Monday, August 27, 2018
Rocky start
Where is the list of the Triad board members that was promised by a Triad spokesperson to a national news outlet? If they make such statements, they should follow through on them or understand that credibility is lost. Coupled with the botched GRT decision, things look to be off to a rocky start for the new contractor.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Satisfying your curiosity is not their top priority. And the only credibility that matters to them is with NNSA.
"And the only credibility that matters to them is with NNSA."
Doubt it.
Once upon a time, when a journalist received a statement from a public relations spokesperson for an organization that statement had credibility. Triad may not care about this, and could reflect their priorities.
Credibility with the workforce is one top priority of most competent employers. Perhaps Triad just doesn't care about that.
"Credibility with the workforce is one top priority of most competent employers. Perhaps Triad just doesn't care about that."
It must the influence of UC, since they are in charge of Triad and is why they are having a rocky start. Oh wait I claimed that Battelle was in charge. Dang I have a problem, now what?
Must hate UC, must hate UC...does not compute, does not compute...Ahhh!
I was once told not to worry about things that I had no influence over. That turned out to be excellent advice. Since neither you nor I have any influence over the Triad board decisions,the board makeup is probably not worth worrying about.
3:59 is completely wrong, the staff can have influence over the board of directors of LANL's managing contractor. A number of years ago LANL staff sent a petition to the LANS board asking them to fire Nanos. Many dozens of recognizable names signed it. UC had been publically defending Nanos for a year, but after the petition Nanos was subsequently fired. The LANL staff just needs to remember that the Triad Board's address is at Battelle's HQ, NOT at UC.
Credibility has less to do with the specific topic under consideration and much to do with delivering. If Triad wanted to keep the board a secret then their spokesperson should not have told the news outlet that the names would be released. Not so hard to understand for most staff.
3:59 is completely wrong, the staff can have influence over the board of directors of LANL's managing contractor. A number of years ago LANL staff sent a petition to the LANS board asking them to fire Nanos. Many dozens of recognizable names signed it. UC had been publically defending Nanos for a year, but after the petition Nanos was subsequently fired.
August 28, 2018 at 10:19 PM
Fake news, folks, probably from a Russky bot that doesn't know that the LANS board did not exist until years after Nanos was fired.
It is truly amazing that liars like this one are too lazy to check details before they Pinocchio away to the world!
Sorry, I posted that and it was a mistake. The letter went to the UC board of regents. UC was in charge at that miserable time. The rest of my post was correct.
Yeah, anyone with any knowledge whatsoever would know that Nanos was long gone before LANS existed. Pretty blatant.
10:19 PM is the same old UC hater, he once again goes on about how UC backed Nanos, anyone who was around back at the time and knew people in UC know this is total BS. But hey don't let reality get in the way of good delusion.
"Sorry, I posted that and it was a mistake. The letter went to the UC board of regents. UC was in charge at that miserable time. The rest of my post was correct.
August 29, 2018 at 5:34 PM"
Actually false, behind the scenes UC was trying to convince DOE that they need to get rid of Nanos, this is well known by anyone who had direct connections with UC at the time. Also Dynes absolutely detested Nanos from the very beginning. Nanos was a pure DOE creation that told UC you have to hire this guy to kick ass or you are out. No more "science" types leading the lab since the perception created by the media was that scientists are the problem at LANL. You see fake news was around long before Trump.
Now the question is if people complaining about Nanos had an effect on pressing DOE to help get rid of him. I would say absolutely yes to this. History has shown that when a determined group of people speak up they can have a real effect. The input of the lab workforce does matter so please speak up.
7:13 PM knows so little about what went on, he cannot be an employee of LANL.
UC appoints Nanos as INTERIM Director in January 2003 for a period of "several months" to allow for a nationwide search.
https://www.llnl.gov/news/university-california-announces-sweeping-management-changes-los-alamos-national-laboratory
UC chose Nanos as the permanent Director 6 months later - well after Nanos had already proven himself to be incompetent.
Statement by UC Supporting Nanos
Regent Gerald Parsky, the chairman of the board, said the
regents continue to have “great confidence” in Nanos
and Foley.
http://dailybruin.com/2004/07/14/online-missing-lab-materials-t/
Note that UC expressed support for Nanos 1 1/2 years after Nanos became interim Lab Director, 1 year after he was named by UC to be the permanent Director. It was already abundantly clear that Nanos was completely unsuitable.
If you spend just a few minutes with Google, you can find many other statements made by UC in support of Nanos. Give it a try 7:13 PM. Learn something so you can stop lying.
The petition to UC to remove Nanos was posted on the predecessor to this blog in late February 2005.
http://www.parrot-farm.net/lanl-the-real-story/2005/02/petition-to-remove-director-nanos_25.html
Facing increasing pressure from virtually all stakeholders; lab staff, Congressional members, DOE, and others, after UC selected Nanos for interim director, after UC promoted him to permanent Director, and after defending Nanos for over 2 years, UC finally replaced Nanos in May, 2005.
https://www.triadns.org/corporate-governance/
History has shown that when a determined group of people speak up they can have a real effect. The input of the lab workforce does matter so please speak up.
August 29, 2018 at 10:37 PM
Rah, rah, lets all applaud the vapidity of that statement. What a brainless thing to say. Sounds like a taling point from an upper manager that cares not a single crap about the workers.
August 30, 2018 at 8:00 AM
Again if you knew anyone that was working at UC at the time you would know that UC never wanted to have anything to do with Nanos. Nanos was DOE creation. Here is a test, if you actually work at LANL or did work at LANL at the time could you find someone who actually thinks that UC backed Nanos? I think you will find very few people who would believe this. DOE pressured UC to support Nanos.
Again ask your self a simple questions, why on earth would a University support a non-science military person? It just makes no sense.
"Rah, rah, lets all applaud the vapidity of that statement. What a brainless thing to say. Sounds like a taling point from an upper manager that cares not a single crap about the workers.
August 30, 2018 at 6:30 PM"
The point is not if the statement is vapid the point is that the statement is true. In fact fact it now universally accepted to be true. You on the other hand want to bury you head in the ground and hope to survive. The fact that you deride others that do stand up says even more about you and history is even less kind to those people. As some other posters have mentioned the workforce at LANL that has been willing to stand up have made a difference.
The point is not if the statement is vapid the point is that the statement is true. In fact fact it now universally accepted to be true.
August 31, 2018 at 3:21 PM
The statement was "History has shown that when a determined group of people speak up they can have a real effect." Of course that is true, depending on when in history, and in what situation. The idea that the statement, while historically true in some circumstances, applies to LANL in the current situation, is pure opinion, not fact. The important phrase in the statement is "CAN have a real effect..." Not "will have," or "must have." It is simply a possibility, not a certainty. Therefore, not a fact in this circumstance. Logical thinking appears to be a vanishing capability.
There is a reason why the U.S. is a representative democracy, and not a direct democracy.
There is a reason why the U.S. is a representative democracy, and not a direct democracy.
August 31, 2018 at 7:53 PM
Absolutely correct. However, to avoid confusion among the masses, it is better to use the more correct description "representative republic" rather than "representative democracy." Our government and governing processes (elections, for example) have evolved to be democratic in nature but were not designed that way from the beginning. For example, popular votes for senators were not mandated by the Constitution, nor were popular votes for presidential electors in the states (now incorrectly seen as a popular vote for a presidential candidate). Most people alive today either slept through high school civics class, or never had it.
Post a Comment