This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA.
The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore,
The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them.
Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted.
Blog author serves as a moderator.
For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
Thursday, July 27, 2017
Los Alamos County Unhappy With Draft LANL M&O Contract
So all the county cares about is more money for themselves? Is this what it is all about? One of the goals of the next contract was to go toward a more service oriented model rather than a for profit model. Also what has all that extra tax money really done for the county? Could someone show me some great improvement to the town since 2006.
Well, let's see...the County put in new water meters at the curb, and made the homeowners responsible for the water lines that run from the meters as much as 100 ft to the building. That's an accomplishment, right? Oh, and they built a Taj Mahal of a new county building that is the second-largest building in the county, after Smith's. Plus, they completely redesigned and rebuilt Central Avenue so that it looks exactly like...the old Central Avenue. All wonderful improvements.
The county has so far rejected the idiot Sheriff from getting expensive, unnecessary toys for him and his play buddies. The painted logo is embarrassing though. As is the continued "tag line" nonsense.
Northern New Mexico is a tough enough place to live and it's already hard to compete for talent. Who would want to work or live in a dumpy, lifeless old town? I have no problem with the county trying to make itself more livable and the dominant employer should play a role.
Los Alamos County is far from "trying to make itself more livable." The influential cadre of retirees wants nothing to do with "livable," just free transportation and a good medical center. The county continues to lose retailers and service providers, and the restaurants are low class and low expectations, most open only for lunch to tap the LANL employee crowd, who mostly live off the hill. One grocery store, no place to buy an appliance, a TV, a washing machine, or a car (except for the Lemon Lot). Places for relatives to stay when in town are an embarrassing joke. The concentration of unimproved, unmaintained 1950's barracks rental housing in the Western Area and North Community is like a ghetto. Dead cars, high weeds, construction debris, and uncleaned dog poop everywhere. Half of the population of Los Alamos can't afford to live in Los Alamos, or simply is too uncouth and classless (even with a PhD) to live respectably.
I have no problem with the county trying to make itself more livable and the dominant employer should play a role.
July 28, 2017 at 12:51 PM
Look, if the money brought in real improvements I might be fine with the whole thing but near as I can tell the money has gone into improving the lives of county officials by getting themselves bigger offices, better pay, more perks and God knows what else. I just don't see any changeI s to the town that have been since 2006 that have really been of benefit to town. If someone can make a counter point I am willing to listen.
Not really an improvement, but the county does like to tear up major roads once per year. I suspect it's really just a works program for somebody's cousin. The alternative explanation is that the road crews do shoddy work that requires annual overhaul, and the county has no clue how to manage anything, including its bloated budget.
... and the county has no clue how to manage anything, including its bloated budget.
July 29, 2017 at 5:23 AM
Well, that's because most county councilors are labbies or ex-labbies, who have a lot of experience mismanaging bloated DOE budgets. Working at the lab is excellent training for this.
We had PEEC before 2006, the building was not as nice but the outings and activities which are really the best part are the same. I am not sure that it was worth the cost.
Sure, but was it worth the 60 million or so for the last 10 years? I think the county will do just fine if they had less than half the money they usually get from the taxes from the lab. Also if they spent the money in a more sensible way it might help. Sure PEEC is nice and serves the county but does the Taj Mahal or ugly statues really add much?
7:09 AM should have done 5 minutes of research before posting his fake anti-LANL screed. The truth is that most Los Alamos council members did not work for LANL before being elected. Only 3 of the 7 did, the others are real estate developers, landscape developers, and a senior executive with the Washington Post.
In the LANS era (2006-2017) the improvements listed below were made in Los Alamos. Most of these projects would not have possible without the Gross Receipts Tax paid by LANS to the county. There is no doubt these projects improved the quality of life in Los Alamos and made the county more attractive to new employees. In view of the shear number and breadth of projects, I trust that the county effectively utilized the GRT tax windfall.
