NCSP
National Council of Security Police | |
| Randy Lawson, President | Jason
Brown, Vice President |
| 420 Hardwicke Drive | PO
Box 6381 |
| Knoxville, TN 37923 | Oak
Ridge, Tennessee 37831 |
| 865-256-2386 | 865-382-0752 |
| | |
June 9th and 10th 2010
The National Council of Security Police (NCSP) held its annual conference June 9th
and 10th 2010 in Las Vegas Nevada. Mike Stumbo opened the conference with a welcome to new delegates
from Washington DOE Headquarters and Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Representatives from the various
sites introduced themselves and shared some brief issues at their sites.
The conference business was begun with discussion of the Protective Force Career Options Committees (PFCOC) 29 recommendations
report. Many sites present had only read the report, but had not received much discussion about it, or
its history. Some of the new sites present had not been privy to the report and therefore would benefit
from discussion. Mike Stumbo and members of the committee discussed the importance of this committee and
how the presence of Protective Force members on this committee with an actual role in creating its content and a major influence
over its outcome is a drastic change from the days of the Protective Force working groups where Pro Force members had a presence,
but merely in an advisory role. Several sites wanted to discuss different recommendations and had various
input as to applicability at their individual sites.
Mike gave a brief presentation on the hearing earlier this year before the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee
on Strategic Forces. Recounting specific topics associated with turnover and recurring medical and
physical fitness qualifications and their impact on the Protective Force.
Mr. Jeff Coutler, Attorney for the NCSP gave a presentation on the 29 recommendations and what this report means with
respect to our current objective to “fix” the broken system that is forcing Protective Force Members out of their
careers early. A specific discussion about the retirement plan submitted by the NCSP to the PFCOC and its
content was initiated by Mr. Cutler and participation from the sites was extensive. The newest members
of the group needed some clarification with respect to some of the implications indicated in the GAO report of this year and
the plan to overcome those issues should federalization become a reality. Mr. Cutler discussed his interactions
with staffers and how in the coming months it will become critical to be intimately involved in the details associated with
the implementation of the recommendations.
Mr. Glenn Podonsky, Chief Health, Safety and Security officer, Office of Health and Safety called in from overseas for a phone
conference. He began his statement by briefly recounting his role in shaping the PFCOC and standing it
up as a committee. He also discussed how he has been working behind the scenes to instruct and motivate
personnel under his direction to begin working on and forming up answer to the 29 recommendations even as it is working its
way through the final steps of approval. He further discussed the Human Reliability Program (HRP) and the
possibility that it is and has been used for punitive reasons. He stated that he has talked with the Deputy
Secretary and Thomas P. D'Agostino, Under Secretary for Nuclear Security & Administrator,
National Nuclear Security Administration and has their support that this should be reviewed extensively for assurances that
the program is being used properly and for its intended goals. They are further formulating a policy clarification
to the sites, so that they fully understand that DOE will have zero tolerance for punitive use of the HRP program.
Mr. Podonsky
stated that the Department is making great strides toward more open communication and more frequent communication with its
stakeholders (The NCSP, employees etc). He stated that the Department has not done a very good job communicating
to the field, not only to the employees doing the work, but also to their employers. He reaffirmed his
position that he supports our efforts and believes that the Department should not leave us on the sidelines, but respond appropriately
to the issues at hand. He feels that the proposed implementation plan as it is, creates a path forward
to resolving many of the outstanding issues surrounding employment as a Protective Force Member, and that as of the date of
the phone conference, every DOE official responsible for concurrence on the 29 recommendations implementation plan before
it can be sent to the Secretary has signed off on it as an official response to the Congress with the exception of the Chief
Financial Office (CFO). That office, following protocol forwarded it to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). The OMB is the Presidents management arm into the monies that fund the Executive Branches of Government.
The OMB has responded to the plan with more questions and concerns, not the least of which is should Federalization
of the Protective Forces be reconsidered. Mr. Podonsky stated that one of his concerns of this is that
unless the OMB is serious about the prospect of Federalization of the Protective Forces, all this does is raise the hopes
of many, and holds up the progress that has been made to date on the implementation plan. He further stated that he has multiple
unanswered phone calls, in to the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces with respect to the lateness of the
report and also what is being discussed within the OMB camp. Mr. Podonsky stated that he has proposed to
the OMB examiner assigned to DOE that they be briefed by the PFCOC about what the plan represents and where it hopes to go.
He also stated that he has challenged them to not simply sit on the paperwork and propose further questions, but to
allow the implementation plan to move forward and see its results. He stated that his intention is to find
out whether or not the OMB issues are legitimate, or whether or not they are simply a bureaucratic loop that could potentially
hold up progress. He has conveyed that if they are once again wanting to seriously consider Federalization
they need to be prepared to stand behind it and not just simply “kick the can” down the road to someone else for
resolution. He stated that back in 2009 when DOE stated that Federalization was not the preferred path
forward it was mostly due to unanswered questions surrounding Congressional support and personnel issues that could not be
easily resolved. It appeared to them to have more obstacles in the way of progress than a plan from the
Department to resolve the issues “in house”. He gave his commitment to continue the work on
his side to move forward toward a resolution on the many outstanding issues presented in the 29 recommendations.
As of the date of this phone conversation it is still with the OMB awaiting a response to questions from them to the
DOE Mr. Podonsky opened the floor for questions and comments.
