SPSE Newsletter #2, August 2000
Editors: Sue Koopman and Patrick Weidhaas
P.O. Box 1066, Livermore, CA 94551
925-449-4846
Contents:
Wen Ho Lee Issue Inspires Varied Responses
Since Dr. Wen Ho Lee was put in solitary confinement December
1999, there has been a lot of activity at LLNL. SPSE's past president,
Kalina Wong was invited by The Commissioner Yvonne Lee of the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, appointed by Bill Richardson,
to participate in a panel at Conference 2000 for Organization
of Chinese Americans in Atlanta this summer. She joined representatives
of other national labs to discuss Wen Ho Lee and the affects on
Asian Pacific Americans (APAs).
SPSE sponsored a
lecture in April by UC Berkeley Professor L. Ling-chi Wang, who
authored the Asian Pacific Americans in Higher Education (APAHE)
resolution, calling upon all Asian American scientists and engineers
not to apply for jobs at the national labs. After the lecture,
LLNL's Luisa Hansen suggested we gather signatures for her letter
to Attorney General Janet Reno protesting Wen Ho Lee's treatment.
The audience cheered with support. Manuel Garcia helped gather
signatures and Hansen sent 103 signatures to Reno. [Web
Master's Note: Ms. Hansen corrects--128 signatures total.]
Garcia and Sue Byars joined Wen Ho Lee rallies in Fremont and
San Francisco and had their pictures prominently displayed in
a Chinese newspaper. They also drafted a position statement which
inspired the SPSE board to solicit member-response regarding a
proposed SPSE resolution on behalf of Lee.
As one long-time member pointed out, "Well, you guys sure
got a response. I can't recall any issue that ever prompted SPSE
members to comment in such numbers and across such a broad spectrum
of personalities."
There was a wide range of responses. Some members objected
to any support. One reasoned, "The fact that he is under
indictment for his action means some evidence of gross misconduct
likely was perpetrated by him."
Many members fully supported the resolution. Responses included,
"Where do I sign?" and, "Excellent. Why have we
waited so long?"
Others supported parts of the resolution, "If SPSE wants
to go on record against racial profiling and discrimination in
the workplace, I'm sure such a politically correct resolution
will be popular, and I would be in support of it. But confusing
this objective with the uncritical endorsement of Lee as an innocent
victim of racial profiling, while ignoring his proven security
failures and potential crimes, is just foolish." Another
member suggested, "I would support a fairness and humanitarian
resolution limited to urging the immediate release of Wen Ho Lee
while he awaits trial." One person stated, "SPSE fills
a vital role of employee advocate and watchdog over lab management
practices. A calm, reasoned, objective statement that Dr. Lee's
treatment to date is out of proportion to the offenses of which
he has been accused...would be a healthy counter to today's security
frenzy."
We are grateful to the members who took the time to write the
thoughtful and well reasoned responses. Using their feedback,
a letter was written and sent to Attorney General Janet Reno from
the SPSE board (see box pg. 1). The defense
will present our letter to the judge at Dr. Lee's August court
hearing. /Sue Koopman
Polygraph: Is It as Bad as You Think?
[Editors' Note: SPSE urged Congress and Secretary Richardson
to reconsider the decision to bring polygraph testing to the national
laboratories. Still, we try to present various views. Last December
we ran an article by Norm Thomas (see SPSE's
web site) and here is an account from another board member.]
Most of us are somewhat overwhelmed by the impact of the security
requirements imposed by the DOE last year, especially with the
prospect of being subjected to a polygraph exam. We've heard so
many stories of false positives causing hardships. SPSE as well
as some members of Congress have released statements questioning
the effectiveness of, and the need for the testing.
The number of employees required to be tested has been reduced,
but for some, the requirement persists. Just how many of us will
be affected by polygraph testing remains to be seen. In a July
10th article in the Washington Post, columnist Vernon Loeb
tells us 600 scientists have been tested so far with no false
(or any?) positive results. He also reports the House has recently
voted to dock the pay of anyone who refuses to take the test.
