- adapted from: http://www.utexas.edu/studentgov/sg/archives/legislation.php?type=SG_BILL&id=268

Whereas the University of California System, which has been dedicated to the management of the Los Alamos National Facilities (LANL) facilities for over 60 years, has encountered a number of security and other scandals which have affected the university system's prestige and funding and consequently, the Department Of Energy (DOE) has opened management for a competitive bid, and

Whereas the UT System Board of Regents has voted to allocate $500,000 to plan for a bid for Los Alamos that is estimated to cost $6 million, which would be shared among partners, and

Whereas according to a press release on December 23, 2002 by the Project On Government Oversight, Los Alamos officials have "misrepresented facts to the DOE particularly in regard to requirements instituted due to previous mismanagement at the facility", and

Whereas Glenn Walp and Steven Doran, both hired by Los Alamos to "examine the handling of government property," were promptly fired after "documenting mismanagement, security breaches and fraud" at the lab¹, and

Whereas Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham referred to a systemic mismanagement at Los Alamos while addressing UC President Atkinson concerning the firings of Mr. Walp and Mr. Doran, and

Whereas a 1999 report from the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board called the DOE "a large organization saturated with cynicism, an arrogant disregard for authority and a staggering pattern of denial," concluding that the DOE was "incapable of reforming itself,"² and

Whereas Whereas Representative Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) has faced "substantial and continued difficulty" in getting information from the DOE to determine the adequacy of security at nuclear weapon facilities for defense against terrorist attacks,³ and

Whereas the Department of Energy's requested budget for Los Alamos in 2005 allocates 79 percent, or $1.36 billion, for weapons programs, while science receives $59.8 million or 3.4%,⁴ and

Whereas in 2003, Los Alamos began to manufacture plutonium pits, the core of nuclear weapons, for the first time in 14 years,⁵ and

Whereas at Los Alamos' Area G site, the radioactive and hazardous waste dump for Los Alamos, there is "enough buried radioactive and chemical wastes to fill 1.4 million 55 gallon drums -- plus 60,000 drums worth of temporarily-stored waste,"⁶ and

Whereas Area G is "expected to receive 54,000 drums worth more waste each year, mostly from nuclear weapons production and testing",⁷ and

Whereas on March 12, 2004 the DOE published an audit summarizing the lack of standardization in security personnel training among individuals. Los Alamos received one of the lowest scores on the audit for modification to curriculum,⁸ and

Whereas former Secretary of the Department of Energy Bill Richardson has said Los Alamos is "a Department of Energy Lab, and there is no such thing as freedom of expression in the lab when it comes to our nuclear secrets. I'm not gonna tolerate that. So there's a difference: it's not an academic institution,"⁹ and

Whereas "a substantial amount of the Laboratories' work is still classified and therefore does not permit free and open inquiry and is contrary to the essential academic commitment to freedom of expression,"¹⁰ and

Whereas "at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore, about 40% of the work is classified,"¹¹ and

Whereas "even with the best of intentions to maintain an atmosphere of academic freedom in non-classified activities and programs, very few programs and facilities appear to be ‘outside the fence' (i.e. free of the logistical hurdles imposed by security),"¹² and

Whereas "It is not entirely clear how many of these benefits [are] due to UC's management of the labs and whether they would continue even if UC were not the manager. Much of the research collaboration between UC faculty and laboratory personnel is surely based on intellectual affinities and mutual benefit rather than the fact that UC manages the labs,"¹³ and

Whereas "there is the issue of access. Mr. Atkinson [former UC president] has repeatedly said he believes UC scientists would receive similar access to Los Alamos, regardless of its manager. Sheldon Landsberger, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, concurs. Many of his students work at the lab. ‘We get funded from Los Alamos, and we're not a part of the University of California,' he says,"¹⁴ and

Whereas "After all, he [former UC President Atkinson] said, the university had actually lost money running the lab, which cares for the nation's nuclear stockpile and conducts weapons research." (Borrego, Anne Marie. "Los Alamos: Up for Grabs: The competition to manage the Los Alamos lab will be fierce, but some critics wonder if universities are right for the job")¹⁵ and

Whereas "‘I do have concerns of UT taking over operations at the lab,' Riley said. ‘I think it would be a big undertaking. I'm not sure we are well-equipped to do this,'"¹⁶ and

Whereas "'the manager of Los Alamos would have to know how to dispose of hazardous waste and radioactive materials,' [Professor Riley] said. He also questioned whether professors who would choose to conduct research at Los Alamos would have the opportunity to publish their work freely since the information may be classified,"¹⁷ and

Whereas "UT faculty not on the Los Alamos task force have largely been in the dark about specifics of research opportunities that would be available through management of Los Alamos,"¹⁸ and

Whereas the UT System has not held any open and deliberative forums with students and/or faculty on any campus regarding its possible bid for Los Alamos, and

Whereas the UT physics department is one of the top ten programs in the nation and its Non-Linear Dynamics programs is one of the top two without management of Los Alamos, and

Whereas opposition to UT's intent to acquire Los Alamos includes UT faculty, alumni, and students (UT Watch, Campus Coalition for Peace and Justice, UT Campus Greens, University Democrats) as well as Texas citizens, and

Whereas the University of Texas System has not supplied satisfactory assurance that the University System, will not be held accountable in the event of continued environmental problems, poor security, and cases of mismanagement, and

Whereas the UT System has not addressed the concerns of many students, faculty and citizens about the appropriateness, cost/benefits and ethical implications of potential UT management of Los Alamos in a substantive manner, that is evidence-based – the UT System has the burden of proof, and

Whereas the University of Texas System has provided inadequate information on its capabilities of being better able to manage a nuclear weapons research facility, and

Whereas Whereas the University of California System is holding a "series [of forums] organized by the systemwide Academic Council Special Committee on the National Labs" deliberating management of Los Alamos National Laboratory, ¹⁹ then

Be It Resolved that the student body of the University of Texas at Austin demands an open dialogue in a formal setting between an equal number of participants in support of and in opposition to the bid that is moderated exclusively by members of the UT Student Government, and

Be It Further Resolved that this dialogue shall include at least four participants on each side of the issue. At least one member of the Board of Regents, and at least one member representing the Los Alamos Task Force shall speak in support of the LANL bid. At least two members of UT Watch and at least one outside specialist shall speak in opposition. This must take place in September of 2004.

Comments
None

Authors Katie Sheperd, Nick Schwellenbach, Forrest Wilder, Austin Van Zant, John Pruett, Ben Durham, Dominique Cambou (all from UT Watch)

Sponsors Lauren Karchmer (Social Work Representative), Laura Gladney-Lemon (Graduate Representative)