Los Alamos High School, new building and major renovation Los Alamos Middle School, new building and major renovation Aspen Elementary School, major renovation Barranca Elementary School, upcoming major renovation Municipal Building Justice center complex (police & court house) PEEC environmental center Atomic City Transit (free bus service) White Rock library Los Alamos Teen Center, major renovation Ashley pond renovation Bandstand at Ashley pond Golf course clubhouse White Rock senior center Historical Society Museum Fuller lodge renovation New Mexico consortium and labs Rim trail Demonstration garden
In addition, during the LANS era, many churches in Los Alamos have undergone multi-million dollar major renovations. LANS matched employee donations to these religious institutions, and that probably played a major role in financing these renovations.
Whatever one thinks of LANS and the for profit management model, it is apparent that the corporate model has been very good for the community and residents of Los Alamos.
Whatever one thinks of LANS and the for profit management model, it is apparent that the corporate model has been very good for the community and residents of Los Alamos.
July 29, 2017 at 2:47 PM
This is one of the most profoundly short sighted statements I have ever see and is absolutely disgraceful. It is literally living off blood money. Again I ask one thing of value that the for profit model has done for LANL.
As for your list you would have to say exactly how much of this would have been done without the tax money from the lab. I would estimate that would be about 50% of the funds. Many of these things are not needed and it is not clear that they have added any actual value to the county seeing as how the town functioned just fine before having a demonstration garden. Many of these things really don't add all that much for the county are underutilized and even wasteful. Although you have given a nice list I would say that quality seems about the same as before 2006 and I am not alone in this.
You also fail to take into account the hidden costs that the for profit model. You mention the benefit to the residents however I lived in the town before 2006 and after 2006 and if anything the people that work at LANL and who are also residents of town on the whole are far more stressed and have far less pride in working working at the lab which is a reduction in the quality of life for a sizable number of the residents. In gernal the people feel that LANS does not care about the lab or the people that work at the lab and see them as simply a liability for "PROFIT". This in turn effects how much they may be willing to donate or contribute to the community. You may think this assessment of the feeling of the workforce about LANS is overblown, however I challenge you to find LANL people who actually disagree with this assessment.
Have you ever considered the cost to the nation just to get a "Golf course clubhouse". I suppose if Iran said it would run the lab but give the county twice the taxes that they are currently getting than you would be very happy with that, after all it would very good for the community and the residents of Los Alamos. If you really cared about Los Alamos and the future of Los Alamos than you might want to reconsider you point about keeping something for profit just because you think it will bring in some more short term money as the cost of this in the long run are much higher than you might think.
1.0 Hiring the best possible contractor (superior technical and management skills) rather the an award for lowest evaluated cost/price should be NNSA priority.
and
8.0 The contractor should be a for-profit operator.
The issue at hand is that the best possible contractor to run a scientific laboratory seems more probable to come from a non-profit operator so 1 and 8 may well be at odds with one another. The last for-profit operator of LANL has not been very successful and LLNL had a series of issues including a large layoff due to the for-profit model. At the same time Lawrence Berkley Lab, PNNL, NIST, ANL, and ORNL have been run much more successfully in a non-profit manner. Since a scientific lab should not be profit generating operation it would seem that a service model will work better and this is in agreement with with the past performances of non-profit versus for profit labs. The University of California successfully ran LLNL and LANL for 70 years or more as a non-profit. The past results indicate that changing this to a for-profit model has failed. Additionally DOE may be intersted in a for profit model due to superior results rather than being motivated in simply "avoid paying taxes" to the county and state.
Another point that the county claims is that without the taxes the county could not serve the laboratory as well. Again we must look to the past to see that for 70 years before the contract change the town seemed to serve the county in a proper capacity. Also the county does not provide any evidence that the current taxes have been used to enhance service to the lab. The county argues that the taxes have been used to improve the town which makes the town more attractive to people coming to work for LANL. This is a consideration but a far more relevant consideration for DOE is to have a highly functioning laboratory which will a much more important consideration for people wanting to work at LANL.
Point 7, of the county is that the RFP should require a plan to attracting and retaining world class talent and next generation workforce.
