Guest: David Carroll & Avery Davis-Roberts Guest Title: Director and Associate Director (respectively) of the Carter Center’s Democracy Program
Date: March 14, 2017 Guest Company: Carter Center
Debra: This is Debra Ruh and you are listening to Human Potential at Work. Today I am very
excited about my guests. I am a very, very big fan of the Carter Center and we are very lucky to have David Carroll and Avery Davis joining us from the Carter Center and today we are going to be discussing democracy- a favorite topic of mine. David and Avery, welcome to the program.
David: Thank you.
Avery: Thank you.
Debra: Can we start, and just for a second, can you start by saying a little bit about yourselves? And maybe we can start with you David and move to Avery. Tell us a little bit about who you both are.
David: Sure. I’m David Carroll and I’ve been working at the Carter center since 1991, originally in the Latin American and Caribbean program, and since about 1997 in the democracy program, which focuses on elections and democracy strengthening around the world.
Avery: And I am Avery Davis-Roberts. I’m an associate director here in the democracy program at the Carter Center. My background is actually a little more focused on human rights but I feel incredibly lucky in the 13 years I have been here at the Carter Center to work on election-related things: election observation missions and work related to human rights and election standards and meld my two interests of voting rights and human rights more broadly.
Debra: I also am very, very interested in human rights. Often we are talking about individuals with disabilities and other people that are, for whatever reason, disenfranchised in societal situations and we’ve been blessed to talk about the Carter Center in the United Kingdom and some of the work you have done over there. So very, very excited about this conversation. So David, do you want to expand a little bit about the work of the Carter Center? And, Avery, maybe you could add a little bit more to what David is going to say?
David: So the democracy program has been around since 1997 or 1998, but the Carter Center’s work on elections, which is the area that both Avery and I work in, has been going on since the pretty early days of the Carter Center. It started in the late 1980s and so we’ve been observing elections for over 25 years at the Carter Center and we’ve now observed- I think it’s 103 elections in 39 different countries. And we try to focus on elections that we anticipate will be difficult; either because a democratic transition is underway or might possibly be starting (some political opening is starting to take shape) and the presence of outside observers could be a very valuable thing to bring into that context. Election observation at its core is essentially an independent third-party assessment of the electoral processes that are unfolding in a country. So when you’re in this difficult context, where there’s not a history or tradition of having strong, trusted, credible democratic institutions in place, those are the kinds of places where outside observers are especially important and can play a valuable role by providing that assessment and becoming a source for trusted information about the quality of the election that just happened. So our main goals are really at a high level- to try to assist stronger democracies to come into being and to do that by being this independent voice that can really- thoroughly, accurately, credibly- say what had just transpired in that election process. To what degree did that process meet international standards and respect human rights? And it can allow for a fair electoral process to take place. We typically observe three or four, maybe five, elections in a given year and we do our work by looking at the elections that are coming down the road in the next year, two years, and prioritizing those places that we think the Carter Center might have a role to play. Avery?
Avery: Yeah I guess I would just add that I think one of the things that is sort of exciting about the way that the Carter Center works is that we have, in addition to the democracy program and our work in election observation that David was just mentioning, programs that focus on other issues like conflict-resolution, or access to information, or human rights. And so one of the things that I think really sort of sets the Carter Center apart is the fact that we can work in a country and observe an election in a country and then either the democracy program or one of our other programs may be able to find openings for work that we can do that will help in other areas. So we can, for example, observe elections in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Then following that election establish a human rights house where we work with a network of 300+ human rights organizations all across the Congo to promote human rights and to protect human rights defenders in times of need. For example, in Liberia we observed elections there and following our observation mission we established a huge access to justice program that really works out in different parts of the country to promote access to justice for everyone, but also for women. We now have an access to information program that is very active there. So one of the things that I think is exciting about the Carter Center is the way that we can really use all of our resources across the different programs to really try and support people to live better lives.
Debra: Right. And I think that is such an important point and I know my next question was really why does (and really this is a silly question, in a way) strengthening democracies matter? And I think, Avery, you already really started talking about that. I’ve been a big fan of the Carter Center (and I’m a big fan of President Jimmy Carter and Rosalyn Carter) but I know that some of your recent observations happened in countries like: Myanmar, Philippines, Zambia, Guyana, and Tunisia. And so all of those countries, when you’re looking at the human rights and making sure that people’s voices are heard- I think democracy is a really powerful tool. So I’ll go back to you, David, in your estimation and experience, why does the work of strengthening democracies matter and what is the most important part of this work, really?
