University of California official promises better management at LANL
A top University of California official acknowledged Friday that there have been shortcomings at Los Alamos National Laboratory in the past but said the school remains “deeply committed” to the future of the lab as UC bids for LANL’s next management and operations contract.
Kim Budil, the university’s vice president for national labs, said UC, which has been involved in running LANL since 1943, had adapted and improved since an accident caused by LANL shut down the nation’s nuclear waste storage facility near Carlsbad in 2014.
https://www.abqjournal.com/1119078/university-of-california-official-promises-better-management-at-lanl.html
23 comments:
The Santa Fe Mayor is ridiculous "He also said it appeared that the university had been “passive” on addressing issues such as poverty, air quality and drug addiction in northern New Mexico."
How on earth is this UC's job? Maybe Santa Fe should try addressing poverty and drug addition in Northern New Mexico.
“Donating money to a foundation and feeling like that might be the end of the obligation is not necessarily what I consider (being) a good corporate citizen,” Gonzales said."
In other words we want more free money. Just shameless and sad. I urge DOE not to be influenced by New Mexico or Santa Fe, LANL serves the nation it does no just serves Northern New Mexico, in no way should the mission be compromised just to add more free money to a region that is already served by the lab through the creations of thousand of jobs that otherwise would never be in New Mexico.
"The idea was to bring the strengths of the university together with best practices from the private sector. “Some aspects worked exceptionally well” but others didn’t, she said, with the WIPP contamination “highlighting” shortcomings in how the partnership was built."
In other words teaming up with Bechtel was a very bad idea. Things worked before the contract change than things fell apart. Hmmm...maybe the whole thing was a horrible idea in the first place. How is that UC could run the lab well for 60 years and than suddenly we need to make it for profit and bring sleazy industrial partners who only see the thing as a cash grab rather than a service to the nation. Well done.
“People with deep expertise of the chemistry of nuclear waste weren’t necessarily deeply embedded” in the operational side of the lab. “It’s not operations and science,” Budil said. “Those things have to come together in a very seamless way.”
After the contract change the fraction of workforce with Phds went from 35% to 19%, what could have gone wrong with that? I thought Bechtel was suppose to run and make money of WIPP. Hell maybe science matters?
"Budil said the lab had responded vigorously since 2014 and made lab operations much better,"
Maybe Bechtel was stood down and UC was allowed to have some say again and turn things around.
" The school also knows it “must play a significant role in the community that is its home,” Rogers said."
Why should it do that, what benefit is that for DOE, NNS and that nation?
" Budil as well as representatives of Texas A&M University and the University of Texas – also bidders for the lab contract – spoke at a meeting of the Regional Coalition of LANL Communities at the Ohkay Owingeh Casino Resort Hotel north of Española... UC is reportedly teaming with Texas A&M in a joint bid for the lab contract, although neither school has publicly confirmed the partnership."
This is so bizarre, UC and Texas A&M going to the same public meeting but still refusing to acknowledge that they are partners on the bid. Still can't figure out what's up with this strange behavior. If Texas wants to be a "silent partner" then don't go to public meetings at all.
I'm being to wonder if Texas A&M has in fact teamed with both UC and Univ of Texas at the same time on two separate bid teams.
Things most certainly DID NOT work before the contract change and UC DID NOT run the lab well for 60 years. That's why UC lost the contract.
One word should jog your memory. Nanos. Nanos, a UC appointee like every single other LANL Director, was actively destroying the Lab before the contract change. Nothing more needs to be said.
Bechtel wasn't stood down in 2014, UC was always in charge of LANS. How do we know? The President of LANS is the Director of LANL. The Director, by contract, is a UC position. 10 of the 11 top managers at LANL are UC. You can look it up.
UC was also in charge of the WIPP support at LANL. Do you know how we know? It's because the Director (a UC person) is the person who is ultimately in charge of everything at LANL. It's in the contract. You can look it up.
February 13, 2018 at 8:12 AM
We have gone over this before and you are wrong on every count. We get it you hate UC, why, well that is between you and your
therapist. Good luck with that.
February 13, 2018 at 8:12 AM
You know the more you go on about UC the more likely they will win the next bid. Just saying.
February 13, 2018 at 8:12 AM
You don't "know" because you weren't, and aren't, there. Your "paper" proof is just that, not reality.
You're a funny guy. We're all laughing at your "rebuttal".