Under the for-profit model the lab lost a significant amount of talent and in the current has a very difficult time attracting world class talent. This is directly related to the for-profit model.
The county also request that if the system goes to a non-profit model than "payment must be made to county to make up for this". Before such payments should be made some evidence should be provides that the tax money has been spent wisely and usefully for the amount that has been given. Many would contend that money spent was done so in best fashion and again the town did very well for previous 70 years.
I'd love to respond in detail to your post, but the numerous misspellings, grammar errors, and just plain errors in context make your post almost impossible to read. If you want to be taken seriously, try to be more careful abut what you post. As it is, I can't take the time to unravel your hashed up post. I might even support you if I could figure out what you are trying to say.
"If you want to be taken seriously, try to be more careful abut what you post. "
Oh the irony here is so rich!
Incidentally, I found the comment by 6:04 PM perfectly comprehensible and the points made therein interesting and pertinent. But I recognize that the audience of this blog is diverse insofar as reading comprehension abilities are concerned.
That is an ad hominem attack. The grammar is not up to par however the points are clear. If you are so confident in your stance than please try and reply to these points.
Saying "da sky be blue" is not grammatically correct either however you know exactly what it means and I think you understand perfectly well the points made by 7:10 PM and 3.34 PM but you simply refuse to address them.
Concerning the impact of non-profit/for profit on recruitment.
When the University of California run LANL, that was a major selling point made to recruits: "you will be employed by the University of California, the number one public University in the world." The people who recruited me kept stressing this point when I was hired at Los Alamos in the 1990s.
Now, when scientists are recruited to work at LANL, the fact they will be employed by LANS, a company co-owned by Bechtel, is most certainly not a plus. That's not something LANL recruiters mention to them often or with enthusiasm.
The argument made by the county that a for profit entity is needed to attract talented technical workforce is not credible at all.
Scooby, The nutcase is filling your blog with reams of random neuron firings. He is making scanning for intelligent contributions much too painful. Either limit the number of words per post AND the number of posts per day or just outright ban the nut.
Scooby, The nutcase is filling your blog with reams of random neuron firings. He is making scanning for intelligent contributions much too painful. Either limit the number of words per post AND the number of posts per day or just outright ban the nut.
July 29, 2017 at 10:19 PM
Since the nutcase is so mentally feeble than you should easily be able refute the points that have been raised. Instead you offer insults and simply want to poster to disappear.
You rarely make a point. Instead, you foist your one-track-minded opinion without any valid information to support it. You just blather.
Give it a rest until you learn to write. Actually read what you write before you post it. Read your last post, in two sentences you have made two grade-school level errors.
The post on July 29, 2017 at 6:04 PM has a series of clear points. Again it should be straightforward for you to refute these if they are just blather.
It most certainly does not have CLEAR points. I tried to read it, I really did, but your writing is for shit.
Read what you wrote here
"Additionally DOE may be intersted in a for profit model due to superior results rather than being motivated in simply "avoid paying taxes" to the county and state."
Spelling errors, wrong words, logic error, grammer errors, and speculation.
This is just the first example. The rest of it is just as bad or worse. Do you really expect us to divine what you meant?
UC is the managing partner for LANS LLC. This is demonstrated by the FACT that the Chairman is UC. Addtionally demonstrated by the FACT that they have 3 board members while Bechtel has 2 and BWXT has 1.
Did you mean the following? "Additionally, DOE may be interested in a for-profit model due to their expectation of superior results rather than being motivated to adopt a nonprofit model just to avoid paying taxes to the county and state."
If that's what you meant, it's still just blather. Even if you could spell and use proper grammar, you still have no content as you don't support your "point" with any facts or logic.
"Additionally DOE may be intersted in a for profit model due to superior results rather than being motivated in simply "avoid paying taxes" to the county and state."
Here is some information. http://www.independentnews.com/news/lab-decline-is-reflected-in-discussion-of-lower-fees/article_ca4c02fe-c0f1-11e3-965d-001a4bcf887a.html
Basically it means that DOE has feels that the for-profit model has not worked well for the labs so the motive to make LANL a non-profit is not about avoiding paying taxes to the county and the state but about improving the performances of the lab. Clear enough.
