Skip to main content

The UC and Labs Relations

UC regents open discussion on laboratories
By ROGER SNODGRASS, Monitor Editor

Meeting in San Francisco Wednesday, the University of California Board of Regents heard disagreements about the university’s role in the nation’s nuclear weapons program.

Criticism came this time not only from students, who are often vocal during regents’ meetings, but also from California Lt.-Gov. John Garamendi, a Democrat and an ex officio member of the board, who said he was “deeply disturbed” by what he heard.

An audio webcast of an open session of the Committee on Oversight of the Department of Energy laboratories began with a complaint by the board’s faculty representative, Michael Brown.

Also the chair of the Academic Senate and an advisory member of the laboratory oversight committee, Brown said the faculty was concerned about the federal government’s plan currently under discussion to increase pit manufacturing from 50 to 80 nuclear triggers a year at Los Alamos National Laboratory, and that the university was locked into a long-term contract with the DOE from which it could not escape.

Later, in the brief segment of the three-day meeting, the regents heard a report led by Norm Pattiz, the new chairman of the board of the limited liability corporations that own Los Alamos National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Pattiz is the chairman and founder of Westwood One, the largest radio network in the country.

He reported that the National Nuclear Security administration was pleased at the “proactive approach of the lab and their communication network” during recent public hearings in New Mexico on the transformation of the nuclear weapons complex. He also passed along compliments from meetings in Washington that “our two lab directors are extremely highly regarded.”

During Pattiz’ report, Garamendi was recognized. Posing a series of 20 or more probing question, Garamendi began by wanting to know who was actually in charge of the partnerships that run the weapons labs.

Pattiz said that the governing boards, one for each lab, were composed of six members, three from the university and one each from the three principal industrial partners.

“In a tie-breaking situation,” he said, the university’s chairmanship, “gives us the ability to prevail.”

So, when there is bad press about lapses of security, Garamendi concluded, “the university will be splattered by the mud, because we are in charge.”

During the ensuing discussion, UC Vice President Robert Foley affirmed that the contract was binding on the university.

“We knew going in that we had given up the right to unilaterally withdraw from the contract,” Foley said.

While the contract might be extended for as many as 20 years or as few as seven, he added, “The university does not have a guaranteed right to withdraw during that time.”

"Garamendi also established from an answer to his questions that certain top managers of the weapons laboratories were employed by the limited liability corporations, but that UC paid their compensation.

Meanwhile, a student group protested a number of university issues during the meeting, including the university’s involvement in making parts for nuclear weapons, according to news reports today.

Pattiz promised to schedule a full discussion on issues related to the laboratories “at the appropriate time.”

Comments

Anonymous said…
Mentally, we consider UC representation within LLNS negligible. It is a token representation that was designed to make the privatization more pallatable. As far as I am concerned, no one on the board is there for the employees (our greatest asset, as every ULM will tell you).
The board is there for LLNS and NNSA.
Anonymous said…
"Garamendi also established from an answer to his questions that certain top managers of the weapons laboratories were employed by the limited liability corporations, but that UC paid their compensation." aka TCP-3.

There it is. In as deep as you can get and evidence of special treatment. I say it time for those who got this special treatment to pay back every dime with interest, their contracts to be terminated as well as their UCRP retirement terminated for fraud and misuse of public / tax payers funds.
Anonymous said…
This was posted over on the LANL Blog...

----

Garamendi called our local SPSE UPTE office and wanted to Know if about the massive layoffs at LLNL where true, are rep informed him that NNSA had given the green Light to dump 1200 people by the end of 08. so far 500 went out the gate january another 700 are to leave by june. are rep also stated that Garamendi is concerned about LLNL's future as a national lab. I am glade some one from the governers office is questioning why the directors are geting uc benifits when the rest of us where dumped out of the system.

UPTE local 11 LLNL Skill crafts

-----

It seems like LLNL employees should be contacting Garamendi Office with their concerns on the death of LLNL and LANS mismanagement/cost of the transition. LLNL, the national lab that UC founded (Not DOE or NNSA) is bleeding to death...

916-445-8994.

http://www.ltg.ca.gov
Anonymous said…
It's a little late for Garamendi to take notice of this, don't you think?

Love the link to Westwood One, just look what megacorps did to the local radio stations.

Anyone notice the story in the news about how defense contractors have managed to electrocute a number of soldiers by using substandard water pumps from China? Another case of money over mission.
Anonymous said…
If the employees are iLLNeSs' greatest asset, why are we having a fire sale?

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

LLNL un-diversity

Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!