Interview with Bob Lehnberg (Chair-Elect), Kat Burnett (Treasurer/Secretary), Cosper
Scafidi (Director), Bill Stoehs (Public Member) and Elizabeth McIntyre (Immediate Past
Chair/Director) conducted on Friday, July 6, 2007 via conference call.
MT: My first question would probably be, what do you hope to accomplish in doing all of
this [publicly airing your concerns]? Are you taking legal action, are you taking it [your
issues/concerns] right to the stakeholders? What’s your plan?
BL: We certainly want to get the truth out there.
KB: We want to get accurate information out there. And then I think it is up to the
stakeholders. Those of us who were on the board, we tried to do what we could from the
inside and it wasn’t working. We want the information out there and if the stakeholders
care about the organization, we would like them to become involved and more proactive
and ask questions. That would certainly be my goal.
BS: My term expired at the end of last year. And so, I guess all of the other folks have
resigned from the board since then.
KB: Elizabeth was told she was no longer needed.
EM: The IPC (Immediate Past Chair) role was suspended. That would be the political
word. I was suspended.
BL: It may be some conflict with the bylaws for that.
MT: I heard the bylaws changed at the end of last month. Is that right?
EM: I believe so but we don’t know for sure because we are not on the board. We have a
lot of concerns with what was going on during our time on the board and we continue to
have concerns particularly with the election process because we just noticed on the NCB
Web site that every director’s term got extended by one full year which doesn’t make any
sense to any of us. The bylaws would have to be changed in order for that to happen.
CS: One of the things that I am very concerned about is that this board has no
accountability. They are accountable to no one. I find that positively frightening. And I
say that as someone who has worked on K Street in Washington and someone who has
worked at other nonprofits and has done management consulting. To find a group that has
no accountability to anybody, where there is no real process to go through, it’s scary. And
I would love to see an accountability process developed and some sort of stakeholder
oversight. Right now the board is able to basically do what they want. And with 80,000 +
members, there is no formal way to even keep people accurately informed. There is no
checks and balances and so I would certainly like to appeal directly to the stakeholders
and to create some sort of way for the organization to have to answer to people for what
they do.
EM: Our stakeholders are not only certificants — we don’t have members — but they’re
also schools, state boards, legislators and the public.
KB: We want to be really clear that we all really support NCBTMB and the organization.
We want to see it be a successful organization. We want to see it function well, to have
good customer service and to do what it is supposed to do as well as it possibly can. The
reason we are willing to be interviewed is that we have very significant concerns that it
appears that the decision making process of the board isn’t functioning. As near as we
can tell, the power seems to be in the Chair and the board is going along with that. I think
we’re all very concerned that there could be a great many changes happening with this
organization in a very short period of time that may not be in the best interest of the
stakeholders or the profession. We’re actually not clear on what the agenda is. It’s very
disturbing when, as the board director, I was still on the board and I had to do Internet
searches to find out what the press releases are and I find out the whole emphasis is on
complementary and alternative medicine.
BL: Which is not our primary goal.
KB: It’s not our primary goal. The board didn’t put that out as our primary goal.
BS: Certification is our primary goal. Certification programs to serve the public trust.
KB: That’s how I found out they changed the title from Executive Director to CEO by
reading it in the press after it had gotten published. So, I just have to question who is
running the organization and where are they headed with it and why. I don’t know. I find
it very disturbing and I could no longer participate.
EM: I think the thing that is significant is that Bob, Kat and I were to be on the executive
committee and it also would be Donna and the Executive Director (Chris Laxton) and we
did not have any meetings to discuss the direction. And normally — and Bill’s been on
the executive committee for many years — the executive committee meets at least once a
month to handle, not the day to day operations, but the operations of the organization in
general to help move it forward. Bob and Kat kept asking for meetings and really it just
did not happen.
BL: We did get two “informal” executive unofficial phone calls. What it was, was a
dispersal of information from the top down somewhat but it wasn’t an official meeting
where there was an agenda in that votes were taken. It’s like the information, actions
were just taken by the chair and the CEO and we just found out about it. There were no
votes and no minutes to go out and inform the board of what was happening. The lines of
communication are inappropriate.
BS: The chair is one vote on the executive committee and by eliminating the chair-elect
and the treasurer all of the decisions are being made by the chair alone. And that’s a big
concern.