Until last year my role as an Authorized Derivative Classifier
(ADC) with authority to approve the transfer of unclassified data
from a classified computer system required only a Q clearance
and a short ADC briefing. Continuing this role now requires a
Personnel Security Assurance Program (PSAP) security clearance
in addition to the previous requirements; and a PSAP clearance
now requires passing a polygraph exam in addition to drug tests
and an annual physical exam. Consequently most of the ADCs in
my department have chosen not to continue in this role. I have
to wonder how much our security is enhanced by the polygraph testing,
but I decided to consider this just one more security requirement
to conform to, and I've gained a first-hand experience of the
testing in the process.
Most of the testing is performed by the DOE in Albuquerque,
but due to the number of PSAP clearances needed at LLNL the testing
team made a trip to Livermore in June to perform the testing on
site. During a pre-test briefing the process was described to
us, so we would know what to expect during the testing. For most
of us the testing requires only a single session. When the results
are inconclusive or questionable, the subject may be asked to
return for a re-test, but we were told this happens in only a
very few cases.
I was assigned to a polygrapher who has been doing the testing
for several years. He was very professional during the entire
process, which helped put me at ease. I had no preconceived notion
of any problems, and as far as I know none occurred, but it was
somewhat exhausting. The time needed for the testing process may
vary; mine took the better part of four hours.
To "calibrate" the testing I was asked a few mundane
questions, some of which I was instructed to answer falsely. I
was dubious this could produce a reaction similar to a "real
lie," but I apparently evoked the expected results in this
phase so the testing continued to the real questions. There were
no surprises; I was told the significant questions that would
be asked before they were asked during the test. None of the questions
invaded my personal life, as national security is the only concern
of interest during the testing.
The instruments used in the testing are very sensitive, so
in order for the test to be valid positive or negative it is necessary
for the subject to be completely relaxed physically. For me, this
was harder than passing the test. They don't tell you if you pass,
but you'll hear from them if you don't. I hope sharing my experience
will give you a better picture of what it actually involves from
someone who has gone through it, and lived to talk about it. /Sandra
Brewer
UC Pension Fund--Answers Needed
A story in the San Francisco Examiner (July 16, 2000)
raised serious questions about the handling of UC's pension fund.
In closed door meetings, Regent Gerald Parsky has orchestrated
a move to 1) hire a financial consulting firm, Wilshire Associates--without
any bidding process and after they donated money to the GOP, 2)
follow that firm's recommendations to drastically change a perfectly
sound fund's investment strategy, and 3) to oust the successful
current treasurer, Patricia Small. It is the first time in twenty
years that an outside firm has been hired. Concerned over the
hiring process which seems to be coupled to political donations,
SPSE wrote a letter to UC President Atkinson and the Regents,
demanding answers to several questions. Check our web site for
updates. /Patrick Weidhaas
UC and Security--President's Corner
On June 30, 2000, DOE Secretary Richardson leveled serious
complaints against the UC, criticizing UC of their failure to
bring the same degree of expertise to managing security as they
bring to the management of scientific research at the labs.
DOE Makes the Rules
In Newsletter #2, May 1999,
SPSE reported on a "Meet and Discuss" with Robert Perko
(Staff Relations) and Eric Steele (Safeguards and Security). They
emphasized that security clearances are provinces of DOE, and
are administered to DOE criteria. UC/LLNL has an arm's length
relationship with DOE regarding clearances. Both men also told
us that the security requirements for DOE Contractors and their
employees derive from federal government documents.
Let's get this straight: security is a federal business. DOE
makes the rules, and UC implements them. Implementation amounts
to UC acting in concert and partnership with DOE.
DOE Changes Badges, Introduces L-Clearance
While Richardson tried to blame UC for recent security incidents
at LANL, Director John Browne, reminded Congress of two DOE decisions
in recent years that have certainly not improved security at the
labs.
First, LLNL and LANL used to have very simple and sensible
badge systems. At LLNL, red badges indicated a "P" clearance
(basically, no clearance), and green badges a "Q" clearances.
The colors, derived from traffic lights, signaled "STOP"
(for uncleared people) and "GO" (for cleared people).
