At what point is somebody important going to admit that it was a huge mistake to have sold off LANL to Bechtel, a large construction company? How much more evidence will it take before somebody owns up to the fact that that the additional $200 million it costs each year to have Bechtel, hiding under the umbrella of the LANS Limited Liability Corporation running LANL will never be reclaimed through "increased efficiency of operations", as was claimed back in 2005 when NNSA put LANL up on the bidding block?When the University of California operated the LANL contract, they did so for a fee of $8 million per year. Granted, they did a terrible job during the last twenty or thirty years of LANL's history. Remember Pete Nanos, UC's grand plan for putting LANL back on the straight and narrow? Look where that got us. However, three years later LANS and Bechtel, in retrospect, make UC look like a paragon of efficiency. And that's saying something. If you worked at LANL under UC, you know what I mean.
Before anybody rushes to explain to *why* no one has owned up to the horrible mistake that NNSA made back in 2005 when they put the LANL contract up for bid, I already think I know the answer. Let's see if you agree.
But before we get too much farther on in this ramble, let's just take a second to thank former New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici one more time for his brilliant decision to create the NNSA. It's the gift that keeps on giving. Thanks, Pete.
Ok, back to *why* nobody will admit that the NNSA, and their decision to sell off LANL (and LLNL) to a large, for-profit military industrial construction contractor was a huge mistake. I actually think there are three, perhaps four possible explanations for this massively flawed decision, and why nobody will now own up to it:Explanation Number 1. Congress and Bill Richardson, ex-DOE Secretary of Energy actually believed Linton Brooks, then head of the NNSA, and Tom D'Agostino when they made their claim that the new LLC would recoup their approximately $200 / year costs through improved efficiencies of operation. Nobody will admit to having believed that now, since it is so patently absurd to have ever believed the fairy tail, in retrospect. Domenici is no longer around, so he's certainly not going to 'fess up to falling for such a whopper. Bingaman? Udall? Don't make me laugh.
Explanation Number 2. Nobody believed Brooks and D'Agostino, because they were all in agreement with the (then) secret plan to strip all non-plutonium pit science from LANL, and turn the rest of the place into the next Rocky Flats Plant. Costs? Efficiency of operation? Who gives a shit? Now, however, since the plans to build a new "Taj Mahal" of a plutonium science complex at LANL seem to be falling apart, nobody is going to admit having been a backer of that plan.
Explanation Number 3. Everybody believed Brooks and D'Agostino on their claims that the new LLC would be more cost-efficient than UC had been. I guess it is possible for that many people high up in the decision chain to be that stupid, but who would ever admit to it after the fact?
Explanation Number 4. Bechtel wanted the LANL contract, so Bechtel bought the contract through the usual corporate/political process; i.e. they bought the miscellaneous government officials responsible for approving the sale, thus guaranteeing the sale.
Take a look at LANL and LLNL today. They are buried under unbelievable mountains of useless bureaucracy. They make the old days of working under the University of California look like a finely tuned Swiss clock. Look at the latest gems that Bechtel has bequeathed upon the two sister labs: Ladder Training for both sites, and mandatory Bicycle Helmet Training for anybody at LLNL who wants to ride one of the old clunker bikes they have laying around the place for staff to use to get from one building to another. Have you ever been to Livermore, and have you ever seen one of those bikes? First, it's flat as a pancake at LLNL, and second, you could not get one of those old clunkers going fast enough to hurt anybody, and finally, it has worked fine the just way it is now for umpteen years.
These are just two of the latest dictoms of idiocy that our fine new for-profit contractor has brought to the table. Why is nobody paying attention? Where is DOE Secretary Chu while all of this is happening? Good questions; I have no idea.
--Doug
69 comments:
Huge additional costs of operation aside, you failed to mention the sheer incompetence of the Bechtel managers.
True, 4:59, Aside from the three images in the post that had the word "Incompetence" in them, I did not mention that. ;-}
The fact is, these days I only visit LANL occasionally to meet with some of my collaborators there. I don't feel qualified to assess the quality of the new management team based on such limited contact with the place.
