Association Chat: Transcript for September 21, 2018 Episode ASAE, Ethics, IP, and Speakers

Transcription

1 Association Chat: Transcript for September 21, 2018 Episode ASAE, Ethics, IP, and Speakers KiKi L'Italien: [00:00:03] Welcome to Association Chat. KiKi L'Italien: [00:00:04] [This is] your weekly online discussion for the association community where we warm ourselves by the virtual fire with topics of the day welcoming thought leaders and trailblazers alike to join up in this online home for the community. I am the host of Association Chat KiKi L'Italien and before we get started here today I want to give a shout out to one of association chat sponsors, Fonteva. Thank you for your ongoing support of associations and the community here. KiKi L'Italien: [00:00:32] So for today's show, it is a little bit different. We're talking about some high stakes questions for a well known association surrounding controversy that came to light on the member's only Association Chat Facebook group on September 6th, when a link to ASAE's Great Ideas Call for Content Leaders was shared with the group and part of this Call for Content Leaders included a PDF of prototypes for sessions open for [potential] speakers' submissions. KiKi L'Italien: [00:00:59] These prototypes offered descriptions of each session that would be ideal for the conference and within hours a comment from an Association Chat member was posted suggesting that the session prototype seemed to be descriptions of well known consultants' work. Soon after, another member posted some examples of descriptions in published articles from sources like Harvard Business Review, KPMG, Salesforce, Deloitte,... and they said that they had found these [instances] using plagiarism tracking software. KiKi L'Italien: [00:01:30] So concern has been raised about plagiarism and intellectual property violations. Is this unintended negligence, a glimpse a deeper cultural issues at hand, or something else? What's the real story behind the controversy surrounding the recent allegations of plagiarism and stolen intellectual property and ASAE's Great Ideas

2 Call for Content Creators? Is there a growing divide between ASAE and its consultant members? And what happens next? How does the association of associations handle crisis of "ethic" proportions? KiKi L'Italien: [00:02:03] I want to introduce our guests. We're talking with ASAE's chief executive officer John Graham. Chief Learning Officer Rhonda Payne and Chief Information and Engagement Officer Reggie Henry. So welcome to the show everyone. Group: [00:02:17] Thank you. Thanks Kiki. KiKi L'Italien: [00:02:19] I wanna go ahead and get started with a question. Finding out a little bit about how this came to be so let's talk about what exactly was the original intent of the planning committee for Great Ideas. And why was there no oversight? How did the plagiarism happen? John Graham: [00:02:40] Well, first of all thank you for the opportunity to be here. And to address the concerns of the community. This goes really back, to set the stage, in 2016 after the Great Ideas conference. When we started to get feedback that the Great Ideas Conference and the Annual Meeting had a lot of similar content and they kind of looked and felt the same. And that was really not the original intent of Great Ideas it was really to be more focused on innovation and great new ideas that come to bear not that we don't have those a manual but it was really to be a focus on new and emerging ideas. So the planning committee, which is new every year, but that planning committee really took a deep dive and said we really ought to focus on innovation. And so we tried to move that focus forward in [twenty ] seventeen tried to move it forward again in [20]18. And it really became clear to us as we were moving that forward that when we did the call for presentations. The presentations that were coming through were not sufficiently large enough, numerous enough to focus on the topic of innovation. So the planning committee, which is made up of volunteers, we had actually a call for 50 individuals and 10 of the 50 volunteered to be on the planning committee which 1

3 changes every year, as I said earlier. [They] came together and decided that maybe what we should do is two things: John Graham: [00:03:57] One is focus 60 percent of the content on prescribed content. In other words develop topics that could be addressed by the community presenters. Then the other 40 percent would be based on some things that we would do from content that is already happening. So, for example, we have content from our innovation grant recipients. And let them present on the work that they've been doing. That's just one example there would be other things that come to play as well like case studies from outside the association industry. So when you look at that that would have been the 60/40 mix that we were looking to do the planning committee with staff worked on writing up what the call for proposals would look like and they came up with 40. And of course, as you indicated, they were put out when they were put out. John Graham: [00:04:44] Members of the community said, "well, some of this stuff looks like it was copied." So we did a deep dive on that, looked back, and found, sure enough, that six of the 40 had language in it and phraseology in it from publications actually outside of ASAE, Harvard Business Review, Stanford Business School, Ernst & Young, I believe. John Graham: [00:05:04] So, what happened in the process as they were writing up these descriptions, language that people were familiar with, having gone through the design thinking process, surfaced into the write ups. John Graham: [00:05:16] So, that is wrong. We pulled it. And move forward with the 34. We did a deep dive on those 34 and found no other instances of any type of copying or plagiarism. Not that I want to call it plagiarism because I think it really was more of an omission than a commission. People should have provided attribution and they didn't and that was a big mistake. That's why we polled them and we will put in place new processes in the future so that people are fully informed of the need to provide attribution. People understand that it's an important part of what we do. We certainly 2

