UCORP Response to Carl Poppe Comments on the DOE Lab Report

Carl Poppe's comments are sweeping, general, and often attack his own inferences ("strawmen") rather than actual comments or conclusions made by UCORP. This is in contrast to the very careful and accurate analysis of the UCORP Report by David Krogh. The apparent lack of objectivity of Poppe's analysis confirms UCORPs concerns about the source of personnel hired by the University of California Office of the President (OP) to provide oversight for the contracts. When these employees are hired from the DOE and LABs, there is a potential problem of conflict of interest.

Poppe makes 21 specific assertions in his comments on the U CORP DOE Lab Report. UCORP's point-by-point rebuttal follows below.

1. There is no evidence that failure to renew LLNL and LANL contracts would be detrimental to LBNL. UCORP makes no assumption on this matter, and Poppe presents no data to the contrary.

2. The quoted statement made by UCORP is correct. The implication that "there is something fundamentally wrong about the GOCO arrangement" is a conclusion drawn by Carl Poppe, not UCORP. Nor does Poppe present any data to support his assertion that the "GOCO concept has served the nation extremely well..."

3. The LABs and UC Lab Admin. Office lack any suitable database on many of the issues raised by the senate leadership and UCORP, including: UC vs non-UC faculty-Lab interactions, percentage of LAB work that is classified, the percentage of LAB work that is programmatic, etc. The data presented in the UCORP report on the numbers of UC and non-UC faculty interactions were provided to the Committee by Carl Poppe. Poppe had plenty of time and opportunity to provide UCORP with any details he had about the publications. UCORP repeatedly tried to obtain this information. Poppe attended almost every UCORP meeting, was asked to provide information in the absence of formal database information , and he provided UCORP what he intended the Committee to have. If the data is incomplete or in error, that is Poppe's fault, not UCORPs.

UCORP did try to assess the percentage LAB activity related to classified work. Again, there is no LAB database that makes this easy to obtain. An estimate based on the LAB budget for nuclear weapons work is misleading because not all weapons work is classified and not all classified work is on weapons. What makes this issue even more difficult is the variation in percentage depending on the source of data. Examination of the DOE budget presented to Congress suggests that 55% of the budget is for work on nuclear weapons. When the LAB directors presented to Academic Council, they claimed that only 20% of their work is related to weapons. Hugh DeWitt presented data on the LLNL budget at the UC SC forum suggesting that 50% of the budget was now devoted to weapons work and the percentage was increasing. Poppe examined expenditures and reported to UCORP that about 30-35% of the work was truly weapons related. UCORP concludes that the percentage may vary depending on whether the LAB is addressing the University or Congress. It is also worth noting that we have no figures on the percentage of budget devoted to chemical and biological weapons, but it was reported at the UCSC forum that the LABS were working in these areas as well as nuclear weapons.

4. Poppe does not doubt the UCORP assertion that private corporations that manage National LABs maintain extensive university collaborations. Poppe makes the assumption, without proof, that such private corporations would not support IGPP or IGCC. Where is his evidence for these conclusions? Furthermore, these activities are not required by the contract, but rather are funded by a decision of OP. If the activities are important to the University, OP will find the funds to continue their support. If they exist solely to maintain the contract, then there is little justification for maintaining the activities.

5. The summary statement by UCORP about LBNL is directed only at LBNL. The inference that it "appears to apply something else is true for LLNL and LANL" is another conclusion made by Carl Poppe, not UCORP. "The exception of the portion of research that is classified" is of critical importance and marks the critical current distinction between LBNL and LLNL and LANL, regardless of remote past history.

6. In fact, this conclusion by UCORP is supported by comparisons of LLNL and LANL with not only LBNL but also Oak Ridge and other National Laboratories. Poppe presents no data to the contrary. Does he imply that individual faculty bring classified work to the campuses from the LABS?

7. Poppe is playing a numbers game. We presented the numbers, as he made them available to us. The reader can judge for him or herself whether these are "relatively few" or many, as implied by Poppe.

8. Poppe implies that all funding for IGCC comes from the contract via OP. In fact, less than 50% comes from OP and if IGCC is important to the University then OP will find current funding from another source. Poppe, as typical of his whole analysis, suggests that UCORP makes conclusions never made by the Committee. UCORP never suggested that DOE would maintain IGCC funding. That is "Poppe talk."

