Wen Ho Lee, Deutch is a "political animal" and, as we shall see, well connected in the Washington power-circles. After resigning from the CIA, Deutch was elected to the Board of Directors at Citibank in early 1997. He returned to his original profession: he is currently a chemistry professor at MIT.

The "Deutch case" began shortly after he left the CIA in December 96. CIA officials discovered thousands of pages of highly classified intelligence documents on his unsecured home computer. That PC had also been used to access porno sites--not by Deutch, he claimed. So, perhaps someone else had used his PC and could have accessed his classified documents.

Chapter 3: We are All Suspects
In this chapter, we return to Wen Ho Lee. It is April 1999, Wen Ho Lee has lost his job at LANL, and Washington politicians have incited a "national security furor" over alleged China espionage. Two reports are published, each named after their principal author, Christopher Cox (R-CA) and former Senator Warren Rudman (R-NH). The Cox Report intends to show that China had obtained nuclear weapons information, and that this information originated at the national labs. The Rudman Report informs America that "a culture saturated with cynicism and disregard for authority" exists at the labs, and that lab scientists have "a cavalier attitude" toward national security. Along with Wen Ho Lee, all lab-workers are suspects.

In the months following these reports, others raised their voices. A panel of reputable experts, not politicians, published an in-depth analysis of the Cox Report. They found that the report "contains important inaccuracies and implausible statements and does not answer the question of whether spying occurred," (http://cisac.stanford.edu/docs/cox.pdf). A former LANL security expert, Robert Vrooman, declares that (1) there is no case against Wen Ho Lee, (2) Lee is targeted because of his ethnic background, and (3) the weapons information which allegedly leaked to China could have come from 548 different sources, including the National Guard.

Chapter 4: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
The politicians ignore these voices. They convince the public that espionage has occurred and that the lab's "culture" must be changed. Our formerly sane world comes to an end. Now there are lie-detectors, wire-tapping, and stand-downs. Wen Ho Lee's world also collapses: in December 1999, he is arrested and thrown into an isolation cell in the Albuquerque jail. His ankles and wrists are shackled when he moves around the jail or meets--once a week--with his family.

Chapter 5: Sloppy Excuses
In chapter 5, we learn more about the investigation into John Deutch's security violations. The CIA was, at the very least, reluctant to pursue this case. The facts suggest a cover-up. It takes the CIA two and a half years before they suspend his clearance in August 1999. Deutch still retained his Pentagon clearance which allowed him to pursue lucrative consulting jobs with defense firms like Raytheon and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). While investigating Deutch, CIA executive director Nora Slatkin was offered a management position with Citibank (!!) in June 1997. In September, she quit her CIA job and joined Citibank. Now the "agency" says that Slatkin's actions "delayed a prompt and thorough investigation" of the Deutch case.

Another "Deutch loyalist," CIA general counsel, Michael O'Neill, decided not to file a "crimes report" with the Justice Department. Deutch's powerful friends gathered around him and shielded him from any harm: no reprimands, no warning to the White House nor the Department of Defense about a possible compromise of intelligence information. The Justice Department shied away from prosecution. The current CIA Director, George Tenet, defended Deutch, calling him "sloppy." Interestingly, Mr. Rudman who had voiced his contempt for the lab's culture and attitude toward national security, agreed that Deutch was simply "sloppy."

Chapter 6: Double Standard or Racial Profiling?
What have we learned so far? Sadly, while security violations can occur at the highest level, there is a double standard: "important people seem to get away with more than lesser people," according to Melvyn A. Goodman, a former CIA analyst. Last year's plea by many lab employees who called for polygraph exams to start at the top, takes on new meaning in view of the Deutch case. The director of an agency that depends on keeping information under lock and key should be "above suspicion." Deutch's friends call him "sloppy," I see a heavy dose of "arrogance," an attitude of "I am the CIA Director, therefore I am above the law."