4 don't want to take anybody's content or intellectual property. And so that's kind of where we are right now. [00:05:57] Now moving forward, again, another issue surfaced and that was that of the 34, some people felt like they were topics that were associated with certain consultant members. But it's our view that those topics are very broad, meaning that a topic like governance or a topic like innovation, these are very broad topics that individuals in the community are known to speak about, but they are in the public domain. It is not intellectual property. Now they may have their own intellectual property around those topics, but we're not using that intellectual property. KiKi L'Italien: [00:06:30] That was definitely a challenging situation at the time and one of the criticisms that came into play was initially it didn't appear that it was an "OK, let's pause on everything. Let's take a break and figure out what's going on and let's put a hold on everything until we've got a plan in place." And so there is a little bit of pushback in Association Chat land about that. And so I want to talk a little bit about that communication mechanism. Reggie, this is for you. OK? So why hasn't ASAE posted an apology or information to Collaborate [ASAE members only site] or let the full membership know about what's going on with that and maybe talk to me a little bit about why it took a little bit for you to respond. Reggie Henry: [00:07:20] First of all, we want to make sure that we did have all the facts about this and sometimes that takes a little bit of time and we wanted to post in this group first because this is the group that surfaced the issue and I wanted to make sure that we stayed true to that. This group brought this issue to us and I wanted to bring it back to this group. I agree that it's important that we have an open conversation. But I also would want to make sure and I know you guys would want me to make sure that we did have all the facts before we started a broader conversation about this so I'm still in the process of doing some of that quite honestly. I'm looking at about six or seven different plagiarism pieces of software right now to really determine which ones gives us the most complete look at all of our content when we do this so that this doesn't happen 3

5 again. I've run across stuff that only looks at certain genres of content I want to get all content because one of the things we're doing is going outside of our ASAE content right now to bring some things in house. So I want to make sure we have that done. Reggie Henry: [00:08:18] I think when we have that done two things can happen. One is if there's a need to have a larger conversation about this, we can. If that surfaces we'll have it. But you brought up something a little earlier that this might be a teachable moment for all of us. And I think having that software involved we can teach people how to do this themselves for their organizations and when that happens. But I can assure you that when we finish with this technical thing that I'm doing all of our content will start to be checked that way as well. KiKi L'Italien: [00:08:46] I think that that's something that a lot of people are really concerned about because they want to know, "How do we prevent something like this from happening again?" and to be quite honest, it was some other questions that were, to me, the more difficult ones. The thing about seeing that there were the instances of similar language being taken from these publications where it can be matched up, that's troubling. But I can see where that's something that can happen over and over again if you don't have something [a better process] in place. I think identifying the way to make it so it doesn't happen,... right? Finding that stopgap... John Graham: [00:09:22] Let me just address the one thing you mentioned about transparency. We are being transparent. We're here talking with you. KiKi L'Italien: [00:09:27] Yeah, I know. I was kind of surprised! [voice trails] John Graham: [00:09:31] We're not hiding anything. We're accountable. We admit a mistake was made. It was unintentional but we are being transparent. KiKi L'Italien: [00:09:38] I am actually really thankful that you're talking with me and talking to the community because... it's not just me, right? [To Association Chat live 4

