SPSE Newsletter #3, December 1998
Editor: P. Weidhaas
P.O. Box 1066, Livermore, CA 94551
925-449-4846
Contents:
25 Years of SPSE -- A Retrospective
We have summarized SPSE's 25-year path towards these goals in the fold-out timeline inside this newsletter. You may also find this timeline on our website http://www.spse.org. There, you can click on any action box, and obtain more details about it. We give credit for this timeline to past president and past editor George Craig. Another history needs to be told. Below, we present a concise, but by no means complete, history of the relationship between the UC and the Lab. It serves as background for our on-going legal battle with UC over consistency in personnel policies. This history reveals that SPSE's call to UC for closer oversight and more consistent management of the labs has been issued repeatedly loud and clear by many learned committees in decades past. /Editor |
55 Years of UC Management of the Labs -- A Quest for Understanding
"The Laboratories enjoy a delightful autonomy
within the protective shelter of the University, so delightful as to border
on the licentious."
(Zinner Report to the UC, 1970)
"It is of the utmost importance that the
U.S. retain, in the crucial and controversial area affecting nuclear deterrence,
people who are at once technically outstanding and as independent as possible
from bureaucratic and political restraints on the expression of unpopular
views."
(Buchsbaum Report to the DOE, 1979)
"[The Council] believes that it is critical
that the Laboratories continue to be defined by the highest standards of
scientific quality and by other more elusive, but no less important, characteristics,
such as openness, scientific freedom, and independence."
(UC President's Council on the National
Laboratories, Report, 1996)
"Preservation of the academic atmosphere
at the Laboratories is a cornerstone to the UC/DOE contract."
(UC President's Report to the UC Regents, 1997)
Q: "Do staff employees [of the UC] have
[academic freedom]?" A: "No."
(Lubbe Levin, UC Assistant Vice President for Human Resources in testimony
referring to scientists and engineers at LLNL, 1998)
The ties between the University of California (UC) and the federal government go back to April 1943, when the UC signed two contracts with the US government: W-7405-ENG-36 with the Manhattan Engineering District (i.e., Los Alamos) of the War Department, and, W-7405-ENG-48, "for conducting certain studies and experimental investigations" at UC Berkeley's Radiation Laboratory. The director of that lab on the hill above the campus was Nobel laureate Ernest O. Lawrence. Today, LANL still operates under contract 36 and LLNL under contract 48.
After the war ended in 1945, the University planned to phase out of the weapons business. During the "tapering off" period the contract was extended several times for short periods. In August 1946, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was formed, and the UC Regents announced their intentions to turn Los Alamos over to the AEC that October. In the words of UC President Sproul, "If we get rid of bomb making, plutonium, and New Mexico, I will be very happy."
Lawrence Lobbies for Extending the Contract
Lawrence had other ideas, though. He needed money for a new accelerator, the Bevatron, and figured that extending the contract between UC and the AEC would persuade the AEC to fund his Berkeley Lab instead of the new Brookhaven Laboratory. Lawrence lobbied for renewal of the contract, prevailed, and got his machine the contract has been renewed ever since. Thanks to Lawrence we are UC employees, and thanks to Edward Teller our lab at Livermore exists.
The Livermore Site is Established
Teller, one of the brilliant minds during the Manhattan Project, lobbied the AEC in 1951 for a second lab to serve as a competitor to Los Alamos. In September 1952, he and Lawrence founded the "Livermore Site" of the UC Radiation Laboratory (UCRL, or "Rad Lab"). Livermore was a branch of the Berkeley Lab. [Trivia: the mail-code for the "Berkeley Site" was 100, for the "Livermore Site" it was 200, and when the site at Tesla Road was established in 1955, it became "Site 300."] In August 1958, Lawrence died, and on November 7, 1958, the Lab (Berkeley and Livermore sites) became the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory (LRL).
Until the mid 1960's the relationship between UC and the Livermore Site was harmonious. However, the war in Vietnam and the growing anti-war sentiment at Berkeley and campuses across the country raised critical questions about the University's role in managing the "weapons labs." Ever since, UC's management of the labs has remained a contentious issue: at the labs academic freedom clashes with secrecy, and academic pursuits to benefit mankind are at odds with research into weapons of mass destruction.
The (UC) Zinner Committee
In 1969, UC appointed the first of several committees to study the UC-Lab connection, the "Special Committee on University Research at Livermore and Los Alamos," chaired by UC political scientist Paul Zinner. The Zinner Committee published its report in May 1970, stating, "[C]ontinuation of UC management would be appropriate only with substantial modifications." It recommended that the UC exercise greater administrative control. It also recommended separation of the Berkeley and Livermore Labs. In 1971, the Regents formally approved "the Academic Senate's response to" the Zinner report, but Zinner's only legacy was the separation of the Berkeley and Livermore Labs. On June 18, 1971, the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory (LRL) split into the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) and the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (LLL).