However, this blog seems to be chock full of anecdotal evidence of, how shall I put this, ... DISSATISFACTION with both the quality and the quantity of management there.
I remain mystified that people equate LANS and Bechtel. I believe that UC owns half of LANS, and Bechtel only owns a quarter.
Let's see here, Obama has been telling us that efficiencies will reduce the cost of a government-run health care system.
Do we believe that also?
This post starts with the question: "At what point is somebody important going to admit that it was a huge mistake to have sold off LANL to Bechtel, a large construction company?"
Answer: NEVER!
5:22:
I remain mystified that some people don't realize that Bechtel has been in the driver's seat since day two of the proposal writing effort. On day one, UC still believed that it was in charge, but that little misconception was quickly straightened out.
LANS is comprised of Bechtel, BWXT The Washington Group and UC. UC does not "own" half of the LLC. Bechtel is, as it were, Chairman of the Board of that particular little corporation.
In response to 5:29, this is simply not true. Here is the LLC charter.
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/LLNS.LLC.pdf
I know it is tough to accept that the beloved UC is running this abusive LLC, but it is still true.
5:35,
That was the LLNL LLC Agreement. We were discussing LANL, although Bechtel is a member of both LLCs.
Oops. Here is LANS. I am not sure how I got the wrong link.
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/LANS.LLC.pdf
5:22 appears to be correct. From the LANL LLC agreement:
Article XII
Allocations of Net Income and Net Loss; Distributions;
Elections; Books and Records; and Returns and Reports
12.1 Allocations of Net Income and Net Loss. Subject and after giving effect to the limitations and
special allocations contained in Exhibit A hereto, Net Income and Net Loss of the Company for each
Fiscal Year or Other Period shall be allocated to the Members in proportion to their respective Capital
Percentages.
12.2
Distributions.
(a)
Except as otherwise provided in Section 15.2 (relating to the dissolution of the Company),
any distributions of Distributable Cash or other Property shall be made by the Company to the Members
in accordance with the following:
(i)
First, 50% to the University, 30% to Bechtel, 10% to BWXT and 10% to WG until the
Unreturned Additional Capital of the Members has been reduced to zero;
(ii)
Second, 50% to the University and 50% to Bechtel until the cumulative amount
distributed pursuant to this Section 12.2(a)(ii) equals the aggregate Initial Capital Contributions of
such Members; and
(iii) Thereafter, in such proportions as is necessary to cause the Capital Account balances of
the Members to be, as near as possible, in proportion to their respective Retained Earnings Percentages
immediately after giving effect to such distribution.
Why does the amount of money going to UC remind me of that old Dire Straits song: Money for Nothing ?
1. Why would a person 'fess up'? What would they gain, personally, from fessing up?
2. What if there is no single person who should fess up? What if the result that we see is the product of 100 people not just one and these hundred people all think that the mess is someone else's fault not theirs? Each individual would be certain that they were just doing their job under difficult circumstances. A single malevolent spirit is good for a Brothers Grimm's fairy tale, but seems to be wrong here.
3. Never attribute to malevolence what can be explained just by stupidity.
That was Explanation 3, 6:22. I have trouble believing that many people can be that stupid, even now.
Doug,
If you can't believe that so many people could be that stupid, I assume that you have never dealt with DOE or NNSA. ;-)
"At what point is somebody important going to admit that it was a huge mistake"
Be sure & get back to us Doug just as soon as "somebody" admits their mistake.
Dear Doug: Who in the world is Bill Richards, and when was he DOE Secretary?
When you're discussing someone else's incompetence, well, there's this business about pots and kettles, you know?
6:53,
Everybody's a comedian.
;-}
Actually, I have had a fair amount of exposure to both DOE and NNSA. Remember, I personally met with Linton Brooks back in 2005 during the shutdown fiasco. I was not impressed with his steadfast support of the decision to shut the entire lab down for seven months, even after the FBI released their report officially stating that there was never any "missing CREM" as claimed by Nanos.
DOE headquarters is just a depressing place. It reminds me a lot of what GM headquarters in Michigan was like back in the early 90's.
7:16,
Very thoughtful of you to proofread my article for me.