CS: I came on the board and was one of the people appointed in place of directors who
hadn’t been compliant with the bylaws. When I was interviewed, what I told Elizabeth
and Bob was that I was interested in strategic planning. You all (NCB) have serious
strategic issues, and that’s where I’ll come on board. And if you are interested in that,
great. As the strategic planning chair, I was only involved with one meeting involving
strategic planning. I made repeated requests of the chair and ED for guidance, for
guidelines for directions they want to go to. My e-mails and phone calls were either not
answered or I thought left unanswered my questions and concerns. There was virtually no
response. And then, the goals and positions were being stated and yet, we were preparing
to supposedly have a strategic planning meeting that I was essentially excluded from the
planning. It was quite amazing to see that was where the organization was going and I get
to read it in a press release that’s forwarded to me from another member after doing a
Google search. There is something that is very strange in the line of communication
there.
EM: All of us have been involved in strategic planning and Donna was involved in three
meetings last year. Yes, CAM is mentioned in there but the priorities because of
NCBTMB’s past reputation, is to improve certification time frames, improve recertification numbers, to develop a good rapport with schools and to meet the schools
needs and to have a GR focus and those are like the top 4. And once we do a great job in
those areas, then look at going out beyond but I think the focus with Donna is to do a
membership organization initiative which is something that maybe AMTA maybe should
be focusing on not a certification board. And we need to, and this group has been
working on trying to improve that for certificants and like we said customer service…
CS: It begs the question, whose interests are being served?
EM: The other thing for this group, all these board members except for Cosper, the four
of us all voted to get a PR firm in and the PR firm’s goal was to focus on certification, recertification and working with certificants and reaching out. To our knowledge, a lot of
the money spent on the PR firm has been to write and respond to Kat’s resignation letter,
respond to Cosper’s resignation letter. Donna didn’t know how to respond to Bob’s letter.
She never did respond to him until he requested it and then she sent him a 2-3 line letter.
Or the PR monies have been spent on how great and wonderful Chris and Donna are or
the recent PR release that came out about Monica being placed back on the board. A lot
of the monies have not been directed for what this group approved in 2006. And that’s
where like Cosper said, there is no accountability of those monies being spent and whose
purpose is being met.
CS: It’s also not continuity of purpose. Part of what you have with institutional
knowledge is you carry on your work from year to year and from chair to chair unless the
entire board says we don’t like the direction this is going in. To have this come from one
person is, at best, counter productive. It is a little scary, I think, in terms of are the
stakeholders really being served.
EM: And I think basically what was happening what was happening at the board table in
2007 was there was a split board where you had experienced board members and
inexperienced and Donna would be the deciding vote.
KB: We had several board directors who felt the year would be very unproductive with a
split board and if we could bring in a mediator to help us work through some issues that
we would be a much more productive group. Yet, that didn’t go anywhere because the
majority seemed to work for Donna so why would you need to change that.
CS: What happened was that we had that one strategic planning meeting in the D.C. area
with the executive director, chair and myself, and at that meeting I had demanded a
mediator come in because I have some background in organizational development and it
was clear to me we had a dysfunctional board and dysfunctional communications. So we
had this person who was going to be a facilitator, but part of the agreement was that this
woman would also come in and mediate the issues with the board. That was put on the
last day of the meeting and I was assured that wouldn’t be changed. And then, at the last
paragraph of a long e-mail, it was mentioned that “oh, by the way, the mediation session
is being cancelled in favor of another meeting on the final day.” So it was really what I
would call duplicitous behavior, in my opinion.
EM: To add on to this too, the concerns that I have are with our ethics and standards
committee resigning in its entirety except for one person, basically because of Donna’s
behavior and her decisions. And to my knowledge,, and I’ve talked to Bill about this, that
has never happened where an entire committee has totally resigned. And this is a group of
very productive people, very professionally focused, very ethical — I mean they are
serving on the ethics committee — very committed to the organization and they followed
the chain of command to file a complaint and then that chain of command was not
followed. I think that was a grave concern to all of us and even though Bill was asked
afterward, and Bill had worked with and heard about the ethics and standards committee
over the years. And that’s a serious red flag that really any stakeholder group should be
saying “what is going on?” And I want to add one more thing to that. We had four of us
on the Board say “oh, this is terrible that all these volunteers would resign can’t we sit
down and talk through this and maybe see what it would take to help keep them?” And
not only did we not get a response from either Donna or Chris, but how we found out that
they weren’t even interested in doing that was we were copied on the e-mail blast that
looked for new volunteers to reconstitute the committee. I mean, when you have four
members saying we ought to hear these volunteers and listen to their concerns and you
don’t even acknowledge that those directors asked that and you just go and do that,
something is very wrong.