"By the way, we all know that you pose as other posters in a feckless attempt to defend your garbage writing."
Nope. By the way for all we know you are the only one who seems to think the posts are just blather.
"It most certainly does not have CLEAR points. I tried to read it, I really did, but your writing is for shit."
Gotta call BS on this, the points are clear but you simply refuse to address.
"has feels?" You wrote that in a post that tries to defend your writing? HA HA. Your writing is truly for shit.
Did you actually read your original post again? Are you unable to see how awful your writing is?
Read my post at 5:54 again. Do you see how it conveys thoughts much more clearly through the proper use of English?
Dude, you NEED to take a remedial writing course. Unless you improve your writing, you are simply wasting your time here (and everyone else's too). Besides, taking a course would engage your mind in something productive.
1.0 Hiring the best possible contractor (superior technical and management skills) rather the an award for lowest evaluated cost/price should be NNSA priority.
and
8.0 The contractor should be a for-profit operator.
In several online publications DOE has stated that they feel the for-profit model has not worked very well for LANL and LLNL. Thus a service oriented contractor may work better. Their motive for lowering the fee and going to non-profit is not related to saving money but for getting a contractor that is more service oriented rather than profit oriented.
Having a non-profit and a better functioning laboratory will be a stronger incentive to attract a world-class workforce than having a demonstration garden. A better functioning laboratory will increase the quality of life for a large fraction of the people who live in LANL much more than a club house at the golf course.
About half of the improvements to the town listed by a previous poster would have been done anyway, particularity the less expensive ones that actually have added value to the town.
It is not clear that the extra money going to the town has been spent wisely or in the most efficient manner.
The county does not need the extra money as demonstrated by the fact that the town of Los Alamos functioned fairly well before 2006.
Ok short enough now. I am sure you will again just say the grammar is so bad you cannot respond. You could also say I am probably catholic which also means my points are invalid.
Now for a rant which do not need to read.
From 1944-2006 the county did not receive extra taxes from a corporate run version of the lab. The town did fine during this time. In 2006 the town suddenly got "unearned" money out of nowhere with the change to the corporate model. The corporate model was clearly a mistake and now may be corrected. The county should just be happy that it got 12 years of free money that it should have never had in the first place. Now these same people have the gall to say that if it does go to a non-profit model they should still get a payment. It is clear that to them it is all about money rather than what might actually be best for LANL and what is better for workers at LANL who also live in the town. The most expensive things that the money has been spent on are these gigantic new buildings (Taj Mahal) these improve size of offices for the county workers but in reality have not improved any services for the people in the county. Everyone I know just snickers at these buildings and says that they are just a complete waste of money. If someone who does not work at the county wants to come to the blog to defend these monstrosities than please do so. The town has already built this stuff what more are they going to do with the continuing payments? What type of crap are we going to get next, private plans for the consul members?
Get with the program here, the school budget has nothing to do with the fact that the county was forced to create inventive ways to waste the windfall of the NMGRT. If you own your own home, look at the tax bill to understand that the school district is a separate budget category from the county. While both are bloated and exist on an artificially inflated budget, the county is who has the lane for spending the GRT.
37 comments:
So all the county cares about is more money for themselves? Is this what it is all about? One of the goals of the next contract was to go toward a more service oriented model rather than a for profit model. Also what has all that extra tax money really done for the county? Could someone show me some great improvement to the town since 2006.
Well, let's see...the County put in new water meters at the curb, and made the homeowners responsible for the water lines that run from the meters as much as 100 ft to the building. That's an accomplishment, right? Oh, and they built a Taj Mahal of a new county building that is the second-largest building in the county, after Smith's. Plus, they completely redesigned and rebuilt Central Avenue so that it looks exactly like...the old Central Avenue. All wonderful improvements.
Don't forget the stupid logo painted into the road just outside of the Taj Mahal.