Thanks.
WTF does this this part of the LLC agreement mean?
Second, 50% to the University and 50% to Bechtel until the cumulative amount distributed pursuant to this Section 12.2(a)(ii) equals the aggregate Initial Capital Contributions of such Members; and
(iii) Thereafter, in such proportions as is necessary to cause the Capital Account balances of the Members to be, as near as possible, in proportion to their respective Retained Earnings Percentages immediately after giving effect to such distribution.
"DOE headquarters is just a depressing place. It reminds me a lot of what GM headquarters in Michigan was like back in the early 90's."
The thing about DOE headquarters is that just in a single visit you see endless violations. Do they ever audit themsleves?
DOE is a disaster and should be closed down.
"and finally, it has worked fine the just way it is for umpteen years."
Posting drunk, eh Doug?
Tangentially, the photo in the despair.com poster reminds me of a recently-re-built porch . . .
Joe Martz has recently announced that he is leaving LANL. I have to wonder how much longer it will be until John Pedicini joins him in heading out the front door?
As far as the recent decision to but Bret Knapp in charge of X Division, it seems that the gloves are coming off of LANS upper management. They've decide to expand their scorched earth policy. Don't be fooled -- this 'take no prisoners' approach that is being promulgated by LANS has Mike Anastasio at the very center of it.
Doug, you wrote
"Explanation Number 1. Congress and Bill Richardson, then DOE Secretary of Energy actually believed Linton Brooks, then head of the NNSA ..."
Bill Richardson??? Bill Richardson was Secretary of Energy under Clinton, from mid-1998 through 2000. The Bush administration's Secretary of Energy during the time period in question (ca. 2005) was either Spencer Abraham or Samuel Bodman. Richardson was governor of NM by then, and had been for over two years.
So, did you just forget who the energy secretary was at the time, or are you saying Richardson, as governor, had a say in this, or are you saying that the decision to privatize the labs goes back to the year 2000 or earlier?
I'm glad DOE HQ is a depressing place. It's only fair.
The incompetent implemented Dingell's retaliation for percieved LANL long-term insouciance by bringing it under foot. Domenici made sure LLNL felt the foot on the neck as well.
As a result I and every national lab employee who had committed their career to lab work had it ruined.
Only Patty Murray had the foresight to protect her lab. So PNNL is flourishing. If only someone had gotten to Feinstein and Tauscher in time.
I am glad DOE is now in the quicksand with us. Being run by LLNS instead of UC is just amusing, once you get past caring.
It is a wonder to watch competent indiviuals fail in LLNS turkey pen.
UC did things well, independently, fielding the entire US arsenal.
LANS and LLNS blindly implement whatever silliness DOE, NNSA or Congress wretch, and make fee and bonus doing it.
Are taxpayers better off? Most certainly not. Eisenhower explained why a long time ago.
Not yet, 9:01. Give me a few more hours.
Sorry, 10:05. I should have have said "ex-DOE Secretary Richardson".
In September 2004, Richardson came to visit a hand-selected audience at the main SM-43 auditorium to talk to us about "morale problems" he heard we were having. The audience was hand-selected because LANL's interim management did not want any embarrassing questions for our former DOE Secretary. This was during the shutdown, and before Kuckuck had been appointed interim Director.
Richardson mainly talked about the Wen Ho Lee affair, and declined to comment much on the recent shutdown.
This, BTW, was before Bodman was appointed to be the next DOE Secretary, if I remember correctly.
"Where is DOE Secretary Chu while all of this is happening?"
Answer 1. Nobody home, he doesn't care.
Answer 2. He's head of a totally incompetent bureaucracy. He couldn't affect a change even if he wanted to.
Answer 3. Bechtel's lobbyists will make sure that Congress will disapprove any changes to the status quo, in the unlikely event that Chu says to undo the for-profit thing at LANL and LLNL.
Hopefully this abyssmal situation will be rectified once Obama's DOE political appointees come up to speed. What you say, Secretary Chu is the only Obama official currently in place at DOE/NNSA? That must mean the DOE and NNSA are still being run by Bush appointees. Uh oh, Obama must not give a shit about the DOE or NNSA.