BL: There was a temporary chair, an interim chair, who was a member of the board
acting in leu of Sue and then I found out the happenstance — and I really don’t know
which happened first — I found out the committee was disbanded. It was just, you know,
all of them gone.
EM: I think what we are saying is that the process on that was really way out of line
because I had a 15-month reputation with that committee — a very productive
committee, very focused — I think at the time the committee disbanded they were
dealing with over 20 cases. So, all of a sudden you go from having a full committee to
not having committee. So, what happens with consumer protection, what happens with
our credibility with state boards? And Donna appointed a public member who’s, like Bob
said, a director on the board, a new public member who just came on board in January
who’s not aware of our ethics and standards committee, is not a practitioner, and appoints
a board director as chair of this ethics and standards committee and really, you want to
keep the board away from hearing these cases. That’s why the chair of the organization is
the board liason, otherwise, we’re supposed to be mainly silent on the calls. But, now
Donna put in place a board member to be the chair until they found one.
KB: She does have a non-director who is now the chair of the ethics and standards
committee. Because they hear so many cases every month, even to have someone in place
for a month, was a month too long.
CS: Someone who has taken a fairly strong position at a meeting about the chair of the
committee, a fairly negative opinion without ever having met or talked to the person. It
was inconceivable to me that that happened. The point is, what you are hearing over and
over again is that the voices on the board, if they were not in agreement with the chair,
were dismissed. They were not acknowledged, there was no process for allowing the
members of the board to accurately engage in dialogue about issues. And if you study
board process, the role of a board chair is to facilitate the board, not to rule the board, not
to run the board, but to facilitate the board process. And this just isn’t being done. It’s
very clear if you listen to the pattern that it’s Donna’s board and if you don’t agree with
her, tough.
EM: I think a perfect example is the review panel. And again Donna selected the
members for the review panel.
KB: What we understood as a board in January was we thought that we had agreed on the
criteria for the panel members and at least it was my understanding, and Bob you can
correct me on this since you were in the room, we thought the board was going to pick
the skill sets and we were going to have our legal counsel go find the people. And what
happened is we found out in the chair’s written report to the board it says she researched
and coordinated selection of panel members after we agreed board members would not be
a part of this, that board members should be as separate as possible from this process.
CS: It wasn’t an independent review from my perspective.
KB: Several of us pointed this out to her and tried to get clarity and if we weren’t
ignored, we were told we were preventing people from moving forward and this was
important and time sensitive and basically we were just being obstacles.
BL: For clarities sake, both Donna and the members of the investigative panel did not
know each other. They did have a conversation, words, before any investigation started.
And there’s no telling what that was.
EM: That’s a concern because it wasn’t independent. In other words, it should have been
Bob, Kat and Donna at least talking to the reviewers as a group so that you have a group
and there was no group process. Just to give you past perspective, that has not been done
in the past, it has always been a group effort.
BS: It has always been a group effort. I was interviewed by this panel and three questions
into it I said you’ve already made up your mind haven’t you? And it was oh, no, no, no.
But it was very obvious to me that they had already made their mind up before I was
asked the first question.
KB: During 2006, I had to serve as the acting bylaws committee chair because we
couldn’t find a volunteer with the right background. So during this time period, I’m the
bylaws committee chair and many of the panel’s recommendations had to do with bylaws
and I was never contacted by this panel.
EM: The panel did not interview all board members.
KB: They did not interview me, they did not interview Bob, I don’t think they
interviewed Len, which I find surprising. Now, we as a board, certainly received copies
of the resumes of the panel members and I think they are all very highly qualified
individuals. I have no qualms with the qualifications of the panel members. My concern
is what guidance were they given to conduct their review? And who gave that guidance?