6 audience] I'm seeing that a lot of you are still asking questions about the process and the speaker questions. You know, "how does the speaker process work?" and all of that and... oh, Rhonda. We haven't talked to you yet. [laughs] KiKi L'Italien: [00:10:01] Ok. Let's talk about intellectual property, paying speakers, this kind of thing... would you say you consider a more limited license to use consultant generated content than is currently in place now? This is a question that came directly from the audience ahead of time. And it says that "the speaker agreement used to essentially have ASAE have exclusive right to speak or write or content and it's worth checking to see if that's still the same." So, can you actually talk to us a little bit about that because I know that's been a topic of discussion and much back and forth about what is the speaker contract, what are the rights that are involved, and does it [the speaker contract] make sense? Rhonda Payne: [00:10:44] Absolutely. And I want to thank you also for having us on. Appreciate it. And thanks to all of you in the community for engaging in this important discussion as well to answer your question, "would we consider?" Absolutely. We absolutely are always happy to consider opportunities to do better. That's what we're all about. As it pertains to our consultant educators, even more so. We know how much consulting educators are contributing value in terms of educational content and all kinds of content and support for this community. So I just want to stress that first of all but that said I think it's important to be clear about what's true or not true about the current agreement in place. And so, currently the content leader agreement gives ASAE a non exclusive royalty free license to both capture the session and use it afterwards. That is true. What it also requires is that we use that content with appropriate attribution. That is also true. What is not true is that we do not in any way transfer ownership of the content leader's intellectual property to ASAE or anyone else. Rhonda Payne: [00:11:52] The content leaders retain ownership of their intellectual property. We retain a license from the content leader to use only the recording. We also don't restrict the content leader from using that content on their own for their own 5

7 business development or profit in any way they see fit. Speaking on the same content elsewhere, same slides, any of that is complete is still within the content leader's control and decision making. And I just also just lastly kind of want to give a little piece of context in terms of how much has this happened. Yes, there is [sic] these clauses in the content leader agreement. It's actually pretty rare that ASAE elects to use its rights to capture the content and so using Annual Meeting since it just passed a month ago as an example of the 115 educational sessions there. Only about 10 were captured. So we are not talking about current processes and again everything is always on the table to discuss for future improvement. But right now we're talking about a very small percentage of content that's actually being captured in that way. KiKi L'Italien: [00:12:58] I have a follow up question because one of the things that people were really concerned about was that in addition there had been something new that showed up in the speaker agreements and it was developing this 15 questions and answers piece of it, which to some of the people who were part of this discussion (and I'm sure everybody's seen the thread on the Facebook group) to some people it was like adding insult to injury because they said OK here we are and we're giving you the right to use it and you're asking us to help you sell our IP or our content later. Which seemed a little bit over the top. And so, what are your thoughts on that? Like, what went into that and how did it get added...? Rhonda Payne: [00:13:43] Sure. A couple of things... one, I want to make sure that everyone knows we do review the content leader agreement every year. So there are always opportunities to improve it. And we do that with advice of counsel. The 15 question clause, if you will, that was added about a year ago, actually, is actually related to helping in those very rare cases right now those ten out of 115 cases where we are going to try to share that content with others in the association community. It has to do with the CAE commissions requirements for online education. Distance learning requires an online assessment for the person watching to get credit. And so, that's where that comes from it comes from an intention that we wouldn't create the assessment for the course that someone else presented alone. We would want to do it 6

8 with that content leader and the intent was putting it into the agreement so that that wouldn't be a surprise ask in the cases where it comes up. KiKi L'Italien: [00:14:46] I know that it's a whole separate issue to talk about the paying of speakers in process but that is something that is definitely on people's minds as they're looking at creating content and continuing to go through and develop this stuff working with ASAE. And so, what about it? What about paying the speakers other than the keynote. And John, I want to ask you about that. Is there a possibility of ASAE ever paying speakers other than the keynote and...well, let's start there. Let's start with that John. John Graham: [00:15:23] Is there ever a possibility? Well, I mean sure there could be ever a possibility but probably unlikely. Most associations don't pay speakers. And I think that what the opportunity is for the member whether it be a consultant or just a regular old member of ASAE from the association community, association executive, is that it's an opportunity to share and present content. It's an opportunity to provide exposure if you're an association executive it's an opportunity to provide exposure to people who may find you to be someone they want to find attractive and want to move forward in terms of their career, like what you have to say, like the way you do it... For consultant members, it's an opportunity to talk about what you're expert in and to advertise your business...by your presentation and the content your delivering, not a literal advertisement but rather an advertisement in a standpoint that here's what you're an expert in. Here's how you present, "is there a value add here for my association if I'm listening to you present?" so we think that we operate in a very typical model. KiKi L'Italien: [00:16:28] So I have a couple of comments here. One person asks, "but most associations also do not charge speakers for a conference attendance. Attendance is comped." John Graham: [00:16:37] First of all, we reduce the registration fee by 50 percent. The view there is that whoever is the presenter is attending the conference and getting 7

