NCSP

Members;                                                                                            

As many of you know the NCSP held its annual conference July 9^th through the 11^th this year in Las Vegas at the Texas Station Hotel and Conference center.  There were many guests to speak and many topics to be covered.  Below you will find a summary of the guest speakers and the information they provided to us this year.  I hope that you will find this summary both comprehensive and informative.

Jason Brown

Vice President

National Council of Security Police

Monday July 9^th 8am:

We began the day with Mike Stumbo, President, NCSP welcoming our member sites and our guests to the conference.  Mike gave a general overview of the conference topics and just a little new information.  Mike talked about new information about the strike at Pantex and the issues surrounding their need for a work stoppage at that site.  The primary issues were language in the contract to address changes to Department of Energy (DOE) policy and guidelines that impact the Security Police at each site.  This language was heavily negotiated and finally included in their contract after the Strike.  The language guarantees the Unions right and opportunity to negotiate the changes to working conditions, hours of work, and wages among other things, that are a direct result of DOE policy and guidance changes. (For example the implementation of new weapons, equipment, and or other changes).  The group talked about the continued need to communicate among us, and with the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Congressional Armed Services Committee, so that our issues are kept fresh in the minds of those who have direct authority over the DOE. 

            Mike talked at length about Mr. William C. Ostendorff, Principal Deputy Administrator for Nuclear Security.  Richard Miller from the office of Congressman Stupak contacted Mr. Ostendorff on behalf of the Pantex Guards Union during negotiations about getting a variance to language in the 470 that would allow seniority and not medical to decide who gets the SPO1 positions.  During this discussion Mr. Ostendorff stated that he was getting up to speed about the needs of the Protective Forces and asked about what our needs are and what it would take to come to terms on them.  During conversations with various people Mr. Ostendorff mentioned a ‘national plan' that would cover all SPOs with regard to retirement and benefits.  Peter Stockton of POGO also spoke with Mr. Ostendorff and straightforwardly asked him why he, and the DOE cannot manage to get together on retirement issues with the Protective Forces.  Mr. Ostendorffs reply was that he indeed was interested and wondered why we favored federalization over a national plan. This of course was not necessarily the truth.  Peter Stockton told Mr. Ostendorff that we were not against a national plan and, the national plan was our original point of action._.                                                                                                                                                                          

The NCSP originally proposed to the DOE and several committees the idea of a ‘national plan'.  This idea did not seem to foster as much attention as the federalization movement.  An actuarial group in Washington, DC told the NCSP that this idea would be a hard sell to congress due to the various and different existing retirement plans across the complex.  However, Mr. Ostendorff has said that he will talk with the Secretary of Energy about this ‘national plan' issue, in hopes that we can work together to resolve this issue. 

            Mike Stumbo, President, NCSP has written a letter to Mr. Ostendorff explaining our situation and our needs.  As of this date we are awaiting a response. 

As many of you know a delegation from the NCSP to include Mike Stumbo, Frank White, Randy Lawson, Jason Brown and Tommy Norton among others traveled to Washington, DC and met with the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the Congressional Armed Services Committee to address our issues to include Career path, Retirement, working conditions, safety issues and many other topics of discussion.  We also met with DOE ranking officials to include Glenn Podonsky, Richard Donovan, Bill Desmond and other top ranking officials at the DOE.  Our topics of discussion were the same, Career paths, Retirement, working conditions, safety issues and other needs of the Security Police working on their sites.  All of these meetings were met with frank and open discussion about where we can improve communications and include the Protective Forces representatives more in the policy and daily operational decisions at the sites.

9am:  Guest speaker:

Mr. Glenn S. Podonsky, Chief Health, Safety and security Officer, Office of health, safety and security.

Mr. Podonsky opened by making a statement about his appreciation of the hard work of the NCSP and its member sites.  He talked about appreciating the job that the Security Police Officer (SPO) is asked to perform every day.  He went on to talk about what he viewed as his, and his offices failures, to include a lack of general communication with the "boots on the ground"  (the SPO).  He went on to say that his staff prepared a speech, but if we would tolerate him, he wanted to just sit down and talk to us, and listen to our issues, and then respond to questions etc.  Mr. Podonsky stated that he has gathered his staff together and asked a few questions lately, for example what would be wrong with having a graduated physical fitness program that takes into consideration age and gender among other issues?  The answers that he has been provided were basically non-substantial and were just simply that this is the way we have always done it.  Mr. Podonsky also made an assurance that he has directed his staff to develop a panel that will include members of the Protective Forces representatives to foster communication and cooperation with respect to issues at the sites and issues that are as a result of new policy or other DOE driven directives.  These panels could possibly resemble the former Quality Panels that many may remember played a vital roll in allowing the Protective Forces a voice in work related issues.  There were many questions posed to Mr. Podonsky. 

