SPSE Newsletter #4, December 1999
Editor: P. Weidhaas
P.O. Box 1066, Livermore, CA 94551
925-449-4846
Contents:
[Editor's Note: Norman Thomas' testimony was given at DOE's public hearing on September 14. This and additional statements can be found on our website. ]
In the spring of 1961, when I was a physics student at a California university studying for the Graduate Record Exam, the chairman of the physics department asked me to help at an American Association of Physics Teachers meeting by running a 16-mm movie projector. When I arrived at the physics lecture hall the next Saturday morning, I found the projector already set up. I threaded the film through it and proceeded to show the instructional physics movie. After the meeting, I re-wound the film, returned it to the chairman, left the projector where I had found it, and returned to my apartment.
After my first physics
class the following Monday, I was called in to the physics department
office and asked, "Where did you put the movie projector?"
I said, "I left it in the lecture hall." It turned out
that the projector could not be found--and so my life for the
next two weeks encompassed a series of traumatic encounters with
the campus and local police departments.
On Tuesday, the campus police interrogated me under a bright light in a closed room. They asked, "Why did you take the projector? Where is the projector?" My pleas of innocence were ignored. On Wednesday, I was asked to take a lie detector test, which was to be administered at the school's Department of Criminology by the local law enforcement agency. They told me that they could not force me to take the test. But, since I had nothing to hide, I agreed to take it. To my shocked surprise, the polygraph test results were positive; according to the machine, I was a thief, a felon!
Now the police investigators knew that they had their perpetrator. In the days that followed, I felt that I was under surveillance. The local police asked if they could visit my apartment. I agreed again, knowing that since I was innocent nothing in my apartment could incriminate me. They immediately followed me to my apartment, apparently so that I couldn't dispose of any evidence of "my crime." They searched every room, cupboard, and closet in my apartment. Upon opening one closet, they discovered my (legally owned) revolver on the top shelf. They took it to a table, examined it thoroughly, and recorded the serial number. Even though they did not find the missing projector, this discovery had apparently confirmed their idea that I was a criminal--now possibly in the possession of other stolen property.
My orderly world was collapsing around me into chaos at a critical point of my professional career: just before my Graduate Record Exam. I was traumatized! Finally, after two weeks, on a Monday morning, the department secretary called me to say, "We found the movie projector locked in the chairman's office this morning"! They now knew that no crime had been committed!
However, I never received either a letter or even a phone call from the campus police or local law enforcement agency telling me that my polygraph test had resulted in a false positive "indication." Nor was any semblance of an apology ever made for any inconvenience, problems, or terror this "false indication" caused me. Nor was I ever informed that a percentage of polygraph tests will always result in false positives.
But, I was most certainly personally informed about what an innocent person giving a false positive during a "voluntary" polygraph test mentally goes through, and it is an experience I would wish upon no one else.
This incident, at the beginning of my professional career, taught me never to trust the results "elicited" by polygraph machines and their operators. Today, almost 40 years later at the climax of my professional career, we face an institutionalizing of polygraph testing at LLNL. From my first-hand knowledge of what can happen when such tests fail, I urge DOE, the University of California and Lab management to reject the policy of polygraph testing "certain" lab personnel, or of testing new hires as a condition of employment for certain jobs. /Norman Thomas
For us lab employees, 1999 was a year in which our sane world metamorphosed into one that had been described by authors like Kafka and Orwell. They had written about worlds in which omnipotent bureaucracies reign ruthlessly, inventing reasons why every citizen's loyalty and credibility must be questioned and therefore monitored. Sound familiar?
Let's review the events that turned our world at the labs upside down: it started with allegations of Chinese espionage of nuclear secrets. Most in Congress and the FBI, without considering alternatives, pointed fingers at the national labs. Once the FBI fingered LANL scientist Wen Ho Lee, a furor erupted in Congress. All employees at the national labs found themselves under suspicion. Never mind, that China could have obtained the alleged secrets from any of hundreds of sources.
Congressional Hysteria
By pushing the "national security button," reason gave
way to hysteria. McCarthyism was reincarnated. Hysterical voices
yelled for severe action. We lab employees were not only suspects,
but we were suddenly called "arrogant." That arrogance
had to be stamped out, and the spies among us had to be detected.
The Department of Energy (DOE) unleashed a tough retired general.
He intended to apply mass-polygraphy and to ignore any counter-arguments.
His mantra, "If you cannot answer four simple questions [while
strapped to a polygraph in a windowless cubicle at Kirtland Air
Force Base], you shouldn't be working at the lab."
National Lab Employees Cry, "Foul!"
Well, the would-be architects of a gulag of "false positives"
hadn't quite counted on the widespread opposition that arose at
all three labs. LANL employees signed a petition and contacted
the media. Sandia scientists, among other efforts, authored a
paper on the serious shortcomings of polygraphy. At Livermore,
SPSE established links on our website to polygraph information.
