ReportWire

Tag: cost savings

  • Maryland Democrats buck USDA plan to shutter Beltsville Agricultural Research Center

    [ad_1]

    Some of the buildings at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, which would close as part of at USDA plan to ship thousands of workers to sites across the country. (Photo courtesy U.S. Department of Agriculture)

    Democrats in Maryland’s congressional delegation are pushing back against the Trump administration’s recent decision to shutter a Prince George’s agricultural research facility, arguing that the closure would not only hurt American farmers and agricultural research, but could be illegal.

    A recent U.S. Department of Agriculture memo announced that the agency is undergoing a reorganization to “achieve improved effectiveness and accountability, enhanced services, reduced bureaucracy and cost savings for the American people.”

    Part of that plan calls for closing the 6,500-acre Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in Prince George’s County, which would be “deeply harmful to American farmers and a waste of taxpayer dollars,” according to a letter submitted by nine of Maryland’s 10 members of Congress, as part of the 30-day public comment period on the proposal.

    Both senators and seven of the states’ eight House members signed the letter urging the USDA to keep the center open. Only Rep. Andy Harris (R-1st), the sole Republican in the delegation, did not sign the letter, which was submitted last week.

    “We also have significant concerns about the lack of transparency and the legality of USDA’s proposed plan,” the letter said. “We urge you to keep BARC open and to provide a detailed accounting of the full impact of the proposed reorganization plan.”

    The reorganization was outlined by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins in a July 24 memo that said several USDA agencies in and around Washington, D.C., would be moved to other parts of the country to be “located closer to the people it serves while achieving savings to the American taxpayer.”

    Because of Washington’s cost of living, the 4,600 USDA workers here get higher pay than they would i other cities. The plan calls for moving all but 2,000 of those workers to one of five regional hubs to reduce salary costs, and to close the Beltsville center “over multiple years to avoid disruption of critical USDA research activities.”

    But the Maryland lawmakers say moving the BARC would not actually yield savings the department claims. The cost of living in Prince George’s is “estimated at $121,972 per year for a two-parent, two-child family,” significantly lower than in the District, the letter said.

    “The new hubs you propose are in counties that have costs of living that range from $124,856 in Larimer County, CO (Fort Collins) to $101,965 per year in Marion County, IN (Indianapolis),” it said. “The cost of living in Prince George’s County clearly falls within the cost-of-living range of the proposed hub locations.”

    But that’s just one of several reasons cited by the delegation, which also said that closing the Beltsville site requires congressional approval. Movinig forward without that approval, or moving personnel from one office to another without authorizing legislation, is prohibited by law, they said.

    Meanwhile, the move would “waste” some $174 million in recent upgrades and repairs to the Beltsville facility, lawmakers said.

    “Abandoning a facility right after USDA has made such significant upgrades to it is illogical and wasteful,” the letter says. “As one of the world’s largest agricultural research complexes, relocating personnel, as well as all the lab and research equipment, will undoubtedly be a major expense.”

    Besides, the location in Prince George’s has benefits that “cannot be replicated elsewhere.”

    “Located close to freshwater and saltwater, mountains and coastal lowlands, and situated within the fertile Piedmont Plateau, BARC is within reach of diverse landscapes and a range of climatic conditions,” the letter says. “This geography makes it an ideal location for an agriculture research station and its proximity to the nation’s capital allows BARC to take advantage of several key efficiencies.”

    SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

    The letter specifically notes the BARC’s “regionally-tailored” research in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Eliminating BARC would “eliminate the research hub serving the entire Northeast Region – from Virginia to Maine.”

    The potential loss of BARC is just the latest in a string of federal announcements that have been bad news for Prince George’s County this year.

    In January, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing announced that it was canceling plans to move its printing operations from its current plant in Washington to a new facility planned for Beltsville, a move that would have brought about 1,400 jobs to the county. And in July, the FBI reversed more than a decade of study and planning and said it would not be building its new headquarters in Greenbelt but would remain downtown in the Ronald Reagan Building.

    County, state and federal officials have vowed to fight for the FBI building, saying Prince George’s County is the best location. The same is true for agricultural research center, they said.