Randy Lawson President from Oak Ridge, pointed out that the former Quality Panels were invaluable to the SPO, but seemed to just vanish after administrative changes, and personnel changes took place in Washington.  Randy also went on to state that the SPOs are merely trying to find parity and equality with their Federal counterparts; none of which exists today with respect to working conditions, pay, retirement, medical insurance among other comparative items. 

Peter Irwin of Sandia Labs also questioned Mr. Podonsky about the loss of quality panels and the lack of SPO participation in policy and daily operations

Many questions were asked about their lack of progress toward policy and or legislation to assure the SPOs at DOE facilities were given a path to retirement that was reasonable and allowed for the most effective method of cycling human capital, in other words good hiring practices that kept qualified, and capable SPOs in the system and also allowed for those who have given their time and capabilities and talents to the DOE to retire respectfully and comfortably.                                                                                                               

Jason Brown NCSP Vice President, and IGUA Local 3 member questioned Mr. Podonsky on their lack of ownership of the physical fitness program in allowing contractors to negotiate the terms under which SPOs will be allowed to work out.  He went on to suggest that the DOE should make the physical fitness programs more structured across the sites and make these programs a matter of regulation, rather than policy so that there would be a clearly defined plan for work outs rather than many different plans across the DOE complex.  This discussion came about after a brief mention of the death of a brother and former SPO while working out at Savannah River site.  There is a huge disparity across the complex with regard to time allowed for physical fitness training, where and when it will be done, and whether or not it is on the clock while at work or off duty but compensated. 

            John Whitney, President at Nevada Test Site (NTS) questioned Mr. Podonsky on the disparity in qualifying and disqualifying factors among the sites.  He went on to discuss various issues at the Nevada Test Site with regard to enhanced qualifications for the SPO1 classification and many enhanced courses of fire and qualifying factors that are not present at other DOE sites.  He asked that Mr. Podonsky take the time to have his staff visit with the sites and talk not only with the contractor, but the SPOs as well, so he and his staff will see the entire picture of issues, rather than just a narrow view created by the contractor alone.

Mr. Podonsky took some time to discuss and clarify the origins of the suggested Federalization of the Protective Forces within DOE.  He took ownership of this suggestion and made mention of where and when all this came about.

 Mr. Podonsky made this recommendation several times both in conference with top DOE officials and in writing.  He went on to say that there was a brief study conducted by various people and it was found at the time that it would either be too complicated or too costly to federalize all elements of the Protective Force. 

Mr. Podonsky stated that he had received harsh criticism from colleagues and various other field elements of his suggestion of federalization.  ^{(There is more info on the progress of federalization later on this day).}

            Mr. Podonsky closed by saying that he was giving us a hard commitment to foster very much improved lines of communication and creating methods of finding solutions to our issues.  He wants to know, how can we work together to fix our issues?

10am:  Guest Speakers:

Richard Donovan, Deputy Director, Office of Security Policy, Office of Health Safety and Security.  

Kevin Leifheit - acting director program requirements. 

Bill Desmond- Associate Administrator for Defense Nuclear Security

            Mr. Donovan and Mr. Leifheit presented a PowerPoint presentation to illustrate the implementation of the Elite Force and the Departments loose expectations of the contractors.  He talked about how the DOE 470.4-3 order and the Elite Force, or tactical response force was just a fraction of the overall scheme of the new area defense strategy of the DOE.  He stated that their expectation was that the vast majority of the protective forces at the facilities would consist of the SPO 1 classification.  Their vision was heavily defensive force with elements of offensive SPOs at the SPO2 and SPO3 classification being used to force the adversaries into heavily concentrated fire areas manned by the SPO 1 classification of Security Police Officer.  He also stated that it was their hope that contractors could find new places to utilize the Security Officer (SO) classification using the new order, thereby creating additional positions for the aging workforce to transition to so that they could continue to stay employed rather than being forced into an early retirement situation.  He admitted that the career progression language in the 470 order was weak, and was their attempt at getting something in writing in the order, and certainly could have unintended consequences if not mutually worked on between the Unions and the Contractors.

This was discussed at length due to the loss of so many SO jobs at multiple sites.  It was not their intention for the contractors to simply reclassify all SPOs to the new offensive position simply out of convenience.  It was further not their intention for the contractors to take literal, exact and non-compromising view of the DOE order 470.4-3 change (?).  It was rather, their intent that the contractor would simply use this as guideline to redefining the battlefield and creating a much more enemy casualty inducing force. 