EM: I had the same concern when they interviewed me. I finally stopped in the middle of
the interview and said, “haven’t you talked to Bill or to Barry Franks because I’m sure
they’re echoing the same information.” They had trouble understanding that we were not
a membership organization, they had trouble understanding how we voted people into
office, I was asked if I like people and I said basically we’re looking at two individuals
who weren’t certified, who knew they weren’t certified, who didn’t come forward. And
one person for sure we all know he used the credential when he wasn’t certified and
based on the bylaws that’s why they were removed. And they even asked, did you know
they were going to run for office. And that had nothing to do with the situation. I think
what Bob and Kat are saying is that we know Donna had a discussion with them before
the rest of us were interviewed and what direction were they put in because I felt like Bill
did. I felt like why did I even talk to them because when I gave them information they
didn’t seem to even care to hear it and then I think Donna has made this panel give her
the go ahead and then the board votes on it at the end of April to reinstate them.
KB: The way the press release read regarding the independent panel report, the first
recommendation says the board should recind the action of the 2006 chair. That’s an
inaccurate statement. That implies that EM did it all by herself and she did not. She could
not have taken that action without the cooperation of the board. Not every board member
agreed with it, however, the majority did. It was not a sole action. If we had a problem
with it, we certainly could have stepped in and stopped it, but the majority certainly felt
that rules are rules and weather we like the people or not has little to do with it. It was
really very disappointing, because one of the directions at our strategic planning meeting
in I guess it was August that we had that, we kept talking about we need to improve the
value of recertification. It’s very important that we emphasize this. It seemed very
hypocritical to most of us that here we would be saying we want to emphasize
recertification and we have two people on the board who didn’t recertify.
CS: It’s really a critical breach of the bylaws and that’s just flat out…the comment I
remember from the current chair is that well, they weren’t notified by mail, and that was
a terrible, egregious offense by the National Certification Board to not inform them. I’d
like to think that members of the Board of Directors are held to a higher standard.
EM: Also in our standards it does say that it is ultimately the certificants responsibility to
recertify and I pointed that out to the review panel and they said that well NCB didn’t
send out the notice. I said do you hear what I’m saying? It is in writing that it is the
certificants responsibility and if you ask every director on the board most would be able
to tell you the month and the year they were to recertify.
KB: I value my certificate and it’s on my office wall and I see it every time I go to work.
And there is no doubt in my mind when it expires and what I have to do for that. How
you can say you forget if you value it is beyond me.
EM: And if you talk to Bill, who is our public member, he was appalled by it.
BS: That was the easiest decision I had to make. I’ve been on the board for 6 ½ years and
the bylaws are so clear, so clear on this that members of the Board of Directors, except
for the Public Member has to be credentialed by NCB and be in good standing. It’s a
requirement and so it was the easiest decision I ever had to make and it had nothing to do
with personalities and if it was Elizabeth, good bye Elizabeth. It is extremely above board
and up front and it’s in the bylaws.
EM: The other thing that concerns us is they did not, even after being notified by the
board that they weren’t certified, they now have gone almost 6-7 months without being
certified until they are basically promised the position back on the board then they get
recertified.
MT: During that time, did they attend meetings?
EM: Well, as of Nov. they were moved off of the board.
MT: But before that, they were still involved during the time that their certification
lapsed. Is that correct?
EM: Prior to Nov., Monica (July, Aug., Sept., Oct.) did board activities. Neal had
participated in board activities from Jan. until the beginning of Nov., for 10 months.
BS: Neal sent letters to the board saying, “Neal Delaporta, NCTMB,” representing that he
was certified when, in fact, he knew that he was not certified.
KB: Being a liason with an international organization and representing himself as
credentialed with them. We’re concerned and I guess if you look at the big picture, we’re
not sure where the organization is going, we’re concerned there is going to be rapid
change in a short period of time that’s taking it away from its primary mission. That some
of these things that have happened, such as the ethics and standards, the issues with the
board directors, are going to devalue the credential when we ought to be building the
credential up to be more valuable, stronger, more recognized. And instead these actions
are taking away the value of the credential and the reputation of the organization and
there needs to be more stakeholder buy-in with what direction the organization ought to
go. I would think from talking to the people I deal with that the number one thing is
customer service and I’m hearing complaints again. Customer service, in my opinion,
improved for a time after we transitioned, and now I am starting to hear more complaints
again.