    “BARC’s excellence in agricultural research is of enormous value to the nation, and so we urge you not to close this critical facility,” the letter says. “We also urge USDA to ensure full transparency in any potential reorganization and to follow the letter of the law.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Slimmer public worker health plans among best ideas to save costs, NJ actuary says

    [ad_1]

    Proposals pitched by the Murphy administration to reduce public worker health plan costs could generate verifiable savings — but competing proposals from labor unions largely could not, the state actuary says. (Getty Images)

    New Jersey could save hundreds of millions of dollars each year by slimming generous public worker health plans or by increasing members’ share of costs, but no other proposals would alone save enough to achieve a $200 million cut called for by language in the state budget, the state’s actuary said.

    Proposals pitched by the Murphy administration to reduce costs could generate verifiable savings, said Aon, the state’s actuary, but the same could not be said of nearly every competing cost-saving proposal submitted by unions. The few labor proposals that would generate verifiable cost savings fell far short of the reduction levels called for by the budget, Aon said.

    New Jersey’s public worker health plans are in distress, their premiums driven up by inflation, growing utilization, and municipal departures in its local government part that increase risk and push premiums yet higher.

    Aon said a recent administration proposal to eliminate all existing public plans and replace them with ones that carry lower actuarial values — the share of medical spending paid for by a health plan, rather than workers — could save the state between $135 million and $304 million a year across active and retired populations, depending on which new plans were chosen.

    “We appreciate the plan actuary’s analysis of both the State and Labor’s savings proposals and look forward to continuing our work with all parties to reach an agreement,” said Tyler Jones, a spokesperson for Gov. Phil Murphy.

    Existing New Jersey health plans carry actuarial values between 93% and 98%, though most members are enrolled in plans at the higher end of that range, according to a Treasury report released in May. The state’s proposed plans would carry actuarial values between 88% and 94.5%.

    The plans supported by the Murphy administration typically feature higher deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums and in many cases would set copays at a higher level than under existing public worker health plans.

    A 2023 plan comparison conducted by Aon found comparable large public employee health plans in the mid-Atlantic region had actuarial values between 93.6% and 96.9%.

    Language in this year’s state budget requires labor and administration officials to submit proposals that would reduce costs by at least $100 million in the first six months of 2026, annualized to $200 million a year. The budget calls for savings to be identified only in the state worker part of the State Health Benefits Program, not in the part of the program that covers local public employees.

    An administration proposal that would raise members’ in- and out-of-network copays by $1,000 could also achieve significant savings, actuaries said. That change alone would save the state $213 million each year, according to Aon.

    For a range of reasons, Aon said it could not weigh the cost savings of nearly every proposal submitted by unions, a fact union officials said should anger New Jersey taxpayers.

    “It’s no surprise that the actuary hand-picked by the State would sign off on their own recommendations, ignoring or outright attempting to discredit good-faith proposals we’ve made to put a stop to this,” said Billy Gallagher, assistant to the vice president at CWA District 1 (the CWA is the largest union of state workers).

    The actuary identified cost savings for only two union proposals: one that would encourage members to move to lower-cost, high-deductible plans by offering lower contribution rates, and another that would raise copays for anti-obesity GLP-1 drugs like Wegovy to $35 or $50.

    Aon said moving 10% of enrollees to higher deductible plans would save between $4 and $7 million annually, though they warned the incentives needed to encourage that movement would denude any budget benefits.

    “These additional costs could significantly offset the projected savings,” the actuary wrote.

    Raising copays for GLP-1 drugs would save $4 million or $20 million a year, depending on whether copays moved to $35 or $50, Aon said.

    For every other solution raised by unions, the actuary said a lack of information, the limited time it was given to review proposals, existing contractual obligations, or the uncertainty of future circumstances left it unable to accurately predict savings.

    Aon said the unions’ proposal for reference-based pricing — a policy long-sought by labor that would set health care prices to 200% of Medicare rates — could generate savings if properly implemented, but warned many health care providers were not contractually obligated to accept those rates and could seek higher payments.

    Other administration proposals would reduce costs by smaller amounts that, by themselves, would not be enough to reach the required level of cuts, Aon said.

    Increasing prescription drug co-pays and requiring members to use generic drugs could save $47 million a year, while excluding coverage for GLP-1 drugs in almost all cases would reduce plan costs for active members by $48 million annually.

    “Every idea that shifts costs to workers while propping up the insane price increases charged by the carriers and (pharmacy benefit managers) — those ideas were scored favorably,” Gallagher said.

    Requiring public worker spouses to pay $50 to enroll in the State Health Benefits Program could save $26 million, and a proposal to eliminate all but a handful of existing public plans would achieve the same savings, according to Aon.

