Monday, April 03, 2006

Division level changes that are ongoing.

Submitted anonymously:

Doug, I think this deserves top post. Thanks...

So far, no one has commented in this blog on the division level changes that are ongoing. Beason's directorate, in particular, is being reshuffled. N-3 has been split off into a new IT division, together with a group of ISR. Evelyn Mullen is the new division leader. She is an engineer by training, has mainly been involved in emergency response, and has no technical knowledge of intel issues, not to mention any credibility as a scientist or leader.

Sara Scott, much to her chagrin, has been moved aside as N division leader. Brent Park, her arrogant deputy has also been removed. Sara will head some kind of non-proliferation center associated with TR, where her talents as Program Manager (not scientist) will be utilized.

Her replacement - Nancy Jo Nicholas, a nuclear scientist and ex-deputy group leader, who never finished her PhD. At least Nancy Jo can make a decision, something that Sara could never do! NJ's expertise - again - program management.

I am so disappointed in Doug Beason - he is worse than Cobb!!

In another directorate, Bill Fieireisen is moving aside, for Steven Lee to step in.

In general, the trend is clear - LANS doesn't want division leaders who lead - it wants followers, who can bring in the bucks. All of this will lower LANL's level to that of LLNL, where science plays a distant third fiddle to "bringing home the bacon". By the time NNSA will wake up, it will have lost the nation's forefront driver of science and technology innovation in defense programs. It will have no edge over SNL and LLNL whatsoever.

Bottom line - for the last 25 years, I have been coming to work early, and taking home work in the evenings, because I identified with the mission of the Lab, and its importance to the nation, despite the fact that so many mediocre people became "leaders". However, starting June 1, I will continue to work the required hours, but I (and probably everyone else) won't have the dedication; after all, we are working for corporate America, and if they want the "extra umph", they have to provide the environment for it. Unfortunately, they have failed, and we are all poorer.

"as bad as Don Cobb"

Come on

Don COULD have served a very useful purpose. If the leadership of the lab listened carefully to Cobb (and Immele) and then did the exact opposite - we would be alot better off.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

By the way, who do you think appointed Mullen, Scott, Nancy. The hidden hand of Cobb, of course!
It ssems that the NEW management is creating a lot of new management positions (3 PADs and 15 ADs). Now, they are splitting up the divisionss to create even more divisions. The new Division Directors are, in many cases, not technical leaders. They are not going to have the respect of the members of their divisions.

Also, of course, there will be a lot of new costs associated with all of this new management. Smaller divisions means the loss of any economy of scale. All of these new costs (increased management fee, gross receipts tax, pension costs, and additional management) will produce higher overhead rates. Of course, the solution will be to have the management charge directly to programs.

Sign me "outa here!"
As a counter to feeling like a victim, readers may want to read a couple of letters in the Readers' Forum of the Newsbulletin.

The letters have titles starting with the words "Individualized Retirement".
Well Eric, have you seen page 7 of the LANS Sample Retirement Estimates for TCP1 and TCP2 on the LANS website?

In bold letters, "If you elect a lump sum payment from the UCRP, you will not be eligible for subsidized retiree healthcare benefits from LANS."
The process for selecting division leaders was always bad. Now it seems that Doug Beason is selecting the mediocre on purpose, without any pretense of rational selection of the most qualified.

To paraphrase The Donald -
No leadership -
No Science -
No degree -

Your Hired!!!

This is a roller coaster going down hill. I think it will crash...
And, none of these jobs have been advertised. There is a simple reason for that: Had these jobs been advertised as in the past, there would have been screening committees and town meetings. Most of those individuals who have been recently appointed would not have made the short list!
Post a Comment

<< Home

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