Sean Sullivan Board Member Octobers, 2015 Joyce, I sense that our relationship is not off to"a good start. I hope this letter is received in the spirit that is intended-that we might work together to establish a favorable, productive, longterm relationship. 1 am writing my thoughts down to be sure that I say what I really want to say. I will be happy to have a conversation about this,at your convenience. You have said and done several things that I found to be offensive. Perhaps I have offended you, and if so, I hope that you will let me know. Two things in particular that you have done or said trouble me significantly. . 1 found the Friday EEO session to be highly unfair to me. I learned that you believe I have a problem. Now, I can separate the message fr©m my disappointment at the way it was delivered. I did hearthe message, and I will act/on it as needed. However, I am not sure why I had to .learn this in front of others, including -two members of the staff. '" ' If you fntended.to surprise and embarrass me, that is a real problem. I trust that you did not. But it is-diffieult for-me to see now you could not have foreseenjny_s.urpris£_aDd_ _J .:_;. embarrassment. After apparently receiving a complaint about me, you chose not to tell me but instead, to schedule a Board-EEO session; You-began witfrafvanhouricementthat problems involving Board.members had already come to.your attention. We then had EEO training that was exclusively about treatment of women. Thetwo female Board members talked about specific problems involving the way an unnamed member or members Interacted with women in the Board room. Clearly, you and Jessie were not talking about you and Jessie. Nor could either of you have been talking about Bruce since he has yet to say anything. That left me and Dan. Everyone In that room could do that math. As if that wasn't awkward enough, at some point you said, "Sorry Sean, I should have talked to you about this beforehand." You delivered an apology and, In the game breath, publicaliy removed any doubt as to whom this session was about. - . .; - .. There were many pronouncements Friday'about establishing mutual trust, which I now find somewhat ironic. Again, I will take the message that was delivered and act on it. I still have not received the specifics of any complaints'about me; \t know that they exist. As Bruce said about something else Friday: specifics are important; they provide context. I would appreciate receiving them. The other significant statement I found offensive was your pronouncement in front of others that a Board member has. "put their personal fight above the good of the agency." I took that as a public rebuke of my past actions and, mare importantly, my motives. You were not here last year, and you do not know my motives. Everything I did, Idid for the agency, and for my country. And I did it at great personal risk and sacrifice. I did it because I determined that it was my duty. I would need many pages to more fully explain. The short explanation is that our agency had lost effectiveness and was hindering NNSA's ability to recover from the significant problems facing that agency. The leadership in our agency was horrible. Winokur surrounded himself with yes men, and he fired those who challenged him. NNSA consistently stiff-armed us. Three of four committees on the hill with oversight of us had in various ways expressed deep concern about us. I spent a year and a half trying everything possible to effect change, to no avail. I came to the conclusion that Peter had to go, and he had to be pushed. Everything 1 did, I did with one objective: to make Peter Winokur go home. Only then could the agency get better, and only then could the agency help DOE and NNSA get better. There is much more I could say here about what! did and why! chose to dn it. \ you are interested and have several free hours, maybe even days, I could go through the details. But I do want you to know that during 2014-1 came to work every day with a very singular, very lonely, and^very difficult mission. Peter was terrible at his-job; but he really-enjoyed his-job. Idetermined that 1 had to take that enjoyment away. There was no other way to get him to go. That meant fighting with the man who had the power to align the entire staff against me. it also meant fighting with a man aligned with the Senate majority leader, who in turn was aligned with the President. My work environment, my reputation and my career were at all risk. I took the risk. It was the right thing to do. I realize that all this may seem self-serving, perhaps incredibly so. I also realize that rational people may conclude that nothing could justify what I did last year. People are entitled to judge me as they see fit. But in my heart, I know that what I did, I did for the long-term health of the agency, and for the country.! am'not'asking you to adopt my version of events as the official narrative. Believe whatever you wish to believe, and judge me as you wish. But I ask that you keep your judgment to yourself. Expressing to others that I put "my fight" above the best interests of the agency pierces anew a wound that is very deep and very personal to me. Other actions of yours have also bothered me. These other things were minor, and I was inclined to let them go. In light of Friday's events, I am concerned however that they may be part of a larger narrative. Specifically, you have referred to my recent complaints about the Office of General Counsel as "my fight with legal" or "my problems with legal." Clearly, I believe the problems are the agency's problems'. Last year,"I put my legal acumen up against that of our staff attorneys and received an extremely favorable ruling from the Department of Justice. You dismissed that as luck. It most definitely was not-luck. Additionally, by your actions, I get the distinct feeling that you do not hold me to be your peer. A few weeks back, 1 asked you to pull the string on legal advice given the Board that 1 believed to be incorrect. 1 am not sure what you did or did not do, but you never got back to me. When .1 asked you about it recently, your memory of the specifics was a bit fuzzy. Now of course, you have no obligation to do what I ask you to do. But as your peer, I should at least be informed- either that you are not going to do it, or that it was done with results. i also took the initiative to write something up that I thought would help Mr. Biggins, . and sent it to all Board Members. You indicated by email that you were uncomfortable with it. I twice indicated by email that i was available to discuss, and once came by your office to find you busy on the phone. Late the next day, I came back. I got the distinct impression - right or wrong — that you were not going to come to me. I got the sense that having declared your position by email, you considered your position to be superior to mine, and that it was up to me to come to you to discuss it. Again, these last few paragraphs-discuss things that are at most minor slights, and by themselves they mean little or nothing. But if there is a pattern here, we should.work together to ,?