May 9, 2007

UC Team Receives Livermore Contract

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
May 8, 2007, 8:34 p.m. ET


WASHINGTON (AP) -- A team co-led by the University of California is getting the management contract for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory despite past problems at the lab under the university's management, the Energy Department announced Tuesday.

The decision comes after a series of financial and security gaffes at the nation's premier nuclear weapons labs -- Lawrence Livermore in northern California and Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico -- led the federal government to require competitive bidding for the management contracts for the first time.

The University of California had managed both labs since their inception.

''The University of California knows how to do research and development. It's the largest research institution at least in the country if not in the world,'' Tyler Przybylek, senior adviser at the National Nuclear Security Administration, said in announcing the decision.

At the same time Przybylek emphasized that UC will be partnering with Bechtel National Inc. to provide the management know-how that has sometimes been lacking at Lawrence Livermore.

A UC-Bechtel team won the Los Alamos contract in 2005.

Los Alamos has struggled with security lapses, credit card abuses, theft of equipment and other instances of mismanagement that subjected it to withering criticism from Congress, and led to the 2003 decision to bid out the contracts. Problems at Livermore were less dramatic but included the disappearance of an electronic key card and the loss of keys to perimeter gates and office doors.

California officials welcomed the decision to keep UC involved at both Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said it ''reaffirms the high standards of our public university system and the high quality of the talented and insightful employees at our research institutions.''

The UC-Bechtel team also includes BWX Technologies Inc.; Texas A&M University; Washington Group International; and Battelle Memorial Institute. The group beat out a team led by Northrop Grumman Corp.

The seven-year contract allows a maximum payment of $45.5 million per year depending on performance, with possible extensions for 13 more years. The annual budget of the lab is $1.6 billion.

In March, the Bush administration selected Lawrence Livermore for a controversial new weapons program that could lead to a new generation of nuclear warheads. Congress has reacted skeptically.

Lawrence Livermore, an 8,000-employee lab that opened its doors about 50 miles east of San Francisco in 1952, also works on stewardship of existing nuclear weapon stockpiles and conducts a variety of scientific research.

The Energy Department's decision to stick with UC drew criticism from a government watchdog group.

''It is ridiculous that after years of security breaches and safety debacles DOE would decide that the best way to fix these problems is by hiring the same incompetent contractors,'' said Peter Stockton, senior investigator for the Project On Government Oversight.

48 comments:

Eric said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Eric said...

Sorry. I had a typo in the first comment. Also, the first comment did not meet my own standards for being well thought out or well stated.

I would appreciate some thoughts about what the decision to award the management contract for Livermore to a UC/Bechtel/... LLC will mean to various constituencies.

I expect some people to make comments that are flames against LANS, UC, NNSA, etc., but what would help me the most are well thought out comments and analysis (preferably with references). I would like comments that include the role of relevant local and national forces on the outcome of the award.

For instance, what does this award predict about the future of the nuclear weapons complex and national security?

What does this award tell us about the economic and cultural future of Los Alamos county and Northern New Mexico?

What does this award tell us about housing prices in Los Alamos County or about the Trinity Site Revitalization project?

What does this award tell us about the bid process for managing any national lab not just the weapons labs?

I have my own view about what it tells us and my own large stash of data, but I would really appreciate thoughtful analysis from others.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

The process is rigged. Congress is impotent. The White House is corrupt. And we the people are too damn lazy to care. It was corruption that destroyed the Roman Empire. We're at that point now in the United States. I suppose it was just a matter of time. It's part of the natural order. Success breeds arrogance, and arrogance breeds systemic abuses. At some point the abuses become so widespread the system collapses upon itself. Not unlike global warming. We see all the warnings, but yet can't seem to change course. LLNL and Los Alamos, joined at the hip, are now in a spiral downwards, into the black hole of the military industrial complex. The laws of physics if you will, for these two institutions, will now forever be altered.

Anonymous said...

Will the Boards of Directors for LANS and LLNS overlap to some degree?

Anonymous said...

1. The future of the NWC and national security hinge on congress, not any particular M&O contractor.

2. The award has no bearing on the economic or cultural future of Los Alamos country and Northern New Mexico. Unless, of course, LLNL is driven into the ground and only one weapon lab results. This is unlikely.

3. Ditto for the housing price question.

4. Unless you are in the out-brief, you will not know the scoring in various categories betweent the two bidders. The LLNS team scored in the "930s" according to Tyler (out of 1000).

