Q. 4. DOE has authorized
the use of polygraphs. Does that apply to UC employees at LLNL,
and if so, will UC take a position on that policy change?SPSE Newsletter #2, May 1999
Editor: P. Weidhaas
P.O. Box 1066, Livermore, CA 94551
925-449-4846
Contents:
"Meet and Discuss"
On Friday, April 2, 1999, SPSE had a "Meet and Discuss" with Robert Perko (LLNL Staff Relations) and Eric Steele (LLNL Safeguards and Security Department). Three SPSE Board members attended the meeting: Larry Madison, Bill O'Connell, and Patrick Weidhaas. The purpose of the meeting was to identify and clarify DOE and UC/LLNL rules, policies, and procedures pertaining to security issues.
SPSE asked for the meeting in view of recent events. On March 8, 1999, the UC, acting on orders of DOE, fired a computer scientist of Taiwanese origin, Wen Ho Lee, at LANL. Allegedly, Lee had passed classified information to the Chinese. The UC fired him for being uncooperative in the ensuing investigation. This case, combined with other signs that the Chinese government obtained U.S. nuclear weapons information, has resulted in an uproar in Congress over security at the National Labs. DOE Secretary Bill Richardson announced new security measures on March 17. Clearly, the Laboratories and their employees are under increased scrutiny with respect to security.
UC/LLNL employees have to realize that when it comes to real or alleged security violations there is no safety netyou can be fired on the spot. Therefore, SPSE feels that LLNL employees should be fully informed of the rules and procedures governing security and maintaining a clearance.
In the "Meet and Discuss," SPSE asked a number of questions related to security that Mr. Perko and Mr. Steele answered. They also directed us to relevant documents that spell out the laws, rules, and procedures that apply to UC employees at the DOE Labs. Below we state each question, and summarize/paraphrase the answers we obtained from Perko and Steele.
Q. 1. What are all the current UC/LLNL policies and procedures governing employee conduct with respect to maintaining a DOE security clearance?
A. Security clearances are provinces of DOE and are administered to DOE criteria. UC/LLNL has an "arm's length" relationship with DOE regarding clearances.
Q. 2. What are the federal requirements not subsumed by the UC/LLNL policies identified in Q. 1?
A. Employees should be aware of the Annual Security Refresher Briefing, available as a publication and on the llnl_only website. There is also the "LLNL Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual (PPPM) Section D.II." (Note that it cross-references the "Manual of Security Regulations," which is no longer in practice.) Employees should also know about the "Security Guide" and the SAFE Program pages, both available on the llnl_only website.
The above information should, in most cases, suffice to cover awareness of significant topics and main reporting requirements. There are Security Contacts who can answer questions and point to additional written resources. There are numerous additional documents; for example, those that govern access to classified computers. All the security requirements are written down somewherethere are no unwritten rules or policies. The Security Contacts can assist in finding information. For a list of Security Contacts, visit the website: http://ssec.llnl.gov/web/SSDPub/sechelp.nclk.
The security requirements for DOE Contractors and their employees derive from Federal government documents, primarily from 10 CFR 710. [Note: CFR means Code of Federal Regulations, and this number is within the range for the DOE part of the CFR.] There are then more-detailed documents for implementation. The next stage is in DOE Order 471.2B, "Personnel Security Activities" and its Attachment "Contractor Requirements Document." There are web pointers for these documents in the LLNL Security Department llnl_only web pages.
Q. 3. What policies or guidance govern employee treatment when a DOE clearance is suspended or revoked?
A. Security clearances for contractor employee (e.g., UC employees), are entirely DOE's domain. The DOE documents cover criteria, processes, and the DOE review process in case an existing clearance is questioned or suspended. The relevant documents are CFR sections: 10 CFR 710.6, "Cooperation with the DOE Security Investigation Process" and 10 CFR 710.8, "Criteria for a Security Clearance."
