This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA.
The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore,
The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them.
Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted.
Blog author serves as a moderator.
For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
Friday, October 20, 2017
Town out of growth?
Headline story in yesterday's Los Alamos paper was about the bank laying off 10% of their workforce. Does this combine with number of local businesses closing indicate that the town is running out of growth?
3 comments:
Anonymous
said...
If you read the article, and understand the context, this was an expected consequence of previous poor decisions. The bank ran into very serious trouble a few years back with federal regulators for numerous improper activities. The bank is owned by a private company and the board of directors of that company was not doing a good job of oversight on the bank officers, and the feds caught them out. Look at the new president, who came after the prior one was fired and see that the bank was forced to hire a lot of staff to comply with the federal requirements. Maybe the directors had a choice to close the doors and face potential trials, but in any event many of those staff that were hired to address the issues are now being let go. It was all avoidable if the directors had had a competent audit committee, but they obviously did not and the feds put a stop to the irregularities.
3 comments:
If you read the article, and understand the context, this was an expected consequence of previous poor decisions. The bank ran into very serious trouble a few years back with federal regulators for numerous improper activities. The bank is owned by a private company and the board of directors of that company was not doing a good job of oversight on the bank officers, and the feds caught them out. Look at the new president, who came after the prior one was fired and see that the bank was forced to hire a lot of staff to comply with the federal requirements. Maybe the directors had a choice to close the doors and face potential trials, but in any event many of those staff that were hired to address the issues are now being let go. It was all avoidable if the directors had had a competent audit committee, but they obviously did not and the feds put a stop to the irregularities.
It's always been a one-horse town.
Of course it has. Everyone knows that. So what?
Post a Comment