5. In the end, I think we are just spending a lot more money for more or less the same output. However, there is clearly angst over safety and security issues that must be addressed.

Anonymous said...

Eric,
I think overhead costs can now be spread across the 2 operations and certainly now LANS should be prepared to give up a proportionate "share" of overhead type positions in such areas as accounting, HR, Procurement, etc...

Don't know whether it was mentioned in the actual successful proposal, however it seems logical that they'd head in that direction with all the overlapping functions they'll now have....If I was the DOE client I'd be expecting it...IT should have been a discussion topic in orals at a minimum, but you'd have to find someone who worked on the proposal team to verify...

I'm not thinking it'll affect economic and cultural aspects of Los Alamos County as much as the decision to go "for profit" a couple of years back...This is just a little more fuel on already blazing inferno created by the loss of all the good people since..

Sorry no specifics...just some (perhaps) relevant thoughts..

Anonymous said...

Did anybody notice that the annual management fee for LLNL is only $46M, quite a bit less than for LANL?

Anonymous said...

This is perfect timing for LANL upper management. They are running out of their 1 year housing stipend. They all have asked to be transferred to avoid the cost of living here. Now come June they can move to Livermore to do pre-start up evals like they did here, start their stipends all over again,and milk the taxpayers more and again.

Sweet deal. Why didn't I think of hiring into Bechtel, BWXT, WGI 30 years ago when I had the chance. Maybe I could have been in fat city milking you all dry.

Anonymous said...

"Did anybody notice that the annual management fee for LLNL is only $46M, quite a bit less than for LANL?"

That was asked and explained in the decision brief yesterday. Rather telling......

Anonymous said...

5/9/07 3:12 PM said..."That was asked and explained in the decision brief yesterday. Rather telling...... "

So are you going to keep us guessing? What exactly was so "telling?" In other words... "tell" us!

Anonymous said...

That there we fewer problems and challenges for the new M&O at LLNL, and thus didn't need the incentives of higher award fee as was the case for LANL.

Anonymous said...

Eric, I hope this is thoughtful enough for you.

1. The nuclear weapons complex is or will be effectively under the control of the DOD because of the number of DOD contractors now managing or soon to be managing nuclear weapons labs. DOD has tried to take control for years; now they have effective control.

2. The award of Livermore's (soon to be liverless) management contract will impact northern New Mexico because many operations will be combined and run from California. After all, these highly paid folks can hardly bear to live in Santa Fe so moving to California, or back to California, will make them very happy. I imagine purchasing will be consolidated, also maybe IT. It will mean fewer jobs for northern New Mexicans and essentially more money in the hands of LANS upper management. Look for that to increase from $40million. After all, Anastasio already was given a bonus for what looks like nothing.

3. Los Alamos County has bitten off way more than they can chew and now have their heads in the sand because they won't accept what is happening to LANL. LANL will eventually be Rocky Flats South. There will be no research at LANL. Research can not be accomplished in a for profit environment. I understand some X Division folks are royally pissed off at what they are being asked - define the deliverables, what is the schedule, prepare a weekly progress report, don't change your concept even if you think of something better. No research means no highly paid LANL staff purchasing those $700,000 homes at Quemazon. And no research means the value of the contract will decrease, the amount of GRT revenues to the County will decrease, and paying for all the expensive projects will fall on the backs of the remaining residents. Property and GRT taxes will rise as fast as state law allows them to rise.

4. Why worry about the bid process? The concept of privatizing research is grossly wrong. There is not enough competence in DOE/NNSA to come up with an RFQ that can truly evaluate how a company or multiple companies can manage research. Awarding the LANL contract to LANS is a prime example of how incompetent DOE/NNSA is. They did not even know about records access since it was basically a local function okayed by UC so that was not written into the contract and now LANS can stall all those folks who want access to public records simply because LANS has no process.

5. Look at what is happening at LANL right now: specialized contracts have been cancelled or not renewed, including those for air conditioning for computer rooms with critical equipment, specialized equipment for research projects, support personnel which did all those grungy things for LANL staff memebers so LANL staff members can do what they are paid to do, purchasing is down to almost nothing, thus impacting research, northern New Mexico businesses, more and more propaganda from the daily links about security and safety which is where all the money is going, just to name a few. To make a profit, the cheapest labor is being pushed out while the most expensive labor is supposed to do two jobs, what they are hired for and what the cheap ones did. And empty their trashcans too.