"Things most certainly DID NOT work before the contract change and UC DID NOT run the lab well for 60 years. That's why UC lost the contract."
Yes they did.
"One word should jog your memory. Nanos. Nanos, a UC appointee like every single other LANL Director, was actively destroying the Lab before the contract change. Nothing more needs to be said."
Nanos was not a UC pick, DOE forced this on them. Think about why on earth would UC pick Nanos.
If you had been around at the time you would know that everyone said DOE said pick this guy or
you are out.
"Bechtel wasn't stood down in 2014, UC was always in charge of LANS. How do we know? The President of LANS is the Director of LANL. The Director, by contract, is a UC position. 10 of the 11 top managers at LANL are UC. You can look it up."
Bechtel knew the contract was lost in after WIPP and the essentially left thus allowing for
UC to start making decisions again. At this point DOE knew they really messed up.
"UC was also in charge of the WIPP support at LANL. Do you know how we know? It's because the Director (a UC person) is the person who is ultimately in charge of everything at LANL. It's in the contract. You can look it up."
Sorry but Bechtel was all over WIPP in fact that they wanted to let long term contracts for this and they knew this was where the big money was.
UC not only appointed Nanos, UC defended him for almost two years. They continued to defend him well after the staff wrote a joint letter asking for his removal. Why did UC pick Nanos? Because they had to act tough after Browne's financial mismanagement scandal.
UC was in charge of LANS before 2014 and after 2014. UC has always been in charge. How does everyone know? The Director is in charge. The Director is UC and always has been. Bechtel did not give up in 2014, Bechtel sent the C-team right out of the gate in 2006. The head Bechtel guy, John Mitchell, was fired by UC in his first year.
"UC not only appointed Nanos, UC defended him for almost two years. They continued to defend him well after the staff wrote a joint letter asking for his removal. Why did UC pick Nanos? Because they had to act tough after Browne's financial mismanagement scandal."
You are starting to see a bit of light, not much just a little. "Because they had to act tough after Browne" that is they key, think about about what you said very carefully..."they had to"...."they had to". In other words they had no choice, think about it. Wow some things are starting to get through. Praise the higher powers and lets keep this up. Before you know it you will even agree the earth is a actually a globe.
"UC was in charge of LANS before 2014 and after 2014. UC has always been in charge. How does everyone know? The Director is in charge"
Fine, you could be correct but I will ask this question again, how is it that the vast majority of people at LANL think Bechtel is in charge. It may be possible that the vast majority are wrong, do not understand the situation and so on but why is it that they believe this? You never address this. How is that so many people could be so wrong about LANL since 2006?
9:24 PM
1) Sounds like you agree that Browne was removed over financial scandals. Else why would UC have to act tough and appoint Nanos? Why did UC defend Nanos well after everyone who worked for him at LANL realized that he was unfit?
2) The answer to your question why "the vast majority of people at LANL think Bechtel is in charge" is they don't. In fact, you are the only person I've ever heard who thinks that. Everyone else has figured out if the Director is UC, and the Director is the President of LANS, and almost every single upper manager is UC, and UC fired the two top Bechtel managers, and the contract puts UC in charge, then UC is in charge.
I have been working at LANL since 1981. I know of one Bechtel employee since LANS took over in 2006. That employee was Jerry Etheridge. I don't know what Bechtel has been doing at LANL since 2006 but I know from personal experience that they have had nothing to do with the weapons program.
"1) Sounds like you agree that Browne was removed over financial scandals. Else why would UC have to act tough and appoint Nanos? Why did UC defend Nanos well after everyone who worked for him at LANL realized that he was unfit?"
We are sliding back again, and I was so hopeful. Browne was removed because of WHL. "UC had to act tough" ok you kinda get the point, DOE forced them to hire Nanos. It was in fact DOE that had to act tough they acted tough on UC, as in you have to do this or else. From what everyone was saying was the UC wanted to get rid of Nanos right after the scandal but DOE said no way, Nanos is our guy.