Let them starve.
There goes the county slush fund.
The county has so far rejected the idiot Sheriff from getting expensive, unnecessary toys for him and his play buddies. The painted logo is embarrassing though. As is the continued "tag line" nonsense.
Northern New Mexico is a tough enough place to live and it's already hard to compete for talent. Who would want to work or live in a dumpy, lifeless old town? I have no problem with the county trying to make itself more livable and the dominant employer should play a role.
Los Alamos County is far from "trying to make itself more livable." The influential cadre of retirees wants nothing to do with "livable," just free transportation and a good medical center. The county continues to lose retailers and service providers, and the restaurants are low class and low expectations, most open only for lunch to tap the LANL employee crowd, who mostly live off the hill. One grocery store, no place to buy an appliance, a TV, a washing machine, or a car (except for the Lemon Lot). Places for relatives to stay when in town are an embarrassing joke. The concentration of unimproved, unmaintained 1950's barracks rental housing in the Western Area and North Community is like a ghetto. Dead cars, high weeds, construction debris, and uncleaned dog poop everywhere. Half of the population of Los Alamos can't afford to live in Los Alamos, or simply is too uncouth and classless (even with a PhD) to live respectably.
I have no problem with the county trying to make itself more livable and the dominant employer should play a role.
July 28, 2017 at 12:51 PM
Look, if the money brought in real improvements I might be fine with the whole thing but near as I can tell the money has gone into improving the lives of county officials by getting themselves bigger offices, better pay, more perks and God knows what else. I just don't see any changeI s to the town that have been since 2006 that have really been of benefit to town. If someone can make a counter point I am willing to listen.
Well, PEEC is certainly a welcome improvement.
Not really an improvement, but the county does like to tear up major roads once per year. I suspect it's really just a works program for somebody's cousin. The alternative explanation is that the road crews do shoddy work that requires annual overhaul, and the county has no clue how to manage anything, including its bloated budget.
... and the county has no clue how to manage anything, including its bloated budget.
July 29, 2017 at 5:23 AM
Well, that's because most county councilors are labbies or ex-labbies, who have a lot of experience mismanaging bloated DOE budgets. Working at the lab is excellent training for this.
Well, PEEC is certainly a welcome improvement.
We had PEEC before 2006, the building was not as nice but the outings and activities which are really the best part are the same. I am not sure that it was worth the cost.
The new improved PEEC is wonderful.
The new improved PEEC is wonderful.
July 29, 2017 at 8:11 AM
Sure, but was it worth the 60 million or so for the last 10 years? I think the county will do just fine if they had less than half the money they usually get from the taxes from the lab. Also if they spent the money in a more sensible way it might help. Sure PEEC is nice and serves the county but does the Taj Mahal or ugly statues really add much?
7:09 AM should have done 5 minutes of research before posting his fake anti-LANL screed. The truth is that
most Los Alamos council members did not work for LANL before being elected. Only 3 of the 7 did, the others are real estate developers, landscape developers, and a senior executive with the Washington Post.
Accuracy matters.
In the LANS era (2006-2017) the improvements listed below were made in Los Alamos. Most of these projects would not have possible without the Gross Receipts Tax paid by LANS to the county. There is no doubt these projects improved the quality of life in Los Alamos and made the county more attractive to new employees. In view of the shear number and breadth of projects, I trust that the county effectively utilized the GRT tax windfall.
Los Alamos High School, new building and major renovation
Los Alamos Middle School, new building and major renovation
Aspen Elementary School, major renovation
Barranca Elementary School, upcoming major renovation
Municipal Building
Justice center complex (police & court house)
PEEC environmental center
Atomic City Transit (free bus service)
White Rock library
Los Alamos Teen Center, major renovation
Ashley pond renovation
Bandstand at Ashley pond
Golf course clubhouse
White Rock senior center
Historical Society Museum
Fuller lodge renovation
New Mexico consortium and labs
Rim trail
Demonstration garden
In addition, during the LANS era, many churches in Los Alamos have undergone multi-million dollar major renovations. LANS matched employee donations to these religious institutions, and that probably played a major role in financing these renovations.