Maybe Deutch was only "sloppy," and maybe Lee was "sloppy," too. On the other hand, maybe Deutch's information on his home computer was compromised. Maybe Lee did leak secret data to China. We have not seen any hard facts to resolve these speculations. Without facts, we simply see two citizens, one, a white male with connections, the other an Asian-American without influential buddies. Both are charged with serious security violations. One, however, sits in jail while the other teaches chemistry at MIT. Is this tale about double standard or racial profiling? Either one is totally unacceptable. /Patrick Weidhaas


Show the Data

[Editor's Note: If anything positive has come out of the Wen Ho Lee case, it is the fact that Americans of Asian-Pacific descent at the national labs have come together to protest the long-harbored practice of "racial profiling." Thanks to these colleagues, DOE could not ignore allegations of racial and also gender discrimination. DOE formed a task force, appointed an Ombudsman, Dr. Jeremy Wu, and ordered the labs to hold "diversity stand-downs."

During the preparation of this newsletter, several members of the SPSE board felt that, at the very least, SPSE should make a statement on this subject. Our eloquent ex-President, Manuel Garcia, agreed to write a first draft for us; see below. At the same time, he declared, "I have no personal need to make a statement on this subject right is right and wrong is wrong it's as clear to me now as it was in my catechism class with the Sisters of Charity."

Experience has shown that it takes a long time to reach consensus--the way it should be in a democratic organization like ours. While we may continue to struggle over the precise wording, a number of board members urged us to publish Manuel's draft "as is" for two reasons. First, they saw enough in it to agree with. Second, because of its timeliness.]

Racial Profiling Draft
We oppose discrimination in security investigations, employee grievance proceedings, hiring selection, promotions, raises, and bonuses, on the basis of gender, age, race, color, creed, ethnicity, physical attributes, personal preferences, or administrative rank. We oppose any practice that effectively reduces the protections of due process for any employee or group of employees relative to the rest of the employee population, solely on the basis of attributed characteristics. We condemn the unwarranted, racially motivated practice of investigation called "racial profiling."

The taint of discrimination, whether it be the "racial profiling" of law enforcement, security investigations, and disciplinary actions, or the "glass ceiling" on career advancement by women and ethnic minorities, or the "glass wall" to career continuity for a growing fraction of older workers, corrodes the viability of the institutions and societies that tolerate the exploitation of public means for private gains by an exclusionary class. The perception of race, gender, and age unfairness in the DOE laboratories managed by the UC continues, and it colors all interactions between management and staff. The events surrounding the case of Wen Ho Lee are helping to deepen employee mistrust, and are symptomatic of deep flaws in management.

The first step to a genuine effort to address the fundamental problem of discrimination in the conduct of the DOE laboratories managed by UC is for a complete disclosure of the statistical data showing minority, gender, and age percentages in rank group, salary level, raise percentage, promotion actions, and their population percentage in management positions. Show the data. Once the facts speak for themselves, affected parties can formulate realistic opinions and seek realistic remedies. Beyond question, changes would result from this process, and beyond question they would be for the better. /Manuel Garcia

Miranda Rights
Read To Outspoken Lab Employee

On December 17, 1999, an SPSE Newsletter appeared at the Lab. In that issue, I exercised my constitutionally protected right of free speech and published three articles: 1) "Testimony, I Was a False Positive." 2) "FY'00 Salary Data Destroyed?" and 3) "Employee Asked to Leave Public Hearing." Two working days after those articles appeared, I received a phone message from "Protective Services," requesting that I return their phone call. I called them back the next day. They asked me to report to the UC Police Station here at the lab. I was ushered into a small office with two policemen, who watched my every move.

They read me my "Miranda" Rights: "You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to be represented by an attorney. Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law." To my astonishment, they proceeded to state allegations about my having improperly filled out Lab time cards, while working outside the lab on my vacation time in 1997. (Question to the reader: can you explain every time card from three years ago?) According to them, two or three days were in question.

The Right to Remain Silent
Then they asked me, "Mr. Thomas. Don't you want to respond to these allegations?"

I said, "No!"
They asked me, "Why not?"
I said, "You just said that I `have the right to remain silent,' and that is my choice."

My understanding was that Miranda Rights are usually read to someone who is being detained in custody before being placed under arrest. However, I was not under arrest, either before or after this time. Since then, I have examined my meticulous work records, which include my time charges for that long-ago period. From my inspection, I have concluded that I made no illegal time charges, and reported my time properly and honestly. A few days later, I hired an attorney to represent me in this matter.