Renowned Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist Louis Rosen died in his sleep at 6:30 p.m. Thursday from complications of a subdural hematoma.
""Where is DOE Secretary Chu while all of this is happening?"
Come on - give the guy a break. He's knee-deep in overseeing the nationally important "weatherization" Program.
Geeze :)
"Where is DOE Secretary Chu while all of this is happening?"
He doesn't give a shit.
He is busy painting his roof white.
Who has the right to throw stones at Secretary Chu? Particularly on the white roof idea which I suspect does more for energy independence than Los Alamos has ever contributed. The time has come that the critics point out a success or two that justifies the LANL budget.
"The time has come that the critics point out a success or two that justifies the LANL budget."
We made two milligrams of some dot that does not blink. That is much more important than saving several quads of BTUs.
8/23/09 8:46 AM ..."The time has come that the critics point out a success or two that justifies the LANL budget."
Nobody can justify the amount of money tossed to Klimov, Htoon and Hollingsworth (and their possee of 20) for Quantum Dots, whether they blink or not.
And don't forget the moronic SEXUAL HARASSMENT training LANS paid a fortune for and made mandatory. Why didn't our own Central Training Division create a sexual harassment training? Why pay for a Central Training Division and then go out and purchase some off the shelf crap program and make it mandatory?
8:46 Go read a history book. Dumbass.
You can tell outside people about the crazy and f*cked-up situation with LANS upper management running the show, but to truly understand it you have to be here.
I've never seen so many people so stressed out before as right now at LANL. It's scary! The only ones who aren't stressed out are the people who have finally come to grips with the ugly situation and just don't give a sh*t any longer.
Either way you look at it, LANL is in deep trouble and Anastasio and his crew of Bechtel Best Buddies are either in denial or just don't care about the damage they are inflicting on the lab.
It's time for someone up above the pay grade of Director or NNSA Chief to step in and stop this mess. Dr. Chu, please do your job! There is no way in hell Dr. Chu can claim he doesn't have some inkling about the destruction going on at LANL and LLNL under Bechtel and the for-profit LLCs.
It's all part of the plan.
Anonymous 8:47 seems to share a common LANL problem. His few words "Go read a history book. Dumbass." are in response to the comment about Chu's white roof suggestion. Chu's idea is important and effective but the writer seems to want to value his job based on the success of the Manhattan District. I would guess that neither he, his project or his productivity meet that standard.
Good Grief! One of the most renowned scientists at LANL, and a truly wonderful person has died, and none of you can stop bitching long enough to remark on it.
I'll never forget the All-Hands meeting back in 2005 when former UC President Dynes came to LANL and told us all how incredibly lucky we were because he had finally convinced Riley Bechtel to partner with UC and compete for the LLC contract.
Of course, we all know how things later turned out for Dynes. He resigned as President of UC in total disgrace for rampant payout scandals that he allowed to take place throughout the UC system.
Unfortunately, Riley Bechtel has fared much better. Since that meeting back in 2005, Bechtel has taken a firm hold of LANL and proceeded to rape and pillage the place into destruction. The more Bechtel managers that keep showing up at LANL's door step, the more screwed up things seem to become.
Most LANL employees didn't realize they had been sold-out by crooks and carpet-baggers back during that pivotal meeting in 2005. We were all relived at the time to have seen the reign of Pete Nanos recently terminated. If we had only know what was soon to come as Act II of this tragic play.
8:46 Go read a history book. Dumbass.
8/23/09 12:37 PM
I think 8:46 rightfully meant some success more recent than WWII.
Obama and efficiency, wow, now that's a contraindication in terms.
LANS and efficiency also a contraindication in terms. These folks just don't know how to manage. And efficient...HA! They added an extra layer of management that we did not need, nor does any one know what they really do. There's some of your huge operational cost. Hire anyone we really need, oh no, we won't have any of that!
Love the Freudian slip:
Obama and efficiency, wow, now that's a contraindication in terms.
LANS and efficiency also a contraindication in terms...
contraindication: something (as a symptom or condition) that makes a particular treatment or procedure inadvisable.
