Skip to main content

Lisa Gordon-Hagerty resigns

Image
By

 https://thehill.com/policy/defense/524865-lisa-e-gordon-hagerty-resigns-as-nnsa-administrator


Well, she knew what she was getting into.

(Bob Harvard's decision in 2017 seems ever more prescient.)

Godspeed Bill Bookless.

Comments

Anonymous said…


That has fast.
11/07/2020 3:53 PM
Anonymous said…
One more top official "spending more time with their family." Trump likes big numbers, and he has certainly achieved this one; more turnover at the top than any other president in history! Congratulations, Donny boy.
11/09/2020 6:00 PM
Anonymous said…
Lisa Gordon-Hagerty “was told to resign by Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/trump-administration-fires-three-agency-161249005.html

According to “Defense Daily”, “Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette kept close tabs on then-National Nuclear Security Administration boss Lisa Gordon-Hagerty for months, sending chaperones to her meetings with Congress and monitoring her personal calendar before abruptly demanding her resignation”
11/10/2020 11:09 AM
Unknown said…
Good riddance.
I don't have any confidence (either) in her abilities to work that position after a tweet rage.
11/15/2020 5:05 PM
Anonymous said…
According to “Defense Daily”, “Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette kept close tabs on then-National Nuclear Security Administration boss Lisa Gordon-Hagerty for months, sending chaperones to her meetings with Congress and monitoring her personal calendar before abruptly demanding her resignation”

11/10/2020 11:09 AM

Sounds like Brouillette was more worried about her snagging his job than anything else!
11/21/2020 2:02 PM
Anonymous said…
Brouillette did the right thing. I’m sure he was being undermined by all the former Livermore managers. Hopefully Biden will get rid of all of them. At Livermore it’s common for managers to do a lot of behind closed doors conniving. I don’t know how that plays in DC. This is why the NNSA administrators wanted fixed terms, not political appointments, so they could continue their ways.
11/22/2020 10:27 AM
Anonymous said…
At Livermore it’s common for managers to do a lot of behind closed doors conniving. I don’t know how that plays in DC.

11/22/2020 10:27 AM

OMG, ROFL. You're kidding, right??
11/23/2020 5:31 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
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...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
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.
124 comments
Read more

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more