SPSE talked to the media, issued a formal opposition statement,
and urged employees to join a letter-writing campaign. We also
sent a letter to legislators, signed by over 400 employees from
the three labs. During public hearings, many employees spoke out.
Others Join the Fight
Dr. Teller voiced his concern over polygraphy in a letter to Secretary
Richardson. Even the directors at LANL and Sandia warned that
polygraphy would inhibit retaining and recruiting qualified scientists.
Sadly, our own director, Bruce Tarter, remained silent. In September,
Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher asked Secretary Richardson to significantly
reduce the number of employees to be polygraphed. Richardson consented.
SPSE is proud to have played a part in this fight against the pseudo-science of polygraphy. SPSE and many other employees realized all along that polygraphy is not about increasing security or catching spies, it is solely about exercising political control through intimidation.
In November, the Washington Post reported that classified information allegedly obtained by China may have originated elsewhere, not from Los Alamos, not from Livermore. We may all be vindicated as suspected spies, but our place of work has been turned upside down. We now work in a distrustful world of "foreign nationals from sensitive and non-sensitive countries," of "kiss and tell and report your non-US-neighbor policies," of endless confusion over "SUI" and "SUTI," of a "review and release" mess, and of "polygraph testing."
"NIF-gate"
While our trustworthiness and attitude were questioned, other
events took place that cast a shadow over the integrity of our
leaders. Mike Campbell, who had led the National Ignition Facility
(NIF), resigned after an anonymous attack on his credentials.
A day later, we learned of time and budget overruns at NIF. While
DOE conducts hearings, it is too early for SPSE to know the full
extent of "NIF-gate." Still, employees are feeling the
first effects. The budgets for travel and Laboratory Directed
Research and Development (LDRD) have been cut sharply. Speculation
abounds regarding layoffs. We are worried about an increasing
population of "Employees Between Assignments" (EBAs)
while outside hiring of flex-terms and contract employees continues.
This then is our new world of angst at the cross-roads of polygraphs and "NIF-gate." I believe Kafka and Orwell would be disheartened that so many among the lab's population of intelligent people would tolerate such nationally debilitating absurdity. Fortunately, SPSE and other concerned employees found the integrity to act and speak out on the basis of principle. SPSE seeks to unite such employees to promote fairness and equal opportunity at LLNL and to be vigilant against injustice. Please join us. Enjoy a happy and prosperous new millennium! /Editor
For LANL, 1999 has been one of the most dramatic years since the Manhattan project. It began with good news and ended in ongoing agony.
The good news is that LANL will now be included under the California Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA). We LANL workers will enjoy the same rights as other UC employees, including the right to form UC recognized employee organizations, and to choose exclusive bargaining agents. HEERA will enable us to file Unfair Labor Practices with the California Public Employee Relations Board (PERB). Of course, now the responsibility of exercising those rights to improve our work situation rests on us.
After very bitter and painful layoffs in 1994 and 1995, Citizens for Los Alamos Employee Rights (CLER) and United Professional and Technical Employees (UPTE) fought for LANL's inclusion in HEERA. Their efforts caused the legislatures of both New Mexico and California to pass HEERA amendment in 1999.
Then came the bad news. First, we heard that there was a spy at Los Alamos and worried who it was. Later, we learned his identity from the New York Times--not LANL nor DOE nor UC. We waited anxiously to hear the nature of his espionage. Nine months later, we are still waiting.
Wen Ho Lee and others were fired for security violations. In addition, LANL staff members were reprimanded, the national labs were audited repeatedly, employees went through endless rounds of security training, and mandatory polygraphs were instituted. After all that, we are told that the espionage, Dr. Lee supposedly committed, could not have occurred at Los Alamos or at Livermore.
I believe we need to realize the power of the government and the press to manipulate and destroy lives, careers, and the work we produce at the national labs. Clearly, we need to do our utmost to prevent similar destructive incidents from happening in the future.
Of course, we should be ever vigilant for espionage and security lapses. However, leaking classified material to the press should be just as illegal for highly placed politicians and bureaucrats as it is for Laboratory employees. I am appalled that no search is being conducted for the leak of Dr. Lee's case to the press.
During this intensely painful period, it has been wonderful to confer with members of SPSE. They have offered support and ideas for dealing with the polygraph threat. Let us hope that on Jan. 1 we can embark on a much better year and millennium. Perhaps our newly gained HEERA rights will help us in overcoming some of the problems that we faced this year. /Betty Gunther, LANL Employee
SPSE is not the only organization that is working for LLNL employee's rights. A group of Lab Asian Pacific American employees (APA) is trying to work with LLNL to address disparate salary, ranking and advancement opportunities between APAs and Caucasians. In October, APA wrote a letter to Deputy Secretary of Energy, Glauthier when his Task Force visited LLNL [see our website, www.spse.org].