The (UC) Gerberding Committee
In 1977, the University formed a second "Committee to Examine the University's Relationship with the Los Alamos and Livermore Laboratories," chaired by UCLA Senior Vice Chancellor William Gerberding. In its February 1978 report, the Gerberding Committee observed, "Despite the Zinner Committee's recommendations, despite the Regents' responses,we see very little difference between the current relationship and that which obtained when the Zinner Committee was appointed and which [Zinner's] report initially described." The Gerberding Report endorsed continued UC management, but again only if the University implemented significant changes, most notably the establishment of a powerful board of "overseers." Steps by the UC to implement such an overseer board led to a crisis: for the first time, DOE seriously considered not renewing the contract with UC. DOE saw the board of overseers as an attempt by UC to stick its nose into federal business.
The (DOE) Buchsbaum Committee
In 1979, DOE Secretary James Schlesinger appointed the Buchsbaum Committee to evaluate alternative contractors to run the labs. Congress backed DOE's view that the labs were federal facilities, and that UC was overstepping its role, and sent a message to UC by adding the word "National" to the names of all three labs. On December 27, 1979, LLL turned into LLNL. The UC backed off, and the crisis was averted. To save face, UC implemented several limited measures. For example, on November 21, 1980, it changed the "Regents Committee on Special Research Projects" to the "Regents Committee on Oversight of the DOE Laboratories." The contract was renewed in 1982.
It is noteworthy, that the Buchsbaum Committee recommended continued UC management, but also suggested, "DOE forthwith begin to prepare an alternate arrangement for the operation of the two weapons labs," in case relations with UC turned sour.
The University had to admit that it could not play a major role in shaping lab policy; in UC President Saxon's words: "The Regents' responsibilities do not and cannot extend to setting defense policy for the US. The Regents are responsible for maximizing the contributions made by the Laboratories to the teaching, research, and public service missions of the campuses, and have an obligation to the communities directly affected by Laboratory operations and the employees of the Laboratories."
The (UC) Jendresen Committee
In 1987, the "Advisory Committee on the University's Relations with the DOE Laboratories," chaired by UCSF professor of dentistry, Malcolm Jendresen followed the Zinner and Gerberding Committees. Two years later, the Jendresen Committee concluded, "The public service function of the University is central to the University's role in managing the labs." It defined "public service" activity by five criteria1, and six of the eight committee members recommended that UC should phase out its management role since it did not live up to all of the criteria.
The Cold War Ends, the Contract Continues
The world changed in November 1989 with the fall of the Berlin wall. Reacting to the end of the Cold War, UC's Scientific and Academic Advisory Committee (SAAC), which is one of the principal means of oversight for LLNL and LANL, overruled the Jendresen recommendations. It concluded that the UC, with its tradition of intellectual excellence, should be ideally suited to help redirect the lab's scientific mission in a post Cold War era. It unanimously endorsed continued management of the labs.
The UC President's Council
In January 1991, President Gardner established the UC President's Council on the National Laboratories. Its 21 members represent the UC faculty, academia in general, government, private industry, and the UC Office of the President. The Council's goal is to improve the effectiveness with which the University manages the labs. Since 1993, Sidney Drell, formerly Director of the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC) has been the chair.
SPSE Supports Principled UC Management
During its 25-year history, SPSE has repeatedly endorsed the continued UC management of LLNL. However, at times UC has not lived up to the terms of the contract, and we've had to vigorously defend the rights of LLNL employees. Currently, SPSE is engaged in a legal battle with the UC over preserving consistency of UC's and LLNL's personnel policies.
All of the above-mentioned committees and councils have emphasized the need for intellectual freedom, openness, and independence for lab scientists. In fact, "preservation of intellectual and scientific freedom for lab scientists and engineers" is a key feature in the UC-DOE contract. Yet, UC's Lubbe Levin testified in February 1998, that academic freedom does not apply to employees at LLNL. Are we witnessing a game of semantics over the meaning of "intellectual" vs. "academic" freedom? Assuming, they mean the same, how can one reconcile Levin's statement with the following excerpt from the 1996 Report of the President's Council on the National Laboratories? "The Laboratories, under UC management, have demonstrated that they feel confident and free to present views that are independent of those expressed by officials in government. One key reason they are able to do so is that they have the backing and the support of the University based on its policy of intellectual freedom." /Patrick Weidhaas
|
SPSE Appeals Dismissal In October 1998, SPSE filed an appeal of the dismissal of our Unfair Practice Complaint with the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). The complaint charged that in July 1996, UC divorced the policies governing LLNL employees from those governing other UC employees. UC did so without asking LLNL employees for comment, as is required by law, leaving us unaware we were being disenfranchised from UC. In September 1998, the PERB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed our charge, before the end of the hearing, asserting we had not demonstrated that the policy changes affected wages, hours, or working conditions of LLNL employees. SPSE Disagrees With the Judge's Decision LLNL employees have already experienced damages to their working conditions since July 1996. For example, LLNL has introduced a new category of "at-will" employees that replaced the former term appointment category. The "at-will" workers lack a stable term of employment and access to the grievance process available to other UC employees. LLNL employees are witnessing the erosion of protections of free speech and intellectual freedom, and the loss of other rights and privileges inherent in being UC employees. If UC prevails, all LLNL employees will have lost significant standing as UC employees and as participants in personnel policy making. |
To
Join SPSE: Phone the SPSE office for a membership application |
Go back to the
SPSE Home Page
http://www.spse.org/