Sunday, May 08, 2005

At a recent UT System Regent's meeting,

Please post. You can use my name: Stefan Wray

Beware of Univ. of Texas/Lockheed

You may not like the mismanagement of UC and want a new lab contractor,
but there is reason to be worried about the Univ. of Texas getting
involved. UT System sees one big reason for getting more involved in the
lab management business: money. At a recent UT System Regent's meeting,
there was clear ignorance on the part of Regents as to what actually takes
place at Los Alamos. Expect another absentee landlord looking for prestige
and government dollars.

Agreed! UT is nothing special, they are more interested in football. They clearly are clueless about what goes on at LANL. But, UC, other than the outstanding management of the pension plan, has not been so great either. One thing that stands out about UC management is that UC has been spineless in the event of any crisis or criticism.

The first recent example was when those two ex-cops were fired. (Note that the line between cops and crooks is thing and wavers.) UC could not wait to pay off those liars and thereby give credence to thier statements that LANL is a "den of thieves."

UC was not supportive of the poor buyer in the Mustang incident.

UC was clearly willing to terminate John Browne without any investigation into the allegations.

THEN, they gave us Nanos, first on an acting basis which was reasonable given the situation. But, then, after five months they made him permanent! Clearly they did not do due diligence or they would have known of his past abusive behavior. AND, they were not paying attention to his behavior as Acting Director.

Then, they let him stay too long.

Also, UC gave us Foley and he clearly is no prize.

One thing that I would expect from Lockmart, UT, and Northrop-Grumman is that all of them would be supportive of the organization and would respond much more agressively to wrongfull accusations.

Frankly, with recent nonsense about unallowable costs for the DOE-approved standdown, I would be suprised if any organization other than the Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety would bid.
You folks ain't seen nothing until you've seen Lockheed manage a national laboratory. Try taking a look at Lockheed's experience in Idaho. Here's a quick box score:
* Two dead, 15 seriously injured in safety related accidents
* A $179M hole in the ground but no waste treated or removed
* More than 1,200 people laid off or forced into retirement
* A "clean & close" mentality by Lockheed's corporate lab management team
I would like to raise a cautionary note about
Northrop-Grumman. In 1991 I worked as a subcontractor for Grumman which was runnig a big Naval supercomputing center. Grumman did such a poor job of running the center that year that the Navy penalized them their entire management fee! Grumman's big shot managers would sometimes come down from New York and have a half hour meeting with us and then spend the rest of the week deep sea fishing presumably on the company dollar. The local Grumman manager was incompetant and prone to telling lies to cover up his mistakes. Maybe Grumman has changed; maybe not!
Can't see how your Grumman manager was any different from Nanos. He too is an incompetent liar and an arrogant blowhard. I hope we don't end up with a clone.
UC was not supportive of the buyer? She still has her job, and I believe that was Nanos first lie. She did try to buy that Mustang and no matter how many times he said "there was no Mustang" there was a Mustang.
To poster 9:27, you post outrageous statements about "there was a Mustang" but give not a single fact to support it. Who do you work for, CBS News? Put up (the hard facts) or shut up.
Annonymous @ 5/9/2005 09:27:51 AM does not have the facts correct. If there had been an attempt to purchase the Mustang, then the buyer would have been terminated.

The real issue here is why the FBI has not gone after the vendor.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?