Thursday, February 01, 2007

 

Hey Sam!

Hey Sam - who gave Jessica Quintana that Q-clearance? Oh yeah, it was DOE. What, did they forget to ask her neighbors about who frequents her humble abode? Hmmm. Must have been the arrogant scientists fault.

Hey Sam - who hired the LANS team? Oh yeah, that would be NNSA (and you). Hmmm. Must be due to the LANL bad culture.

Hey Sam - who sets the rules and regulations that the arrogant scientists must follow? Oh darn, that would be DOE and NNSA.

I ask - why is nobody in Congress realizing what is going on here? We follow the rules that we we are given. Bottom line: The security controls are not set by the arrogant scientists. I am shocked that Bodman was allowed to pass the buck today.

Here is a thought - perhaps Congress is being clever and is simply giving Sam and pals enough rope to hang themselves. I sincerely hope that Congress comes and asks the scientists some questions to find out what is really going on at this place.

Comments:
Hey, Sam!

How about the *previous* 2004 security episode at LANL? Oh, wait, Oh that would be NNSA (and you) again. Those "missing" disks in DX division never existed. You ok'd a shutdown anyhow. It was a DOE-approved procedure that didn't allow for handling extra bar codes.

Oops. You're starting to look pretty foolish, Sam.
 
What's the matter, Sam? Are starting to feel some Congressional heat for the sloppy way your own house is run? Do you really think trying to lay all the blame on LANL scientists is going to fool anybody?
 
Another loser Energy Secretary. This one is even worse because first he respected us, and now he sings a different tune. DOE is a loser; NNSA is a loser; the country is the biggest loser.

I hope folks from LANL who were in California helping to write the LANS response (hello, Alan Bishop, this means you too) are really happy with their high paying jobs. Maybe someone in LANS will figure out that bloat is 1/2 the problem and will get rid of all the middle management and go back to the Harold Agnew method.
 
The "Harold Agnew method" involved no more than a TOTAL of 3,000 employees (all UC, except for Zia janitors and taxi drivers), run from the top by the AEC. Big difference to today! (And the country still "revered" the place, and scientists in general.)
 
Oh, sorry; forgot one thing: No matrix management!
 
Hello,

I've heard this story from many reliable sources over the past few days, but I haven't seen anything about it on the blog.

Sometime this week (I'm told it was Wednesday) someone in the management chain of the deployed security people held a meeting; I'm told that a fairly large group was addressed.

The deployed people were told somethng along the lines of the following:

If there is a security incident in the area for which you are responsible, and it rises to a level that it causes the company embarrassment (i.e., makes LANS look bad in the eyes of the government or the media), then you are liable for disciplinary action, up to and including termination. You will be disciplined even if you were unaware of the action; even if there was nothing that you could have done to prevent it.

You need to go home tonight and think long and hard about whether you want to accept these conditions; we will help you find a new job if you cannot.

I figure most of these deployed people are our first line of defense for any security incident. They are also, in all likelihood, the lowest-paid members of the security chain. And also the ones with the least authority.

They certainly aren't Bodman's "arrogant scientists".

People should certainly be disciplined for actions that they take that lead to problems, but I don't see why you should penalize someone for actions they could not have prevented. And terminating someone simply because they were tangentially involved with an "optics" problem is just plain wrong.

Way to go, LANS. You have threatened the first line of defense against security incidents. Will good people want these jobs now?

Post it if you like.

Regards,

Anonymous
 
Pat, I hope you bite Bodman right in the crotch and rip his... oh, wait, he doesn't have any, does he?

If he did, he'd have said, "Organizational culture is a product of management, regulations, organizational structure, and individual behavior, and the Laboratory has really struggled with the first three while its staff have taken the blame for management problems over which they have little control. Here's a list of what we're fixing, why we think these fixes are important, and milestones for demonstrating success in improving our management practices."

He'd have followed this with, "I'm proud to say that Los Alamos is a national treasure and a DOE laboratory peopled by talented secretaries, scientists, technicians, engineers, and other dedicated staff. Individual arrogance is the least of LANL's problems."

Oh, and the crowning statement would have been, "I personally apologize to every employee at Los Alamos for the upheaval and stress of the past few years. I will personally work with Congress and with LANL staff to identify and implement changes that make management of this very complicated institution more effective."