We give up a lot of freedom and rights when we work at the Lab. However, I will not let any organization intimidate me from the proper and legal use of my right of free speech! At the age of 61, I won't stick my head in the sand for anyone. I plan to continue working at the lab until I'm 70 years old. /Norman Thomas

Silicon Valley's Amy Dean Speaks at LLNL

Last November, I went back-country hiking with one of my daughters in northern New Mexico. She had bought the New York Times in Santa Fe and read it while I drove. Just by chance, she came across an article about a remarkable woman by the name of Amy Dean, who is Executive Director of the South Bay AFL-CIO. Ms. Dean, according to this article, has thought deeply about the changes in the American economy and in the workplace. She has studied how these changes, fueled by the computer revolution in Silicon Valley, are affecting the professional workers who are the real engines driving the new economy. The article described how Ms. Dean is actually successful in addressing the problems that confront professional workers like us. I decided right then and there that SPSE, which is dealing with much the same issues, had to invite Ms. Dean to speak to lab employees.

It was a great honor for me and my SPSE colleagues when on March 1, SPSE hosted a noon-time talk by Ms. Dean, in the Main Auditorium. And what a thought-provoking and inspiring talk it was!

Flex-Term Labor
Ms. Dean started out by describing how the modern American workplace is very different from that of the 1970's. At that time, large firms took on all tasks from research to production to marketing in a vertically structured organization immersed in a largely stable, locally based economy. Now we have a global economy in which research, marketing, and production functions and industry clusters are regionally dispersed. Competitiveness is now driven by innovation rather than by quality or quantity. Today's employers place a premium on workforce flexibility the need to expand and contract the labor force rapidly in response to changing market conditions. These changes have had several important effects. One effect is the rise of "contract" or "flex-term" labor. Ms. Dean presented statistics showing this increase in all categories, from professionals to workers who get their training on the job. She said that 40% of the workforce in Silicon Valley work on a non-standard basis.

Loss of Parity
The new economy has also led to a rapid obsolescence of skills, the decrease in mid-level and middle income positions, causing a growing wage gap between the few at the top and the rest of the workers. Ms. Dean referred to this effect as the "hourglass phenomenon." Data from the California Employment Development Department show a modest wage growth for the top 10% of wage earners over the past few years, and a drop for everyone else.

Worse, while the economy has changed, the old social contract that once guaranteed legal parity between employers and employees has not. Unions have not evolved to match the changes in the American workplace. Ms. Dean insisted it is time for a new social contract. She envisions employee organizations, like SPSE, to become more integrated into the wider community in order to provide stability and quality of life. Professional unions will resemble the craft guilds of old in that they maintain the standards of the profession and coordinate life-long re-education and training. They should also push for and support policies to increase earnings, provide for portable benefits, and to reduce job insecurities.

In stimulating discussions over lunch after her talk SPSE Board members explored with her how SPSE might apply her ideas to our own situation here at LLNL. /Jeff Colvin

Strengthening our Grievance Service

One of SPSE's services is to support our members during the grievance process. We want to strengthen this service by offering grievance training to new grievance volunteers. Richard White, one of our grievance specialists, has agreed to offer this training.

The training will consist of two or three meetings in which we explore the essentials. This will be followed by sessions aimed at specific topics of interest to the group. The goal is for these "graduates" to represent members in their grievance proceedings.

We invite any member who would like to be a volunteer, or who just wants to learn more about the grievance process, to contact us via e-mail or contact a board member. /Sue Koopman

Wiretapping in the Works

If you thought that all the fallout for lab employees from the Lee case is now in the past, think again. Senator Arlen Specter authored "Report of the Investigation of Espionage Allegations Against Dr. Wen Ho Lee," (http://www.senate.gov ) to point out his legal differences with Attorney General Reno. He also introduced the "Counterintelligence Reform Act of 2000" (http://thomas.loc.gov), intended to make it easier for the feds to show probable cause to get permission to wiretap phones of "suspicious" lab employees. Check our website for more information. /Jeff Colvin

Whistleblower Resigns from UC/DOE/LLNL

David Lappa resigned from the Lab on February 4, 2000. Dave attained considerable notoriety as a result of his lawsuit against the UC, charging retaliation against a whistleblower. His legal case against the UC is still pending. He accepted an engineering position in Pleasanton.

Dave was one of SPSE's most active and loyal members. A member since 1993, in recent years, he served on the SPSE Board and as Treasurer. We will miss him and his creative ideas that definitely enriched our organization. We wish him well.

home.gif Go back to the SPSE Home Page
http://www.spse.org/