A Chinese woman dubbed the "ivory queen" for her alleged leadership of one of Africa's biggest ivory smuggling rings has been captured and charged.
Yang Feng Glan is accused of smuggling 706 elephant tusks worth £1.62m from Tanzania to the far east. The Elephant Action League, a US-based campaign group, described her as "the most important ivory trafficker ever arrested in the country".
The 66-year-old is said to have been a crucial link between east African poaching syndicates and buyers in China, where ivory is prized for ornamental use, for over 14 years. Tanzania's national and transnational serious crimes investigation unit had been tracking Glan for more than a year, according to the Elephant Action League.
On Wednesday Glan appeared at the Kisutu magistrates court, along with Tanzanians Salvius Matembo and Manase Philemon, in the city of Dar es Salaam. She was charged with smuggling ivory between 2000 and 2014, although some reports suggested she may have been active since the 1980s. Glan did not enter a plea and was remanded in custody to await a further hearing.
Tanzania's elephant population is one of Africa's biggest but has been hit hard by the illegal ivory trade. In June, a government census revealed it had lost a "catastrophic" 60% of its elephants in five years. The data showed that between 2009 and 2014, the number dropped from 109,051 to 43,330.
The government has been heavily criticised for its inability to stop the flow and for turning a blind eye to so-called kingpins linked to the large and influential Chinese community in the country. It is extremely unusual for an ivory kingpin, especially a Chinese national, to appear in court.
The Elephant Action League said Glan is originally from Beijing and owns several properties and many cars. She learned Swahili and moved to Tanzania in 1975 as a translator when China was building a railway.
She is the vice-president and secretary-general of the Tanzania China-Africa business council, it added, and owns the biggest Chinese restaurant at Dar es Salaam station.
Andrea Crosta, co-founder of the Elephant Action League and WildLeaks, said: "It's the news that we have all been waiting for, for years. Finally, a high-profile Chinese trafficker is in jail. Hopefully, she can lead us to other major traffickers and corrupt government officials. We must put an end to the time of the untouchables if we want to save the elephants.
"Everyone she has been dealing with will now become a target for law enforcement," Crosta added.
Yang's court appearance came just a week after another Chinese woman, Li Ling Ling, was charged by the same court along with four Tanzanians with aiding the smuggling of ivory to Switzerland.
Last December Kenyan national Feisal Ali Mohammed, a suspected organised crime boss alleged to be a leading figure in the illegal ivory trade, was arrested by Interpol agents in Tanzania.


text:
'I Was Cooperating with Evil': A Former Gitmo Prosecutor Sounds off About a Corrupt Process
Tim Elfrink
Tim Elfrink | February 20, 2009 | 8:55am
Two years ago, when Darrel Vandeveld flew to Guantánamo Bay to work as a prosecutor, no one else believed more in the detention camps and all they stood for in the War on Terror.
"I was totally gung ho," Vandeveld tells Riptide. "I was convinced that we actually had the 'worst of the worst,' and I was prepared to do whatever it took to get them convicted."
But for Vandeveld, a Navy JAG lawyer who had served in Bosnia, Africa, Afghanistan, and Iraq, a young Afghan named Mohammed Jawad changed everything. As he prosecuted Jawad, Vadevelde viciously called claims that Jawad was only 16 when captured and that he'd been brutally mistreated at Bagram Air Base "idiotic" and suggested his defense attorney supported terrorism.
Then he realized Jawad was telling the truth. Worse, he realized the entire military tribunal system at Gitmo was jerry-rigged to ensure that Jawad would never receive a fair hearing. After weeks of soul searching -- and a meeting with a Catholic priest who advised Vandeveld that he was "serving evil" -- he resigned in September 2008.
Read Riptide's interview with the former prosecutor, after the jump. And next week, look for New Times' full feature about our visit to Guantánamo Bay and the tremendous dilemma facing President Obama as he seeks to close the camps.
Riptide: Can you take us through the process that led you to resign as a prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay?
Vandeveld: Once I began to examine the manner in which evidence was kept, I started having doubts about professionalism of the investigators assinged to the prosecution office ...
As I got deeper and deeper into the case I ultimatly charged, US vs. Jawad, I found that most of the evidence was not only not available, no one knew where it was.
In December '07, I traveled to Afghanistan to interview police who I thought would be part of the prosecution because they'd taken Jawad into custody and interrogated him and extracted a confession ... What I found was that Jawad had been mistreated at the time he was held at Bagram. This was a kid of 16 or 17. Unlike any U.S. jail where juvilines were segregated, he was thrown in with everyone else.
The Afghans, I took their statements by videotape deposition. To a person, they each denied that Jawad had suffered any mistreatment. One said, with some inidgation, 'We are the police. We do not torture.' Later it devleoped that their definnition of torture was not consistent with our own. We had photographs of Jawad that didn't show any physical marks. But the judge in the case found after I resigned that they'd held a gun to his head and threatened to kill his family.
At that point the case disintegrated, because we had no physical evidence and lacking any confession, there was nothing. At the same time, we discovered that Jawad, who'd always claimed he'd been lured to join an insurgent group through promises that his work would be clearing land mines, that this was true and a standard recruiting tactic of this group.
I concluded that Jawad, if he was guilty, would never be convicted. And as a juvenile and given the fact that he'd served six years already, that he should be released. He poses no potential harm to U.S. interests and still today, I have no doubt if I encountered him on the street he'd pose no harm to me.
Riptide: And how did you decide the only option was to quit in protest?
Vandeveld: The decisive point came for me while I was sitting in a colleague's office, looking over a binder detailing some of the abuses at Bagram just out of idle curiosity. I came across a statement taken from Jawad by Army investigators that I knew nothing about. It detailed his abuse at the hands of the guards at Bagram and it was a document I should have turned over to defense long before this point in the trial.
At that point I became convinced there was no way, given the state of the disorganization of evidence, that I could certify to the court that I'd provided all the evidence that our rules of responsibility and the commissions required me to turn over. I decded I couldn't be a part of something so fundamentally flawed that justice couldn't be achieved.
Still, as I said, I lacked the moral courage to resign right away. I didn't want to make a hasty decision, so I consulted with a Catholic priest. Other articles have described me as 'devout,' but I'm more resolute than devout. In any event, I contacted a priest and couldn't divulge any classified info, but I described my moral dillemma.
The Catholics have a long history of 'justified war,' and I expected the priest would urge me to do my duty as ethically as I could and try to change the system from within. Instead, very quickly and simply, he said that I should quit, that I was cooperating with evil, that the whole world knew that Gitmo is farce. That gave me significant pause and caused me a crisis of a sort I'd never encountered. I took a few days, went to monastery in DC, thought and prayed over the decision, analyzed it as intelligently as I could, and decided the priest was right and I should ask to be released.
Riptide: What is your take on Obama's order to close the detention camps in Guantanamo Bay within the year?
Vandeveld: Clearly, it's the right decision and it will be the first step in restoring a measure of credibility to the U.S. Already, we're beginning to see a favorable reaction on the part of the allies in the EU who had resisted any idea of resettlement for detainees no longer deemed to be threats.
Riptide: Do you think Obama should try the worst detainees in federal court, in military tribunals or in some other way that doesn't exist yet?
Vandeveld: The 9-11 defendants, including Kalhid Sheikh Mohammed (the accused 9-11 mastermind) should be prosecuted in U.S. federal courts, no question.
Tim Elfrink is an investigative reporter and the managing editor of Miami New Times. He's won the George Polk Award and was a finalist for the Goldsmith Prize for Investigative Reporting.
Twitter: @timelfrinkmia

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
By default, Docker puts data and metadata on a loop device backed by a sparse file.	This is great from a usability point of view (zero configuration needed) but terrible from a performance point of view.
To resolve this, real block devices should be provisioned for docker and docker needs to be configured to use direct-lvm storage driver.

To provision this, docker needs an unmounted storage space. If you already have unmounted storage available in your machine, skip to last step!