CS: In terms of the value of the credential, with 83% of NCB’s revenue stream comes
from the certification exam which was one of the reasons I was very interested in doing
strategic planning because clearly that’s a problem. If you’re dependent on one revenue
stream, however, their behavior now is causing a lot of consternation from officials that
I’ve talked to as recently as two weeks ago at an NIH conference. Three different
organizations’ senior officials that were at that meeting came up to me and asked, “What
the heck is going on at NCB?” And when you look at the fact that another certification
exam is coming online through FSTMB, it could increase the likelihood of NCB losing
certificants to that exam, losing stakeholders, losing maybe even the AMTA who said
they were only going to support one exam. And so the behaviors of this board, and the
chair and the executive director (aka CEO), which I guess if you’re trying to position
yourself, perhaps CEO sounds better than executive director, you’ve got a situation where
it’s making the organization look bad. And I’m concerned it’s going to increase the
chances that NCB is going to fall into disrepair, they’re going to be eaten up by the
competition because other states are going to say, “These people are a joke, they don’t
even follow their own bylaws.”
EM: And if they change the bylaws to meet their needs and extend their terms by a year,
you do that with incoming people, not current people who will financially gain by the
decision. To have a call for nominations based on the bylaws approved in Dec. 2006…
we passed a bylaw to expand the board by two people because of the increased number of
committees — we had over seven new committees added recently — and it was requiring
a lot of board time, liason, work, etc. We felt expanding the board by 2 people would be a
small conservative approach, hasn’t been done since the organization started and so that’s
what the organization was functioning at in the beginning of the year. It’s not until Kat,
Cosper, and Bob get off the board and then I’m suspended as IPC, so at the end of June,
now they change the bylaws. We don’t know what the change is, but we know the
national office told people that only 2 people were going to be elected, where they bylaws
said 5. So, here we have an election process starting in May and a call for nominations,
and is it 5 or is it 2. And then who’s changing it and I’ve heard and I can’t validate this
yet, Donna is going to extend her term as chair so she can be chair for 2 years. It’s like
having the fox in the henhouse with the use of monies in the wrong direction, the use of
changing the bylaws — and normally in an organization bylaws should rarely change —
like Kat said, she spent a whole year working with the 2006 board updating and finalizing
the bylaws and policies and Donna was involved in that…
KB: Well, I asked repeatedly between the end of 2005 and Aug. 2006 for every director
to review all of the policies, all of the bylaws, and to work with the committees they were
liason to, to review things that needed updating. I could not get people to be interested in
it. I only got responses from two directors basically. Despite asking repeatedly, I got no
input, which tells me either they don’t care or the policies don’t need that much updating.
To find that the policies and bylaws are a mess and we need to review it all after I’m
gone is quite interesting to me.
MT: What can you tell me about the title change from Executive Director to CEO? Who
was involved in that decision and in making that switch from one to the other?
KB: The change was announced in the media and that was how I learned of it, while I
was still a board director. The bylaws themselves refer to the position as the executive
director. So, I don’t know if they’ve gone and made a change in the bylaws now. Before I
resigned in April, I remember seeing it in the press that he was the CEO. The board did
not vote on that.
EM: My conclusion is that it was Donna and Chris.
MT: What PR firm did the board approve?
EM: PON was a group we selected in Nov. 2006. That was one of the objectives at that
board meeting.
KB: They are the group and the board approved their selection, the board approved an
amount in the budget not be exceeded for PR things. However, what was really shocking
to us was the contract with them went ahead and was signed and was then provided to the
board after it was signed. The board didn’t get to vote on it which is not how it is
normally done for large contacts and this is certainly one of the largest contracts we have.
[OFF RECORD Comment: The board was provided a copy of the draft PR contract via email for comment prior to signing. However, this copy did not have any pricing
information attached to it. The board was not asked to vote on it in any conference call or
meeting. ]
CS: $600,000 wasn’t it?
KB: Well, that’s the thing that’s what was approved in the budget, it was not to exceed
that dollar amount, but the contract’s kind of open-ended figuring on what services you
pull. There’s like a monthly amount, then there’s an a la carte menu depending on what
you have done — there’s art work or design or whatever. But the contract was signed and
given to the board after it was signed when what should happen was the contract ought to
be given to the board for review and then it’s approved by the board formally and then it
should be signed.
EM: Same way with Chris’ contract. That was not reviewed by the board before it was
signed. Which is a conern.