6. The last security breach happened not because Jessica Q was smart but because when S-11 folks were told about USB security issues in 2005, they did nothing. These folks are still drawing their huge salaries although at least two of them plus a team leader who also knew about the security issues should have at least been reprimanded, if not fired. So all this hype about security is just a way to tie the hands of LANL researchers and force them to leave.

7. LANS said there would be no RIFs for the first year. June 1 is only 23 days away. What is your best guess for the number of RIFS? Mine is 900. I've already confirmed that 15 limited term folks doing tasks such as web design, documentation, office work, etc. have been told their jobs are gone on June 1.

8. Drug testing - Let's get rid of all those Jessica Qs at LANL. Let's use it, along with polygraphs, to fix the DOE clearance process. Let's make sure that all the blame for Jessica Q's Q falls on LANL, not the DOE which actually grants clearances. After all, DOE can do no wrong. Let's make sure that we have a process that starts with the assumption that you are guilty, and you have to prove yourself innocent.

9. Polygraphs - the DOJ has defined the restrictions under which polygraphs should be used and how they should be interpreted. Not DOE. They want another weapon against LANL employees. They are not interested in providing the money to fix the problems. And yes, it will take money to hire the right kind of people to do security, especially computer security. LANL can't keep adding the task of ISSO, for example, to an overworked division admin. And it can't keep promoting folks that someone likes to the job. Folks who should serve as ISSOs should be SANS certified, should have had courses in hardware and operating systems, should understand how to implement computer security without tying the hands of those trying to use the computers, should be staff members with an advanced degree and paid equivalently to folks with the same level of education in X and T.

Dr. Strangelove said...

Eric -

I don't think this event can be analysed without going to what might sound like "flaming" to some.

1) Someone noted that the Congress decides the future of the NWC more than a given contractor. In principle this is true, but if there are backroom deals going on then it could mean more "pork" for the labs and/or it could mean more opportunities for Bechtel, et al. to steal us (taxpayers and lab workers) blind.

2) Someone else noted that the contract profit was significantly less. This could imply that LLNL is "easier" because they are not cowboy buttheads, and it could also imply that the incremental cost to do a second lab is less than the first.

3) someone else noted that not much in the community/area will be effected by LLNL getting the contract. I disagree. Bechtel now has the NWC in a stranglehold. If they behave badly, there is no easy escape. If Grumman had LLNL, there would at least be a choice between "the evil you know and ...".

Staff will not flee from here to LLNL, but they may flee from LANS/LLNS to places like ORNL in yet-larger numbers.

4) Bechtel has us as "at-will" employees. We have never been good at organizing (as with unions, etc) so maybe it doesn't matter. While there is something to be said for their potential draconian ability to set policies and fire at-will those who don't, won't, or even can't follow them to the letter.

They will be able to cut deadwood like nobody's business. The concern is whether their values match our own enough for that cutting to be more helpful than hurtful.

We are already bleeding out to other places... this won't slow that down much.

5) If we ignore Bechtel's record in other venues, maybe there is hope... but Stephen Bechtel's ominous oft-quoted statement "we are not in the business of ..., we are in the business of making money" may bode very badly for us as the (formerly?) premier scientific laboratory.

- Doc

Anonymous said...

"2) Someone else noted that the contract profit was significantly less. This could imply that LLNL is "easier" because they are not cowboy buttheads, and it could also imply that the incremental cost to do a second lab is less than the first."

Nothing need be implied. The comment regarding fewer problems at LLNL was explictly stated by Tyler in the press conference.

Anonymous said...

Today my organization began ranking its staff...top to bottom. June 1 is coming. Are the RIFs right behind?

Anonymous said...

5/09/07 8:04 pm:

What a load of paranoid bullcrap!

Where are your sources for such nonsense? "There will be no research at LANL"??

S-11 (now CYSEC) was responsible for what Jessica Quintana did??

Please - get a clue. you are so far out in the ozone that a connection to reality is almost futile. You may indeed be, as you imagine, smarter than anyone else. However, you are not more knowledgable than anyone else. Recognition of knowledge gaps is a known weakness of the intelligent.

Anonymous said...

5/9/07 1:55 PM - I heard that Mikey is going to become the "uber director" of both labs and that LANL is in for a rude awakening when all the managers leave to go back home to CA (because LLNL is what they care about) and LANL is made to go into the crapper. I certainly hope and pray that Northrup protests and calls out all the crap UC/Bechtel have done at LANL and all the programmatic people that they have threatened to keep quiet about the RRW affair.