If only the crystal ball had been working when it mattered.
The problem is that there are no PBI's tied to improved efficiency. That is because ot cannot be measured. If you try an aggregate of $$$ saved, then the LLC will simply get rid of people. If you try to reduce the time it takes, then there will be opportunities for poor performance because we must do x by y date.
Bottom line is that construction companies build things. As the construction company to the DOE, Bechtel continues to do a poor job. There was no financial incentive for Bechtel to run LANL (or LLNL).
How do we fix the mess. Split up the lab. Let all of the great science (and oh my god, please take the useless facility known as LANSCE with you) into an R&D laboratory and a weapons production lab. My costs will go down since my weapons dollars will buy more with the reduction in LDRD welfare. If the research arm of LANL actually creates something that I want, then I can buy it from the well established and excellent technology transfer arm of the R&D giant.
I think it’s high time for everyone to be completely honest about the transition to corporate management under LANS and LLNS. The government’s only goal was to transfer the Labs to corporate governance for the same reason so many war-making functions had been out-sourced, the pure unvalidated belief that corporate governance is better.
Because the US government has absolute faith that corporate management of former government functions, they make no effort to judge the efficacy of this decision. After all, this question would bring their decision into question. The facts have little or no bearing on this matter. Because of the outright lack of oversight, the corporate entities have little interest in doing a good job because essentially there is no actual competition.
Since the government officials who are supposed to judge are “in bed” with the corporate interests, the corporate managers will be viewed as successes without any regard for their actual performance. This provides the perfect environment for graft, corruption and incompetence all of which LANS and LLNS have provided in spades. The end result is a system which delivers the evils of both government incompetence with greedy heartless corporate ethics without any of the positives (public service and efficiency).
4:52 AM asked ..."How do we fix the mess. Split up the lab. Let all of the great science (and oh my god, please take the useless facility known as LANSCE with you) into an R&D laboratory and a weapons production lab.
This is Terry's wet dream and the only feasible way he could become a Lab Director. Even though he has been a big factor in cratering science as LANL, he thinks he is a science mastermind.
"My costs will go down since my weapons dollars will buy more with the reduction in LDRD welfare."
It will not save you any money. In any case you new lab would still have something like LDRD and you would bitch about it again since you could not get any of the money.
"My costs will go down since my weapons dollars will buy more with the reduction in LDRD welfare." (4:52 AM; probably 6:52 AM NNSA HQ EDT time)
Yes, and my non-weapons projects would be much, much cheaper as I wouldn't have to pay for all the unnecessary physical security and enviro clean up crap.
And without NNSA's crazy micro-management over our heads, it might even be possible to get some real work done instead of taking endless online training classes and checking for shoes that GRIP.
I say let's sand-bag the weapons side with NNSA and their ultra high-costs and let the rest of the lab's scientists be freed to go about their research without the massive overhead bloat generated by the requirements of the weapons work. Let LANL become like the ORNL/Y-12 situation with the lab side run by a low costs non-profit and the "Y-12" weapons side run by profit hungry Bechtel.
Note, also, that weapons funding looks like it on a downward trend. Let's un-hook from this unhealthy sinking ship.
"I say let's sand-bag the weapons side with NNSA and their ultra high-costs and let the rest of the lab's scientists be freed to go about their research..."
Subtracting out all the new Bechtel managers, all the other overhead staff, and all the staff working on weapons program funds, I wish the four or five of you remaining "scientists" the best of luck with that new "Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory".
Sure, Bechtel has dumped a bunch of incompetent managers on LANL. Sure, the$200M/yr "fee" is a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars in the era of spiraling deficits. But you are really not looking at the core of the problem here. The core of the problem is NNSA. They don't care what happens to productivity or moral at LANL. They don't want efficiency or competence. What incentive do they have? Who rates them on that? It's just not part of the equation. All they want is "compliance". Compliance with the mindless and often distractive rules they continuously generate.