1.  Following commands lists the mounted devices,
```
df -aTh
```
2.  The device can be unmounted using the following command where /dev/sdb is the storage required.
```
umount /dev/sdb
```
If any process is restricting it from being mounted you can check for other mountpoints and check for blocking processes by following commands
```
fuser /dev/sdb
lsof /dev/sdb
```
3.  After unmounting you can give input or append in existing ansible install command as follows.
This will **format** the /dev/sdb storage and provision it to be used with docker. Any data inside the partrition would be destroyed.
```
DirectLVMstorage=yes Docker_storage_devs=/dev/sdb
```
Docker daemon would also be configured by ansible script to use the specified volume as image and container storage.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Each campus and medical center of the University of California (UC) periodically develops a long range development plan (LRDP) that guides its physical development—based on academic goals and projected student enrollment levels—for an established time horizon. This report reviews the process used by UC to prepare LRDPs and analyzes whether it adequately addresses the impacts that campus growth has on surrounding communities. We generally found a lack of accountability, standardization, and clarity in the current process, and recommend steps to make the process more transparent and effective (such as ensuring greater legislative oversight and public involvement in the development of an LRDP).
The state's Master Plan for Higher Education (originally adopted by the Legislature in 1960 and periodically reviewed) assigns to the University of California (UC) the primary mission of providing undergraduate and graduate instruction in the liberal arts, sciences, and professional education. The plan directs UC to draw its entering freshmen from the top one-eighth (12.5 percent) of public high school graduates and to accept all qualified community college students. Such students are considered "eligible" for admission to the segment as a whole, but are not guaranteed admission to any particular campus. The Master Plan also specifies that UC is the primary state-supported academic agency for research.
Because the Master Plan promises access for eligible students, growth in enrollment demand (due to increases in the number of eligible high school graduates, for example) puts pressure on UC to increase enrollment and to expand infrastructure to accommodate the additional students. Each campus's plans for growth are identified in its Long Range Development Plan (LRDP), which sets upper limits for broad campus parameters-such as student enrollment and number of employees-for 10 to 15 years into the future. The LRDP may also identify special infrastructure that might be required, such as athletic stadiums, parking garages, faculty and student housing, and nature reserves. Sometimes planned transportation systems are also identified-such as shuttle buses and dedicated bicycle and pedestrian circulation paths. The LRDP essentially defines the "outer envelope" for campus growth in the period covered by the plan.
In developing LRDPs, campuses consult surrounding communities in an attempt to achieve a mutually agreeable plan. In recent years, such agreement has sometimes been elusive, with differences of opinions over traffic, housing, and other potential impacts of planned campus growth. For example, some communities believe that a campus should only grow to the extent it pays for all the costs associated with mitigating off-campus impacts, while some UC campuses expect such costs to be shared with local government. In view of these disputes, our office analyzed whether UC's LRDP process adequately addresses the impacts that campus growth has on surrounding communities.
Review the purpose of LRDPs and the process used by UC to prepare them for its campuses and medical centers, including the extent to which the process incorporates local and community input.
Assess how much UC campuses would need to grow in future years to accommodate projected student enrollment.
Discuss the current process for mitigating off-campus impacts, including a review of the policies adopted by other states.
Identify issues for the Legislature to consider, including recommendations to improve UC's LRDP process.
In preparing this report, we met with representatives from the UC Office of the President (UCOP) and from three UC campuses (Davis, Riverside, and Santa Cruz), in order to gain an in-depth understanding on how campuses prepare and implement their LRDPs. During our campus visits, we also met separately with neighborhood residents and local government officials (such as city council members and county supervisors) to learn about their concerns and involvement in the LRDP process. In addition, we interviewed officials from private universities in California and from public universities in other states regarding their development of long-range physical plans. Specifically, we examined the processes at Stanford University, University of the Pacific, Arizona State University, University of Colorado, State University of New York, University of Texas, and the University of Washington.
An LRDP is a land use plan that guides the physical development of a UC campus-such as the location of buildings and open space-for an established time horizon. (Although each of UC's medical centers also has an LRDP, much of this report focuses on campus-level LRDPs.) When a campus is first being built, an initial LRDP is developed (commonly referred to as the "master plan"). Subsequent LRDPs for the campus are essentially updates to this initial plan. Campuses prepare LRDPs based on their academic goals and projected student enrollment levels. Each plan identifies how a campus will accommodate the anticipated enrollment along with the faculty and staff needed to support that enrollment. Thus, an LRDP also serves as an important policy document that outlines a campus's priorities and guides future development. An LRDP requires approval by the UC Board of Regents.
Land Use. The plan provides guidance for future structure placement and land use while maintaining adequate flexibility for future decision making. The level of detail in this element varies for by campus. For example, while UC Riverside's LRDP specifies the location, type, and number of new student family housing units, UC Santa Cruz's LRDP only indicates that phased redevelopment of existing student family housing units is projected and that additional units may be developed in other locations.
Landscape and Open Space. The plan also identifies areas of open space, which could include paved plazas, less formal landscaped areas, and undeveloped natural areas.
Circulation and Transportation. The plan shows how people move through the site and considers all forms of travel, including pedestrian, bicycle, mopeds, motorcycles, cars, service and delivery vehicles, and emergency vehicles. The plan also addresses parking for all vehicle types.
Utilities. The LRDP discusses how campus systems for irrigation water, waste water, storm drainage, sanitary sewers, chilled water and steam, electrical distribution, natural gas, and communications will accommodate the projected campus population.
Beyond these guidelines, the UCOP does not impose specific requirements for the content, organization, or longevity of an LRDP. Although the university's guidelines state that campuses must consult with community groups and neighboring cities and counties when developing an LRDP, the guidelines do not specify the extent and timeline of the consultation process. As a result, the organization of an LRDP and the process used to develop it often varies across campuses. For example, a committee comprised of both campus and local government representatives oversaw the development of UC Santa Cruz's most recent LRDP. In contrast, the LRDP committees at most other campuses typically do not include representatives from the surrounding cities and counties.
Not Subject to Local Land Use Control. As a state institution, UC is constitutionally exempt from local land use control. This means that the local government's planning commission does not have the jurisdiction to reject or oppose a campus's LRDP or a specific capital project. In contrast, a private company or institution-such as Stanford University-must abide by local land use regulations, submit its long range plan for review and approval by the local government, and pay for all costs related to its plan and projected campus growth (such as development impact fees). In addition, state agencies typically do not review or approve a UC campus's LRDP. Currently, the Legislature does not provide any formal guidance or oversight regarding the development or implementation of an LRDP.
Although each LRDP has an established time horizon, it does not automatically expire at the end of that horizon. A campus's plan remains in effect until the UC Regents approve an updated LRDP (with a new time horizon) for that campus. Under certain circumstances, a campus might not develop an update soon after the horizon year of the existing LRDP. This could be because the particular campus had not yet grown to the enrollment and development limits defined in the existing LRDP, due perhaps to lower enrollment demand or lack of funding for the specific capital outlay projects envisioned in the plan.
Figure 1 summarizes the status of each UC campus and medical center's LRDP. Typically, if a medical center is located in close proximity to the main campus (such as in Los Angeles), a single LRDP covers both the campus and medical center. As indicated in the figure, UC campuses and medical centers are in various stages of updating their LRDPs. As a result, campuses tend to have different time horizon years based on their particular priorities and objectives. The entire LRDP process (from the time a campus begins to develop an LRDP to when it is approved by the Regents) typically takes two to three years.
a All sites, including the medical center.
b Phased development because Merced is a new campus.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a comprehensive EIR be prepared specifically for the LRDP of a public higher education campus or medical center. (Please see nearby box for a more detailed description of CEQA.) The EIR essentially evaluates the impacts of the plan on the surrounding environment and considers ways to mitigate those impacts. Under CEQA, the Regents-as the "lead agency"-must certify an EIR before approving an LRDP. Since the LRDP includes multiple projects, the accompanying EIR is typically referred to as a "master" or "program-level" report (evaluating the overall impact of the plan) rather than a project-level report (evaluating each project separately). As each project covered by the LRDP begins implementation, CEQA requires that the university prepare a project-level EIR. However, given the certification of a program-level EIR on the entire LRDP, these project-level EIRs are not required to be as detailed as those for non-LRDP projects.
What Is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)?
Inform public decision makers of the potential adverse environmental impacts of projects they carry out or approve.
Identify, and require the implementation of, feasible alternatives or measures that would reduce or avoid a proposed project's adverse environmental impacts.
Facilitate public participation in the environmental review process.
Currently, any project that may cause a significant physical change in the environment is subject to CEQA review. Projects include those carried out by public agencies themselves and private projects linked to a public decision-making process, such as permit approval or granting of public funds. Certain projects are fully or partially exempt from CEQA requirements either by state law or regulation adopted by the Secretary for Resources.
Under CEQA, a "lead" public agency must first conduct a preliminary analysis to determine whether a project may have significant adverse environmental impacts. The lead agency is a public agency that is carrying out its own project, or, in the case of a private project, the public agency that has responsibility for overseeing or approving the project. Typically, the lead agency will be a city or county, or a state agency (such as the University of California). If the lead agency finds that a project will create possible significant impacts, then it is required to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR).
The EIRs serve a number of functions. The analyses force agencies to (1) develop specific information about how projects may adversely affect the environment, (2) involve the public in environmental decision making, (3) facilitate interagency consultation, and (4) generate proposals for project modification to be achieved through the adoption of alternatives or mitigation measures.
EIR Identifies Mitigation Measures. In developing an EIR, UC must follow the same requirements as other lead agencies (such as a city or county) for projects found to create possibly significant impacts on the environment. The EIR must (1) provide detailed information about a project's likely effect on the environment, (2) identify measures to mitigate significant environmental effects (such as mitigating traffic impacts by constructing physical improvements like traffic signals or roundabouts), and (3) examine reasonable alternatives to the project. In addition, the EIR must consider a project's significant "cumulative impacts"-that is, impacts over time and in conjunction with related impacts of other past, present, and future projects.
If an EIR finds that a project will have significant adverse environmental impacts (such as air pollution or increased traffic), UC is prohibited from approving the project unless it either makes (1) modifications that substantially lessen the adverse environmental effects or (2) finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the environmental effects. In the latter case, UC may approve the project after making a "statement of overriding considerations," which specifies the perceived benefits that project approval will create.
When adopting mitigation measures, UC must also develop a process for reporting the future implementation and results of such measures. The reporting or monitoring process must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. Under CEQA, UC-like other lead agencies-is responsible for implementing mitigation measures that are within its jurisdiction. As we discuss in a later section, if UC campuses identify off-campus mitigation measures (which are outside UC's jurisdiction), they typically negotiate with local cities and counties regarding their implementation.
UC Regents Certify EIR. In developing an EIR, CEQA requires UC first to prepare a preliminary EIR for public review. The UC must provide public notice that it is preparing such a document and allow at least 30 days for public comment. The UC must evaluate all comments received during the public review period and prepare written responses to them, which must be included in the final EIR.
The CEQA also requires UC to consult with "responsible" state agencies which have a role in permitting a project. The law provides strict time limits for responsible agencies' review and comment. The California Coastal Commission and the California Department of Fish and Game frequently serve as responsible agencies for UC projects.
Do Other Higher Education Institutions Have Similar Planning Processes?
The UC's long range planning process is similar to the process used by the state's two other public higher education segments-the California State University (CSU) and the California Community Colleges (CCC). However, the process tends to be different for private colleges and universities in California, as well as some public universities in other states as discussed in more detail below.
CSU. Each of the 23 CSU campuses develops a physical master plan that guides the future development of campus facilities based on its academic priorities and student enrollment projections. The physical plan is not subject to local land use regulations and usually covers a time period of ten years. Faculty, staff, and students are often involved in the planning process. As with UC, CEQA requires CSU campuses to complete an EIR for each plan that identifies measures to mitigate environmental impacts. The CSU Board of Trustees serves as the lead agency in the EIR process and has sole jurisdiction in approving both the physical plan and EIR.
CCC. Each community college district maintains a district-wide master plan, as well as a separate master plan for each college located in the district. The master plan serves as a comprehensive planning document encompassing all functions of the college or district for a period usually of ten years. Moreover, it includes a facilities component that evaluates existing land, infrastructure, and facility needs, and specifies the capital outlay projects necessary to meet those needs. The various districts and colleges are exempt from local land use regulations. In accordance with CEQA, the district prepares an EIR that is subsequently reviewed and approved with the master plan by the district's board of trustees.
Private Colleges and Universities in California. Unlike the state's public higher education segments, private colleges and universities in California are subject to local land use regulations and seek approval of their long range plans (also referred to as general use plans or master plans) from local jurisdictions. For example, Stanford University's physical development plan required the approval of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. (Although the university as a whole falls into six public jurisdictions, the main academic area is in an unincorporated area of Santa Clara County.) In accordance with CEQA, the governing city or county also serves as the lead agency in the preparation and certification of the accompanying EIR.