    An administration proposal to limit annual physical therapy and chiropractic visits would save just $6 million a year, Aon said.

    The committee tasked with designing State Health Benefits Program plans is due to meet to vote on the proposals next week, but that body’s membership is equally split between administration and union members, and the panel is likely to deadlock. If it doesn’t reach an agreement by Sept. 30, the decision falls to state lawmakers.

    But if legislators pass no bill addressing health benefit costs by Dec. 1, a single representative from the unions and administration would be tasked with cost savings. The nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services must select a tiebreaker if no agreement is reached by Dec. 15.

    SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Does Black Cumin Seed (Nigella Sativa) Help with Weight Loss?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    For three cents a day, black cumin may improve our cholesterol and triglyceride levels, blood pressure, and blood sugar control, as well as accelerate the loss of body fat.

    Black cumin, also known as Nigella sativa or simply “black seed,” is not related to cumin; it’s a member of the buttercup family rather than the carrot family. Black cumin, with its peppery flavor, is a spice commonly used in Indian and Middle Eastern cuisines, but it’s also been prized for its purported medicinal benefits. Described as “a miracle herb,” with mentions going back to the Old Testament, it was found cached in King Tut’s tomb, and it’s been reported that the “Islamic prophet Muhammad once stated that the black seed can heal every disease except death.” Only in the last 50 years or so has it been put to the test, though, culminating in more than a thousand papers published in the medical literature.

    Typical doses used in studies are one or two grams a day, which is only about a quarter teaspoon. This enables researchers to perform randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials by putting the whole-food spice powder into capsules rather than studying a component or extract.

    A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials found that daily black cumin consumption significantly improves cholesterol and triglycerides. Researchers also found that it not only improves blood pressure, but it also improves blood sugar control. Some of the results are quite extraordinary. For example, one study found that postmenopausal women randomized to a gram a day (less than a quarter teaspoon) of black cumin powder reduced their LDL cholesterol by 27 percent within two months, significantly better than placebo. Those are the kinds of results we’d expect from a statin drug, yet it was achieved with just a sprinkle’s worth of a simple spice. Black cumin may also help with menopausal symptoms.

    Now, it doesn’t appear to cure anything—a month after stopping the spice, cholesterol levels began to creep back up, for instance, as you can see below and at 2:00 in my video Benefits of Black Cumin Seed (Nigella Sativa) for Weight Loss—but it does appear to be a cheap, safe, effective, and delicious (if you like spice) treatment for some of our deadliest risk factors. And its side effects include loss of appetite and weight loss! 

    The latest systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled weight-loss trials found that about a quarter teaspoon of black cumin powder a day does appear to cause weight loss within a span of a few months. If it really can benefit so many facets of health, why don’t we hear more about it? Why wasn’t I taught about it in medical school? Maybe because there’s little profit motive. Black cumin is just a common, natural spice. The daily dose used in most of these studies would cost about three cents a day. Stockholders won’t be thrilled to sell something that can’t be patented and costs only three pennies a day. Black cumin has become a staple in my family’s daily diet. I keep a pepper mill filled with it right on the kitchen table and grind it onto foods just as I would black pepper—easy and delicious.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Do Taxpayer Subsidies Play a Role in the Obesity Epidemic?  | NutritionFacts.org

    Do Taxpayer Subsidies Play a Role in the Obesity Epidemic?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Why are U.S. taxpayers giving billions of dollars to support the likes of the sugar and meat industries?

    The rise in calorie surplus sufficient to explain the obesity epidemic was less a change in food quantity than in food quality. Access to cheap, high-calorie, low-quality convenience foods exploded, and the federal government very much played a role in making this happen. U.S. taxpayers give billions of dollars in subsidies to prop up the likes of the sugar industry, the corn industry and its high-fructose syrup, and the production of soybeans, about half of which is processed into vegetable oil and the other half is used as cheap feed to help make dollar-menu meat. You can see a table of subsidy recipients below and at 0:49 in my video The Role of Taxpayer Subsidies in the Obesity Epidemic. Why do taxpayers give nearly a quarter of a billion dollars a year to the sorghum industry? When was the last time you sat down to some sorghum? It’s almost all fed to cattle and other livestock. “We have created a food price structure that favors relatively animal source foods, sweets, and fats”—animal products, sugars, and oils.

