Saturday, November 05, 2005

Postmortem request

Submitted by Roderick Spode:
________________________________

After the new contractor is announced, and, as expected, if it was not the LANS LLC that was selected, I would like to see the following question addressed: "Were the top managers of the University of California, LANL, and NNSA as obdurately arrogant and stupid as one would have concluded by reading about the events of this past year as presented on this blog?"

The particular players of interest that I would like to see analyzed are Robert Dynes, Bob Foley, George P. Nanos, and Linton Brooks. On this blog, Dynes has been characterized as weak, disconnected, and unable to make important decisions when it was necessary to do so. Foley: the image painted of him in this forum is that of an egotistical, arrogant, and completely unpleasant asshole. Nanos: words that describe him in the negative don't seem to be able to do justice to the task. Brooks: dupe? Good ol' boy? Fool for believing Nanos? Player in a Machiavellian scheme to unseat the University of California? What's the real story on Brooks?

In the aggregate, is this really the quality of the leadership that UC and NNSA have been providing for LANL?


Comments:
Dynes, Foley, and Nanos are no-brainers, as far as characterization goes. The summary description of those clowns presented in the post by Spode is spot-on, as the Brits are fond of saying.

Brooks may or may not fall into the same camp. When he came out to LANL last December 17 to visit with selected "concerned" LANL staff members, after having heard a rumor of possible morale problems at the lab, he certainly came across as a "company man". Spouting the party line, and all that. Direct quote from Brooks that day: "I completely support Director Nanos' decision to have shut LANL down."

Dupe? Maybe. Good ol' boy? Definitely. Shrewd survivor? Absolutely. Player in a "Machiavellian" scheme to rid DOE and NNSA of the burden have having to continue to deal with UC? Well, maybe, but that seems a bit of a stretch, really. He didn't actually come across as being smart enough to qualify to fetch Machiavelli's coffee, much less to be a player in a scheme requiring that level of sophistication. Smarter than Nanos, of course, but not as smart as say, half the LANL staff members sitting across the table from him that day.

He did succeed in looking stupid about 6 months later, though, as he sat on stage with Dynes, Foley, Kuckuck and Cobb not uttering a single "peep" as Kuckuck was introduced as Nanos' replacement.
 
I believe it was Dominici's "Get Over It" meeting at which Brooks succeded in looking stupid, Finknottle. That was the one after Nanos left, but before Kuckuck arrived. The entire time he was on stage, he mostly just stared down at his feet, didn't utter a single word.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

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