Public Universities in Other States. In preparing this report, we interviewed officials from universities in others states regarding their development of long range physical plans. Specifically, we examined the processes at Arizona State University, University of Colorado, State University of New York, University of Texas, and the University of Washington (UW). Although the campuses of these universities have plans functionally similar to UC's LRDPs, none expects to increase student enrollment as rapidly as UC's campuses. Thus, the level of conflict with local communities regarding the long range plans is lower.
At almost every university campus we interviewed, plans are approved by the respective governing boards. The University of Colorado, however, must also seek the approval of the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (which is similar to the California Postsecondary Education Commission). Based on an agreement between UW and the City of Seattle, the university's Seattle campus is required to have its master plan approved by the Seattle City Council. In terms of environmental regulations, only two of the states that we researched-Washington and New York-have environmental laws similar to CEQA that require them to disclose information to the public about significant environmental impacts and mitigate these impacts when possible.
An LRDP is essentially a campus's plan for accommodating future growth, such as accommodating a projected increase in eligible students. However, some communities surrounding UC campuses have expressed concern about the impacts of planned enrollment growth. Specifically, they question (1) how much campuses should grow and (2) how much UC should pay for the impacts related to that growth. Below, we examine each of these issues.
How Much Does Each UC Campus Plan to Grow?
Future student enrollment levels are the main drivers of a campus's LRDP. For example, the number of new academic facilities and housing units depends upon how many additional students enroll at the campus. Thus, a campus will develop an LRDP by first projecting the number of additional students it plans to enroll in future years. For example, UC Riverside's current LRDP, which was approved by the Regents in November 2005, assumes that enrollment on the campus will reach 25,000 students by 2015-16. This is a total increase of about 8,600 students (or 50 percent) above the campus's 2004-05 enrollment level. This reflects an average annual increase of about 3.9 percent. As we discuss below, such enrollment projections are based on anticipated changes in the state's demographics, as well as policy choices based on academic goals and priorities.
Unlike enrollment in compulsory programs such as elementary and secondary schools, which corresponds almost exclusively with changes in the school-age population, enrollment in higher education responds to a variety of factors. Some of these factors, such as population growth, are largely beyond the control of the state. Others, such as the creation of new graduate education programs, stem directly from policy choices. In general, enrollment growth corresponds to (1) growth in the college-eligible population and (2) changes in participation rates.
Demographics-Population Growth. Other things being equal, an increase in the state's college-age population causes a proportionate increase in those who are eligible to attend each higher education segment. Population growth, therefore, is a major factor driving increases in college enrollment. Enrollment projections, particularly for UC, are heavily affected by estimates of growth in the college-age "pool" (18- to 24-year old population). This population has grown modestly in recent years (see Figure 2). Annual growth rates will peak around 2009, and will slow thereafter. In fact, between 2014 and 2020, the state's college-age population is expected to shrink. This downward trend reflects an anticipated reduction in the number of California public high school graduates.
In 1999, the UCOP independently developed systemwide enrollment projections through 2010-11 to help guide the university's academic planning efforts. A combination of demographic growth and program expansions, these projections reflect UC's own long-term vision and goals. The actual enrollment at UC requires particular levels of funding from the Legislature, which may have different priorities. In other words, the Legislature may fund a different level of enrollment growth than UC requests.
The university's 1999 enrollment projections (which exclude health science students) assume that the percentage of recent California high school graduates enrolled at UC will generally remain constant throughout the forecast period. However, the projections also assume that the percentage of adults participating in graduate education programs will increase enough to fulfill the university's planned expansion of existing and new graduate programs, particularly at the professional-school level.
Figure 3 summarizes UC's current long-term enrollment projections that were initially developed in 1999 and subsequently revised to include newly funded summer students. As we discuss below, the state has provided supplemental funding in recent years to support existing summer students at particular campuses.
a Initially developed in 1999 and revised in 2002 and 2004 to include state supported summer students. Does not include health science students.
b The Merced campus did not open until fall 2005.
As shown in the figure, UC's plan is that systemwide enrollment-excluding health science students-will increase by 48 percent (or roughly 71,000 additional full-time equivalent [FTE] students) during the seven-year period from 1998-99 to 2010-11. Based on these systemwide projections, each campus is assigned a long-range enrollment projection that forms the basis of its LRDP. Figure 3 shows the enrollment projections for each campus. For example, the Irvine campus is projected to increase enrollment by about 80 percent (almost 13,000 students) from its 1998-99 level.
Campuses Sometimes Make Own Enrollment Projections. Many of the recently approved campus LRDPs are based on a time horizon that goes beyond the 2010-11 time horizon of the 1999 enrollment plan. For example, UC Riverside's current LRDP is based on enrollment projections through 2015. For those years after 2010-11, an individual campus-in consultation with the UCOP-essentially projects its enrollment based on its own priorities. In other words, the university currently has not made systemwide enrollment projections beyond 2010-11.
UC Intends to Develop New Enrollment Plan. According to the UCOP, the university has initiated a process for developing enrollment projections to at least 2015-16, including both general campus and health sciences. This process will include a review of state demographics and program needs, and individual campus growth proposals. The university anticipates that a new enrollment plan will be finalized during the 2007-08 academic year. The UCOP states that the UC Regents do not approve systemwide enrollment plans.
Student enrollment increases do not necessarily require a commensurate expansion of facilities. This is because campuses may have unused capacity that could accommodate additional students. For example, operating higher education campuses on a year-round schedule-which more fully utilizes the summer term-is an efficient strategy for serving more students with existing facilities. Such strategies have the benefit of significantly increasing UC's enrollment capacity while reducing out-year costs associated with constructing new classrooms.
Who Pays for Off-Campus Impacts Related to Growth?
When a campus's enrollment and facilities expand, it can sometimes negatively affect the surrounding environment (such as through increased pollution or traffic). Under CEQA, the campus is required to identify and implement measures to mitigate such adverse impacts. As mentioned earlier in this report, campuses and their surrounding communities sometimes disagree about the responsibility for impacts occurring outside of the university's jurisdiction. For example, although a new signal light in the city could manage traffic from a campus expansion, the city and campus might disagree about how the cost of that signal light should be shared.
Current UC policy asks campuses to voluntary negotiate in "good faith" with local governments regarding a monetary contribution to mitigate off-campus impacts. According to the policy, these negotiations should be similar to the process for determining capital fees for public utility facilities. (Existing law requires UC to negotiate with public utility providers for payment of capital facility fees. Please see box for more information about this process.) The university requires that campuses make an effort to pay for their fair share of the identified impacts. This could result in noncampus entities (such as private developers) contributing to a particular impact. For example, if the campus is responsible for 80 percent of the traffic on a particular street, then it may decide to contribute 80 percent of the cost for a new traffic signal.
Existing state law (Government Code Section 54999) authorizes public agencies that provide utility services-including local publicly owned electric utilities-to impose capital facility fees on school districts, county offices of education, community college districts, California State University campuses, University of California campuses, and state agencies that receive such services. (A capital facility fee refers to a nondiscriminatory charge-meaning it does not exceed the amount charged to nonpublic users and does not exceed the proportionate share of usage-to pay the capital cost of a public utility.) Public agency utilities must negotiate with these entities regarding the specific fees and show that the fee is in fact nondiscriminatory.
Under the university's policy, however, a UC campus will only pay its fair share if the responsible jurisdiction (such as the city or county) has (1) established and implemented an appropriate mechanism for identifying and collecting fair share payments from UC and any other developers that contribute to the identified impacts, (2) built the identified improvements, and (3) reached an agreement with UC on a "trigger" point (such as an off-campus intersection reaching a certain level of congestion) when UC will contribute its fair share payment. This means that the responsible jurisdiction must first pay the upfront costs of any such improvements.
No UC Campus Has Reached a Fair Share Agreement. As previously mentioned, each EIR that accompanies an LRDP identifies off-campus impacts. Environmental Impact Reports developed after 2002-when UC initially developed its fair share policy-typically include a general statement that the campus will work with the appropriate jurisdiction and contribute its fair share of the improvements needed to mitigate the identified impacts. However, the EIR generally does not define UC's fair share contribution and does not include a time frame in which UC would make any such payments. According to UC, a campus would negotiate with a local agency a separate fair share agreement for each impact. At the time this report was being prepared, no UC campus had reached a fair share agreement with a neighboring jurisdiction regarding a particular mitigation measure identified in an EIR associated with an LRDP. This means no UC campus has paid its fair share for identified off-campus mitigation measures.
As we discuss below, a recent court case involving CSU increases the need for California's public universities to work with local municipalities in paying their fair share of off-campus impacts.
In 1994, CSU agreed to establish a Monterey campus on a portion of the former Fort Ord military base as part of the Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) Act. (The state Legislature created FORA-which includes Monterey County and the Cities of Monterey, Salinas, Carmel, Marina, and Pacific Grove-to manage the transition of the base from military to civilian use.) The CSU Board of Trustees in 1998 certified a master plan for the new campus and an accompanying EIR, which identified significant environmental impacts to various public resources. The Trustees agreed to mitigate those impacts that would occur on campus. However, they determined that the mitigation of off-campus impacts-including increased traffic and a greater demand for fire protection services-was not within their jurisdiction, but rather within the jurisdiction of FORA. Accordingly, the Trustees declined to fund off-campus mitigation measures. They also claimed that contributing funds to FORA was legally infeasible and that overriding social, cultural, and economic reasons supported approval of the project despite its significant effects on the environment.
Off-Campus Impacts Must Be Mitigated. The CEQA does not limit the CSU Trustees' obligation to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects occurring only on the university's own property. Rather, they are required to mitigate a project's significant effects on the environment.
Voluntary Payments Are a Feasible Form of Mitigation. If the Trustees cannot adequately mitigate off-campus environmental effects with actions on campus, then to voluntarily pay a third party (such as FORA) to perform the necessary acts off campus is a feasible form of mitigation. Such a payment is not a gift of public funds because "while education may be CSU's core function, to avoid or mitigate the environmental effects of its projects is also one of CSU's functions." The university has an obligation to negotiate with local public agencies its fair share of the environmental impacts.
Unlike UC, private colleges and universities in California (such as Stanford University) are required to pay development impact fees to mitigate all environmental impacts related to their growth-both on and off campus. In terms of other states, none of the universities we examined have polices that require them to compensate local public agencies for the impacts of campus growth. There are also no laws or court decisions in those states that require them to pay for the mitigation of environmental impacts. However, some universities, like Arizona State University, occasionally offer to help pay for the mitigation of off-campus impacts. As mentioned earlier in this report, the universities that we reviewed in other states are not expanding student enrollment as rapidly as UC and CSU.
In our review of the process used by UC to prepare and implement LRDPs (as well as the accompanying EIRs) for its campuses and medical centers, we generally found a lack of accountability, standardization, and clarity. This unnecessarily creates tension between the university and local communities regarding how much campuses should grow and the mitigation of the environmental impacts related to that growth. Figure 5 summarizes our major findings, which we discuss in further detail below.
ü Lack of State Accountability and Oversight. Generally, the state neither approves a Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) nor monitors the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the accompanying Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
ü Lack of Standardization in Public Participation. The University of California (UC) Office of the President does not provide campuses with specific requirements for how local communities should be involved in the LRDP process. As a result, the degree to which local communities are involved in the planning process can vary across campuses.
ü Minimal Systemwide Coordination in Projecting Enrollment for Recent LRDPs. In 1999, UC developed systemwide enrollment projections through 2010-11, which were used to develop an enrollment plan for each campus. However, when a campus prepares an LRDP that goes beyond 2010-11, it independently develops its own enrollment projections for those subsequent years.
ü Campuses Want to Primarily Expand Graduate Enrollment. Much of the projected enrollment growth at UC will not be due to increases in freshman enrollment, but rather because of a desire to expand and create new graduate programs (such as in law and public policy). This is because the number of California public high school graduates is expected to decline.
ü Lack of Clarity in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CEQA process can often be costly and time consuming for both the public and private sectors. In part, this is because there are a number of provisions in CEQA where definitions and requirements are unclear or imprecise.
ü No UC Campus Has Reached a "Fair Share" Agreement. Although UC has a policy for campuses to work with local public agencies to contribute its fair share payments to mitigate off-campus impacts, no UC campus has been able to reach such an agreement with a neighboring jurisdiction.
As mentioned above, UC-as a state agency-is constitutionally exempt from local land use regulations. Unlike the case with private developers and universities, the local government's planning commission does not have any jurisdiction over a UC LRDP. As a result, the university serves as its own lead agency in its LRDP and environmental review process. No other state agency approves an LRDP, unless it serves as a responsible agency (such as the California Coastal Commission) for environmental compliance. Moreover, the state does not review or monitor UC's implementation of the LRDP and the mitigation measures identified in the accompanying EIR. As a result, there is very little state oversight of the LRDP process and the actual plan, and there is no process for ensuring that UC mitigates significant environmental impacts resulting from campus growth.