9 benefit from attending the conference. In some cases, where individuals are only coming in to do the presentation, we waive the registration fee. So I think we are sympathetic to that viewpoint but when somebody is coming in doing a program but spending another 3 days at the meeting participating in a conference we think a 50 percent registration fee is reasonable. KiKi L'Italien: [00:17:08] One of the questions that was raised was, "What is the role of the Ethics Committee in this situation?" People didn't know what the process necessarily was or what the role was for those members of the Ethics Committee. And we know we have one, but you know I think that there was an expectation that either there would be more involvement there or confusion over the process... if there's an issue that needs to be addressed,...[what do we do]? So, what is the role of the Ethics Committee at ASAE? John Graham: [00:17:38] ASAE leadership over the years has had numerous conversations about the role of the Ethics Committee and the charter on the Ethics Committee. So I think we need to be clear about a couple things. Number one, the Ethics Committee principles that are put forward for association professionals as well as consultants is aspirational. It is not meant to be something that the Ethics Committee can police and that was done on purpose. We are not like a medical society where there can be malpractice. That is not the way in which the Ethics Committee or the ASAE board of directors sees the role of ethics within the association community. So we have aspirational policy that indicates, you know, about you know what types of behaviors..., et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. That's number one. And so, the Ethics Committee is not in a position to police. Number two, clearly there really isn't a question of ethics here because we've acknowledged that it's wrong. I mean, it was a mistake that was made and we've corrected the mistake, and are moving forward to correct it. So while it is certainly unethical to copy other people's work, I think that we have acknowledged that. We have corrected that and put in place steps to prevent it in the future. 8

10 KiKi L'Italien: [00:18:49] You know, it's interesting because... I know that there's a piece of this that we're not going into further. First of all, because it's going to be addressed very soon at a separate meeting. But then also because it's a much longer conversation that deserves its own focus and that is this overlap of the situation here where it talks about a lot of the material that's produced by consultants that goes into the education at ASAE and a sense of a divide between the consultant members and the rest of the membership or ASAE. And I would not be honest if I didn't address that that's something that is a very big part of the conversation here. KiKi L'Italien: [00:19:34] What I want to do is actually give the people who are engaged a chance to ask their questions. Yes, Reggie is getting ready to say something. Reggie Henry: [00:19:42] I was just going to say just so everybody knows we have a key consultant's committee. And we meet with them all the time on issues of the relationship between ASAE and the consultants come up all the time. In fact, we talk about them every time we meet. These issues, and specifically the ones that have been raised in the Chat along with some other things, will be talked about a Key Consultants Committee meeting which is next month. This isn't something this is going to be six months away or something we will be handling these issues next month. And of course what we can do is report back after we've had that meeting. KiKi L'Italien: [00:20:11] Mickie Rops and I know Jeff DeCagna is really involved, but Mickie Rops is the chair of that, right? OK. So. If you want more information and I'll definitely post more information as we get it. Post it on the Chat and I'll post it in the show notes for this. And of course put the word on social [media]. But I bet that's going to be a really well attended meeting, personally...yeah... Reggie Henry: [00:20:35] Bet you're right. KiKi L'Italien: [00:20:37] So here's a question. What's the new plan for Great Ideas or is there a new plan for the conference content? 9

11 John Graham: [00:20:44] I'm going to make one comment and then I'm going to pass it on to Rhonda. We feel like we have communicated about some of the changes in some of our major meetings. But we also recognize that we can't communicate enough and so we are going to be doing a better job of communicating the way in which content is going to be developed for all of our major meetings going forward. And there is a document that Rhonda is preparing that will talk about our major meetings and will be released in a few weeks so that people will be able to see how content for each of our meetings... which ones are the same, which ones are changing a little bit,... so people will have advance notice about what those changes are and how it's going to be implemented. KiKi L'Italien: [00:21:22] That is something that I know people want some insight in. They want to understand it beforehand and get an idea about how you're doing it [creating and changing these programs]. I mean, it's the association of associations so everybody always looks to you guys as the example, for good or for ill. Sometimes that's not comfortable, right? But I know that that's something that people are asking for more information about... Rhonda Payne: [00:21:44] I think that a couple lessons learned have happened over the past few weeks, right? If not, we're all doing something wrong. Certainly there could be changes in the future and one of the big lessons here is about communication. I think it's how you started today's Association Chat. And I think it's a really good point to reinforce in terms of lessons here. And I think this document that John has mentioned that covers our approach for content development for all of our major conferences is going to be an important piece of that communication strategy and we haven't had a piece that in one place shows side by side our approach like this. At least for some time. So I think it will be helpful in that way. I want to emphasize that there's not tons of changing all over the place. Most things are still following that traditional process that at least in recent years folks are familiar with. We are experimenting with something new with Great Ideas, but Annual Meeting, MMCC, the Technology Conference are still 10