Mr.  Donovan gave the example that the language in the order that stated that SPOs expected to respond more than 50 yards from their position or vehicle would be considered offensive, did NOT mean that if you respond 51 yards you are automatically considered as an offensive position and if you respond 49 yards you are automatically considered defensive.  This was rather to be used simply as a guideline or model in determining what a particular position is asked to do when categorizing this position as either offensive combative (OC) or defensive combative (DC).  In summary it was the intent of the DOE to have a smaller, effective, mobile, effective and survivable offensive group of SPOs supported by a much larger group of defensive SPOs and  S Os.

Mr. Donovans presentation was primarily intended to let us know that the DOE had no intention of forcing SPOs into offensive jobs, but rather their hope was the in using the new order the contractors would work with their Unions to create a majority defensive force with offensive elements.  He also stated that contractors would be allowed a multi year implementation period for the new requirements. 

Mr. Donovan used IGUA local 3 as an example of what the DOE expected their contractors and Unions to do to mitigate the impacts of the new order.  IGUA local 3 and Wackenhut Services Inc.  (WSI-OR) worked jointly to identify each job and their responsibility and job requirements.  They then compared those job duties and expectations to the 470 orders and classified the jobs as either offensive or defensive.  In doing this, the Union and the Company were able to drastically decrease the impacts of the order on the SPOs.  (These issues are to be addressed during the contract negotiations beginning July 16^th in Oak Ridge). 

In closing, Mr. Donovan stated that the bottom line was, they wanted the contractors to use the new order to develop an effective defense against an adversary force.           

Mr. Bill Desmond began his presentation by stating that the DOE/NNSA will be holding a summit meeting in Las Vegas ^{(as of this date, no Union or NCSP representation has been invited)} the last of July in order to get the contractors together to discuss how they have begun implementing the new 470 orders.  He hopes that getting the contractors together will help those that have taken a literal and non-negotiable stance of the language will begin to understand that the DOE does not envision a totally offensive force.  He hopes that using examples as Oak Ridge will spur communication between the Unions and the Contractors to find the best way to implement the order. 

Mr. Desmond was faced with many questions to include why the NCSP or Unions are being excluded from this summit meeting.  His response was that we are not being excluded, we are just not being included.   (This answer of course drew criticism.)  He went on to say that the DOE is doing its best, we can believe that or not.  At this point there were quite a few questions and statements from the conference all of which could not be captured.  One point was made that at most if not all sites, the morale has come to an all time low.  With increasing requirements and decreasing benefits, SPOs are being forced to look for other job opportunities and other options.  Mr. Desmond went on to say that he has been doing this work for 40 years and he knows what we do, so we do not need to tell him the kind of work we do and or requirements we have.

Mr. Jeff Cutler, Counsel to the NCSP stated that in his work so far for the NCSP he has not seen a time when there is a need for the DOE to move on the needs of the SPOs.  With the increasing workload, and qualifying factors, not to mention the disqualifying factors, the SPO is in need of a way to work fewer years and retire with benefits that allow them to do so, in order that the DOE can keep a new fresh force.  Mr. Desmonds response was less than flattering.  He responded to say that was a nice speech, good words, but how do we fix it.  Mr. Desmonds comments from this point forward were condescending and arrogant with an obvious lack of concern for the SPOs within the complex. 

            Mr. Desmonds presentation was closed with a proposal from Mike Stumbo.  Mr. Stumbo proposed that he and Mr. Desmond create a relationship based on mutual respect.  Mike agreed to be open, honest and provide factual information to Mr. Desmond and the NNSA, in return Mike requested that Mr. Desomond and the NNSA not blow smoke up the respective posteriors of the NCSP^{.(¬edited for obvious reasons)}                                              

1:30 Guest Speaker:

Mr. Gary Hankins, Labor Specialist, Gary Hankins and Associates, Washington, DC.

            Mr. Hankins opened by letting us know that we have made great progress in the past year on Capital Hill.  He has been in contact with the Senate Armed Services Committee as well as the Congressional Armed Services Committee with respect to the proposed "Federalization" language coming from the office of Congressman Bart Stupak (D) Michigan, and Madelyn R. Creedon, Counsel on the Senate Armed Services Committee titled "S. 1550 Department of Energy National Security Act for fiscal year 2008, Section 3124 Comptroller General Report on Department of Energy Protective Force Management". Mr. Hankins informed the Conference that a slot has been placed on both the Senate and Congressional Defense Authorization Act appropriations bill for a directive to the General Accounting Office to conduct a study to provide to both the House and the Senate, all information requested of the GAO with respect to the Protective Forces within the Department of Energy. 

