Status
Update 1/29/09
Well
folks, the world has changed since last Thursday when the Independent ran an
article on Lab retirees and included my name and the web page URL. IÕve been
busier than a one man band. The number of concerned retirees has passed 190. I
would like to welcome the new people and suggest they read the updates. I just
got the 1/21/09 update posted so there is something new to read on the web
site. I have moved the update links to the front of the main web page so you
wonÕt have to scroll to the bottom to see if there is anything new. I
also put the Òlast update dateÓ in the header. For any of you that donÕt
have or remember the web site link, click on the link below:
http://home.comcast.net/~jrequa/retiree.htm
Our
ultimate objective is to get our medical benefits back under UC in time for us
to participate in the UC fall open enrollment process. At this point we seem to
have the attention of UC (see below) so there are two paths forward open. I can
try and convert the group from an irate mob into a political machine, or I can
try to open a second front at DOE. Given my organizational talent opening a
second front is probably what I will be most successful at. Common wisdom is to
work through our elected representatives, but that is time consuming, so I
think we need to mount a direct assault on DOE. Because NNSA is the problem, we
need to go higher up the management chain. Since the new Secretary of DOE was
previously Director of LBNL, I believe he would be sympathetic and should be
the next target. With the current size of the group, it might be feasible to
prepare a letter to Dr. Steven Chu and have a signup event for retirees in the
Livermore area. If one of you lives in an area where you believe there are a
number of retirees close and would like to arrange a signing event please
contact me. We will send the signed letter(s) through USPS. I will ask those of
you that canÕt get to a signing event to send supporting email. I think the
email should start with a standard header saying you belong to the group and
support the petition mailed in. You can then add any comments you
relevant.
We
seem to have the attention of the UC. I sent a response to their last attempt
to tell us everything is all right which I have added it to this update so
everyone can see it. I immediately got back the following response which sounds
like John is listening to us.:
Dear Mr. Requa (Joe),
I am in receipt of your most recent correspondence and will
conduct a further review of your situation so that I may reply more
specifically to your questions. Thank you for your patience.
John Cammidge
Being
an optimist, I think he deserves a chance to try again. My goal here is to attempt to
convert two monologues into a dialog. If we canÕt do that soon, we will have to
look at other methods of dealing with UC. One of the new recruits that I trust
has started looking for legal support. Since I donÕt seem qualified for the
job, I am going to let him run with it.
Along
with trying to get DOEÕs attention There is some background information I
believe we should have.
0.
DOE
Directive N 351.1 is a draconian attempt to slash any and all DOE retirement
costs. It was scheduled to go into effect prior to LLNS taking over management
of LLNL. For reasons unknown to me it was delayed for a year so it took effect
after the management change rather than before. That allowed the DOE-LLNS
contract to specify Total Compensation Package 1. That in turn lulled
transferring UC employees and retirees into believing that it would be business
as usual after the transfer. If there wasnÕt a squeaky clean justification for
the delay we may have an issue.
0.
We
should ask for documentation justifying that DOE was acting legally when they
put the requirement that LLNS to provide our medical insurance in the RFP. As
you will see in my latest response to UC, I do not believe they acted legally.
0.
We
should ask why LANS is providing superior medical coverage to their employees.
It certainly seems that all National Lab retirees should be treated equally. If
not, one might conjecture that DOE might be planning to close the one treated
least favorably. I am sure you can guess which one that is.
0.
The
decision to switch contractors looked to me to be a short shuffle. The claim I
heard was security breaches caused the decision. When LLNS was caught passing
classified information in unclassified email they didnÕt even get a slap on the
wrist so it is hard to believe security was the real issue.
If any
of you have other ideas of what to ask for that might help our cause please let
me know.
The
next question is who to ask for the information. Candidates include the
Secretary of DOE, Senators Feinstein and Boxer and local House members Tauscher
and McNerney.
Since
I am in touch with Ellen TauscherÕs office, I will ask if these are issues that
she might willing to address and, if not, ask for her opinion of the right
person to ask. I donÕt think State officials would be helpful on these
questions, but if communications with UC break down, we should involve them.
Now
for as bit of mundane business.
One
issue that has arisen is individual privacy. I was putting everyoneÕs email
address in the To field of the email header. One member asked me to cease doing
so which I did. The moral of the story is that if any of you would prefer I do
not mention your name or email address in my communications, please let
me know.