Although the Legislature considers funding requests for individual capital outlay projects as part of the state's annual budget process, it does not directly review LRDPs to determine whether they are aligned to its fiscal and policy priorities from a statewide perspective. This is particularly important given that an LRDP serves as an important policy document that outlines the enrollment and academic goals of a UC campus and lays out the framework and rationale for future capital projects.
Although UCOP assists campuses during the LRDP process, it does not have specific requirements regarding what shall be included in the process. Therefore, there is often a lack of standardization in the degree to which local communities are involved in the planning process. For example, while some campuses developed an LRDP committee that included community representatives and local government officials (such as UC Santa Cruz and UC Riverside), other campuses (such as UC Davis) did not.
We also found that the number of public workshops held during the LRDP process can vary across campuses. (Although CEQA has specific requirements regarding public participation in the environmental review process, the university does not have specific requirements for public participation in the development of an LRDP.) In the process of updating their respective LRDPs, the Davis campus held 17 public workshops and the Santa Cruz campus held 5 public workshops. These public workshops generally allow a campus to inform the local community on its development of an updated LRDP—such as the different land use options that the campus is considering—and to solicit their feedback. Unlike most other campuses, however, UC Davis used the first few public workshops to solicit ideas from the community on how to develop certain areas of the campus prior to developing and presenting its own ideas to the community. The intent of the Davis campus was to involve the local community in the beginning of the planning process, rather than simply have the community react to the campus's own proposals.
As discussed earlier, the university's most recent plan for systemwide enrollment was developed in 1999, which projected student enrollment levels through 2010-11. However, some campuses have recently updated their LRDP based on a time horizon beyond 2010-11. For those years after 2010-11, an individual campus-in consultation with the UCOP-essentially develops its enrollment projections based on its own local priorities (such as academic goals and locally determined demographic trends) rather than systemwide needs. As a result, the campus's post-2010-11 enrollment projections are not coordinated with the other campuses. This is particularly important given that the Master Plan provides admissions and enrollment guidelines on a statewide basis. For example, the Master Plan calls for UC (as a whole) to draw its students from the top 12.5 percent of public high school graduates in the entire state (not a particular region).
Campuses generally acknowledge that undergraduate enrollment demand will level out in a few years because of an anticipated reduction in the number of California high school graduates. According to the Department of Finance's Demographic Research Unit, growth in the number of high school graduates in the state will peak in a couple of years, and then rapidly decline to the point of going negative in 2012-13. Much of the projected growth identified in recent LRDPs is based on campus desires to expand and create new graduate and professional school programs. For example, the Santa Cruz campus is considering creating professional schools in the areas of management, education, public policy, and public media. Similarly, UC Riverside's LRDP provides a framework for establishing a new professional school in law or public policy.
In general, LRDPs do not explain the rationale for the proposed professional school from a statewide perspective and why it must be established at that particular campus (versus establishing it at another UC campus or expanding an existing program at another campus).
As we discussed in our 1997 CEQA report, the CEQA process can often be costly and time-consuming for project developers and public agencies. In part, this is because there are a number of provisions in CEQA where definitions and requirements are unclear, and thus subject to conflicting interpretations. For example, an EIR must include an analysis of the environmental impact for a range of reasonable project alternatives. However, the CEQA statute provides few guidelines as to the kinds of alternatives that must be considered and the level of detail required for each alternative. This has led to analyses of alternatives that contribute little to the decision making of public agencies. For instance, an alternative examined may not be feasible, such as the case where the alternative considered is development on a site not owned (or that cannot practically be purchased) by the developer. Other alternatives may focus mainly on differences in a project's scale, rather than on more substantial differences in a project's design.
As previously mentioned, an EIR is required (including the identification of mitigation measures) when a lead agency finds that a project may have "significant" adverse environmental impacts. While the CEQA guidelines provide some guidance as to the circumstances under which a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment, we found that more detailed guidance is needed to provide greater certainty in the application of this concept. In view of the above, several host communities have filed lawsuits claiming that certain campuses have not adequately analyzed all possible alternatives or clarified all mitigation measures. For example, a neighborhood group in West Davis argued that the Davis campus violated CEQA by not considering reasonable alternatives to a proposed housing project.
The UC's policy calls for payment of its fair share of costs to implement mitigation measures for off-campus impacts. However, the university will do so only if the responsible jurisdiction implements a mechanism for identifying and collecting such payments, builds the improvement, and agrees with UC on a trigger point for when payments will need to be contributed. Local government officials argue that it is difficult for cities and counties to pay the upfront costs of certain mitigation measures.
As discussed earlier, currently no UC campus has made a payment to another public agency based on a fair share agreement regarding a mitigation measure identified in an EIR. For example, although the Davis campus is in the process of beginning some of the development projects outlined in its 2003 LRDP, it still has not reached an agreement with the City of Davis for its fair share payments (such as for fire services).
In this report, we have reviewed UC's process for developing, approving, and implementing LRDPs for its campuses and medical centers. This review included an examination of the rationale for why campuses plan to increase enrollment and the responsibility of mitigating off-campus environmental impacts. We have also identified a number of important policy issues that merit legislative consideration. Based on our review and findings, we recommend (1) increasing legislative oversight over UC's LRDPs, (2) developing a more standard approach for soliciting public input, (3) projecting enrollment growth based on statewide goals, (4) making better use of the summer term, (5) clarifying and improving CEQA, and (6) requiring a report on UC's efforts to reach fair share agreements with neighboring jurisdictions.
We recommend greater legislative oversight over UC's LRDPs, in order to ensure that campuses' long-term goals are aligned with statewide priorities. Specifically, we recommend UC provide copies of draft LRDPs to the Legislature as they are made available for public review.
As previously mentioned, the Irvine campus is currently in the process of updating its LRDP. Under our proposal, the Legislature would have an opportunity to review the rationale of a draft of the plan before it is voted on by the Regents (which is expected to be in 2007). This process would allow the university to amend the plan as needed to accommodate any legislative concerns.
How much is the campus or medical center projected to grow and what type of growth is anticipated (such as in new or expanded graduate and professional school programs)?
What is the rationale for the expected growth? How did the campus or medical center project the anticipated level of growth? Could the additional students be accommodated through better use of the summer term?
To what extent were local communities involved in the development of the draft LRDP?
What significant environmental impacts (if any) will the plan have on nonuniversity property? How does the university plan to mitigate such impacts?
We believe that legislative oversight would help ensure that the university's long-term goals are aligned with the state's priorities.
We recommend UC provide campuses and medical centers with more specific requirements regarding the level of public involvement in the LRDP process, in order to increase the transparency of the process.
As noted earlier, there is a lack of standardization across UC campuses regarding the degree to which local communities are involved in the LRDP process. This can sometimes make it difficult for certain communities to provide input in the development of a campus's LRDP. For example, some of the residents we met with in Santa Cruz spoke about the lack of responsiveness by the campus to their concerns. Accordingly, we recommend UC provide more specific requirements and guidance to campuses developing LRDPs. For example, the university could require that a certain number of public workshops be held before the Board of Regents reviews a final LRDP. Moreover, UC could require that prior to developing the LRDP, each campus or medical center hold a series of public meetings regarding its academic and enrollment goals. Such an approach could increase the relevance of public input in the LRDP decision-making process. Finally, the university could require that each LRDP planning committee include a certain number of community representatives and local government officials.
We recommend the Legislature require UC to use systemwide enrollment projections to determine the enrollment levels assumed in each LRDP.
We recommend the Legislature require that the enrollment projections outlined in each LRDP be based on a systemwide enrollment plan, rather than the independent projections of an individual campus. In other words, in any given year the sum of the campus enrollment targets should equal the enrollment target for the entire university system (which in turn should be based on statewide goals and priorities). As noted earlier, UC is currently in the process of developing a new enrollment plan. Accordingly, we recommend the Legislature direct UC to provide systemwide enrollment projections through 2020 at budget hearings this spring. In order for the plan to be a useful planning tool for the Legislature, we believe that it is important for the university to explain and justify the assumptions and data used to calculate the enrollment projections.
A systemwide enrollment plan would also assist the Legislature in assessing proposals to fund specific levels of enrollment growth (or additional students) at UC as part of the annual state budget process. For example, the Legislature may take issue with parts of UC's enrollment plans and instead find that growth is needed in different programs in order to meet the state's research and workforce needs (such as nursing), rather than in areas identified by UC. For example, at its November 2006 meeting, the UC Regents approved the development of a medical school at UC Riverside and a law school at UC Irvine. These plans may not be aligned with legislative priorities, given limited resources.
We recommend UC campuses make better use of the summer term as a means to accommodate an anticipated increase in the number of students without having to construct new classrooms.
Given the large unused capacity at UC during the summer term, we believe the Legislature and the university should continue to explore ways to increase enrollment during the summer term. This is because better utilization of the summer term is a more cost-effective strategy for accommodating new enrollment growth than building new facilities. In addition, such a strategy helps reduce the significant environmental impacts associated with the construction of facilities.
Below, we discuss steps that campuses could take to increase summer enrollments.
Offer Financial Incentives. Financial incentives can encourage students to enroll in the summer term. For example, campuses could charge lower fees for the summer term, which could be offset by somewhat higher fees for the other terms. In addition, campuses could offer fee rebates to seniors who graduate at the end of the summer rather than retuning in the fall.
Require Some Summer Enrollment at High-Demand Campuses. As we discussed most recently in our report, Promoting Access to Higher Education: A Review of the State's Transfer Process (January 2006), some campuses do not have the capacity and resources to admit all eligible applicants that apply to them. If such high-demand campuses required students to attend some summer terms, they could accommodate more students.
Increase Access to High-Demand Courses. According to UC, the primary reason why many students enroll in summer courses is to complete required courses that they were unable to enroll in during the fall, winter, or spring term due to limited space. Campuses should view the summer term as an opportunity to offer courses that typically fill up quickly during the other academic terms. Increasing access in this way can ensure graduation in four years and potentially reduce time to degree.
We recommend the Legislature improve CEQA by clarifying language, improving definitions, and providing better guidelines on what constitutes feasible mitigation measures and alternatives.
As concluded above, CEQA currently provides lead agencies (such as UC) considerable discretion in the EIR process when it fails to provide clear definitions and requirements. For example, the act does not specify the kinds of alternatives that must be considered and the level of detail required for each alternative. Consequently, we recommend the Legislature clarify the terms and requirements of CEQA. For example, we recommend clarifying the scope of the alternative analyses in EIRs, including the reasonable number of alternatives to be considered and the level of detail in the analysis. We also recommend the Legislature provide better guidelines on what constitutes a significant environmental impact and a feasible mitigation measure. (We originally made these recommendations-along with many others-in our 1997 CEQA report in order to make the CEQA process less costly and time-consuming to project developers and public agencies.) Such clarification would help ease some of the tension between UC campuses and their surrounding communities.
In view of the recent court decision in City of Marina v. CSU Board of Trustees, we recommend UC report to the Legislature on what steps it will take to reach agreements with local public agencies regarding the mitigation of its fair share of environmental impacts.
As discussed in this report, the most contentious issue between campuses and their surrounding communities concerns the mitigation of off-campus impacts. Although UC agrees to work with communities in reaching an agreement for paying its fair share contribution, no campus currently has such an agreement in place. In view of the recent court decision in City of Marina v. CSU Board of Trustees, however, the university has an obligation to negotiate with local public agencies regarding the mitigation of its fair share of environmental impacts. Thus, we recommend the Legislature require UC to report on what additional steps it will take, including changes to the current three-step policy, to ensure that fair share agreements are in fact developed with the appropriate jurisdictions. We believe that it is important for the Legislature to have assurance that there is resolution on the mitigation of off-campus impacts prior to considering related UC capital outlay projects. Depending on the outcome of UC's report, the Legislature could decide not to approve funding for a UC capital outlay project until the appropriate campus has entered into a memorandum of understanding with the appropriate jurisdictions regarding the mitigation of off-campus impacts associated with that project.
In summary, our proposed recommendations would improve the transparency and accountability of UC's LRDP process. For example, we propose steps that require the university to justify the rationale behind its long-term enrollment and academic plans. Our proposals attempt to ensure greater legislative oversight and public involvement in the development of an LRDP. In addition, our proposals help address the fundamental conflicts of how much should campuses grow (including whether such growth could be accommodated with existing facilities) and who should pay for the mitigation of environmental impacts related to that growth.