Take LASO. They have a incompetent lunatic there who continues to generate ever more absurd demands on "computer security" at LANL. The last thing he would want is a technically competent manager at LANL who would object back that these demands if implemented would do nothing for security, while making work impossible. (Things that we all know. How about mandating that every laptop be encrypted with a third-party product that renders a system unreadable upon the next upgrade of the operating system? [specifically Macos 10.5.8] Lost emails? Disabling the wireless in travel laptops? Oh, I'd better not get started.)
PNNL gets a lot of mileage from their two-tier rate structure. Any of the work that they do which is not DOE-related is charge to the non-profit Battelle Institute side which has much lower rates for research.
Why not form a non-profit entity allied to LANS and let some of the non-weapons work be charge to the low cost non-profit side of the house? Of course, LANS is *ALL* about making profits, so this will never happen.
10:28,
Thanks for answering your own question, it saves the rest of us the effort.
;-}
Battelle is a nonprofit.
LANS (Bechtel & Friends) is a for-profit.
Well unfortunately it looks like no help is coming from the new administration...
===========
Potential Action on Nuclear Agency Reform Deferred to Year's End
Monday, Aug. 24, 2009
By Elaine M. Grossman
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON -- The White House budget office has reversed course on its plan to formally review whether responsibility for the safety, security and reliability of U.S. nuclear weapons should be transferred from the Energy Department to the Defense Department (see GSN, March 19).
Instead, the matter is being considered in interagency discussions and as part of a broader, ongoing Pentagon assessment of nuclear weapon strategy, forces and readiness, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget told Global Security Newswire.
[a rather long article is at]
http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org
/gsn/nw_20090824_8927.php
out of curiosity, are buildings being torn down at LANL like LLNL?
The GSN article is long, but what it has to say is critical and should be read by anyone who works at LANL. It should be considered as a top level post, at least with a partial posting of the text.
The most interesting part was the very last paragraph:
----------------
Lewis said he does not expect the Nuclear Posture Review to significantly improve on what he sees as the commission's "anodyne" recommendation. Rather, he anticipates the nuclear agency and national laboratories would likely remain in "a death spiral of sorts," hampered by "incompetent" management and "shrinking budgets."
-----------------
Anastasio and D'Agostino can use all the glossy PR that money will buy, but anyone who actually works inside of an NNSA labs knows the real story. The labs are slowly dieing and this news article tells it like it is. And, no, the US Calvary is not coming to the rescue.
Got to love this quote from the GSN article....
********
The bipartisan panel -- led by former Defense Secretaries William Perry and James Schlesinger -- found in May that excessive regulation and micromanagement hampered the national laboratories and other weapons facilities, and contributed to skyrocketing costs.
"It is a testament to our weapon designs in the 1970s and '80s that the weapons are NNSA-proof," said Jeffrey Lewis, who directs the New America Foundation's Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative. "Given the failures that run from the management [of] NNSA down to the labs, it's remarkable that our bombs work at all."
********
And the Congress mandated solution to a completely dysfunctional NNSA? According to the GSN article, our local Congressional bigwigs think that things can be "fixed" simply by making NNSA a completely separate agency from the DOE!
Bwaaaa, haaaa, haaa, haaa, haaa!!!
That's evil funny! Doing that will just make the NNSA an even more pain-in-the-ass agency to deal with in terms of micro-managed oversight! Bechtel must be putting up oodles of lobby money in Congress these days.
The title to that excellent GSN article is...
"Potential Action on Nuclear Agency Reform Deferred to Year's End"
Deferred? Sounds like Congress is getting ready to say (yet again): "Go bring me another rock. No, not that one!"
Maybe they can continue to study the decline of the NNSA and its weapon labs for yet another decade.
Think of all the forests that will be destroyed by the paper in all those future reports that will continue to say the same things and yet will be ignored! The horror of it all!
Speaking of rocks ... what kind of dimwits are running this place? Seriously, the following mandate came down today from the heavens above. Nobody pushed back, just bent over. Anybody see the problem with our brilliant LANS leadership's solution?
Within the next two weeks, unclassified cryptocards/WIN accounts will be tied to completion of training. If computer user training expires,
cryptocards/WIN accounts will be automatically disabled until training is completed. Because cryptocards will be disabled, it will be difficult to take the appropriate course and receive credit.