Dr. Strangelove said...

Last time my management tried that with me (just before the early-90's RIF?) I told them that if they wanted a RIF list, they needed to ask for a list ranked bottom to top... e.g. the *least productive, or critical or promising* individual at the top with the *most critical/productive* at the bottom, e.g. a RIF list, not a top-performers list.

I told them that if they took the first list and inverted it, they were doing everyone harm. They simply are not invertible.

I told them I did not like the idea of participating in a RIF but that if they were dead set on it (they would not acknowledge a RIF in the works, but they very *threateningly* demanded the top-to-bottom list anyway.

Seeing the writing on the wall, I gave them their @#$%#$&@+ list but I gave them the Bottom to Top list with my name as the first to be RIFed and to invert IT if they really were looking for their top performers. I told them that if they RIFed anyone (else) from my project, I could no longer achieve my goals and the project could do without me (this was true, at least within the scope of the defined deliverables) easiest of all.

The RIFs didn't come close to my project or team anyway (independent of my stand) but I did receive a reprimand in my next evaluation... something about "insubordination".

Despite possible appearances here to the contrary, I was extremely polite and at no time was I confrontational or rude. I just insisted that I didn't believe their premise for needing the list .

I should have framed it!

bastards! I suspect Bechtel will fire me for such behavior. mega-bastards!

- Doc

Anonymous said...

Gee - 9:33 PM - sounds like a LANS senior manager ... Terry, Mike, Mary, Charlie, Paul, is that you?

Anonymous said...

Gary Stradling, is that you?

We remember you from the "good old days" when you used to chime in, your smarmy voice muffled by the brown polishing you were giving your nose about that time.

Or maybe that bozo trying to give Calvin and Strangelove advice... Darko (I think) calls him "Good Lord".

Good Lord! maybe "Good Lord" IS Gary...

Anonymous said...

9:33pm is too coherent to be a LANL senior manager. Of course, he didn't really read the entire 8:04pm post, so maybe it is a senior manager.

Cajones Grandes said...

Looks like Stephen Bechtel has a new pair of Fuzzy Dice hanging from his rear-view mirror!

Congratulations!

cojones mas grandes said...

hey cajones -

Let's hope Bechtel gets *their* cojones caught in the cajones!

- cojones muchas mas grandes

Anonymous said...

No, "good lord" isn't Gary you twit.

Anonymous said...

There a lot of talk about LANS and LLNS sharing business sytems, in fact this was mentioned at the press conference as a benefit of the LLNS proposal.

But at the same time they go to great lengths to state that LANS and LLNL are "two separate companies."

So how does this work? Unless... LLNS buys out LANS?

Anonymous said...

Leadership team is starting to roll out on the llnsllc.com website.

Looks like y'all are going to be Six Sigma'd too.

Eric said...

Thanks to 8:04 and Dr. Stranglove. Those facts fit the pile that I have and add to them.

Thanks for all the thoughtful comments.

I have been deciding for myself whether I should stay here and how I should aid friends and colleagues here and at Livermore.

A piece that I have not posted here and am not likely to (it is very long) is my estimate of the overall plan at the Bechtel and NNSA level along with the reasons for this estimate.

In answer to the poster who says that LANS and LLNS are different companies, it might be better to consider them as temporary divisions of Bechtel National created for specific limited projects. Bechtel and many other international companies do this all the time. Construction companies, for instance, may have one LLC per project. When the project is completed, the LLC is dissolved. From a business point of view, creating and dissolving LLCs makes a lot of sense.

As for Jessica Quintana, I have known her a little bit for a long time. I would, in my ignorance of exact details, be tempted to place most of the blame on her supervisor for not supervising her better.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 5/9/07 9:33 PM writes:

Where are your sources for such nonsense? "There will be no research at LANL"??

Well, I can tell you for a start that WFO at LANL has dropped from about 20% pre-Nanos to about 5% today. The problems are two-fold.

First, the unreasonably high labor rates, $400K per year for a TSM.

Second, the unreliability of performance. When Nanos had the standdown, we were told to charge the time directly to a program. This was fundamentally an abuse of authority, probably illegal.