            Mr. Hankins spoke about new developing interest in a ‘National Plan' that would essentially be a plan directive that would cover all SPOs within the complex with one retirement benefits plan.  This ‘national plan' information is not new to those of us, and you that have followed the NCSP for the past couple of years.  This was originally our plan to get all of us under one plan that was fair and equitable considering our qualifying and disqualifying factors.     This is an appealing alternative that will hopefully be explored further by both congress and the DOE.  Furthermore we hope to suggest its inclusion in the bill requiring the GAO study. 

            Mr. Hankins went on to talk about the overall success of our trips to Washington, DC in solidifying a considerable base of support in the Capital, all of which has been brought about by our views being conveyed in an honest and open fashion.  Mr. Hankins talked about the many phone calls that he has received from both the Senate and the House with respect to their findings after our meetings.  Most of the staffers and or Representatives that he has spoken with have indicated that if anything they feel we may have been too conservative in our positions.

            Mr. Hankins indicated, none of the required appropriations bills have been addressed by either House.  He expects that it will most likely be August or September before there will be final action on the Bill.

            Mr. Hankins addressed several key questions from the member Sites.  ^{(These questions were asked and fielded by several members of the Conference.  Questions and answers will be aligned with the appropriate person if possible.  Questions and answers are summarized and not exact quote., there were other questions and discussions that may not have been captured)}

• Q1. How will the language address sites that do not possess Category II or great Special Nuclear Material (SNM)?
• A1. ®It has always been the intention of Gary Hankins and the NCSP to address the needs of all SPOs across the sites, regardless of quantity or lack thereof SNM. From the very beginning the NCSP has addressed each and every Representative and or Committee from the standpoint that ALL SPOs no matter where they work, or what they protect are equally impacted by DOE orders and Manuals. It is our intention that if you are subject to 10 CFR 1046 and or DOE manual 470.4-3^(change?) then you are entitled to what we are attempting to gain. That being said, the initial language of the directive states that the Comptroller will address Sites with Category 1 material. It is the intention of the NCSP to contact the General Accounting Office (GAO) and request they meet with Gary Hankins and the NCSP to address the intricacies and nuances of the protective forces within DOE. Gary Hankins indicated that this is a very common issue with GAO investigations. The main theme to be address and clarified with the GAO is the overall qualifying and disqualifying factors of ALL SPOs regardless if they protect Category 1 SNM. The SPOs at the Strategic Petroleum Reserve are a perfect example of those SPOs who must meet all medical, physical and training standards set forth by DOE, but do not protect Cat 1 material.

• Q2. What is the likelihood that this directive or language will be traded off, or deleted in the event that the passage of the Defense Authorization Act goes down to the last hour of passage?
• A2. ®Gary Hankins gave a pseudo Civics 101 description of what the process is and how it works with respect to how a bill is introduced, where it goes once its voted, etc. In summary Mr. Hankins feels that if the proposed bill had only been on either the Congressional or Senatorial docket it would have been possible that it would be removed or traded off. However, he feels that since it is on both dockets it is very unlikely that it will be removed before passage.¬

• Q3. When do you think we should expect to hear something or see some movement on this bill?
• A3. ®Mr. Hankins re-stated that none of the mandatory spending bills have been addressed, so this will delay actions until at worst, Sept. 30^th which is the fiscal years end for the Fed. He expects that sometime in August he will be hearing from the Committees and making contacts so we can be in tough with them.

• Q4. What if the national plan were to be offered by the DOE in an effort to stop the federalization movement on Capital Hill? What are your thoughts?
• A4. ®Mr. Hankins re-stated his commitment to the NCSP and our success. He stated that a decision such as this should be based on our goals and the substance of the offer. In other words, if the national plan meets and or exceeds our expectations with respect to our goals, then it should be considered based on its merit. If it does not do what we want it to do, then it is not what we want. Mr. Hankins again stated that he works for us, and whatever we want him to do, he will, and he will advise us of his opinion.

                        Mr. Hankins closed by saying that the NCSP now has a loud, and clear voice on Capital Hill.  Through honest communication and open dialogue we have managed to open doors in a short amount of time.  Many and most of the contacts that have been made on Capital Hill were surprised to hear that we are contract employees and not a Federal force.  Keep up the pressure and we will see results. 

Wednesday July 11^th.  8am.