12 queued up for this coming year to follow the same traditional process that we have followed. That said, I think many associations know that there are pros and cons to the traditional call for proposals model for our conference content. And, in fact, over more than a year the Professional Development Section Council has worked on exploring different strategies, emerging practices, if you will, for content development for conferences and they shared some of that with the professional development community at ASAE in the form of a written report. But they really outlined the pros and cons of several different tactics. And so I think that that's what's going to happen with Great Ideas, we're going to continue to look at the pros and cons of this new tactic going forward, to your question, and iterate in true innovation and design thinking mode we will listen, we will learn, we will iterate, and we'll keep moving forward together. Rhonda Payne: [00:23:38] In terms of one other piece that I heard come up, "should people submit?" Like, "going forward should we even try?" Absolutely. Absolutely. So the idea that there was any malicious intent, any co mission as John said is inaccurate. And there were no content leaders in mind so that it was futile for others to submit. KiKi L'Italien: [00:24:04] It was weird, because there were some people who read it as, "oh, it's already been decided and now these people are in and I shouldn't even try." But then there were other people who were like, "this is their content, you know, and so [NOTE: I didn't seem to make sense in the recording here, but what I was thinking of was folks who did not feel comfortable speaking on what they saw as a peer's area of authority]. I think that there were a couple of different ways that people were looking at it and none of them felt comfortable. John Graham: [00:24:24] I just want to comment that, you know, anytime you change your process, ASAE for a long time has had an open call for presentations and any time you change your process: A. We're not going to be perfect the first time we execute it... number one. And number two, people are going to not be necessarily comfortable with what they see, either because they perceive something else is happening or they believe something else is happening. And so, I think what we want to do is, as Rhonda 11

13 had said, there was no intent to do anything crazy here. The intent was to provide additional focus on the topic of innovation and the only way that we figured out how to do that is to have a more prescribed agenda and more prescribed content. And so that was our motivation. What I didn't point out, and I don't think anybody has here today, is that even with Great Ideas, the way we're doing it with the 60/40 as I described earlier, if somebody sees a topic or a concept that's missing that they think ought to be presented there's still an opportunity to do that. So we're not closing that down. This is not meant to be an exclusive process. It's meant to be an inclusive process. We're just trying to provide focus around the concept of innovation based on the feedback our attendees have given us over the years. KiKi L'Italien: [00:25:39] You know, I actually think that that's a really good point because I don't know that I had that clear in my mind either that it was these prototypes but that's not all that it can be beyond that. And I don't think I'm alone in that because I know people were saying, "well, what about these other innovative ideas? They're cutting edge, but if they're not on this list then I can't submit them." And what you're saying is that was never the intent that it was just that these were examples... John Graham: [00:26:07] And I think are here and I'll admit to that is that in hindsight we should have communicated more fully. And that's a fair comment in the future we will be doing that which is why we're going to be posting all of our major programs in about three weeks so people have a full sense of what is possible for each one. KiKi L'Italien: [00:26:22] And I think that that's a really good idea. Personally, I think that, you know I know that Rhonda, I'm talking with you and Mariah [Burton] soon about the Innovation LaunchPad very interested in that and I think that being able to do something where you have a chance to get in front of these programs and give people some insight, a little of the background. We all know, right, that we're members, and everybody, we don't read everything that comes out. And so the more communication we can have, where we understand what's going on, I think the better. Which is why I wanted to be able to have this discussion because I think that in this community things 12