Whatever one thinks of LANS and the for profit management model, it is apparent that the corporate model has been very good for the community and residents of Los Alamos.
Whatever one thinks of LANS and the for profit management model, it is apparent that the corporate model has been very good for the community and residents of Los Alamos.
July 29, 2017 at 2:47 PM
This is one of the most profoundly short sighted statements I have ever see and is absolutely disgraceful. It is literally living off blood money. Again I ask one thing of value that the
for profit model has done for LANL.
As for your list you would have to say exactly how much of this would have been done without the tax money from the lab. I would estimate that would be about 50% of the funds. Many of these things are not needed and it is not clear that they have added any actual value to the county seeing as how the town functioned just fine before having a demonstration garden. Many of these things really don't add all that much for the county are underutilized and even wasteful. Although you have given a nice list I would say that quality seems about the same as before 2006 and I am not alone in this.
You also fail to take into account the hidden costs that the for profit model. You mention the benefit to the residents however I lived in the town before 2006 and after 2006 and if anything the people that work at LANL and who are also residents of town on the whole are far more stressed and have far less pride in working working at the lab which is a reduction in the quality of life for a sizable number of the residents. In gernal the people feel that LANS does not care about the lab or the people that work at the lab and see them as simply a liability for "PROFIT". This in turn effects how much they may be willing to donate or contribute to the community. You may think this assessment of the feeling of the workforce about LANS is overblown, however I challenge you to find LANL people who actually disagree with this assessment.
Have you ever considered the cost to the nation just to get a "Golf course clubhouse". I suppose
if Iran said it would run the lab but give the county twice the taxes that they are currently getting than you would be very happy with that, after all it would very good for the community and the residents of Los Alamos. If you really cared about Los Alamos and the future of Los Alamos than you might want to reconsider you point about keeping something for profit just because you think it will bring in some more short term money as the cost of this in the long run are much higher than you might think.
There seems to be a bit of a contradictions in some of the points raised by the
county.
http://www.ladailypost.com/content/los-alamos-county-submits-comments-nnsa-draft-solicitation-lanl-site-management-and
1.0 Hiring the best possible contractor (superior technical and management skills)
rather the an award for lowest evaluated cost/price should be NNSA priority.
and
8.0 The contractor should be a for-profit operator.
The issue at hand is that the best possible contractor to run a scientific laboratory seems more probable to come from a non-profit operator so 1 and 8
may well be at odds with one another. The last for-profit operator of LANL has not been very successful and LLNL had a series of issues including a large layoff due to the for-profit model. At the same time Lawrence Berkley Lab, PNNL, NIST, ANL, and ORNL have been run much more successfully in a non-profit manner. Since a scientific lab should not be profit generating operation it would seem that a service model will work better and this is in agreement with with the past performances of non-profit versus for profit labs. The University of California successfully ran LLNL and LANL for 70 years or more as a non-profit. The past results indicate that changing this to a for-profit model has failed. Additionally DOE may be intersted in a for profit model due to superior results rather than being motivated in simply "avoid paying taxes" to the county and state.
Another point that the county claims is that without the taxes the county could not serve the laboratory as well. Again we must look to the past to see that for 70 years before the contract change the town seemed to serve the county in a proper capacity. Also the county does not provide any evidence that the current taxes have been used to enhance service to the lab. The county argues that the taxes have been used to improve the town which makes the town more attractive to people coming to work for LANL. This is a consideration but a far more relevant consideration for DOE is to have a highly functioning laboratory which will a much more important consideration for people wanting to work at LANL.
Point 7, of the county is that the RFP should require a plan to attracting and retaining world class talent and next generation workforce.
Under the for-profit model the lab lost a significant amount of talent and in the current has a very difficult time attracting world class talent. This is directly related to the for-profit model.