People with a cryptocard will automatically be added to the training plan, which is good news because they will be automatically notified when training is due to expire.
Why are we doing this? The September 2008 LASO assessment "discovered a
significant number of personnel that had not completed the Annual
Training and yet still were allowed account access." This action is a result of that finding.
"It is a testament to our weapon designs in the 1970s and '80s that the weapons are NNSA-proof," said Jeffrey Lewis, who directs the New America Foundation's Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative. "Given the failures that run from the management [of] NNSA down to the labs, it's remarkable that our bombs work at all."
********
8/24/09 9:30 PM
That says everything.
11:04, could you explain why there is anything wrong with the policy you describe?
"11:04, could you explain why there is anything wrong with the policy you describe?" - 7:14 AM
Poster 7:14 am has to be one of those dummies who now populate the NNSA. It's like this, 7:14:
You need can't makeup the required *ON-LINE* training class if your cryptocard for login has been deactivated!
NNSA is driving this place into the ground with it's mixed up policies. LANS continues to offer no push-back to these insane NNSA mandates no matter how bad they may be.
Yesterday's lab web page had an article about Congressman Ben Lujan's visit to LANL last week.
The picture showed him wearing a hard hat surround by a bunch of construction managers all wearing hard hats.
All those construction hard hats struck me as being the perfect representation for the new vision that Bechtel has for this "science" lab... construction work.
Wow! With this new NNSA cryptocard policy, it looks like missing the deadline for a single online training class can set you up for a world of hurt.
Way to go, NNSA! Tom D'Agostino is certainly following his motto of: "Getting the job done!" (for destroying what's left of the NNSA research labs, that is).
This stupid new policy fits in perfectly with some of the discussion about NNSA in that GSN article.
LANS is simply giving NNSA what it wants. No more, no less. They have a customer, and it isn't you or me.
NNSA needs someone to implement whatever it asks, no matter how stupid, counterproductive, or even destructive. No questions, no back talk, and certainly no ideas of its own.
The scary part is what NNSA actually wants. Just look at what's coming down from our management every day and you'll know. NNSA does not want productivity or competence, so none of the changes you see enhance productivity or competence.
Now, let's go back to the leading post. The question was what would it take for NNSA to own up to its mistaken selection of LANS. My answer is, there was no "mistake" in the first place. NNSA is getting exactly what it wanted.
What can change this situation? Easy. If NNSA, or whatever agency were to be put in its place, were to ask for productivity, competence, new ideas, best science, et cetera, LANS management would respond tomorrow. Now, they would surely suck at that, given that "competence" and "productivity" are quite unfamiliar concepts to them, but they would at least start trying. Maybe even hire some other people who'd help them with that. But that would only happen if NNSA were radically changed, or, better yet, completely disbanded and replaced by a new entity that rehired not one of the current NNSA people. What would it take for that to happen? You tell me. (HINT: May have something to do with our elective representatives.)
Elected officials respond to political donations (simply, bribes) or else to scandals in the media. We can't bribe them, so bad publicity about NNSA and LANS is our only hope. Anybody knows somebody who knows somebody who writes investigative pieces for the New York Times? All he or she would have to do is write the truth in this case.
While you yahoos beat the crap out of that dead cayuse called Bechtel, other labs (Oak Ridge, we are looking in your direction....) are stealing us blind.
When are we (and LLNL for that matter) going to wake up and notice that change has already come (as in "climate change funding", for example). Other labs are running rings around us while we debate our "mission."
We damn well better figure out what the other labs are doing, or we are toast -- Bechtel or no Bechtel.
If you want to know what Bechtel can do (as a "construction company" run by lawyers), check out the "Big Dig" in Boston.
It is incredible to me that after that multi-billion dollar fiasco, they were on the team selected to run LANS.
Los Alamos better get on the ball or the townsite will look as abandoned as Chernobyl... There's way too much brain power in Los Alamos to waste, but being the scientific equivalent of Stepford Wives ain't gonna get your children into a good university. There's a lot of science out there that needs help...
Xtopper
Post a Comment