text:
The Fresh Factory Reports Strong Third-Quarter Results for Predecessor The Fresh Factory, PBC
Year-to-date revenue of USD $9.4 million, representing an increase of 50% compared to same period last year
Quarterly revenue of USD $3.3 million, representing an increase of 42% compared to same period last year
Acquired Healthful Habits, LLC ('Phyter Bars'), allowing for entrance into the snack-bar market
As part of public company transition, Bill Besenhofer appointed CEO, and Nate Laurell appointed Chair of the Board of Directors
CAROL STREAM, IL / ACCESSWIRE / November 30, 2021 - The Fresh Factory B.C. Ltd. (CSE:FRSH) ('The Fresh Factory' or the 'Company'), a mission-driven company for plant-based and clean-label food and beverage brands, reports financial results for the third quarter ending September 30, 2021.
'We posted another strong quarter driven by solid execution, organic growth, and increasing demand from our customers across all channels,' said Bill Besenhofer, Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder of The Fresh Factory. 'The satisfaction of the escrow release conditions in connection with our recent USD $9.0 million financing, in parallel with our debut as a public company, has put us in a strong position to expand our capabilities, execute on our strategy, and carry out important initiatives that we expect will propel us to the next level of growth.'
(All figures in this press release are in US dollars unless otherwise stated.)
Year-to-date revenue of $9.4 million, an increase of 50% compared to YTD 2020.
Quarterly revenue of $3.3 million, 42% greater than Q3 2020.
Year-to-date adjusted EBITDA of ($0.30) million vs. ($0.07) million YTD 2020.
Commenced trading on the CSE on November 16, 2021, under the ticker symbol 'FRSH'.
Strategic Areas of Focus
The Fresh Factory is building a platform to service emerging food and beverage brands in the fresh-food sector with an emphasis on plant-based and clean-label brands. The Company has established four key areas of focus on which it will report moving forward on a quarterly basis:
Execution: Focus on safety, high-quality operations, and strong margins
Product gross margin was 32.1% of revenue for Q3 2021 compared to 32.9% of revenue for the same period last year.
The Company recently completed its annual SQF (Safe Quality Foods) audit, achieving a score of 99 out of 100. This is the fifth year the company has been SQF audited.
Growth: Invest in and grow with the right brands across varied channels
Year-to-date revenue is $9.4 million, an increase of 50% compared to YTD 2020.
Quarterly revenue was $3.3 million, 42% greater than Q3 2020.
Revenue remains broadly diversified across direct-to-consumer, quick-service-restaurants, and retail customers.
The Fresh Factory acquired Phyter Bars, and began producing bars for several customers. Bars represent a significant growth area for the Company going forward.
Brand Portfolio: Meaningful equity participation in the sector
The Company continues to invest in its two wholly owned brands, Field + Farmer and Element Pressed.
The Company's Field + Farmer brand, which produces plant-based dressings and dips made with farm-fresh ingredients, reported strong year-to-date revenue growth of 70%.
Sustainability: Become a market leader in sustainability
The Company continues to develop a multi-year plan toward increased sustainability and other green initiatives.
As part of the transition from a privately held company to a publicly traded company, the Board of Directors of the Company appointed Bill Besenhofer as Chief Executive Officer and Nate Laurell as Chair of the Board. Both Bill and Nate are co-founders of The Fresh Factory.
Bill has over 18 years of experience in operations, including executive management and leading operations teams. Bill held the role of President and Chief Operating Officer of The Fresh Factory prior to his appointment as Chief Executive Officer and will continue overseeing all daily operations, in addition to the added responsibilities relating to strategic planning and shareholder engagement. Bill began his career in health care at Cardinal Health, a Top 20 Fortune 500 multinational integrated health-care service company, as a lean six-sigma black belt with a focus on operational process, improving cost-effectiveness, and optimizing performance. Bill most recently was the Operating Partner/COO for GreatPoint Ventures, a San Francisco-based venture fund where he maintained operational oversight and managed funds with investments in industry-leading companies such as Beyond Meat and Farmer's Fridge.
'One of the Board's top priorities is to ensure we have the leadership and resources in place to execute on our strategy,' said Nate Laurell, Chair of the Board. 'The Board is thrilled to promote Bill to CEO. He knows our business inside and out, with ever-increasing responsibilities over the years. His exemplary leadership and unwavering commitment to and passion for our people and brand made him a natural choice for this position.'
Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures
There are measures included in this news release that do not have a standardized meaning under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and therefore may not be comparable to similarly titled measures and metrics presented by other publicly traded companies. The Company includes these measures because it believes certain investors use these measures and metrics as a means of assessing financial performance. EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization is calculated as net earnings before finance costs (net of finance income), income tax expense, and depreciation and amortization of intangibles) is a non-GAAP financial measure that does not have any standardized meaning prescribed by IFRS and may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other companies.
We prepare and release quarterly unaudited and annual audited financial statements prepared in accordance with IFRS. We also disclose and discuss certain non-GAAP financial information, used to evaluate our performance, in this and other earnings releases and investor conference calls as a complement to results provided in accordance with IFRS. We believe that current shareholders and potential investors in the Company use non-GAAP financial measures, such as Adjusted EBITDA and Product Gross Margin, in making investment decisions about the Company and measuring our operational results.
The term 'Adjusted EBITDA' refers to a financial measure that we define as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization, stock-based compensation, and change in fair value of derivative liabilities. The term 'Product Gross Margin' is defined as income after all variable costs associated with production, including food and other ingredient costs, all packaging costs, and all direct labor costs to produce the product.
Management believes that investors and financial analysts measure our business on the same basis, and we are providing the Adjusted EBITDA and Product Gross Margin financial metrics to assist in this evaluation and to provide a higher level of transparency into how we measure our own business. However, Adjusted EBITDA and Product Gross Margin are non-GAAP financial measures and may not be comparable to similarly titled measures reported by other companies. Adjusted EBITDA and Product Gross Margin should not be construed as a substitute for net income determined in accordance with IFRS or other non-GAAP measures that may be used by other companies, such as EBITDA. The use of Adjusted EBITDA and Product Gross Margin does have limitations. As certain acquisition-related expenses charges may continue as we pursue our consolidation strategy, some investors may consider these charges and expenses as a recurring part of operations rather than expenses that are not part of operations.
The financial statements of The Fresh Factory, PBC, a predecessor company to the Company, for the three- and nine-month period September 30, 2021 can be found on the Company's issuer profile on SEDAR at www.sedar.com under the heading 'Financial statements of RTO acquirer'.
About The Fresh Factory B.C. Ltd.
The Fresh Factory is a vertically integrated company focused on accelerating the growth of the plant-based, clean-label food and beverage brands of tomorrow. The Fresh Factory owns or partners with emerging brands in the plant-based space to develop, manufacture, and sell products made from fresh produce and recognizable ingredients. It operates from its centrally located manufacturing facility near Chicago, serving customers across the US. As a B Corporation, The Fresh Factory is ESG-focused, driven to make a lighter, greener impact on the environment and a stronger, positive impact on local communities and the food system as a whole.
To learn more and receive news and updates about The Fresh Factory, visit www.thefreshfactory.co, and find them on social media at Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn.
Bill Besenhofer
info@thefreshfactory.co
Alyssa Barry
Media and Investor Relations
healthyinvestors@thefreshfactory.co
This news release contains 'forward-looking statements' or 'forward-looking information' (collectively referred to hereafter as 'forward-looking statements') within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation. All statements that address activities, events, or developments that Company expects or anticipates will, or may, occur in the future, including, among other things, information regarding: the limited history of operations, lack of profitability, availability of financing, the need for additional financing and the timing and amount of expenditures, information pertaining to strategy, plans, or future financial performance, such as statements with respect to future revenues, EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA, product gross margin, cash flows and other statements that express management's expectations or estimates of future performance, the anticipated timing of future cash flow and positive EBITDA, and the ability to successfully execute on corporate strategies. In some cases, forward looking statements are preceded by, followed by, or include words such as 'may', 'will,' 'would', 'could', 'should', 'believes', 'estimates', 'projects', 'potential', 'expects', 'plans', 'intends', 'proposes', 'anticipates', 'targeted', 'continues', 'forecasts', 'designed', 'goal', 'anticipate' or the negative of those words or other similar or comparable words.
Investors are cautioned that forward‐looking information is not based on historical facts but instead reflect the Company's management's expectations, estimates or projections concerning the Company, future results or events based on the opinions, assumptions and estimates of management considered reasonable at the date the statements are made. Although the Company believes that the expectations reflected in such forward‐looking information are reasonable, such information involves risks and uncertainties, and undue reliance should not be placed on such information, as unknown or unpredictable factors could have material adverse effects on future results, performance or achievements of the combined company. Among the key factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected in the forward‐looking information are the following: changes in general economic, business and political conditions, including changes in the financial markets; and in particular in the ability of the Company to raise debt and equity capital in the amounts and at the costs that it expects; the Company's production capacity and supply chain; the price of raw ingredients and materials; expectations regarding trends in the plant-based food industry; expectations with respect to the future growth of its food ingredient products; adverse changes in applicable laws; the failure to find economically viable acquisition targets or achieve organic growth targets; business integration risks; ability to manage growth; reliance on key personnel; economic spending in the food products industry; funding for internally developed products; customer retention and attrition; client demands; or adverse changes in the application or enforcement of current laws, including those related to taxation; the inability to locate and acquire suitable companies, properties and assets necessary to execute on the Company's business plans; and increasing costs of compliance with extensive government regulation. This forward‐looking information may be affected by risks and uncertainties in the business of the Company and market conditions.
Although the management of the Company believes that the assumptions made and the expectations represented by such statements are reasonable, there can be no assurance that a forward-looking statement herein will prove to be accurate. Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance, or achievements of Company to be materially different from any future results, performance, or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Although management of the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking information, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated, or intended. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should assumptions underlying the forward‐looking information prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those described herein as intended, planned, anticipated, believed, estimated or expected. Although the Company has attempted to identify important risks, uncertainties and factors which could cause actual results to differ materially, there may be others that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. Risks and uncertainties applicable to the Company, as well as trends identified by the Company affecting its industry can be found in the final long form prospectus of the Company dated November 10, 2021 available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com. The Company does not intend, and does not assume any obligation, to update this forward‐looking information except as otherwise required by applicable law.
No securities regulatory authority has in any way passed upon the merits of the proposed transactions described in this news release or has approved or disapproved of the contents of this news release.
SOURCE: The Fresh Factory B.C. Ltd.
https://www.accesswire.com/675156/The-Fresh-Factory-Reports-Strong-Third-Quarter-Results-for-Predecessor-The-Fresh-Factory-PBC
Defense-minded No. 18 Texas Tech sets sights on West Virginia