14 are going to come up. You're never going to have these placid, still waters where everything runs smoothly all the time. And so, what I'm most interested in is what happens next. What I'm most interested in is using this discussion as a way for us to communicate... for ASAE to communicate and share how things happened, and how you're handling it, and what's going to happen next. And then figuring out how can we then work with the community to make sure that all of those association executives, the consultant members, all of us who are working with each other on a regular basis are able to do it in a way where, hopefully, we don't run into the same issues and we learn from it. Reggie Henry: [00:27:46] One of the things that I'm definitely going to do after I finish walking through all of these different pieces of software and see what's there is I'm going to get a smaller group with the Technology Council to join me in a little project and that project is going to be working with the PD Council. There's two pieces of this. There's the technical issue: Is there a better way to find out in a more sure way to find out when things have been copied either intentionally or unintentionally? But then there's the process that has to happen to support that. And so we could easily do a little small project and do a little white paper about this on the volunteer level so that everybody's heard but everybody can kind of see what we've learned from this process. KiKi L'Italien: [00:28:25] I haven't been able to follow all of the comments, but I did catch one that was saying it's not a technology issue, on the plagiarism, it's not a technology issue, it's a process issue. And, absolutely. The technology's going to help. But it is the process issue and figuring out that process is going to be so important. I wanted to ask you, and I mentioned it before we talked about and you brought it up you said that maybe this was a learning experiment [NOTE: I got this wrong. RH actually referenced in his earlier comment that I'd called it a "teachable moment"]. You know, so in the future I'm thinking a lot of association executives are watching and trying to figure out what are the boundaries? Some of the comments that came up in defense of what was going on was saying, "well, when's an idea someone's property and when is it not?" And this is a discussion I think that's very important to have in a time when ideas are 13

15 capital. And a lot of, not just consultants, a lot of associations are... you know, we've got products, we've got all kinds of things that we're trying to make sure that we're developing... and so that's a question that I'd be very interested in seeing if that's something that ASAE will investigate in the future and maybe share some guidance or leadership on. Rhonda Payne: [00:29:32] Certainly, I think there's a lot of opportunity to explore this and other issues related to intellectual property which we have been focused quite a bit on. All of you who have been content leaders know that over the past two years we've also had to lean into an opportunity to look at intellectual property inside the classroom as well. So we're talking right now about session descriptions that might eventually in the future show up in marketing collateral. But really, the conversation around intellectual property and the opportunities for the community there are broader. They include not only things on the educational content side, both in literature and in practice, but also other sides, right? Content is showing up in many other ways and our members are partnering with staff across the association community to develop that. And so I think your point around process, technology,... technology is that lift and process, right? It's not the process, but it certainly can be an effective tool as part of a process. And I think that's what it's going to be, right? It's that there is a process change necessary. There is an education and awareness change necessary for people who are involved in the process. And there are tools that can also help protect organizations and individuals in terms of their intellectual property. Reggie Henry: [00:30:49] I think making sure that we have the volunteer community engaged as we do this. No one of the things I liked always do is kind of work out loud so people can see what we're struggling with. See the kind of conversations we have along the struggle and then see the output of it. You know, we do this to varying degrees well and sometimes not so well. KiKi L'Italien: [00:31:08] I totally get that. 14

16 Reggie Henry: [00:31:09] But what I will tell you is that this is on our radar as you can imagine enough that we can work out loud through this process and learn as we go. KiKi L'Italien: [00:31:18] Learn as we go. Boy...I am all over that one. This has been a really valuable conversation...it has been for me and I'm very thankful that you're here. I guess my final question to all of you today is if people want to get in contact with you, if they want to follow up, certainly I'm going to share some of the questions that we got in here that we didn't get a chance to [cover]. I am going to be able to capture that share that with you if people want to get in contact with you, what is the best way for them to do that? John Graham: [00:31:50] We have an address. executiveoffice@asaecenter.org KiKi L'Italien: [00:31:55] "executive office at ACS center dot org?". John Graham: [00:31:58] Correct. Reggie Henry: [00:31:59] And I can assure people that that's not a basket. If something comes in that John needs to make me aware, I can assure you that he makes me aware of it. KiKi L'Italien: [00:32:06] Okay. Rhonda Payne: [00:32:07] And likewise ditto that! KiKi L'Italien: [00:32:10] I'm getting questions [from the live audience]... can you ask about these documents that were supposed to see. So when can people expect to see follow up communication on that? John Graham: [00:32:18] Mid October. 15

17 KiKi L'Italien: [00:32:19] Mid October. Mid October. And can I make sure today's participants see the chat comments? Yes. I think we're at the end of our time. Thanks everyone for participating in today's show. It's a tough conversation but one that I think is much needed in the community today. And if you love the chat, if you want more of this we're going to continue the discussion, we're going to continue talking... we're going to be able to ask these questions and communicate. But this is just part of it. This is just part of that discussion. And so more content is going to be coming to you through the Chat, hopefully through these documents mid October...look for those. And if you want to support Association Chat, checkout associationchat.com. Become a Patreon Patron. For as little as a dollar a month,you can tell me that you love me. [laughing] KiKi L'Italien: [00:33:12] And until next time everyone keep asking questions to learn every day. As Joseph Campbell once said, "the cave you fear to enter holds the treasure you seek." Have a great week everybody. 16