Maybe I should nominate myself as Energy Secretary.
 
I had done a Master's thesis years and years ago as part of a MBA program on "the perception of security at LANL" during one of the earlier security audits/shutdowns, etc. While I initially had buy-in and support from Bernie Vanderhoven (the FSS DL at the time) once I got going collecting data he renaged on the support. Luckily I had all the correspondence between his office and myself so I was allowed to continue although with limited LANL support. I finally elected to omit FSS from my data efforts just to avoid future altercations. The sample number was about 1700 with a 47% overall response rate. I had used some divisions which handled classified, some which handled no classified, and EG&G NV and Los Alamos. Some would look at the results and find flaws, but all it really was was just looking at security, etc informally.

One of the outcomes was what we may see happening now:
Security conciousness is inversely proportional to where you are in the system. The higher educated you were the less you cared about security because your status protected you and you were more able to find a new position in or out of the Lab system even with a security infraction or violation. The lower you were (Gen, Tec, SSM) the harder you worked at security because you were considered expendable. They were expected to perform cleanup over their supervisors.

Management and TSMs had the highest numbers of infractions, but that also correlated to the amount handled and the education levels.

It was unanimous that security training didn't work. They taught the wrong things. People performing security tasks wanted more than generic training.. they wanted training specific to their R2A2. DX wanted something specific to DX regs, ESA wanted something specific to ESA, etc.

Security reminders (posters, etc) in the workplace were ineffective, except that group and division administrators found value.

And of course, the more classified you handled the more apt you were to have an infraction/violation. This also correlated to need to know and disposing of classified once it is no longer needed.

This was probably less scientific than many are used to but it did bring some issues to the forefront. Unfortunately, for me anyway, there was no one in management that really wanted to sit down and view the results and make some changes.

Oh well... It was just more information than FSS or LANL at the time wanted to deal with. BYW - it really didn't advance my career much either. Would it have kept us from being where we are now.. probably not, but may not have hurt.
 
"Here is a thought - perhaps Congress is being clever and is simply giving Sam and pals enough rope to hang themselves. I sincerely hope that Congress comes and asks the scientists some questions to find out what is really going on at this place."

You guys are delusional! Give it up. Just read Stupak's comments - that's what Congress is "thinking". Brad and others can tell the truth until they are blue in the face but we -- the LANL employees -- have lost the spin on this.

Our local management does not like us. NNSA does not like us. DOE does not like us. The executive branch does not like us. Congress does not like us. The press does not like or hate us, but their story is, and has been for 8 years, that arrogant LANL scientists don't care about security. That's a great story, and the truth plays almost no role in journalism -- great stories do. Period.

Now, you either get with the program, and submit willingly to whatever they do to us next, or you prepare your exit plan -- which you should have done long ago.

But expecting this level of cleverness out of Congress? You've just got to be kidding -- or out of your mind.

Oh, and BTW, all those threats about people leaving? Never happen. NNSA has your number, folks, and they know you won't leave, you won't work to form a strong union, you won't, in fact, do anything at all to help yourselves. Truth be told, LANL staff would much rather savage each other than band together in common cause. Everyone outside LANL knows this. So get ready for what happens next. One thing's for sure -- no white knight is going to ride in to rescue you. Salvation will have to come from within.
 
"I ask - why is nobody in Congress realizing what is going on here? "

Repeat after me:

They don't care.
They don't care.
They don't care.
They don't care.
They don't care.
They don't care.
They don't care.
They don't care.
They don't care.
They don't care.
They don't care.
They don't care.
They don't care.
They don't care.
They don't care.
They don't care.
They don't care.
They don't care.
They don't care.
They don't care.
They don't care.
They don't care.
They don't care.
They don't care.
They don't care.
They don't care.
They don't care.


Sooner or later you'll get it. They just don't give a damn. They don't want to hear about LANL any more. They are willing to keep sending money here, as long as they get some money of their own*, but they don't want to hear about us. It's that simple.

*like the $10M that Barton kept earmarking to his home district each year.
 
What about the $8.9M earmarked to Los Alamos County schools annually. Welcome to the real world!
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?