I spoke with Fresh Plus owner Paul Beurskens who said they are excited about moving into the neighborhood and are going at full speed getting everything ready for the opening this Friday, February 3.The locally-owned grocery store is taking over the space off of Anderson Lane formerly occupied by Sprouts, and before that, Sun Harvest. Sprouts closed in December due to a merger that left it with too many stores too close together. Beurskens said he was able to hire some of their former employees. Click here to read the Statesman article about the Fresh Plus annoucement of the store opening.
Woo Hoo! I am so very excited and thrilled to see this turn around so quickly! I plan to be stopping in on Friday.


text:
Home/Business/'We're Preparing For a Long Battle.' Librarians Grapple With Conservatives' Latest Efforts to Ban Books
'We're Preparing For a Long Battle.' Librarians Grapple With Conservatives' Latest Efforts to Ban Books
Two members of the Virginia School Board called for book burning on Nov. 8.
During a board meeting that evening, the Spotsylvania County Public School Board unanimously ordered its school libraries to begin removing "sexually explicit" books, after a concerned parent raised concerns about titles available via a library app.
You can find the following: Lance-Stars for FreePublished Nov. 9, 2009:
Courtland representative Rabih Abismail and Livingston representative Kirk Twigg said that they'd like to see the books taken out of service burned.
"I think we should throw those books in a fire," Abuismail said, and Twigg said he wants to "see the books before we burn them so we can identify within our community that we are eradicating this bad stuff."
While the school board is revisiting the decision after its attorney called it unconstitutional, the comments—and the fact that members tried to do such a review to begin with—are an extreme example of a trend that's alarming librarians and free speech activists. TIME reached out to Twigg and Abuismail for comments but they did not respond immediately. Just a few months in to the school year and librarians claim that efforts to ban book are increasing. This is a significant development in the history to date to try to censor books.
At least seven states' school libraries have taken out books that community members challenged since September. Among the books most frequently targeted are Toni Morrison's The BThe Luest Eye (1970), George M. Johnson's All Boys Aren't Blue: A Memoir-Manifesto (2020), Maia Kobabe's Gender Queer: A Memoir (2019), Jonathan Evison's Lawn Boy (2018), and Alison Bechdel's Familial Tragicomic: The Fun House (2006). (2006). race and LGBTQ identities.
"We're seeing an unprecedented volume of challenges," says Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Executive Director of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom. "I've worked for ALA for 20 years, and I can't recall a time when we had multiple challenges coming in on a daily basis."
Every school year, the American Library Association leads efforts to ban books. In fact, classics are regular fixtures on its list of top 10 most challenged books—from John Steinbeck's Between Mice and Men to Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird to Toni Morrison's Beloved. But the latest challenges come at a time when school boards nationwide have been bombarded with questions about whether schools are teaching "critical race theory"—a decades-old academic framework rarely taught below the graduate level that scholars use to look at how legal systems and other institutions perpetuate racism and exclusion.
Learn more 'Critical Race Theory Is Simply the Latest Bogeyman.' Inside the Fight Over What Kids Learn About America's History
"What you can see with book bannings is that they are tied to whatever is causing anxiety in society," says Emily Knox, author of 21st-Century America Book Banning. Since the beginning of the 2021, conservative advocacy groups have been spreading misinformation about critical race theory—which has become a catch-call term for the history of racism—and working to help parents run for school board and challenge their schools districts over lesson plans or reading materials they feel are inappropriate. A total of 28 states have taken or proposed actions to limit how teachers talk about racism and sexism. According to Education Week.
Caldwell-Stone says what's also new is the chorus of elected officials who are also calling for books to be removed from school libraries.
Glenn Youngkin was recently featured in a campaign advertisement featuring a mom looking to get elected as Virginia Governor. Beloved banned from her son's high school. Und oOn Nov. 10, the South Carolina governor and Texas governor called for an investigation into their books. In Texas, where there's a law designed to ban the teaching of critical race theory, Republican Governor Greg Abbott Phoned on the Texas Education Agency to "investigate any criminal activity in our public schools involving the availability of pornography," while Republican South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster Singled out Gender Queer per a tip from "concerned parents" and called for a statewide investigation "to prevent pornography and other obscene content from entering our State's public schools."
Kobabe was nonbinary. He spoke out to Texas TribuneThis Gender Queer aims to provide "good, accurate, safe information" for queer high school students at a time when there's a lot of misinformation about gender identity exploration online.
Learn more:'Critical Race Theory Is Simply the Latest Bogeyman.' Inside the Fight Over What Kids Learn About America's History
TIME in 1981 reported that there was a similar effort to ban books across America. At that time, the bans were both a reaction to "everything-goes New Permissiveness gusted forth in the 1960s," as TIME's Frank Trippett put it, and part of the rise of Evangelical fundamentalism and the Moral Majority political coalition emboldened by the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan as President. The magazine even covered a book burning in Drake, North Dakota which saw copies of Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five James Dickey's Deliverance,An anthology of stories with Joseph Conrad John Steinbeck, William Faulkner was destroyed. "I would think moral-minded people might object to books that are philosophically alien to what they believe," Rev. TIME interviewed George A. Zarris from Illinois as a Moral Majority Leader. "If they have the books and feel like burning them, fine."
But, from this era emerged a significant precedent which upholds First Amendment safeguards to school library shelves. In 1975, the Island Trees Union Free School District in Long Island, N.Y. banned of 11 books for being "anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and just plain filthy." Former students challenged the decision, and the case made it all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in 1982 that school boards cannot remove books because they don't agree with them, describing libraries as spaces of "voluntary inquiry."
"Thanks to the First Amendment, the U.S. has been remarkably, if not entirely, free of such official monitoring," the magazine wrote. "Still, the nation has always had more than it needs of voluntary censors, vigilantes eager to protect everybody from hazards like ugly words, sedition, blasphemy, unwelcome ideas and, perhaps worst of all, reality."
Learn more These are the Best Books of 2020 So Far
People have tried to ban books from schools libraries for years, despite the SCOTUS decision. Many school districts have had processes in place since the 1980s to address complaints about books left on shelves. A committee of educators, parents, and students might get together to read the books and evaluate them, for example—most of the time the books remain on shelves while the review is in process.
"The problem lately is that once again… political pressure has increased enormously, and in some cases [school districts]Are abandoning their policy. They're pulling the books before they're reviewed," says Chris Finan, Executive Director of the National Coalition Against Censorship. "We're preparing for a long battle."
Lisa Varga (Executive Director, Virginia Library Association) points out that social media and the Internet make stealing from students nearly impossible. "The majority of these kids have cell phones with unfettered access to the Internet, she says. "They can find more on their phone—that you know their guardians provide and pay for—that's objectionable than they're going to find in the books in their school library."