The county also request that if the system goes to a non-profit model than "payment must be made to county to make up for this". Before such payments should be made some evidence should be provides that the tax money has been spent wisely and usefully for the amount that has been given. Many would contend that money spent was done so in best fashion and again the town did very well for previous 70 years.
July 29, 2017 at 6:04 PM
I'd love to respond in detail to your post, but the numerous misspellings, grammar errors, and just plain errors in context make your post almost impossible to read. If you want to be taken seriously, try to be more careful abut what you post. As it is, I can't take the time to unravel your hashed up post. I might even support you if I could figure out what you are trying to say.
"If you want to be taken seriously, try to be more careful abut what you post. "
Oh the irony here is so rich!
Incidentally, I found the comment by 6:04 PM perfectly comprehensible and the points made therein interesting and pertinent. But I recognize that the audience of this blog is diverse insofar as reading comprehension abilities are concerned.
July 29, 2017 at 7:10 PM
That is an ad hominem attack. The grammar is not up to par however the points are clear. If you are so confident in your stance than please try and reply to these points.
Saying "da sky be blue" is not grammatically correct either however you know exactly what it means and I think you understand perfectly well the points made by 7:10 PM and 3.34 PM but you simply refuse to address them.
Concerning the impact of non-profit/for profit on recruitment.
When the University of California run LANL, that was a major selling point made to recruits: "you will be employed by the University of California, the number one public University in the world." The people who recruited me kept stressing this point when I was hired at Los Alamos in the 1990s.
Now, when scientists are recruited to work at LANL, the fact they will be employed by LANS, a company co-owned by Bechtel, is most certainly not a plus. That's not something LANL recruiters mention to them often or with enthusiasm.
The argument made by the county that a for profit entity is needed to attract talented technical workforce is not credible at all.
Scooby, The nutcase is filling your blog with reams of random neuron firings. He is making scanning for intelligent contributions much too painful. Either limit the number of words per post AND the number of posts per day or just outright ban the nut.
"Either limit the number of words per post AND the number of posts per day or just outright ban the nut."
Be very careful what you wish for.
Scooby, The nutcase is filling your blog with reams of random neuron firings. He is making scanning for intelligent contributions much too painful. Either limit the number of words per post AND the number of posts per day or just outright ban the nut.
July 29, 2017 at 10:19 PM
Since the nutcase is so mentally feeble than you should easily be able refute the points that have been raised. Instead you offer insults and simply want to poster to disappear.
You rarely make a point. Instead, you foist your one-track-minded opinion without any valid information to support it. You just blather.
Give it a rest until you learn to write. Actually read what you write before you post it. Read your last post, in two sentences you have made two grade-school level errors.
The post on July 29, 2017 at 6:04 PM has a series of clear points. Again it should be straightforward for you to refute these if they are just blather.
It most certainly does not have CLEAR points. I tried to read it, I really did, but your writing is for shit.
Read what you wrote here
"Additionally DOE may be intersted in a for profit model due to superior results rather than being motivated in simply "avoid paying taxes" to the county and state."
Spelling errors, wrong words, logic error, grammer errors, and speculation.
This is just the first example. The rest of it is just as bad or worse. Do you really expect us to divine what you meant?
By the way, we all know that you pose as other posters in a feckless attempt to defend your garbage writing.
UC is the managing partner for LANS LLC. This is demonstrated by the FACT that the Chairman is UC. Addtionally demonstrated by the FACT that they have 3 board members while Bechtel has 2 and BWXT has 1.
http://www.lansllc.com/board-of-governors.html
10:30 AM,
Did you mean the following? "Additionally, DOE may be interested in a for-profit model due to their expectation of superior results rather than being motivated to adopt a nonprofit model just to avoid paying taxes to the county and state."
If that's what you meant, it's still just blather. Even if you could spell and use proper grammar, you still have no content as you don't support your "point" with any facts or logic.
"Additionally DOE may be intersted in a for profit model due to superior results rather than being motivated in simply "avoid paying taxes" to the county and state."