WFO has long been a source of a lot of the research.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, 5:35PM. I knew that there had been a decrease in WFO (Work for Others), but I didn't know how much. The reason for the high overhead is very simple - too much management making salaries that are way out of line, starting with Anastasio. What a taxpayer ripoff he is. His and the rest of upper management's salaries should be reported to the DOE IG.

Nanos effectively killed the program because of his intransigence and illegal program charges. Contractors at LANL working under multiple POs have also charged their time illegally, based upon direction from their immediate LANL management. It's too bad the auditors don't talk to the right people. There would be folks in jail today if they did.

Eric, I think the NNSA plan is very simple. Destroy LANL as a premier research laboratory and turn it into a pit production facility. NNSA has shown time and again that it is comprised of C- staff who barely graduated college and do not understand or appreciate research.

A secondary effect will be to destroy Los Alamos, the community, the schools, and the local businesses. The destruction of the businesses began with the fire and LANL's complicated purchasing rules. Being managed by a private company means that LANL can purchase any old way it wants from any friend it wants and not advertise for bids for many contracts. They don't have to be accountable to the taxpayers, they can hide costs, they can hide salaries. Congress really blew it.

Anonymous said...

7:25 said, "Being managed by a private company means that LANL can purchase any old way it wants from any friend it wants and not advertise for bids for many contracts..."

I wondered the same thing myself. One prime example is how Martin Aguilera bought over $40K+ of garbage cans so that TSMs in MC-FOD space could take out their own trash. I wonder who authorized the purchase of the trash cans? Evidently, the first batch were wrong and new ones had to be purchased to accommodate the volume of trash. Now that the janitors are once again picking up the trash and servicing MC-FOD, we have $40K+ of garbage cans looking for a home. YOu know, this amount of money cost someone their job. Accountability? I think not - Martin Aguilera still has a job and nobody think twice about this waste, fraud and abuse. Where is the IG now? Where is Doris Heim and her Best Business Practices? Where is Mikey? Where the hell is Congress and why did they reward Becthel/UC for this kind of waste, fraud and abuse??

Anonymous said...

Where's the IG? Email to

ighotline@hq.doe.gov

to report waste, fraud, and abuse. And if LANS can be reported for this, then we should be able to find out who is paid what salary, what purchasing regs they have to follow, etc.

Anonymous said...

Some interesting stats recently computed by LANS:

* 22% of workforce are management
(i.e., we have an extremely high number of managers)

* 42% of workforce TSM / 40% are SSM
(i.e., we have a 1:1 ratio of staff to support, which is extremely high)

All this data is part of the reason why FTE costs are now going over $400K for many TSMs. Don't expect anyone from the management or the support side to give a damn about any of this. Top management like to paint a bright future of new funds pouring into the lab, but many of the WFO projects are now gone and unlikely to return. Most of the older staff realize this, but many of the younger staff are drinking the LANS Kool-Aid and seem to magically believe that new funding will soon be coming to LANL. It's sad to watch this play out.

As we approach the end of this fiscal year, the budget shortfalls in '07 and '08 will become undeniable, and RIFs will be the results. Bechtel/UC have probably been waiting for the capture of LLNL before executing any layoff plans.

With the LLNL contract now awarded, you can expect to start seeing signs of the layoff by late summer. There simply won't be enough money lying around for LANL's executive managment to stay in denial about this situation any longer. As one poster suggested, a cut of about 900 workers is probably in the works. Just don't call it a RIF. They'll come up with some other fancy name and policy for what they intend to do. Whatever they call it, it's going to cause a large amount of additional anxiety for the community of Los Alamos.

Anonymous said...

Note that Nanos really wanted to get rid of WFO because it caused a lot of problems:

Customers complaining about high labor rates.

Customers who complained when schedules were not met and/or costs overran.

Nanos just did not want to deal with accountability. He figured that it was a lot easier to hide behind the NW Program.

The DOE and other DOE labs were in favor of LANL losing WFO. The other labs want the business.

Anonymous said...

If the RIF (let's not beat around the bush about what to call it) only affects TSMs and SSMs, then the percentage of management will increase. The overwhelming bureacracy with the increasing number of rules and regulations coupled with the loss of WFO is why there is an almost equal number of TSMs and SSMs.

18% of the workforce are techs. There used to be a larger number of techs but salaries did not increase proportionally for the tech series so many of them moved to SSMs where there were larger raises and more opportunity to advance.

