University of Texas chancellor named as top candidate to head UC
Tanya Schevitz, San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer(03-20) 15:56 PDT SAN FRANCISCO --
University of Texas Chancellor Mark G. Yudof was recommended Thursday to become the next president of the 10-campus University of California system, one of the most influential institutions in the state.
A special committee charged with selecting a new leader to succeed Robert Dynes, who announced plans to resign last summer, forwarded its recommendation to UC's governing Board of Regents, which is expected to approve it next week.
"We believe Mark Yudof, besides being a brilliant lawyer and a visionary president also has a history of being a good manager," said Richard Blum, chairman of the Board of Regents and head of the 10-member selection committee. "We came to the conclusion that he is the best."
Blum, who spoke after a two-hour meeting at the UCSF Mission Bay campus between the selection committee and Yudof, declined to say how much the university would offer Yudof but acknowledged "He is expensive."
According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, Yudof is among the highest-paid leaders of a public university in the nation, with a total compensation of $742,209 in fiscal 2006-07.
In a previous interview about the presidency, Blum said he thought money should not be a consideration in getting the right person for the job. However, President Dynes is currently paid $405,000 in base salary plus a car allowance of $8,916.
As president of UC, Yudof will oversee the nation's most prestigious public university system, as well as have a strong influence in overseeing three national labs - Los Alamos, Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore.
Yudof has been chancellor of the highly regarded University of Texas system, which has 185,000 students on nine campuses plus six health institutions since August 2002.
Dynes had been at the center of controversy after The Chronicle disclosed that millions of dollars in extra compensation and questionable perks had been handed to top executives without telling the public or regents. The Chronicle's findings, reported in 2005 and 2006, were followed by three state and university audits that showed a management meltdown in which UC administrators sometimes flouted, circumvented and violated university policies governing pay and perks.
Yudof has some ties to the University of California as a former visiting professor at UC Berkeley.
E-mail Tanya Schevitz at tschevitz@sfchronicle.com
16 comments:
Some further information on UT Chancellor Mark G. Yudof:
"Thursday, June 16, 2005
UT, Lockheed Martin pursue Los Alamos bid
Austin Business Journal
The University of Texas System and Lockheed Martin Corp. now are official partners in their bid to manage the U.S. Department of Energy´s Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
Other members of the Lockheed Martin Los Alamos Alliance are CH2M Hill Cos. Ltd., based in Englewood, Colo., and Fluor Corp. (NYSE: FLR), based in Aliso Viejo, Calif.
Proposals for management of Los Alamos, which has been scarred by fraud scandals in recent years, must be submitted to the Department of Energy by July 19. A decision is expected Dec. 1.
Mark Yudof, chancellor of the Austin-based UT System, says the agreement announced Thursday "represents an opportunity for Los Alamos National Laboratory to return to a position of unquestioned technical pre-eminence among our laboratories."
Yudof says: "We envision a Los Alamos that draws upon the distinctive genius of researchers from many institutions across the nation, a Los Alamos where solid management gives those researchers the freedom to do their work, and a Los Alamos with a renewed confidence and recognition of its vital role in the science and security of our nation."
C. Paul Robinson would become director of the alliance if the Lockheed Martin-UT System team wins the contract. Robinson is former president of Sandia Corp., a Lockheed Martin subsidary, and former director of Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico. The subsidary manages Sandia National Laboratories for the Department of Energy´s National Nuclear Security Administration.
Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) is a defense contractor based in Bethesda, Md.; Fluor specializes in engineering, procurement, construction, operations and project management; and CH2M Hill is an engineering consultant whose expertise includes environmental cleanup and restoration.
Earlier this year, the UT System´s Board of Regents earmarked $1.2 million to prepare the Los Alamos proposal.
Since the 1940s, Los Alamos has been managed by the University of California System, which recently teamed up with San Francisco-based Bechtel Corp. to vie for the contract to run the Department of Energy site.
Los Alamos has about 8,000 employees and 3,000 contract workers who help maintain the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Los Alamos has a budget of about $2 billion."
(//austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2005/06/13/daily44.html?jst=b_ln_hl)
If he gets the job, his first action should be to fire Foley!
Dear Mr. Yudof and UT,
Please come rescue us! All is forgiven. We love UT and Lockmart!
UC should have been kicked out of Los Alamos 20 years ago. Now it's too late. UC brought in LANS and now we're stuck with a Pu production factility rather than a national science lab. Anybody that thinks otherwise at this stage is a hopless cause.
UC actually first asked Lockheed Martin as their first option to merge with, but Lockheed Martin did turn down the offer, they unsuccessfuly thought they (Lockheed Martin/UT) could beat UCs legacy since LANLs inscription 1943, and UC later merged with Bechtel, and LANS, LLC was created.
And they (Lockheed Martin/UT) never filed a formal protest to DOE/NNSA when they lost the M&O contract of LANL, December 21, 2005 to UC/Bechtel, e.g. LANS, LLC, as Boeing is doing now (March 11, 2008), since they lost the $35 billion air-refueling tanker contract to Northrop Grumman/EADS, announced by the USAF, February 29, 2008 at the Pentagon.