Below is a summary of those questions and comments with as much detail as possible, acknowledging the fact that some
information could have been missed:
Q1:
(Jason Brown, Oak Ridge) has anyone from HSS, or DOE responded to the OMB question posed about Protective Force work
being inherently Governmental?
R1: No,
Jim McGee has the lead on crafting a response and approach along with other responsible parties within NNSA such as Steve
Wanzer, but that has yet to be completed, and you are correct the question surrounds the definition of what is inherently
governmental, or what work should be performed by the Government because of its nature.
Q2: (Frank White, President Pantex Guards Union) “what is the
position of the Secretary on this issue (the issue of the 29 recommendations and or Federalization) or do we know”?
R2: I will tell you that for the past 30 or more days the Secretary
has been heavily involved with the Gulf oil spill, and the work surrounding that. He has been out of DC
and down in Texas and Louisiana working on this issue and with British Petroleum. The work of the Department
outside of this incident has been lacking some due to its overwhelming impact. I could not tell you his
direct opinion, if I did, I would only be making it up. The Deputy Secretary will be back in his office
on 23 June and it is my intention to be on his calendar within a day or so of that and brief him on the whole issue to include
several other outstanding issues with other labor organizations.
Q3: (Jeff Cutler, NCSP Legal Counsel) “do you have any information
on a contact person within OMB, or the Administration that we may get in contact with to weigh in on these questions and give
them our perspective?”.
R3: That is a good question, There are branches in
different states where the OMB reside. They are the “field” element of the OMB. My experience
is with the OMB, that they are not very receptive to outside groups. They view themselves as working for
the President, and answering to the Administration and their policy guidelines and agenda. One resource
could be the responsible Committee within the House and Senate.
Q4: (Leo Salazar, Business Agent, Pantex Guards Union.)
“Can you give us an update on where we are with the Zero Based Security Review (ZBSR)?
R4: The ZBSR which began within HSS and NNSA, is still moving forward
and we have given our commitment to senior Legislative officials that we would visit each Category 1 facility and perform
testing. It seems that one of their biggest concerns is, are we (the Department) doing enough oversight
to ensure the work is getting done at the sites. Capitol Hill seems to be supportive of the ZBSR or at
least its concept. They want to make sure that it was not just a budget review.
And it is not intended to be that from our perspective.
Q5: Follow up from Leo Salazar, “The concern among the Protective
Forces, is that the ZBSR is just a way to cut numbers, and create layoffs. Is this the goal of the ZBSR?
R5: Not from my perspective, No. And I qualify
that because quite honestly I cannot tell you what the program offices are looking at within the ZBSR. I
think that will be determined on a site by site basis, and what I mean by that is, what is the protection posture that you
must have to protect the material at your respective sites. I think this question goes right in line with
the 29 recommendations in that, if there ever comes a time for reductions that there would be a place to go. In
other words there should be a logical sequence of events in that scenario. I don’t think it’s
right morally or ethically to simply reduce for the sake of reducing. Most if not all Pro Force members
are highly cleared and should be able to move into positions within operations or other areas should that ever become the
case.
Q6:
(Harvey Key, Savannah River Site) “Do you have any information as to where the Graded Security
Plan (GSP) is in process at Savannah River Site?”
R6:
The short answer is no, but I will have Sam Callahan to contact you. Q7: (Harvey Key, follow up question) Based on your experience
how have the Contractors responded to the 29 recommendations or Federalization? R7: I can only speak to what has happened within the walls of DOE. We
have gotten concurrence from all our people on the 29 recommendations and our proposed implementation plan. I
could not give you a good answer on how they have responded or how they have felt about either option. Mr. Podonsky closed his conference call with the hope that we can link arms and continue
moving the ball forward to see real results from the work that has taken place both from the Department and the NCSP with
respect to so many outstanding issues. Mike closed the conference call thanking Mr. Podonsky for his time and wishing him safe
travel back to the States.
Mike Stumbo announced that he is stepping down from the
office of President of the NCSP due to impending medical issues and seeking employment within the Operating Contractor and
other sources. The Membership Elected Randy Lawson as the NCSP President for the interim period of one
year until the Presidential election next year. The Membership elected Jason Brown as Vice President.
Mr. Charles Nelson (NCSP Secretary Treasurer, Business Agent, Hanford) thanked Mike Stumbo for his
commitment to the NCSP and its causes for so many years and wished him well in his new endeavors. He furthermore
thanked each local Union for their support of the NCSP with respect to paying for travel etc for NCSP functions and supporting
the PFCOC and requested their continued support of NCSP functions. It has brought the NCSP a long way,
to a point of having a say and making an impact in Washington, DC. He further specifically thanked
Frank White (President, Pantex Guards Union) and Leo Salazar (Business Agent, Pantex Guards Union) for their support of Mike
with respect to NCSP functions and travel on NCSP business and sought a commitment from IGUA Local 3 to continue this very
important investment which Bobby Parker (President, IGUA, Local 3, Oak Ridge, TN) gave.
There was brief
discussion about various issues at some sites, and many small groups getting caught up on issues that are relative to their
sites. There was a discussion about Gary Hankins, our lobbyist and where the Membership viewed his work
and whether or not they wanted to continue his positions. It was the consensus of the Membership that in
light of new developments with the OMB, and the prospect of needing some Congressional support on the implementation plan
it was in the best interest of the NCSP to continue his work until either such time as the Executive Committee in concert
with the delegates decided to terminate his contract, or until the next NCSP conference.
With no further business to be discussed, the motion was made to adjourn and received second.
