Thursday, May 05, 2005

Our next (interim) director

From Anonymous:

As someone previously observed, at best Kuckuck will be a caretaker and at worst an undertaker. He lacks the vision, spirit, and drive to be a dynamic leader. The image that most often comes to mind is that of the proverbial Dutch uncle. However, he is well connected to both NNSA and UCOP but has seldom used that influence to help Los Alamos. Even so, I wish him and Glenn Mora the best.

Even an indecisive Dutch uncle will be better than an arrogant incompetent. However, I can just imagine UC starting to think along these lines:

"Hey! If we partner with LM, and let them be the top dog, we get to keep the contract, we still don't have to _do_ anything, much less make any hard decisions, and we don't have to find a permanent director. We can just leave Kuckuck there. I like it."
So what you're saying is that with Kuckuck, we'll still be stuck with

Rich (I like women) Marquez,
Jim (I like to lie) Fallin,
John (I like Micheline) Immele,
Doug (I like Lisa) Beason,
Micheline (I like my boss) Devaurs,
Lisa (Eat sh*t) Gutierrez, and
Don (I like myself) Cobb

for another year.
Bob Kuckuck is not a solution to the problem, he had a big hand in creating the problem. As the first head of the Lab Admin Office (6-92/11-94) he established the pattern of ineffective oversight, and total lack of accountability for the LAO. As a result the LAO is a bunch of sleek, over paid, self satisfied, arrogant folks whose function is to preserve their cushy jobs by finding that "everything is beautiful) at the Labs. Since everything is not beautiful, they resort to lies and cover ups.
The LAO always provides the most optimistic evaluation of the Lab performance each year, far more optimistic than LANL's self assessment. Then comes the DOE which ends up arguing against UC and LANL. Not a fun job. It explains why the DOE evaluations have, typically, high scores, but a lot of negative comments in the text, which would seem to belie the high marks.
If you wish to check this version of reality, to see if I am in touch with it at some level:
You will find it hard to see the data on LANL performance over the years on the LAO site, as they have pass word protected it. Natch... So much for openness.
Kuckuck, and UC, have a long and sorry history, which LANL employees are mostly unaware of. The LAO, born in 1992, could have led to reform, instead it became a lobby for the Labs, inside the President's Office. A place of contentment for fat cats. Kuckuck then returned to LLNL, as the head of operations, the "Jim Jackson" of LLNL. Nuff said..
Actually, if LM gets the contract they have already said that Paul Robinson would become the director, so I think we would lose Kuckuck anyway, even if UC were the partner.
I think you forgot Fred (Two-Face) Tarantino.
The 5/5/2005 07:47:59 AM also forgot:
Susan (whatever you want Admiral) Seestrom
David (Count the Beans AGAIN!!) Beck
OK Guys! Is there a Lab Director who will be praised by all? One could hardly expect someone at that level who haven't teed off a few people...I bet even Harold Agnew has his detractors.

Let this guy Kuckuck show his stuff, and let's be open-minded about this. Look, even Nanos did a few good things. Besides, this guy is a real short timer anyway.

The UC is going to propose Mike Anastasio as their director-designate and current Livermore managers for all senior management position. Whether they win or lose, there will be a clean sweep.
Well, how bad can that be, given the caliber of management we currently have?
sweep, sweep, sweep away!

no one will miss any of the senior management members
C'mon 7:55. As usual, where did you get that info? And who is going to run Livermore if they leave?
Do you really think Anastasio would step down at Livermore until the contract is settled as Robinson did at Sandia? I don't. Given the politics it may take a miracle for UC to win the contract.

Not 7:55.
To the Poster:

Glenn's surname is Mara.
Post a Comment

<< Home

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