    The Farm Bill started out as an emergency measure during the Great Depression of the 1930s to protect small farmers but was weaponized by Big Ag into a cash cow with pork barrel politics—including said producers of beef and pork. From 1970 to 1994, global beef prices dropped by more than 60 percent. And, if it weren’t for taxpayers “sweetening the pot” with billions of dollars a year, high-fructose corn syrup would cost the soda industry about 12 percent more. Then we hand Big Soda billions more through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamps Program, to give sugary drinks to low-income individuals. Why is chicken so cheap? After one Farm Bill, corn and soy were subsidized below the cost of production for cheap animal fodder. We effectively handed the poultry and pork industries about $10 billion each. That’s not chicken feed—or rather, it is! 

    This is changing what we eat. 

    As you can see below and at 2:03 in my video, thanks in part to subsidies, dairy, meats, sweets, eggs, oils, and soda were all getting relatively cheaper compared to the overall consumer food price index as the obesity epidemic took off, whereas the relative cost of fresh fruits and vegetables doubled. This may help explain why, during about the same period, the percentage of Americans getting five servings of fruits and vegetables a day dropped from 42 percent to 26 percent. Why not just subsidize produce instead? Because that’s not where the money is. 

    “To understand what is shaping our foodscape today, it is important to understand the significance of differential profit.” Whole foods or minimally processed foods, such as canned beans or tomato paste, are what the food business refers to as “commodities.” They have such slim profit margins that “some are typically sold at or below cost, as ‘loss leaders,’ to attract customers to the store” in the hopes that they’ll also buy the “value-added” products. Some of the most profitable products for producers and vendors alike are the ultra-processed, fatty, sugary, and salty concoctions of artificially flavored, artificially colored, and artificially cheap ingredients—thanks to taxpayer subsidies. 

    Different foods reap different returns. Measured in “profit per square foot of selling space” in the supermarket, confectionaries like candy bars consistently rank among the most lucrative. The markups are the only healthy thing about them. Fried snacks like potato chips and corn chips are also highly profitable. PepsiCo’s subsidiary Frito-Lay brags that while its products represented only about 1 percent of total supermarket sales, they may account for more than 10 percent of operating profits for supermarkets and 40 percent of profit growth. 

    It’s no surprise, then, that the entire system is geared towards garbage. The rise in the calorie supply wasn’t just more food but a different kind of food. There’s a dumb dichotomy about the drivers of the obesity epidemic: Is it the sugar or the fat? They’re both highly subsidized, and they both took off. As you can see below and at 4:29 and 4:35 in my video, along with a significant rise in refined grain products that is difficult to quantify, the rise in obesity was accompanied by about a 20 percent increase in per capita pounds of added sugars and a 38 percent increase in added fats. 

     

    More than half of all calories consumed by most adults in the United States were found to originate from these subsidized foods, and they appear to be worse off for it. Those eating the most had significantly higher levels of chronic disease risk factors, including elevated cholesterol, inflammation, and body weight. 

    If it really were a government of, by, and for the people, we’d be subsidizing healthy foods, if anything, to make fruits and vegetables cheap or even free. Instead, our tax dollars are shoveled to the likes of the sugar industry or to livestock feed to make cheap, fast-food meat. 

    Speaking of sorghum, I had never had it before and it’s delicious! In fact, I wish I had discovered it before How Not to Diet was published. I now add sorghum and finger millet to my BROL bowl which used to just include purple barley groats, rye groats, oat groats, and black lentils, so the acronym has become an unpronounceable BROLMS. Anyway, sorghum is a great rice substitute for those who saw my rice and arsenic video series and were as convinced as I am that we need to diversify our grains. 

    We now turn to marketing. After all of the taxpayer-subsidized glut of calories in the market, the food industry had to find a way to get it into people’s mouths. So, next: The Role of Marketing in the Obesity Epidemic. 

    We’re about halfway through this series on the obesity epidemic. If you missed any so far, check out the related videos below.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • The Pros of Garlic Powder for Heart Disease  | NutritionFacts.org

    The Pros of Garlic Powder for Heart Disease  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    See what a penny a day’s worth of garlic powder can do.

    In ancient Greece, “the Art of Medicine was divided into three parts”: cures through diet, cures through drugs, and cures through surgery. Garlic, Hippocrates wrote, was one such medicinal food, but that was to treat a nonexistent entity called “displacement of the womb,” so ancient wisdom can only go so far.