modern curtain ideas living room new designs for curtains pi 2013 decorating cupcakes.
side view of modern wooden interior with staircase door and window rendering stairs decorating ideas for small bedrooms.
impressive various cool pictures of home interior decoration design ideas stunning teenage boy bedroom teenager decor decorating games for adults free bedro.
image result for room storage ideas playroom with tv decorating living grey walls.
contemporary bathroom ideas grey wooden vanity storage polish brown plastic swing door white great fabric towel small tile bathtub wall dark finish bath idea with drk wood flooring decorat.
rustic outdoor rugs deck with covered patio intended for ideas decorating on a budget bedroom r.
home decor color trends best images about for on design 2014 decorating a studio apartment budget.
charming warehouse pallet racking about remodel stylish small home decoration ideas with shelving decorating games y8 r.
large size of living family room with fireplace and wall windows design ideas decorating farmhouse style.


Based out of North Texas, Sub Lab is a new label dedicated to the deeper, more meditative side of bass music. Founded by Aaron "ARNOK" Bones in September of 2010, their goal has always been the same – to push the deeper vibes of the dubstep and electronic music undergrounds to their fullest extent. Today, Sub Lab Records is making its first appearance with a free 8-track compilation of some of the biggest sub-driven sounds from around the world.
'Inner Paths' has been in the works for nearly four months, and focuses on the darker flavours of dubstep. It features artists Pressa, RDG, HEX, Infinite Minds, HAACK, Collision, Krood, and Replicant. From start to finish, 'Inner Paths' takes the listener on a journey through the mind. Beginning with the spaced-out track 'Limbo' from Birmingham-based Producer Collision, the intensity slowly builds to resolve itself with the moody atmosphere of 'Wait Less' by the Dallas, TX duo Infinite Minds. 'Inner Paths' aims to show the listener firsthand the deeper face of bass music, and will be the first of many releases this year.
The future of Sub Lab is directly intertwined with the future of underground music. Though its artists hail from many diverse backgrounds all over the planet, they share a mutual passion for creativity in all its forms. With plans to encompass many aspects of art, both visual and musical, Sub Lab will deliver this passion straight to the hearts and minds of audiences worldwide.