The
issue of money is one that we need to address. Many of you have offered
financial help if necessary. I may have to solicit money for miscellaneous
expenses such as meeting rooms, snail mail, supplies etc. if this turns
into a long term effort. Just because I ask doesnÕt mean that you are required
to donate so if you do not have money or not inclined to donate then donÕt. The
more serious need for money will be if we find a lawyer that thinks we have a
strong case and has what seems a reasonable asking price. We may want to get a
list of all the retirees affected and raise enough money to send a solicitation
to everyone. Since I am much better at double cross bookkeeping than
double entry bookkeeping, I am looking for a volunteer to be treasurer for the
organization.
If
this turns out to be a long run situation, we should probably set up a
non-profit organization. One form that has been suggested is a political action
committee (PAC). Other suggestions will be entertained. If any of you
have any expertise in non-profit organizations please share it with me.
And
now for the entertainment.
To:
John Cammidge
From:
Joe Requa
CC
Katherine Lapp, Barbara Clark, Lynn Boland, Jeffery Blair, UC Regents, Mark G.
Yudof, George Miller, Gabriela Odell, Concerned Retirees
Dear
Mr. Cammidge
I
am glad that you have followed up on my inquiry. letÕs see how well you did. I
asked for a response to three points so letÕs go down the list.
Am
I a UC retiree? -- That issue is not addressed. The closest you come is ÒYou
are a former UC employeeÓ.
Does
UC promise medical insurance to its retirees? -- I see no reference to that
issue at all.
Why
am I not getting UC retiree medical benefits? -- The closest you come is to say
ÒUnder the new management contract, the DOE is obligated to reimburse the new
contractor, Lawrence Livermore National Security (LLNS), for the retiree health
care costs incurred by former LLNL employees.Ó That is neither relevant to the
issue nor true (see below).
My
conclusion is that you failed to address any of my issues. I will ask you to
please try again. If we are to have a dialog, you will have to quit parroting
UC public relations pap and use some of the analytic logic UC prides its self
on teaching. Below you will find some examples drawing on statements from your
response.
I
informally contacted the UC lawyer responsible for this issue according to the
University web site, Jeffrey Blair, last summer in an attempt to open a dialog.
After stonewalling me for a month, he said he had my problem solved. A week
later I got an email from Ms. Gabriela Odell of the LLNS legal group that, like
your response, did not address the issue I raised. You might get a better
picture of the legal situation if you ask him his reasons for believing that
the obligation has been passed from UC to LLNS. If he has some compelling
arguments, I am willing to consider them.
For
your information I have been organizing concerned retirees and at this time am
spokesman for more than 170 of them. Many of them have offered time and/or
money to help protect their rights. They are the Concerned Retirees listed
in the CC line above. If you would like to see more detailed information
on the issues I have provided the following web site to keep retirees informed:
http://home.comcast.net/~jrequa/retiree.htm
An
analysis of some statements made by John Cammidge
ÒUC
retiree health care costs, in contrast, are paid from the UniversityÕs general
assets on a pay-as-you-go basis. There was no prefunding for such costs
during your employment.Ó
That
is a true for every UC retiree, not just those who worked at the LLNL
site. Health care is an ongoing cost of doing business that UC selected
as part of its compensation policies. I did not set those policies but I expect
UC adhere to them. Reimbursement, if any, is an issue between UC and DOE. My
reading of the UC-DOE contract is that DOE is required to reimburse UC for
those costs.
ÒUnder
the new management contract, the DOE is obligated to reimburse the new
contractor, Lawrence Livermore National Security (LLNS), for the retiree health
care costs incurred by former LLNL employees.Ó
It
should be noted that there are not and have never been LLNL employees. LLNL is
a site and sites do not have employees. UC, as the manager of the LLNL site had
employees.
It
is true that DOE placed an obligation on LLNS as a result of the DOE-LLNS
management contract but that has no bearing on the issue at hand. A requirement
in a contract between DOE and LLNS has no binding effect UC retirees since they
are not a party to the contract. It also has no binding effect on UC because UC
is not a party to the contract even though UC is a principle in LLNS. The
contract itself disavows any third party interests in the contract. Therefore
the contract has no effect on the relationship between UC and UC retirees and
does not provide cover for UC to divest itself of its obligation to its
retirees.
ÒThus, the obligation to provide the health care also has been transferred to
LLNS.Ó
That
statement proves that you are either woefully ignorant of the truth or an
outright liar. It is the crux of the issue at hand.
UC
has the obligation to provide retirees that worked at the LLNL site the same
health benefits as they provide to their retirees that worked at other sites.