    Those who eat more than a clove of garlic a day do seem to have better artery function than those who eat less than that, but you don’t know if it’s cause-and-effect until you put it to the test. 

    As I discuss in my video Benefits of Garlic Powder for Heart Disease, heart disease patients were randomized to receive either garlic powder or placebo tablets two times a day for three months. Those lucky enough to be in the garlic group got a significant boost in their artery function—a 50 percent increase in function from taking only 800 mg of garlic powder a day. That’s just a quarter teaspoon of garlic powder. A 50 percent increase in artery function for less than a penny daily!

    If regular, plain old garlic powder can do that, what about those fancy Kyolic® aged garlic extract supplements? They can be 30 times more expensive and don’t work at all. After four weeks, there was zero significant improvement. It’s hard to improve on Mother Nature.

    Garlic powder can improve the function of our arteries, but what about the structure of our arteries? Dozens of studies on garlic all compiled together show that garlic can reduce cholesterol levels in the blood by more than 16 points. So, might garlic powder actually be able to slow the progression of atherosclerosis? Researchers studied a garlic powder tablet versus a placebo for three months. As you can see below and at 1:42 in my video, the placebo group got worse, which is what tends to happen. Eat the same artery-clogging diet, and your arteries continue to clog. However, the progression of the disease appeared to slow and even stall in the garlic group. 

    Of course, it would be nice to see the thickening of the artery wall reverse, but, for that, one might have to add more plants than just garlic to one’s diet. Still, though, that same quarter teaspoon of a simple spice available everywhere may be considered as an adjunct treatment for atherosclerosis, the number one killer of both men and women in the United States and around much of the world.

    What about garlic for high blood pressure? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials “demonstrated that garlic has a statistically significant and clinically meaningful effect” on both systolic and diastolic blood pressures, reducing the top number by nearly seven and the bottom number by about five. That may not sound like a lot, but reducing diastolic blood pressure (the bottom number) by five points can reduce the risk of stroke by about a third and heart disease by 25 percent, as you can see in the graph below and at 2:38 in my video. 

    “Plant-based medicine provides beneficial effects, alongside with only minimal or no complications”—that is, little or no side effects—“and compared to other medicine are relatively cost-effective.” I’d say so, at as little as a penny per day.

    What else can garlic do? See related posts below.

    Here’s a tasty, garlicky recipe from The How Not to Die Cookbook: Garlic Caesar Salad Dressing. 

    Of course, the best way to treat heart disease is to simply get rid of it by treating the underlying cause. See How Not to Die from Heart Disease.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Mass layoffs are terrible for shareholders, a study finds

    Mass layoffs are terrible for shareholders, a study finds

    [ad_1]

    Do mass layoffs reflect poor management? That’s up for debate. But a new analysis suggests the practice harms shareholder returns, and companies should instead consider tactics like a four-day workweek to cut costs.

    CFOs tend to underestimate the “organizational drag” that’s created as a result of layoffs, according to the research and advisory firm Gartner. This can inadvertently reduce shareholder returns in the long term instead of protecting them, an analysis finds.

    “The first thing to recognize is that there is an immediate upfront cost to layoffs as a business will need to reorganize itself around a smaller group of employees and typically incur costly upfront severance payments,” Vaughan Archer, senior director of research and advisory in the Gartner Finance practice, said in a statement. And what will follow is an increased need for contractor hiring, which can be costly, and remaining employees have a ton of more work and more demands for increased compensation, according to Archer.

    Within three years, the forecasted savings from layoffs tend to become offset by the unforeseen consequences, Gartner said. Even if a business avoids “a vicious cycle of employee turnover” driven by overworked staff and low morale, any cost savings from layoffs will likely be lost. And when businesses start to rehire at some point, it will likely be at higher rates than the employees who were laid off.

    “In the more negative scenarios, the factors detailed here are also going to harm growth in existing and new business, and ultimately a firm will start losing its customers,” Archer said.

    Four days instead of five

    A four-day workweek is one of the 10 cost savings actions companies can take instead of mass layoffs, Gartner suggests. Trimming the traditional workweek model to four days is “not about cutting pay, but may control pay growth and staff turnover as employees find better work-life balance and increased productivity as burnout is reduced,” the firm noted.

    This work dynamic has certainly been a hot topic of discussion. Monster conducted a survey of 868 workers in March focusing on work productivity. Sixty-one percent said they’d rather have a four-day workweek and 33% say they’d leave their job for one with a shortened week. 