David: Yeah, I think that your exchanges right here really put your finger on it. Elections really are, at the end of the day, about human rights. They’re about human dignity. They’re about people participating in the selection of their government; the will of the people in electing representative government. So it’s really the core exercise where this starts to take shape and have real meaning. So it’s so centrally important because this is really the vehicle for people to realize their human rights and to ensure that human rights can be protected and that people have a way to participate directly in the political process in their country. So I think that’s why it’s so important, in general, the work that we do. But it’s also so valuable for us as people who can do this because we can see the results of our work. And we also know how valuable it is for the countries and the people that we’re engaging because you can really see it in their own experiences by participating directly in the political process. This is about human value, human dignity, and human rights.
Debra: Avery, do you want to add to that?
Avery: Yeah, I guess I would just add that I sometimes have to remind myself that political contests, all of them, can have the potential to become violent because there can be so much at stake in the context of political competition. And so having strong democratic institutions can really help mitigate the potential for violence. It can help promote a more stable society and then that in turn also really helps to ensure that all human rights are, hopefully, a little better protected because we know in contexts of conflict that those who are most vulnerable in society, in general, are often the first to suffer in times of political turmoil. And so strengthening democratic institutions- having sound and credible elections and then really having strong democratic institutions- can help mitigate the potential for violence and can really help ensure that a society can be resilient and withstand the temporary shake-ups that come around, hopefully, every four or five years if you are living in a country that has regular elections.
Debra: You know, it’s interesting. I have a global listenership and it’s after walking the political process here in the United States over the last (it felt like forever) 18, 20 months, I think a lot of people were looking around saying, “Wow there’s a lot of other countries interested in our elections!”. I think some of the most fascinating things that I track are the elections happening in other countries. As you said, Avery, (and David made such a good point about the human rights part of it) the chances of it going into violence and making sure that people’s voices are being heard and not being manipulated is a very, very important process. I know that one of my employees, Emily Ha, her family is from Myanmar and so they watch that all the time and they’re very engaged, even though they are Americans now (they have migrated over). There has been a lot of violence and civil unrest in those countries. And so, moving along with this theme, can you give us some more examples of the work that the Carter Center has done and how it’s made a difference? You’ve already given us some good examples but if you don’t mind digging in a little more, I know the listeners would be fascinated in this topic.
Avery: Yes! And maybe to start with an example that’s a little bit closer to home and your comment on the past 18 months to four years- because that’s how long it felt the election campaign was this time.[laughter]
Avery: We, the Carter Center, as you know has an international mandate. We do 99.9% of our work overseas with just a couple of exceptions. Our mental health program does a lot of work here in the United States and the state of Georgia, too, (our home state) but this last election the democracy program actually had a program that was focused on U.S. elections. We didn’t observe the elections- we don’t observe elections in the United States -but we worked, instead, with the National Conference of State Legislators to try and understand a little bit more about what the legal landscape for observation in this country is. We have seen over the course of the last, I guess 13 years now, that there is some international observation of our elections. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, for example, comes and has observed pretty much every election cycle. And at times they have been met with hostility, frankly, from specific states that really have concerns about what the role of international observers is. And so we were sort of thinking about that. What could the Carter Center do to help support U.S. elections? And bring our international experience to bear and to really provide something in the U.S. context that’s unique. And so we worked with NCSL to review the laws across all 50 states to understand what the rules and regulations are for observers. Can international observers get into polling stations in all of the fifty states or are there limitations on their access? Can citizens observe their process without having to be affiliated with a political party? Asking these questions that in many countries where we work would be pretty straight-forward to answer. In this country, because of our super decentralized electoral process and legal frameworks, it was really complicated to find the answers to these questions.
Debra: Yeah and those are interesting questions, too.
Debra: Especially watching this recent election unfold in the United States, I think the work that the Carter Center is doing is even more important now.
Avery: Well, it was very timely this last year because we started the project with NCSL probably 18 months or so before the election. But then last summer there was a lot of interest in observation and who would have access to the polls in part because one of the candidates was saying things to his supporters about-
Avery: -what their role should be on election day.
Debra: Yes, [laughs] I remember that.