KB: Which is kind of interesting since in 2006, one of the complaints from some board
members was that they weren’t getting to see even the smaller contracts. And I think we
all agreed that more information is better and then there is a total change in the
environment in 2007 when there’s no information and then if you ask for information
you’re obstructing progress basically.
CS: That’s if you get the courtesy of an answer that you are obstructing progress,
otherwise you’re just not answered, you’re ignored from what I observed.
EM: This is not, and Bill has been quiet for a while, but Bill has been on the board for 6
½ years and he can tell you that this not how the board has functioned over the time
period like it’s been functioning since Jan. of this year.
BS: It’s functioning like a fiefdom as best as I can see. I’m not from the industry and I
have no skin in the game other than I want to see the right things done. When I see people
who are not certified and represent themselves as being certified, be appointed back to
the board and the story as to what happened is not accurate because I was involved in it
and the press…it’s inaccurate. These people were removed from the board because they
were in violation of the bylaws, pure and simple. There was no hidden agenda, it was
because they were in violation of the bylaws and I as a director felt totally obligated to
remove them and if it was my mother, she would have been removed. I mean, it was
black and white and it was an easy decision to make. And it’s being presented as
Elizabeth had a personal issue with them and nothing could be further from the truth. And
these happen to be, coincidentally, very, very close friends of Donna so I see a lot of
personal agenda involved in this whole swirl of what’s going on. I’m a retired guy and I
could be doing a whole lot of other things besides still being involved in NCB and my
only reason for being involved because I see a lot of flawed, untruthful information being
disseminated as gospel and I’m one of the few people who were involved in it and I want
the truth to be out.
EM: To see them be back on the board or now to be in a chair—according to the Web
site, Neal is in a chair-elect role—it’s unbelievable, this is somebody who violated
NCBTMB’s ethics and standards.
BS: And misrepresented that he was certified for a year.
EM: Yes.
CS: Bill, you were in the Navy, if someone had been dishonorable discharged from the
Navy, would you bring them back and give them a command?
BS: This just frosts me. It’s just not right.
BL: One little element here is about two months, maybe three, two months before Neal’s
certification was going to end, mine was too. And we just had a casual thing, and he said,
“I’ve got to get my ethics done before the end of Dec,” and I said, “oh, I know, I do to.”
Both of us knew well when our certificated lapsed, when it ended. I did get my
recertification in time. Apparently he didn’t.
CS: The whole board got a letter from Whitney Lowe and he said, you know, “what is
going on with you guys?” I knew Whitney back from when I was the Rolf Institute’s
board chair and I was serving on the Federation of Massage Therapy Bodywork and
Somatic Practice. And I just called him up and said, you know, “hey, it’s great to hear
your voice, how are you, and what are you hearing out there?” For me, it’s like a scouting
mission, let’s gather some information. And it’s using an existing relationship, someone I
know and that I trust and also, by the way, had been a chair of the organization and
understands the mission of NCBTMB. So I reported back to the board and said hey, I
talked with Whitney and I got a reprimand from the chair saying I was out of line and
only the chair was to address anyone that spoke to the board. And that I had no business
contacting anyone or representing the board. I didn’t represent the board, I just called to
ask, what are you hearing? I suggested to the board of directors, I think it would be a
great idea to invite a couple of old board members to come to our strategic planning
meeting, like Whitney Lowe and Cliff Korn. These are two people who are past chairs
that come to mind that I know. Let’s bring them in to the strategic planning meeting, let’s
bring some lineage in. Until I pushed the point with several e-mails saying, “if I don’t
hear from everyone I’m going to go ahead and invite them.” By the way, I had four
people respond and say what a great idea, including the executive director in a private email to me. He said something to the effect of, “I’m all for bringing more stakeholders
in.” The board was sent a letter addressed to me, saying you do not represent the board,
you do not represent the strategic planning group, this is not a strategic planning meeting
it’s a meeting of the board to discuss strategic planning and you have no right to invite
anyone. I wasn’t trying to invite him personally I was asking for the board’s sense, that’s
why I asked the entire board and not just the chair because it’s the board’s decision. It’s
the case, once again, that someone might come in and disagree with the chair, so my
goodness we better not have too much information here. I was shocked to have people
who were willing to come and give their time to the organization but you’re not welcome.
It’s stunning.
EM: You have a group that has a sum of money and their accountable only internally and
when things go awry, they can do whatever they want. And we’re seeing that with the
election and the PR releases.