Here is some information.
http://www.independentnews.com/news/lab-decline-is-reflected-in-discussion-of-lower-fees/article_ca4c02fe-c0f1-11e3-965d-001a4bcf887a.html
Basically it means that DOE has feels that the for-profit model has not worked well
for the labs so the motive to make LANL a non-profit is not about avoiding paying taxes to the county and the state but about improving the performances of the lab.
Clear enough.
"By the way, we all know that you pose as other posters in a feckless attempt to defend your garbage writing."
Nope. By the way for all we know you are the only one who seems to think the posts are just blather.
"It most certainly does not have CLEAR points. I tried to read it, I really did, but your writing is for shit."
Gotta call BS on this, the points are clear but you simply refuse to address.
"has feels?" You wrote that in a post that tries to defend your writing? HA HA. Your writing is truly for shit.
Did you actually read your original post again? Are you unable to see how awful your writing is?
Read my post at 5:54 again. Do you see how it conveys thoughts much more clearly through the proper use of English?
Dude, you NEED to take a remedial writing course. Unless you improve your writing, you are simply wasting your time here (and everyone else's too). Besides, taking a course would engage your mind in something productive.
A shorter version that you will not respond to.
http://www.ladailypost.com/content/los-alamos-county-submits-comments-nnsa-draft-solicitation-lanl-site-management-and
1.0 Hiring the best possible contractor (superior technical and management skills)
rather the an award for lowest evaluated cost/price should be NNSA priority.
and
8.0 The contractor should be a for-profit operator.
In several online publications DOE has stated that they feel the for-profit model
has not worked very well for LANL and LLNL. Thus a service oriented contractor may work better. Their motive for lowering the fee and going to non-profit is not related to saving money but for getting a contractor that is more service oriented rather than profit oriented.
Having a non-profit and a better functioning laboratory will be a stronger incentive to attract a world-class workforce than having a demonstration garden. A better functioning laboratory will increase the quality of life for a large fraction of the
people who live in LANL much more than a club house at the golf course.
About half of the improvements to the town listed by a previous poster would have been done anyway, particularity the less expensive ones that actually have added value to the town.
It is not clear that the extra money going to the town has been spent wisely or
in the most efficient manner.
The county does not need the extra money as demonstrated by the fact that the town of Los Alamos functioned fairly well before 2006.
Ok short enough now. I am sure you will again just say the grammar is so bad you cannot respond. You could also say I am probably catholic which also means my points are invalid.
Now for a rant which do not need to read.
From 1944-2006 the county did not receive extra taxes from a corporate run version of the lab. The town did fine during this time. In 2006 the town suddenly got "unearned" money out of nowhere with the change to the corporate model. The corporate model was clearly a mistake and now may be corrected. The county should just be happy that it got 12 years of free money that it should have never had in the first place. Now these same people have the gall to say that if it does go to a non-profit model they should still get a payment. It is clear that to them it is all about money rather than what might actually be best for LANL and what is better for workers at LANL who also live in the town. The most expensive things that the money has been spent on are these gigantic new buildings (Taj Mahal) these improve size of offices for the county workers but in reality have not improved any services for the people in the county. Everyone I know just snickers at these buildings and says that they are just a complete waste of money. If someone who does not work at the county wants to come to the blog to defend these monstrosities than please do so. The town has already built this stuff what more are they going to do with the continuing payments? What type of crap are we going to get next, private plans for the consul members?
To July 29, 2017 at 2:47 PM:
The LA school systems were funded by mil levy bonds voted on by LA county residents, not GRT monies.
To July 29, 2017 at 2:47 PM:
The LA school systems were funded by mil levy bonds voted on by LA county residents, not GRT monies.
July 31, 2017 at 11:14 AM
And, just how much did Los Alamos pay their teachers compared with the rest of the USA?
Get with the program here, the school budget has nothing to do with the fact that the county was forced to create inventive ways to waste the windfall of the NMGRT. If you own your own home, look at the tax bill to understand that the school district is a separate budget category from the county. While both are bloated and exist on an artificially inflated budget, the county is who has the lane for spending the GRT.
Post a Comment