Names on the badges were in large bold letters. Along came Hazel
O'Leary (DOE--not UC!) and changed the badges at the labs. Now
identification of a person's clearance and name is no longer straightforward.
A second decision by DOE was the introduction of the "L"
clearance. The reasons were twofold: to save money in security
investigations and to placate Congress, which had complained about
too many Q-cleared lab employees. So, about ten years ago, an
increasing number of LLNL (and LANL) employees, who used to have
Q-clearances, were issued "L" clearances, which required
much less extensive background checks. Still, these people would
show up in Q-cleared ("green") areas. I "lived"
in Building 111 and remember the confusion when my colleagues
and I encountered L-cleared employees in the hallway. Here was
another DOE decision that did not improve security--on the contrary!
The incident of the now-famous hard disks at LANL would not
have happened, if the DOE rules had required signing in and out
every time such disks were moved. But the rules were relaxed during
the last days of the Bush administration. Again, money was the
bottom line, and again it was a DOE decision that UC could only
accept. Director Browne testified that the UC labs have in the
past pointed out other weaknesses with the DOE security rules.
See his testimony on the web at (http://www.lanl.gov/newsbulletin).
It appears these UC-warnings fell on deaf ears at DOE.
The A, B, C, and D of Security
In a nutshell, Agency A (DOE) makes the security rules and tells
its contract Agency B (UC) to implement them. In the meantime,
Agency C (NNSA) is formed because of national security concerns.
Then some classified disks cannot be accounted for (Agency A's
rules did not require strict signatures) and the head of Agency
A points fingers at Agency B for the incident. "Get real,
Secretary Richardson!"
Now there is talk about taking security away from Agency B,
perhaps contracting it out to yet another outfit: Agency D. So,
the labs would deal with Agencies A, B, C, and D. Four bureaucracies?
Madness! Wasn't Agency C (NNSA) formed precisely because of espionage
and security concerns? Doesn't it make sense that C should handle
security? If not security, what is its mission? /Patrick
Weidhaas
Gender and Ethnicity Data Are On-line!
Have you ever wondered just how many women scientists and engineers
work at LLNL? You are now able to find the racial/gender reports
at the following web site: http://www.llnl.gov/aadp/.
One can learn that there are 7421 Lab employees (Term and Indefinite),
2917 scientists and engineers (200 series), and 735 "Senior
Technologists" (300 series). Of these two series, 16.3% are
women. There are three Black women "Service officers."
APAs make up 10.2% of the scientists and engineers. Taking into
account the 20% to 50% of Asian graduate students in the Colleges
and Universities in the Bay Area, the LLNL-population of Asian
200s is strikingly low.
Although this is interesting gender data, SPSE has been asking
for the race and gender of each employee, not the sum of each
group. We need the individual data to do salary and ranking comparisons. /Doug
Clarke
UC Reaches Out to Employees -- LLNL Snubs Offer
On March 15, 1979, the UC Regents adopted a set of employee
relations' principles, the first of which reads, "UC would
continue efforts to maintain and enhance a working environment
that made it unnecessary for employees to choose collective bargaining."
Today, over 50,000 UC employees, including teaching assistants
and LLNL's protective service officers are members of ten university-wide
and thirteen local exclusively represented bargaining units.
In May 2000, UC published a "Report of the UC Employee
Relations Task Force" (ERTF) (http://www.ucop.edu/humres/empreltf.html).
It recognizes that the world has changed since 1979 and that employer-employee
relationships are governed by new laws, e.g., the Fair Labor Standards
Act. The ERTF issued four draft principles "for discussion
in the University community." It recommended that after a
period of discussion, the principles, as amended, be adopted and
communicated throughout all segments of the UC community as a
basis for action.
I learned about ERTF through the Berkeley Lab's "Currents"
newspaper. On June 2, 2000 it published the draft principles,
the list of task force members (which include LLNL's Gloria Kwei
and LANL's Warren Miller), and it asked LBL employees to e-mail
comments to LBL's Human Resources department by July 1. LANL and
LLNL were silent about the ERTF.