"2) The answer to your question why "the vast majority of people at LANL think Bechtel is in charge" is they don't. In fact, you are the only person I've ever heard who thinks that. "
Sorry, but this just lacks any credibility to anyone who works at LANL or has in recent times. The vast majority of people do feel that Bechtel is in charge and you seem to be the only person who thinks they are not. All you have to do is read old LLNL and LANL blog posts for the hundreds going into thousands of posts going on about this. Many people even used their names, heck the very first LANL blog the moderator stated this exact opinion. Not to mention the large number of people I know personally who also feel this way. When you say you never heard of anyone who thinks Bechtel is not charge it can only means a few things (1) you just being dishonest. (2) You really don't know anyone from LANL or just a small number of fellow bitter ex-employees as they tend to all know each other. If it is (2) you should just come clean and admit that you have very little interaction with people at LANL so you simply do not know what people working at LANL think.
So my questions still stands why "do the vast majority of people at LANL think Bechtel is in charge".
You also seem a bit confused by all the upper managers being "UC" when in fact that are LANS managers, they are loyal to LANS not UC. Their bonuses come from LANS not UC, which company keeps the profit...Bechtel. LANS is for profit and the one that keeps the profit rules. You also seem to forget that Bechtel does what to does best which is leverage profit by all sorts of sleazy tactics and better believe they have all sorts of pull behind the scenes. This all explained in detail in a great book on Bechtel that you should read, "The Profiteers" by Sally Denton. You never address he question how UC can run LANL and LLNL excellently for 60 years during the cold war no less and yet everything went to hell so fast. You are correct that issues started arising at LANL before the contract change but these had been hyped up charges in order to push for the for profit privatization model that was sweeping the nation. We have gone over this before, no culture of theft, no stolen mustangs, WHL was never even charged with spying, the disks never existed and so on. It was all nonsense made up to privatize LANL and LLNL for money. Just ask yourself, why was LLNL also privatized if it was all about UC not managing LANL well? Because it had NOTHING to do with UC and it had everything to do with making money for private companies that saw their chance to get claws into the labs. Do not underestimate the power that these companies have in terms of lobbying and placing people in DC, they wanted the labs and they got the labs. They wanted a war with Iraq and they got a war with Iraq, they want a giant DHS and so on they get that. Money makes the world go round. Now the role of LANL, LLNL and to some extent Sandia is generate profit and not to serve the nation. Unfortunately this attitude may very well have comprised our deterrent.
To long, to crazy did not read. Besides how do you know Bechtel does lobbying or places people in DC.
about 150 Bechtel people at LANL, total. 1 Deputy Lab director, 1 PAD, 1 AD, 5 or 6 DLs. The rest are lower level managers and mostly professionals on CMRR project.
It is a total insult to the other 8000-10000 LANL employees including hundreds (maybe over 1000) managers including 1 Lab Director, 4 PADs, numerous ADs and DLs that they are so weak that they can be led around by 150 people including 8 managers.
This theory of Bechtel dominance is very weak.
This theory of Bechtel dominance is very weak.
February 17, 2018 at 2:13 PM
I see your point but I think you may not understand just how Bechtel could dominate. It is not with its own people, what it actually does is "buy" the other people. Think about it, how much money do the Director, PADS, ADs and so on get? A whole lot of money under LANS and it is in their interests to make sure LANS keeps going no matter what the cost to the nation. Some reports are that the salaries tripled or quadrupled under LANS once you factor in bonus money and so on, not mention the addition of many new positions. The director used to make what 400k before LANS now it is close to 2 million and it figures that the other mangers have a similar boost. There is only one reason that money would increase this much and that is for influence, many of the PADS and ADs know what they doing is wrong but the money is just too good so the are going to tow the line no matter what. You might think that this would bite into the profit that Bechtel keeps, but you have to remember that Bechtel "leverages" money as well, they do this in every operation they have. Some folks have even mentioned that UC at some point was trying get out of LANS a few years ago, if that is true it is telling you something about who is really controlling LANS.
This theory of Bechtel dominance is very weak.
February 17, 2018 at 2:13 PM
It's only a theory to those who don't see it every day.
"Think about it, how much money do the Director, PADS, ADs and so on get? A whole lot of money under LANS..."
February 17, 2018 at 4:14 PM
I agree with this but unless Bechtel owns the UC board of regents, this theory does not hold. The LANS board is dominated, in numbers, by UC. (3 UC, 2 Bechtel, and 1 BWXT) So at best Bechtel can co-opt the BWXT vote and get a tie.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's only a theory to those who don't see it every day."