LLNL learns whether a clearance is granted, suspended, or revoked, but not the reason why. The latter is a matter of confidentiality. LLNL must report to DOE any security-related information about an employee, including any derogatory allegations. DOE then takes investigative action to resolve it. When DOE suspends a clearance, DOE's Administrative Review Process kicks in. This process provides for investigation and resolution of any questions, and includes an appeal procedure. The last step in this Administrative Review Process can be the revocation of the clearance by the DOE Director of Security.
If a clearance is suspended, LLNL policy is to find the individual an assignment pending resolution by DOE. If a clearance is revoked, LLNL policy is as follows:
First the individual's department will determine if there exists a long-term assignment (within the department) that the employee could do. If no such assignment can be found, LLNL gives the employee 60 days to search in the rest of the Lab for a position. If after 60 days the employee has not found a position, LLNL dismisses the employee for failure to meet the conditions for employment.
Q. 4. DOE has authorized
the use of polygraphs. Does that apply to UC employees at LLNL,
and if so, will UC take a position on that policy change?
A. Right now the use of polygraph testing (lie detectors) applies only to DOE employees. There is presently no plan to apply polygraph testing to DOE contractor employees [see box]. Changes to that policy would come under the Federal Register announcement procedure: first, a draft is published, followed by a comment period, then the final policy is implemented. LLNL would pass the draft announcement to LLNL employees for their possible comments to DOE.
As far as UC is concerned, it has a long-standing policy that polygraph tests cannot be used for employment actions. If DOE would bring up a proposal for UC employees, then UC would have to address that situation.
Q.5. Are there any DOE changes "in the pipeline"?
A. Next week, LLNL will make an announcement on enhanced computer security for protection of classified information. [Note: this cyber-security initiative began at 4:00 pm, an hour after our meeting ended.] Other than that, there is some talking back and forth, discussions of work in progress, but nothing definite as of this time.
Q.6. Will UC seek employee comment before modifying UC/LLNL policies in response to recent DOE directives related to national security?
A. DOE "directives" are orders, whose implemen-tation is mandatory. UC/LLNL would provide aware-ness and education notices to employees. For major changes, DOE may be required by law to go through the proposal announcement and comment period.
Q.7. What is LLNL's policy on disciplinary action in case of security infractions?
A. A security infraction is an internal LLNL matter. However, in case of a Level A security infraction, DOE must be notified. LLNL treats security infractions as a Personnel Performance deficiency or action. There is usually disciplinary action, progressive for repeated infractions. It could eventually result in dismissal. According to Mr. Perko, that has not happened in his more than twenty years at LLNL.
Consider a hypothetical case of an employee going outside the Lab and handing out classified documents to passers-by. DOE would consider this an egregious action. Like other extreme performance deficiencies or actions, this act could result in immediate dismissal.
The 10 CFR 710.4 protects employees from retaliation or dismissal under the guise of security regulations. It states, "It is also policy of DOE that none of the procedures established by DOE for determining eligibility for access authorization shall be used for an improper purpose, including any attempt to coerce, restrain, threaten, intimidate, or retaliate against individuals for exercising their rights under statute, regulation or DOE directive. Any DOE officer or employee violating, or causing the violation of this policy, shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action."
Please visit our website
for a list of useful web links about security.
http://www.spse.org/Security_links.html
|
The Women's Class Action Suit--Litigation Question on Security Form In our last Newsletter, March 1999, we reported on the women's class action suit against UC/LLNL. A female employee asks, "Do I have to answer 'yes' to the question on the security re-investigation form that asks, '...are you party to any litigation...'?" The Sturdevant Law Firm suggests the following answer, "I may be a member of a proposed class in a class action, but I am not a named party in any litigation." [Note: this assumes you have no other legal action pending against the Lab.] If you would like to obtain or provide information regarding the suit, contact the following: |
|
| Mark Johnson Sturdevant Law Firm 475 Sansome Street, Suite 1750 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 477-2410; Fax: (415) 477-2420 E-mail: slf2@hooked.net |
J. Gary Gwilliam Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer P.O. Box 2079 Oakland, CA 94604-2079 Phone: (510) 832-5411; Fax: (510) 832-1918 |
Go back to the SPSE Home Page
http://www.spse.org/