Guest Speaker:

Mr. Peter Stockton, Project on Government Oversight. (POGO)

                        Mr. Stockton gave an overview of what POGO does and the different types of investigations they do.  They investigate fraud, corruption, contract misappropriations, safety, health and security issues among other items.  Mr. Stockton talked about his work at many of our sites with respect to shedding light on the contractor flaws and shortcomings with respect to protecting national assets.  He talked about different investigations in Oak Ridge, Pantex, Nevada Test Site etc.  He mentioned that their office felt the SPOs were doing a great job in the worst of conditions considering overtime, pay and pension problems and general morale issues. 

                        Mr. Stockton closed by explaining that most of their sources are government employees and or government contract employees.   Many of his sources are employees that either have or do work side by side with many of us.  He hopes that he can be a source of pressure for the NCSP and would like to work closely with its member sites_.                                                                                                                                                                                                   

9am: 

Savannah River Site Contract overview by Greg Dawson, Business Agent UPPSR

                        A general overview of the recently negotiated Savannah River Site Contract was given by Greg Dawson, Business Agent, United Professional Pro Force Savannah River (UPPSR).  Mr. Dawson explained some changes in language and increases in wage scales that resulted from their negotiations.  One highlight that drew attention was a two dollars per hour increase immediately effective prior to a percentage increase for SPO1 specialty classifications and SPO2 classifications.  (A summary of the contract can be requested from your respective Union officials and or the NCSP)

10am:

Pantex Plant Contract Overview by Randy Schlegel and Mike Stumbo

                        A general overview of the recently negotiated Pantex Plant Contract was given by Randy Schlegel, Pantex Guards Union (PGU) negotiating committee team member, and Mike Stumbo, NCSP President and negotiating team member and safety officer.  Randy and Mike explained some changes in language and wages in the contract and talked about their need to strike when the last and final came to them.  Some highlights of the recent negotiations are language that provides the Union the ability to negotiate changes that are implemented by the DOE and the Contractor.  Also an 8% limit (cap) on the total insurance premium.  In other words if the total cost of the premium for insurance is 1,000 dollars the total premium for the purposes of an SPOs shared amount could not increase more than 80 dollars.  So, if the total premium is 1,000 dollars and the SPOs shared amount is 10% he would pay 100 dollars.  If the total premium is increased 20% to 1200 dollars, the SPOs share of that total premium cannot be increased anymore than 8%.  (A summary of the contract can be requested from your respective Union officials and or the NCSP)

11am:

Jeff Cutler, Counsel, NCSP

                        Mr. Jeff Cutler spoke to the Conference about his part in negotiations at Savannah River Site, and some upcoming and past issues that he was involved in with the NCSP.  One past issue was the hard work that all the Local Unions and the NCSP put forward to remove the 351.1 directive that was handed down by the Secretary of Energy.  As many of you know this order would have prevented the creation of future defined benefit plans and future obligations to existing defined benefit plans.  This directive has now been cancelled.

                        Mr. Cutler talked about language that is somewhere out there in draft form from the DOE that would disallow any strikes, work stoppages and or slowdowns.  This of course is a huge legal hurdle for the DOE considering that this is a protected activity and a legal right of Unions that will no doubt be litigated to the end by many Unions and the NCSP if need be.  This language has not been presented or implemented at any site as of yet, however the NCSP is prepared to wage a legal battle if the need arises. The NCSP will need any Union or affiliate to contact them immediately if this language is presented at the negotiating table. 

12pm:

Delegate confirmation, Nominations for elected offices of President, and Recording Secretary.  New business, and old business, and open floor for discussions.

                        The Delegates from each site were identified and contact information was collected and noted.  The floor was opened for the nominations for the office of President.  Mike Stumbo was nominated and elected un-opposed.  The floor was opened for nominations for the office of Recording Secretary and Chuck Nelson was nominated and elected un-opposed. 

                        There was discussion and a motion to hold next years NCSP conference in Washington, DC in the month of May.  Mike worked with Gary Hankins to secure the FOP lodge for our conference free of charge.  It is the hope of the NCSP that one day of the conference will be spent by the delegates visiting their representatives and bringing to their attention our issues and reporting their responses at the conference. 

NCSP Represented Sites:

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant

Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory

East Tennessee Technology Park

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Y12 National Security Complex

Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Sandia National Laboratory

Idaho National Laboratory

Oak Ridge Protective Force

Savannah River Site

Kansas City Plant

Nevada Test Site

Hanford Plant

Pantex Plant

If there is anything else that you require, just let your local representatives know or feel free to email or call me.

Fraternally;

Jason Brown

Vice President

National Council of Security Police

ncspvp@comcast.net