February 17, 2018 at 4:21 PM
I work here and do not see it every day. Bechtel does not have a presence in the weapons program at all and the weapons program is the majority of LANL ($$$). I bet they don't have a presence in the science programs either. From what I can tell, they are only or mostly in PADCAP (Capital Projects). I think you can make an argument for culture change or mission focus based on the profit motive but Bechtel is not in control and if UC wanted to "change" the driver of the LANS board, they could push to at least a stalemate/tie (see comment on board number above). The truth is all of the managers (UC and Bechtel) like profit and so does the State of NM as demonstrated in their current actions.
Take care.
Who are these disciples of Bechtel?
Terry Wallace (I think not, not a fan of Bechtel)
NJ (also not a fan)
Alan Bishop (I think he is indifferent at best)
Craig Leasure (please, and he's out of the inner circle now that Charlie is gone)
Bob Webster (also indifferent)
Larry Simmons (only Bechtel PAD)
or is it Scott Gibbs?
The Bechtel dominance argument is weak. The better argument is the poison of profit that was let in when the contract was bid. It may have started with the industry partners (Bechtel, BWXT, AECOM) but it is ingrained in the UC management now. Terry Wallace is as close to a lifer in Los Alamos as you can get. Grew up in it. Did Terry Wallace take a voluntary pay-cut when he became the director or did he expect the same money as Charlie got from the LANS board of directors?
I want to believe that things can change but I think this is a done deal if the management stays the same (PADs, ADs, DLs) under another UC lead team.
"The Bechtel dominance argument is weak. The better argument is the poison of profit that was let in when the contract was bid. It may have started with the industry partners (Bechtel, BWXT, AECOM) but it is ingrained in the UC management now. Terry Wallace is as close to a lifer in Los Alamos as you can get. Grew up in it. Did Terry Wallace take a voluntary pay-cut when he became the director or did he expect the same money as Charlie got from the LANS board of directors?"
I tend to think it is very close to what you are saying. That is the for profit approach poisoned the management. However since the industrial partners are after profit this poisoning is naturally good for them and worked in their favor. UC should have stepped in and put caps on salaries and got rid of the bonus systems but I am sure they would have had huge pushback from everybody LANL including the UC appointed managers.
"I want to believe that things can change but I think this is a done deal if the management stays the same (PADs, ADs, DLs) under another UC lead team."
Very good and scary point. One could argue that if the UC team is not for profit that many of the issue with poisoning would go away, however since it is essentially the same team as before you are dealing with people who already had a taste of the poison and did really well with it, so why would the change their approach to management, in other words why would things change at all.
By the way I have heard some of the most far out wacky explanations that would put the best French postmodernists to shame about how LANS is good by some of the people you put on that list. Stuff like good and bad have no meaning there are only worldviews, the world is changing, we can never go back because the world is very different now, perception is everything so you cannot trust your eyes, eyesight is something used in the old world but the world has changed, everything is a sum of differing world-views that cannot be evaluated by any one person or even groups of people because the lab is now in a different world. You cannot know anything so how could one evaluate LANS unless you are LANS and even than it is unclear because the world has changed so we cannot be judged by standards of the previous world and the new world is always changing so judgement is no longer possible or desirable so one must create ones own judgment and that judgment is LANS is good. Did you see my new Bugatti it is also good, so LANS is just like a Bugatti and everyone would love have a Bugatti, so we must conclude that LANS has been good.
Ok the last part I made up but the rest is not far off from what they will actually say when pressed about how they feel LANS has done.
February 18, 2018 at 10:39 PM
Your absolute Batcrap craziness really gets old with the "perception is everything" garbage. There are facts, and facts matter. If they don't to you, fine, you deserve what you get for ignoring facts. You seem to be saying "no one can know anything." That's a covenient excuse for why YOU don't know anything, really gets you off the hook, huh? "I percieve, therefore I am." No actual thought required. Curious for someone who claims to be associated with a research and development laboratory.
February 18, 2018 at 10:39 PM
Agree in whole. I would only add "one of us, one of us" to explain the behavior. Non-profit does not change the manager profit motive (his or her own profit). Again, who is going to be the one to stand up for the pay-cuts?
Scary indeed. Great leadership needed and none in sight.
"Your absolute Batcrap craziness really gets old with the "perception is everything" garbage. "
Just to clarify I am not saying perception is everything, I am simply repeating what has actually been said by certain high level managers. I agree that it is a convenient excuse to justify themselves or just deflect any series question by blathering some nonsense to confuse people.
Post a Comment