Avery: [laughs] At the same time there were changes to the Voting Rights Act, which meant that for the first time in 40 years there would not be federal observers in polling places in states where there has been historical discrimination. And so it turned out to be a very timely project for us. And one of the things that we determined was that, really, even though you would think that non-partisan observers would be able to access polling stations because they don’t have an interest in the outcome of the election in this country. [However,] there is almost a preference for partisan observers in our law. In almost every state, partisan observers have access to polling stations. And in many fewer states, citizens who don’t have a political affiliation are allowed in to just observe the process. So we worked on this research project with NCSL and provided this information through their website and through events that they were hosting to the public, to legislators who were interested in the topic, and it did turn out to be really helpful because of these issues that I was mentioning about access to the polling station for Donald Trump supporters and the federal observers. There was a lot of media interest so the work was picked up by the press. It helped provide objective information about who could be in the polls and what the rules were for observation of the 2016 elections and, in fact, it seems that at least a couple of states have either passed, or are in the process of passing, legislation that would provide greater access to non-partisan observers in elections going forward.
Debra: Wow, that’s powerful. David, do you want to comment on the line of questioning that we are heading down?
David: Maybe I can just supplement just one last point on Avery’s, which is to add what has really come out of this for the Carter Center. We knew this going in, really, but it has really made it much more concrete to which the United States is such an outlier in terms of the lack of easy access for independent observers to the electoral process and that we are really focused on, as an institution, trying to raise awareness about that problem because this is something that the United States can be quite hypocritical about. Around the world we have organizations, like the Carter Center and others, who make it a very important point of principle that there should be open access to polling places so that there could be much more transparency and trust and credibility in the process. And when we take a closer look at home, as Avery has just so clearly described, there is a lot of problems here. So we’re quite committed to following-up and really trying to drive home this idea that the United States has to do a much better job. And it’s largely a function of our very, very decentralized system, as Avery described, that makes it so difficult because it’s a patchwork of states that make these laws that regulate observer access. But we just have to do better as a country and as a society.
Debra: Yeah, as somebody who always votes and really takes the time to learn the issues and stuff, my eyes really got opened up a lot more about voting and even democracy. Well, I was born in the United States. For example, I was like others the morning of the election saying, “We need to throw the electoral college out we don’t need it”. I remember Doug Forresta (that we both know; he’s my producer) had said, “No, Debra, I think the United States really needs the electoral college”. And I really, really value his opinion so much that I committed to myself to find out more- to really educate myself about it. And I really started understanding that if we don’t have something like that then a lot of the states won’t get proper representation. There is just so much more to this topic than a lot of us realize. So what do you all see as the biggest challenges to strengthening democracy- especially this current period of history?
David: I’ll take a first crack of that but I’m sure Avery will have more to add. I think when we step back and look at the big picture this is a very difficult time period that we are living in. The international society is changing quite quickly now before our eyes. The international order has had a great deal of stability in the post-WWII era, and especially after the Cold War, and so since 1990 we have had 25 years of a pretty stable regime, internationally. And its part of what saw the rise of, frankly, independent election observation once the end of the Cold War was solid. I think now, with the changes we are seeing internationally, there’s many, many threats to open democratic systems and human rights increasingly around the world and in the countries we are working in. The phrase “shrinking democratic space” or “shrinking political space” and threats to human rights defenders and civil society activists is commonplace in many, many countries around the world. It used to be a relatively small number of places from repressive regimes that hadn’t had a democratic transition where those kinds of problems were happening, but now it is a widespread pattern of crackdown on media organizations and NGO’s. So this problem of closing democratic space is a real serious one and its twinned with a rise of authoritarian regimes and populist regimes that just aren’t really committed to the protection of human rights. So, on the one hand, we’ve had a system in place that has really enshrined the idea of universal human rights and the respect for human rights around the globe and that has inspired and guided our work on democracy. But we are now seeing an international order that is changing and [growing] room for these authoritarian states. On the one hand they pay lip-service to the idea of human rights but in practice they are restricting space and restricting human rights. To me that is the fundamental challenge. Avery and I have spoken quite a bit about this. I’m sure she could say more and agrees, but I’ll see how she may want to add to that.
Avery: Yeah, I guess I would just add a little bit. I think that one of the things that is especially concerning about the restrictions on democratic space and NGOs and the press is that these tend to be legal restrictions that elected bodies- that are supposed to be representing the will of the people- are drafting laws that close down the space for people to participate. So that’s something we’re not seeing, I think, in the same way that maybe we did in previous decades. It’s not just this brutal crackdown where people are rounded up and just taken off some place for having political opinions. that certainly is still happening in some places, but [now] it’s happening under this sort of veneer of legality created by these very restrictive laws for NGOs (for national non-governmental organizations) from functioning in other countries too. Many of these laws, for example, try to stifle NGO activity. Not just by making it illegal for people to be together or to have some sort of right to assembly, but they’ll cut off access to funding for NGOs so that they can’t actually get money to do their work.