(www.dodvclips.com; Air Force Briefing, February 29, 2008; 25:46)
"UC brought in LANS and now we're stuck with a Pu production factility rather than a national science lab. Anybody that thinks otherwise at this stage is a hopless cause." - 3/21/08 6:48 PM
But, but, but... Terry Wallace continues to claim that science is thriving at LANL under LANS leadership. I don't understand how you can make a statement like this. You must have not attended any of the meetings were Terry made all this clear to the staff.
9:53 pm: "But, but, but... Terry Wallace continues to claim that science is thriving at LANL under LANS leadership. I don't understand how you can make a statement like this. You must have not attended any of the meetings were Terry made all this clear to the staff."
Your cynicism is only exceeded by your stupidity. Obviously you have no reason to fear for your job - obviously either not a LANL employee or not a very smart one. If you are as bullet-proof as your asinine juvenile response seems to indicate, why even post here? If not, you're going down with the rest of the rats. Good riddance.
9:53 PM - yes, we know, Terry Wallace is an idiot who has no credentials for his current post. He has no balls to make any decision and stick by it. We know this. To make himself feel good about his own incompetence he has made sure that his office staff and his deputy and everyone around him are failed managers - remember A students hire A+ students and B students hire C students.
Mike Anastasio hired Terry because his main goal is to tank LANL before he heads back Livermore this summer.
"And they (Lockheed Martin/UT) never filed a formal protest to DOE/NNSA when they lost the M&O contract of LANL, December 21, 2005 to UC/Bechtel"
Their computers and bid materials burned up in a mysterious storage unit fire in Albuquerque after they lost the bid. I imagine that makes it harder to file a formal protest. That's perhaps what someone else was thinking too.
"UC should have been kicked out of Los Alamos 20 years ago. Now it's too late. UC brought in LANS and now we're stuck with a Pu production factility rather than a national science lab. Anybody that thinks otherwise at this stage is a hopless cause." 3/21/08 6:48 PM
UC did not bring in LANS. NNSA rebid the management contract. NNSA brought in LANS. UC has nothing to do with Pu production. UC helps manage the lab in terms of admin support, operating policy, and people management. UC does not determine the programs. The customer, NNSA, does.
People who do not understand this should not be running off at the mouth.
What is a factility?
Can people be causes, or are they cases?
What a hopless person? One whose feet are firmly planted?
Do you understand the purpose of the little red lines under the words in your posts?
NNSA rebid the management contract.
===========
I would add this was at the behest,
i.e. command; of the US Congress.
"Dear Mr. Yudof and UT,
Please come rescue us! All is forgiven. We love UT and Lockmart!
3/21/08 11:15 AM "
Won't happen. LANS partners formed a fat-cat "small business" that torpedoed UT and LockMart right out of the competition. Thanks, Richard Marquez!
"Won't happen. LANS partners formed a fat-cat "small business" that torpedoed UT and LockMart right out of the competition. Thanks, Richard Marquez!"
Tell us more, please.
"I would add this was at the behest,
i.e. command; of the US Congress."
Really? So there was a law passed mandating the re-bid?
For once there are a couple of interesting discussions going on over at the LLNL blog. Seems they are still willing to blame UC. Here is just one submittal:
So UC is great, while Bechtel, BWT, and WGI are the devils that brought us all to the brink of destruction.
Reality check: Management under UC where mismanagement, cronyism, and lack of accountability were the order of the day, provided the ammunition used by DOE/NNSA to justify rebiding the Laboratory contracts. DOE/NNSA may have been willing to leave UC in charge of R&D, but expected improvements in all other areas. However, UC has never relinquished the reigns of the laboratories. Everyone is blaming the “new corporate partners” for all the ills that are occurring. Think for a moment –other than a few “token” partner personnel (~100 at LANL, and less that 40 at LLNL), all of the faces are the same UC faces as before the contract changes. Even when a ULM position is filled by partner personnel, their deputies and management staff are still the same UC faces as before. Partner personnel not in ULM have been placed in marginalized positions where they can be controlled/minimalized, regardless of resume. Don’t take my word for it – look around. Decide for yourself. Perhaps if a truly new management team were leading the labs, things could be better. I for one was looking for better things with the contract change. I too am demoralized and concerned, but I continue to hold UC responsible.
Excerpts from two recent news articles you might find interesting:
”California’s lieutenant governor scolded the University of California this week for signing new contracts that continue the university’s lead role in managing the nation’s two premier nuclear-weapons laboratories.”
“Pattiz said that the governing boards, one for each lab, were composed of six members, three from the university and one each from the three principal industrial partners.
“In a tie-breaking situation,” he said, the university’s chairmanship, “gives us the ability to prevail.”
UC is a partner in all of this, Pit manufacturing included.
Post a Comment