That is a very different obligation from the one placed on LLNS by DOE under
the DOE-LLNS management contract. If it were not, LLNS couldnÕt modify
our medical coverage unless you were to modify coverage for all your employees.
DOE did not have the obligation to provide our health care so it is impossible
for DOE to pass it to LLNS through a contract between them.
On
Jan 20, 2009, at 2:55 PM, John Cammidge wrote:
Dear
Mr. Requa:
Executive
Vice President Lapp has asked me to follow-up with you regarding your inquiry
to her dated December 24, 2008 regarding your retiree medical coverage.
As you point out, your pension benefits continue to be paid from the University
of California Retirement Plan (UCRP), but your health care benefits are now
paid by the company that currently manages Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL) under contract with the Department of Energy (DOE).
Your
pension benefits continue to be paid from UCRP because they are funded by the
UCRP trust. During the time you were employed at LLNL as a UC employee,
you became an active member in the UCRP and accrued retirement benefits in
which you became fully vested under the terms of the plan document.
During that period, the University and members made contributions to the UCRP
trust to the extent necessary to keep the plan actuarially sound so the
promised benefits could be paid. The DOE reimbursed the University for
the contributions made to the UCRP trust on behalf of LLNL active members while
the UC-DOE contract was in effect. The trust is a separate entity legally
distinct from the University, and its assets cannot be used for any purpose
other than to pay for benefits to members and their beneficiaries and to defray
administrative expenses. Those assets are still held in the UCRP trust so
your pension benefits continue to be paid from UCRP.
UC
retiree health care costs, in contrast, are paid from the UniversityÕs general
assets on a pay-as-you-go basis. There was no prefunding for such costs
during your employment. While LLNL was managed by UC, the DOE reimbursed
UC for the retiree health care costs incurred by former LLNL employees on a
yearly basis as required by the UC-DOE contract that ended in 2007. Under
the new management contract, the DOE is obligated to reimburse the new
contractor, Lawrence Livermore National Security (LLNS), for the retiree health
care costs incurred by former LLNL employees. Thus, the obligation to
provide the health care also has been transferred to LLNS.
Your
employment has not been transferred from UC under the DOE-LLNS contract.
You are a former UC employee and, as such, will always be part of the UC
community. The obligation to manage your retiree health benefits,
however, is now the responsibility of the successor contractor to provide for ongoing
funding.
We
appreciate hearing from you and hope that you have taken advantage of the
services and features provided under the health and welfare plans offered by
LLNS.
John
R. Cammidge
Acting
Associate Vice President
Human
Resources and Benefits
1111
Franklin Street
Oakland,
CA 94607
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joe Requa [mailto:jrequa@comcast.net]
Sent: Wed 12/24/2008 3:40 PM
To: Katherine Lapp
Cc: miller21@llnl.gov; President's Office; regentsoffice@ucop.edu
Subject: Re: Retiree Medical Benefits for
UC Retirees
Dear
Ms. Lapp
I
appreciate your response to my inquiry. I am happy to hear that the
Regents have chosen you to speak on their behalf. Your response does correctly
state the status quo at the moment.
Unfortunately,
your response assumes UC has the right to transfer liability for my medical
coverage to LLNS, which is the assumption I intend to challenge. Restating the
status quo neither acknowledges nor addresses that issue.
Perhaps
I have not been clear enough, so let me make it as easy as 1, 2, 3.
1.
I am a UC
employee
a.
My retirement
check comes from UC.
b. UC paid my medical
benefits until LLNS took over the management contract.
c.
The Academic Council Special
Committee on the National Laboratories in White Paper IX states ÒLaboratory
employees, who are in fact UC employees, cannot be fired under UC human
resources guidelines without a full review, which can require several months.Ó
d. A provision in a
management contract between LLNS and DOE does not transfer me out of UC
employment since neither I nor UC is a party to that contract.
2.
UC provides
medical insurance to its retirees.
a. The UC web site: http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/retirees/health_welfare/index.html
states: ÒIf
you were enrolled in a medical plan as an active employee and elected to
continue coverage when you retired, you may continue coverage.Ó
3.
Therefore,
UC is responsible for providing me the same medical benefits as the rest of its
employees.
Would
you, or another individual selected by the Regents, please address my issue
based on the above three points? Thank you for your further assistance.
Joseph
Requa
University
of California Retiree
563
Brookfield Drive
Livermore
CA 94551
925/443-0120
cc.
Regents
of the University of California
UC
President Mark G. Yudof
Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Senator
Dianne Feinstein
Representative
Ellen Tauscher
LLNL
Director George Miller