However, once LANL becomes a pit production plant, the number of TSMs will decrease dramatically and their shoes will be filled by techs. The SSMs are firmly entrenched, many of them performing the totally useless chief-of-staff jobs to interpret all the rules and regulations.

Anonymous said...

"The DOE and other DOE labs were in favor of LANL losing WFO. The other labs want the business." (6:43 am)

And they are getting it! Less than half of the funding that comes into SNL is from NNSA. Compare this to the pitiful situation we now see at LANL.

LANL didn't bother to diversify when it had the chance and the clock has now run out. We are near the end of the 4th quarter of the game. LANS is attempting a long "bomb pass" to come from behind, but the score board looks awful and there aren't any timeouts left.

It's too late. We'll probably end up getting a pit factory to make all the politico's happy about job creation but science will continue to decline.

You should expect to start hearing lots of "rah-rah-shish-boom-bah" cheers for science coming from the top floors, but don't expect to see much deviation from our current path. If you are a TSM doing any type of important work, you'll probably find a brighter future by moving to one of the other national labs. If nothing else, a job at almost any of the other labs will allow you to work in an environment with much better morale than the dismal situation that now exists at LANL.

Anonymous said...

Remember that Sandia is an "engineering" and applied research lab while LANL and LLNL are "science" and basic research labs. Its a lot easier for SNL to get engineering/applied science WFO projects than LANL/LLNL. SNL has the culture and business know how need to turn ideas in hard reality - that was why SNL was spun off from LANL in the first place. About 50% of their budget is WFO and NNSA work only makes up a small part of the other 50%. If I want a deeply thought out scientific research paper I go to LLNL/LANL, if I want something built that I can use or make money off of I go to SNL.

Eric said...

On the topic of the last few posts, I have spent the day (and most of the week) helping people leave.

It is sad that they are leaving, but I cannot change that so I help where I can.

Anonymous said...

I spent a year at LBL and I can say they are still a DOE lab but compared to us, they are a walk in the park...

They don't do classified so they can't tap NNSA or DHS or DOD much, but they do seem to keep the funding flowing.

Steven Chu was an impressive director... not only a top scientist (Nobel winner) but also a good people person. I couldn't tell if he was a good manager/administrator, but if he wasn't it was hidden because he had good people working for him.

If John Browne had been a Nobel prize winner, and had a better set of top managers, we might have had the same experience under him.

Nanos? Not in a heartbeat... he was nothing more than a "hatchet man", and a clumsy one at that. Anastasio? Hard to tell, he's too much a LLNL man for me to trust that he has a fair perspective on what we are really truly good at and he's too sold out to Bechtel now for me to believe he has LANL's best interests at heart. It doesn't make him a bad person, but it doesn't bode well for us.

Anonymous said...

to: 5/10/07 10:06 PM

Careful, Careful...Aguilera is protected, untouchable and vindictive.

Anonymous said...

5/11/07 9:12 PM - yes, lots of good facility people are quitting because of Aguilera's vindictiveness and revenge on people who question him or who want to actually fix things when he has said NO. I heard he is going after people who submit Barrier Removals. Hello Mike, Fred, and others, are you even reading this blog? Do you approve of this behavior?

Anonymous said...

I'm sure that the members of the boards of directors of "for profit" companies do not do it for free. So do individuals sitting on both the LANS LLC and LLNS LLC Boards of Governance get double compensation?

Anonymous said...

If you were a Nobel Prize winner, why would you be at LANL or LLNL?

Anonymous said...

Oh Gosh! Mar-TEEN. How did he get there?

Anonymous said...

ok ladies and gentlemen... T minus 18 days....

1 june and the shit hits the fan..

grab you ankles and bend over. the 1 year mark.

yee haw..

Anonymous said...

5/11/07 9:12 PM Worked for Aguilera for many years. He's a very unethical manager that should of been fired long ago.

Anonymous said...

Indeed, unfortunately Aguilera can make it stick to whomever he wants.

Anonymous said...

5/11/07 9:12 PM said ... "Worked for Aguilera for many years. He's a very unethical manager that should of been fired long ago." and 5/14/07 10:38 AM said ... "Indeed, unfortunately Aguilera can make it stick to whomever he wants."

And yet the slimy terd still has a job. And why isn't Fred Crawfod held accountable in all this? Hello??? Mikey, Richard, Terry, and Jan ... Congress???? Where are you????

Anonymous said...

Aguilera, what a dufus!
Be assured of his fitness as a LANS executive extraordinairre.