    Britain announced in February the results of the world’s biggest trial of a four-day working week, Fortune reported. The six-month pilot included over 60 companies and just under 3,000 to feedback on the “100:80:100” working model: 100% pay for 80% of the time, in exchange for 100% productivity. The results included a 65% reduction in the number of sick days, maintained or improved productivity at most businesses, and a 57% decline in the likelihood that a worker would quit, improving job retention.

    Andrew Barnes is the cofounder of the nonprofit 4 Day Week Global, helping organizations in various countries, including the U.K., pilot shorter schedules. Barnes also owns Perpetual Guardian, one of New Zealand’s largest corporate trustee companies. During MIT Sloan Management Review’s virtual summit on May 4, he talked about his company’s experience. 

    “We implemented the four-day workweek five years ago,” he said. “We’re twice as productive on a per capita basis now as our nearest competitor. We’re not seeing any adverse impacts.”

    Voluntary reduction in hours, internal redeployment, reducing executive compensation, remote work, voluntary leave of absence, a hiring freeze, benefit cuts, organization-wide pay cuts, and sabbaticals are the other options companies can take instead of mass layoffs, Gartner advises.

    If the livelihood and well-being of employees and shareholder returns are on the line, there’s a lot to consider before deciding on a major workforce reduction.

    Sheryl Estrada
    sheryl.estrada@fortune.com

    Big deal

    Microsoft has released its 2023 Work Trend Index report, “Will AI Fix Work?” The pace of work has accelerated faster than humans can keep up, and it’s impacting innovation, according to the report. “This new generation of A.I. will remove the drudgery of work and unleash creativity,” Satya Nadella, Microsoft chairman and CEO, said in a statement. The report shares three key insights for business leaders: digital debt is costing innovation, there’s a new A.I.-employee alliance, and every employee needs A.I. aptitude.

    Amid fears of A.I. job loss, when asked what they would most value A.I. for, business leaders were two times more likely to choose “increasing employee productivity” (31%) than “reducing headcount” (16%).

    The findings are based on 31,000 people in 31 countries, an analysis of both Microsoft 365 productivity signals, and labor trends from the LinkedIn Economic Graph.

    Going deeper

    “A.I. Can Be Both Accurate and Transparent,” a new report in Harvard Business Review, examines the question: Is there always a tradeoff between accuracy and explainability in artificial intelligence? The research tested a wide array of A.I. models on nearly 100 representative datasets and found that 70% of the time, a more-explainable model could be used without sacrificing accuracy. In many applications, less transparent models come with substantial downsides related to bias, equity, and user trust, according to the report.

    Leaderboard

    Sarah Wells was promoted to CFO at Spruce Power Holding Corporation (NYSE: SPRU), an owner and operator of distributed solar energy assets across the U.S., effective May 19. Wells succeeds Don Klein, who is departing in connection with the previously announced transition from XL Fleet to Spruce Power executive management. She joined Spruce Power in 2018, and most recently served as SVP of finance and accounting and head of sustainability. Before joining the company, she held various financial roles including finance and SOX manager at Cornerstone Building Brands (formerly NCI Building Systems, Inc.). Earlier in her career, Wells served as a senior auditor at PKF Texas.

    William Bardeen was promoted to EVP and CFO at The New York Times Company (NYSE: NYT), effective July 1. Roland A. Caputo, who announced his planned retirement as CFO in December 2022, will remain with the company through Sept. 30 for a transition period. Bardeen, 48, joined The New York Times Company in 2004. He’s served as chief strategy officer since 2018, also overseeing investor relations on an interim basis since March. Before that, he was SVP of strategy and development from 2013 to 2018. Bardeen has also served in various other leadership roles at The Times in corporate development, business development, and strategic planning. Before joining the company, he was a management consultant.

    Overheard

    “My personal belief is it will be like that movie Her with Scarlett Johansson and Joaquin Phoenix: Humans are a bit boring, and it’ll be like, ‘Goodbye’ and ‘You’re kind of boring.’”

    —Emad Mostaque, CEO of the fast-growing London-based startup Stability AI, which popularized the text-t0-image generator Stable Diffusion, hopes A.I. will find us “a bit boring” but acknowledges that in the worst-case scenario it “basically controls humanity,” he told BBC in an interview. 

    [ad_2]

    Sheryl Estrada

    Source link