March 20, 2003

Culture of trust broken before whistleblowers went public

It has been stated in this Readers Forum that the whistleblowers terminated by the Laboratory have overstepped their authority by publicizing their story and the exaggerated results of their findings. I agree. In my 13-year career with the Lab within three separate divisions, I have not observed sufficient improprieties to come close to extrapolating to the colossal number of violations that their conclusions indicated. But I have observed the degradation of employees’ trust in their management and their resulting lack of commitment and integrity. I also observe that the gross violations of the Ford Mustang and cash at a gambling casino using the Lab procurement cards most likely indicate the employees involved succeeded on some lower level of impropriety to give them the assurance or misguided notion that such violations would be accepted or overlooked by their management.

For years I have heard rumors of employees stopping in at local vendors to pick up items that never made it to the workplace. When Leathermans first came out about 10 years ago, I recall hearing that half of the number purchased by the Lab the first year had difficulties being accounted for the following year. Improprieties did exist and it is right for the Lab to take steps to correct the reporting and supervisory deficiencies that allowed such occurrences to go unnoticed or uncorrected.

It is unfortunate the Lab had to learn this lesson in such a hard fashion. As an employee, I am encouraged to see the decisive and immediate actions our interim director and the University of California have taken to correct these problems. It gives me genuine hope that this Lab will indeed be a place I can proud to work for. I certainly hope these actions are sufficient to convince the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration to maintain [the UC] contract.

In regard to the whistleblowers, let us consider their personal circumstances. They had been terminated from their livelihood. It was the holiday season, yet their income was reduced to minimum wage, if even that. I speak from personal experience that the $8 per hour maximum unemployment benefits granted an employee severed from the Lab "without cause" is nowhere close to what an employee was earning before the separation. Did they have children? Were their spouses forced away from young children to immediately provide for their families? It is all too easy to speak from our "cushy" positions of secure incomes and continue to live in a culture of fear and retaliation as admitted by Associate Director Richard Marquez, rather than break the "code of silence" and uncover dirty laundry. I hesitate to judge the whistleblowers. Indeed, their actions took personal strength and courage.

With regard to the large severance packages awarded our past managers, it has been stated by an Oregon congressman that residents in his state would be more than happy to be terminated from this Lab. However, as I’ve just stated, the unemployment benefits for the common employee is nowhere near the amount awarded our ex-managers. And having been a resident of Oregon for 14 years and personally affected by a forced Lab separation, I can vouch it didn’t work for me. This simply illustrates once again that the difference between the troops and our leaders is significant.

Our managers have a responsibility that goes hand-in-hand with the authority and privileges granted them: a responsibility to demonstrate leadership by example, with integrity and responsive decision-making, rather than simply managing by selfish manipulation and avoidance. I have hope that our current management will embrace [Interim] Director Nanos’ directive to change. I encourage employees to take heart in the changes that have occurred and are still taking place. Please remember, a leader may only make decisions with the knowledge and information that they are given, and an employee cannot expect them to know of unfair situations unless they report their observations. If your immediate supervisor does not take action, have the strength and courage to go up the chain of command. Change cannot occur otherwise.

I thank my current leaders for their display of leadership skills and integrity that has afforded me my hope and the confidence to share my observations.

--Tina M. Forsman