9. Poppe attended the UCORP meeting at which DeWitt presented his findings. Poppe had ample opportunity to present contrary information., but he never did. Although our concern about whistle-blowers is by no means limited to the DeWitt case, DeWitt is once again in danger of losing his clearance because of the inappropriate DOE application of classification rules. And there is no evidence to indicate a positive role by UC in the DeWitt case or any other case. Poppe never presented the data, if it exists. The only possible exception to this statement is the very recent case involving the controversy over Yucca Mountain. In this single instance, the University through the Presidents Council has insured a wide discussion of the controversy and has acted in a manner that may prevent harassment of individual scientists involved. There is no evidence that under the present contract the University has made any significant change in its 50-year tradition of not defending whistle-blowers at the LABS.

10. Poppe informs us that the President's Council is presently investigating an allegation. that is good news, but not reassuring news. Poppe suggests he has polled LAB scientists about freedom of expression protected by UC; we would like to see his data. We were told repeatedly by the LABS that the major advantage to LAB scientists of connection to UC was retirement benefits and the other was the support for extramural federal grants.

11. Poppe may treat allegations as facts, but UCORP does not. If Poppe does not understand that there are serious problems concerning personnel policies at LANL and controversies concerning the relationship between LANL policy and UC policy, he should talk to the appropriate officers at the New Mexico DOE Field office. The DOE Field office noted non-approved exceptions between UC policy and LANL policy since July 1995 and requested UC and LANL to do the necessary review. DOE still has not decided whether the appropriate exemptions have been made.

12.UCORP does not state that all allegations have resulted in court settlements. Is Poppe not aware of the pending, active, and settled court cases, or simply setting up another "strawman".

13. The exact number is not the issue. The two most senior members of Lab Admin. Oversight have been hired from the LABs and have rotated back to the LABs in senior management positions (Henning and Kuckuck). Surely, even Poppe can understand the impropriety of having the LABs supervised by UC personnel who are hired from the LABs and then return to the LABs in senior positions. Of the 30-35 members of Lab Admin. office, 8 are from LLNL or LANL. In fact two of these are on-leave from the LABS while working for OP.

14. The parallel to Chancellors is unclear. UCORP does not characterize DOE oversight as oppressive, but does question OP oversight and management.

15, Poppe appears to be strangely off-base on this one. Science and technology surely can be evaluated objectively . According to Poppe's own words, Lab Directors do appoint the ad hoc committee to evaluate the LABs. These results and the self assessment of the LABs are then reviewed by the Council subcommittee. Mostly, the grades are upgraded. How objective is this process?

16. Poppe fails to answer the charge: in fact, the senior management gets a salary increase whether they achieve "no goals" or "all goals with outstanding evaluations." If this statement is not true, then Poppe should say so.

17. Poppe has no data to convince UCORP that our concern is unjustified. Fortunately, no such major environmental contamination has occurred. But does Poppe really think that UC would be protected from liability by the contract?

18. Again "Poppe talk" not UCORP statements. Poppe confuses contractual obligations with decisions made by OP on how to use income from any source, including the management contract. The faculty probably support public service appropriate to the University 100%. Has OP purposefully tried to develop support for the contract by funding activities such as IGCC from this funding source, although this is not required by the contract?

19. UCORP pointed out that the superficial oversight conducted by OP is not management as usually understood. This difference was presented in detail. If UC were to carry out true management activities, obviously the costs would be much higher than those currently incurred by a much more limited activity.

20. Nonsense. "Poppe talk" again. The UCORP statement is correct. We do not argue that UC should accept fiscal responsibility, but point out that because of this unusual feature of GOCO contracts, the manager is not fiscally responsible. This lack of fiscal responsibility appears to be very important in whether UC watches over the way the LABs apply personnel policy.

21. It is appropriate for a senate committee to point out concerns. We agree that it is unlikely that UC will lose its non-profit status if terms of the contract are ignored. Does Poppe suggest that the contract should just be ignored when convenient to the University? Many of the true management costs must be known to OP. We are told that 20 auditors are assigned to the three LABs, nearly 20% of the UC internal auditor field staff. If these costs were recharged directly instead of being subsumed under "in lieu of overhead," a better picture of the costs would emerge.

It seems clear to UCORP that Poppe, whose salary is derived from the "in lieu of overhead" state offset has a personal stake in renewal of the contracts. Some might conclude that he is not capable of objective evaluation of the contracts or UCORP report because of self interest. UCORP believes he does his best, but his commentary and criticism requires considerable clarification.