On June 14, I sent an e-mail, followed by a certified letter
to Ms. Kwei, asking, "are the UC employees who work at LLNL
going to be informed of the labor relations principles developed
by this task force, and are they going to be asked for their input?"
On June 22, a reply came from Robert Perko (Staff Relations),
assuring SPSE that LLNL employees would get an opportunity to
comment. He referred questions to Susan Angstadt (Staff Relations).
We learned from Ms. Angstadt, that Ms. Kwei had decided there
would be no announcements in Newsline or NewsOnLine. Instead,
employees would be notified via their respective ADs. Have you
heard from your AD?
UC Admits at Sacramento Hearings, "We're Doing Things
that Aren't Right."
For many years, UC employees who wanted to organize into a union
faced fierce opposition from UC. Just ask the Lab's PSO's union.
UC's anti-labor record came to light during legislative hearings
in Sacramento on June 8. The next day, the Daily Californian
reported, "...(U)nion leaders leveled serious charges at
the university and targeted two recently released reports from
university task forces examining UC bargaining procedures. `These
reports bolster the university's long-held anti-union philosophy,'
said Christian Sweeney, president of UC Berkeley's Association
of Graduate Student Employees. 'They make systematic the slow
and disorganized process that already exists.'"
According to the Daily Californian, Elinore Levine,
president of the Coalition of University Employees, expressed
concern that the university consistently refuses to engage in
good faith bargaining. "'(Bargaining representatives) seem
to have no intention to agree to anything,' she said. 'They send
representatives who don't have the authority to bargain.'
"Although the university reached a contract agreement
with its nurses just last month, Dawn Love, a California Nurses
Association representative at the hearing, said the university
has a 'sordid track record' of labor complaints. According to
her statistics, unfair labor practice charges against the university
have risen 600 percent this year.
"'They are violating the legal rights of employees,' she
said. 'They blatantly failed to bargain in good faith.'
"Love's charges were especially in focus because the legislature
will soon consider a bill that would allow the State Labor Relations
Board to fine employers, including the university, who are found
to have committed unfair labor practices."
Judith Boyette, the UC system's vice president for human resources
is quoted, saying, "We need to do something. We're doing
things that aren't right."
"Ms. Kwei, You're Doing Things that Aren't Right."
Finally, the UC admits it is "doing things that aren't right."
It also publishes the ERTF principles and asks that UC employees
be allowed to discuss them. At LLNL, however, UC employees have
been kept out of the loop so far. Ms. Kwei's decision, not to
reach out to the employees directly, should be called into question
for two reasons: 1) As a member of the task force, she sidesteps
the task force's own recommendations that call for widespread
discussion by UC employees. 2) Ms. Boyette's comments and the
task force's principles are signs of UC's attempts to improve
relations. Along comes LLNL's Ms. Kwei and decides to shun the
UC's good intentions. By her actions, she prevents LLNL employees
from joining the rest of UC in this new direction. /Patrick
Weidhaas
Employee Rep Training
SPSE will host Employee Rep Training in the fall and is looking
for SPSE members to sign up. You will learn to advise fellow employees
in an ombudsman role and will be supported by a group of reps
forming the Employee Rep Committee. Note that this is different
from the Lab's Ombudsman program.
Topics include: 1) What is a grievance and what is the formal
grievance process, 2) How to fix employment problems, 3) Role
of the Employee Rep, 4) LLNL Policies and Procedures (now on the
web at http://www.llnl.gov/llnl/02employment/PPPM/Introduction.htm),
5) Filing a formal grievance or administrative review, 6) Discrimination,
7) Weaknesses and strengths of LLNL system, and 8) Getting past
impediments.
The class consists of three evening sessions, once a week from
7:30-9:00 p.m. We need 4 to 6 more interested members to make
the class viable. Consult our web site for more information. To
sign up, send e-mail with your name, evening preference and other
suggestions to spse@spse.org. /Sue
Koopman
SPSE Surveys Lab Employees
We want to thank all of you who took the time to respond to
SPSE on-line survey to find out what issues are important to Laboratory
employees. We will provide information about the survey, the questions
asked and results in the next newsletter. /Jeff Colvin
Go back to the SPSE Home Page
http://www.spse.org/