These include Skillnet, North London Garages and Remit.
We also focus on delivering full framework apprenticeships to young adults looking to attend our centre directly.
Autoraise - the Vehicle Repair industry's charity committed to reversing the skills shortage.
We work together with repairers, training providers, colleges, schools, work providers and the industry supply chain to present the vehicle repair industry to young people as a genuine alternative to other employment opportunities, further education or university.
Our training clients include Rye Street Coachworks, Nationwide Crash Repairs, 4 Elms and many others. These companies send us repeat customers for IMI re-accreditations and apprentices.
In terms of customers paying for our auto body services, we provide daily cosmetic repair work for a local Renault dealer and have generated regular work from classic car enthusiasts who attended our recent open day.


text:
package lila

package object qa extends PackageObject with WithPlay {

  type Tag = String
  type QuestionId = Int
  type AnswerId = Int
  type RelId = String
  type CommentId = String
}


(2) What To Do When Someone Doesn't Love You Back – Mindfump!
Geez, Think Written really went deep quick. Hot on the heels of the whimsical 'what is your favourite weather?' we go straight into the lost and lonely place of being unloved. Nothing like being blindsided to start your weekend.
Emotions seem so random to me that they lack all the credibility necessary for me to take them seriously. Their irrationality is a good starting point for this, as people will say the heart wants what the heart wants, and love is blind. So is Stevie Wonder but I won't be calling him up for relationship advice.
The heart wants what the heart wants because it is a child that lacks the intelligence or experience necessary to make an informed decision. Like a child constantly picking McDonald's over a salad. The child thinks that they just like McDonald's but what they don't know is that McDonald's has spent decades designing their food so effectively that even though we know it is terrible we still 'want' it because of the chemicals, fructose, sugar, salt and a weird clown man.
That is how I rationalise my dislike of emotions anyway, other people might interpret that as me being scared of emotions, afraid to truly open up and accept these feelings. The idea that if I open up myself to genuine emotional connection I am opening myself up to the possibility of being hurt. And my response to that is; you best eat those fries before they go cold – do you want a McFlurry?
So I'm not quite sure I've had a feeling of unrequited love, but I suspect it wouldn't be nice and because that is a possibility I'll take reasonable steps to completely deny the existence of any emotion, ever. And if they do exist, which I can neither confirm nor deny, they're stupid. So, ner ner ner ner.
I should have had the salad!
Thank you for the smiles today.


At Jelingu Creates we have worked on some fantastic projects and have also helped to build some great brands. With a diverse client portfolio spreading over a variety of industries from Cosmetics and Fashion to Media and Professional Services we have worked on more than 100 projects across 6 countries. However we thought we would share with you some of our favorites.


oh hey there, here's a page.
This kits are just so cute!
It didn't hit me until right now that is Cinderheart Good job!
Oh my goodness those kits are adobable!!!
Keep up the great work! Can't wait to see what you have planned next!
He as a kid is so cute!!!
I love the fact Greystripe is such a good story teller he can magic up holograms.
AHHHH LOOK AT THEM KITTENS!
Look at Jay-jay's face! Loooooove it!
also what program do you use to make these?
Raven's Face: "pls get off me"
I love the image of Firestar and Scourge fighting!
AAAAAAAAHHHH THE KITS!THEY ARE SO ADORABLE!!!!!!
Serenity' Life in a nutshell.
i'm anxious for the next page!
wow!!! these pages are so AMAZING!!!
Now I'm really curious, what are those things on the side of Jayfeather's chin?
Are they just tufts of fur?
All Raven's face is missing in the first panel is a blush.
wait, who's the other, honey colored kit with Jaykit and Lionkit in the last panel? It's obviously not Holly.
Look at Jaykit's colors. This is clearly the younger one, Lionblaze and Cinderheart's (?) son.
Take all the time you need, this is great art and a fantastic comic! While we all want more pages, we don't want to overwork you! Upload it when ur ready! Of course, don't take a year to upload a page, but that's a year! We will wait for these pages as they are always fun to go on ur comp and find a new page! So don't overdo yourself!


text:
Florida Christian school teacher arrested for 'twerking' on underaged student
A teacher who was employed at a Christian school in Florida was arrested last Tuesday over an incident back in April where she allegedly "twerked" on a student, WFLA reports.
Julie Hoover, 39, allegedly danced on the underaged student during the school prom on April 8 Point of Grace Christian School. Speaking to police, the student said Hoover also pressured him to drink alcohol, which was on hand solely for school staff.
At least two other people tried to stop Hoover during the incident. She was later arrested and charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor and an authority figure soliciting or engaging in lewd conduct with a student.
Hoover has a history of misconduct. Last June, she was arrested for allegedly sexting an 18-year-old high school senior. In that case, the student's mother told police that she found the messages on the teen's phone, which allegedly included a plan to sneak the student into Hoover's home while her husband was at work.


text:
Welcome to our News page! Here, you'll find information about Mitsubishi's most recent technologies, new Mitsubishi vehicles and our latest events. You'll be the first to know what the future holds for you at Brossard Mitsubishi!
The new 2023 Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV coming soon to Brossard Mitsubishi
The new 2023 Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV will be coming to dealerships in early November 2022! This PHEV, a hybrid SUV, has been a tremendous success at Mitsubishi and is awaited with great excitement. The array of changes and improvements that it has received has sparked the curiosity of many current PHEV owners. Reservations have begun […]