After persistent unsatisfactory responses from Lab management, a group of employees formed the Association of Ethnic Minorities (AEM) in 1994. In a lawsuit, they challenged the Lab to provide needed documents that could prove or disprove any salary and ranking disparities. Unfortunately, the suit was dropped due to insufficient funds. However, employees in the organization are still active. Their current concern is that Lab management might use the Chinese spy perceptions as legitimate excuses to keep qualified APAs from advancement in their careers at the national labs.
In their letter, the APA points out that employees have no recourse when the Lab takes discriminatory actions against them. For example, when the AEM worked with LLNL Affirmative Action and Diversity Program office (AADP) they did not resolve their complaints. LLNL management and UC ignored the minority group's plea for help.
In their letter, the APA states, "We strive to advance in our careers and we are well prepared to be leaders, and like every other American, we want to work in an environment that will treat us fairly, without any prejudice or indignities. .... We need to have mutual respect and equality to all, whether you are APAs or not and together we can make the Lab the employer of choice into the next millennium and beyond." /Kalina Wong
On October 21, 1999, the Chemistry and Material Science Associate Director gave his annual salary review to employees. During the presentation, he showed some of the 24 viewgraphs so quickly that only a speed reader with a phenomenal photographic memory could decipher and ingest them before they disappeared. During the question period, I asked if I could obtain copies of the viewgraphs and was flatly denied. Since this information affects me, I later put my request in writing. Under the California Public Records Act, I asked Staff Relations for copies of all of these viewgraphs. On November 11, Staff Relations replied, "The Chemistry and Material Science Department has advised that the `target salary curves, and salary review data' presented to personnel on October 21, 1999, is no longer in existence, and therefore can not be furnished to you. We consider this request closed." [Emphasis added--Ed.]
Why would viewgraphs, important enough to be presented to an entire department, be trashed immediately after the meeting? Sorry, but I do not believe for one minute that the FY'00 salary data have simply disappeared from the face of the Earth. I have asked SPSE to pursue this. /Norman Thomas
2000 Executive Board |
||
| Officers: | Members: | |
| President Patrick Weidhaas | Nora Briant | Wayne Krause |
| President-elect Sue Koopman | Sue Byars | Larry Madison |
| Secretary Norman Thomas | Doug Clarke | Lee McVey |
| Treasurer Sandra Brewer | Jeff Colvin | Bill O'Connell |
| Jane Dignon | Robert Kim Yates | |
| Office Manager: Cheryl Remillard | ||
If you are a career indefinite employee looking for a new position, don't even consider applying for a flexible term position. Flexible term positions make up an increasing percentage of LLNL employment postings and they might match your career goals, but you will be literally signing away your rights and your career.
This has happened here. A Lab career indefinite employee wanted to expand his skills. While reviewing the job postings the employee noticed a job that fit perfectly into his career goals. The job was a flex-term position and the employee thought it would be a fine match for a couple years. Upon job acceptance, the employee signed a document stating he could be terminated with or without cause at any time during the employment relationship. By signing he also agreed to relinquish the terms and conditions of his indefinite career appointment. After a few months, the employee had unexpected major surgery. When he returned to work, still a bit weak, the Lab told him that he was no longer needed, and to empty his office immediately.
It is truly awful that many of our fellow employees do not have career indefinite rights. It is worse that we increase the percentage of employees without rights by changing status from career indefinite to flex-term. SPSE tried to raise this issue in court (unsuccessfully) and continues to oppose having second class citizens--employees without rights.
We don't know whether the above situation is the exception or the rule. We need your input to obtain an idea of how pervasive this practice is for employees to be tempted by the new flex-term positions and to sign away their career indefinite rights, only to be terminated a little while later. Also, we would like to know
how widespread the practice is of giving flex-term employees only 24 hours notice to vacate their job.Please keep us informed by writing to SPSE by letter, e- mail or call an SPSE board member. /Sue Koopman
On Friday, November 12, the Newsline had a last minute announcement that DOE would hold a public hearing on NIF the following Monday. I called DOE to ascertain that I was welcome to sit in the same room with Director Tarter and listen to the hearing. They informed me that anyone was welcome on a first come, first serve basis. I also called the LLNL Protocol office to advise them that I planned to be at the hearing. On Monday, November 15, I showed up a half hour before the hearing. One of my managers walked into the room and said, "Norm, I am going to have to ask you to leave the room." I explained that this was a public meeting and I had already received authorization from DOE and notified LLNL so I could be there. He responded, "I still have to ask you to leave." I calmly stated that I would not leave because on that day I was `John Q. Public' attending a public meeting and was on vacation from LLNL. His jaw dropped and he quickly asked me if I was wearing my badge. I showed him that I was not wearing it, but anyway what difference would it make.
As a public citizen on vacation, I had every right under the U.S. Constitution to be at a public meeting. After making a phone call, he returned a few minutes later and said that everything was okay. I also attended Tuesday's hearing and learned a lot about NIF.
This is the first incident in nearly 21 years at the lab where management has tried to deny me my Constitutional right to attend a public meeting. Things sure have changed over the last 20 years! /Norman Thomas
Go back to the SPSE Home Page
http://www.spse.org/