Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Place Tongue Firmly In Cheek
It’s official!!! Nanos met with UC (Buck Koonce, Merna Hurd, John Birely) tuesday and they told him he was going. The new lab director for UC will be Paul Robinson from Sandia. His deputy will be Linda Trocki from Bechtel, the “industrial partner” along with BWXT, Washington Group and Honeywell. AD’s will be Paul Hommert (weapons), Doug Beason (threat reduction), Terry Wallace (Strategic Research) and Scott Gibbs (to be created since he is friend of Rich Mah UC proposal manager). All other AD's will come from "the partner". All four of them have been asked to go to Bechtel’s office in
Anonymous I need my job but want to celebrate Nanos going with you.
The clear message was that the path to advancement within Honeywell was to change your sex, change the color of your skin, or prove your homosexual preferences to a manager. I don't work there anymore.
It sounds like a story from Arabian nights.
percent correct . The new director has not
been named, the partner list is incorrect (honeywell
is not a partner), and just because a present AD
is not on the bid team does it mean that they are
banished from the Lab. This is very sensitive as
UC works towards developing a proposal AND tries
to figure out how to get the Lab back on firm footing.
A truly warped mind produced the original post.
Any SET member not making the transition to new management would still have TSM status, no? Just a matter of where they land, if they stay.
It is important to separate the Bid Team aspects from the current management of the lab. Although Nanos is gone in the future, he is not going away tomorrow, and as the SET begins to realize that they have no future at the Lab, there is likely to be bad behavior. Light at the end of the tunnel, but many bumps ahead.
Also, BTW: The fact that I can use bold html tags in a blog comment should be all the proof you need that I am not a LANL manager.
I can confirm this. It also means that Division Leaders have been told, and coerced to sign a document, which states that they will be terminated from the Laboratory if the Director does not want them to be Division Leaders any more.
It's clear he demands absolute and complete loyalty and will enforce with career-damaging leverage if necessary.
The incentive is clear: even if a Division Leader wants to do the right thing, and it would be good for the Laboratory for a Division Leader to show the Director is wrong about something, their motivation to do so is seriously weakened by the jeopardy they put their Laboratory career in.
There's no strong culture of committment to improvement when the actions of the chief leutenants are hindered by fear and scorched-earth politics.
Nanos takes no prisoners, and no one can tell him he's wrong.
How dangerous is this for the Laboratory and the Nation when he is wrong, and no one will say so?