Avery: And we see this increasingly across the globe, unfortunately, in many places.
David: If I could just add on quickly to that- I’m sorry.
Debra: No, no go ahead.
David: One of the things that is driving this, unfortunately, is the global fear of and reaction to terrorism and radicalism and violent extremism.
David: And using that as a pretext, or maybe some leaders believing that is the right way to try to deal with this threat, to take actions that are going to start to restrict freedom in the name of security. There’s always this tension between security and freedom, and so, on the one hand, while there’s an understandable prioritization of security in the face of some of these threats- the degree to which freedoms are being sacrificed in these legal provisions that are being used in countries around the world- while they allow for a very strong response to violent extremism, they are actually abused. And I think in many cases used disingenuously with an aim of just cracking down on dissent and making it easier to narrow the space so that people who question the legitimacy or the authority of these regimes suffer.
Debra: Yeah, that’s really scary and there’s so much to know about all of the moving parts. And I know that what really matters to us, and the Carter Center as well, is human rights and the right to really be part of democracy- to really be able to have your voice heard and not be hurt because you don’t agree with the party that’s in favor. I am curious, this is a little off from what we were going to talk about, but when it comes to what happened in the United States elections: how do you all feel about the electoral college? I know there was so much confusion and multiple times there has been. I don’t know if you all really want to address that at all, but as experts in voting and democracy I would be curious if you wanted to touch upon that for a moment. I’m sure the listeners would be interested as well.
David: Avery, do you want to take a crack at that first?
Avery: No, please, go ahead.[laughter]
Debra: I’m sorry, I set you up. [laughs]
David: No. that’s fine. I’m, frankly, of two minds I mean it’s not a very democratic institution.
Debra: Right, right.
David: Especially from the international standards that Avery and I work with, in our work around the world, call for equal suffrage. In addition to universal suffrage, where everyone has the right to vote, there both should be an equal value. So immediately with the electoral college you start to make votes of unequal value because of the different sizes of the states and the representatives in the electoral college. Secondly, you’re not directly electing your leaders anymore- you got this as a layer in between. But I also know that there are historically there has been potential value from the electoral college: maybe this way of insulating this process from the passions of, maybe, uninformed citizens or some other kind of context that could arise. I think that at the end of the day there is quite a bit of discussion now in this post-election environment in the U.S. about alternatives and reforms that could (at a state level) try to equalize the percentage of votes between parties and candidates- to the selection of delegates from that state to the electoral college. That might be a way to achieve this but we’re also stuck with an institutional arrangement hardwired into the political bargain that created the United States and will be very difficult to change. And so I think, while it has clearly some very negative aspects that are not really democratic and it’s, in some ways, a pretty big part of the problem that we have; I think we have many ways much bigger problems in our country. [laughs]
Debra: [laughs] Yeah, true.
David: Campaign finance, electoral districting, voter suppression, voter identification- some 25% of eligible persons in this country are not registered to vote. So when you think of the size and scope of the potential electorate that is just not engaged in the political process, when you think about the electoral constituencies and how they are created and designed, and when you think about the role of money: frankly, I think, I put the electoral college on the list of big problems but it probably wouldn’t be at the top. And it’s also a very difficult thing to reform compared to some of the other things that I think we could focus on.
Debra: Good points.
Avery: I would just add that I think what we see increasingly is a competition that we would expect to see at the ballot box is really all being fought in advance of elections, or between the actual election events in the legislatures where laws are being created, that really impacts the administration of elections and that things that in most other parts of the world that would be almost a purely technical part of the election process- they become highly politicized in this country. You can’t have a conversation about just about anything voter registration. Whether it should be automated or not, in most countries, that would just be a technical question that would be left to the election commission and they would make a decision and it would just happen. Here, it becomes a question of who benefits. And so everything becomes very politicized and it really stymies conversation and stymies reform that many people who are focused on election issues think are necessary to really ensure that our elections continue to be as well run as possible and secure from all perspectives. I think one of the big concerns in the U.S. election community at the moment is this issue of security of our elections.
Avery: We have seen it play out in 2016, but there is a concern, too, that many states have technology that they bought in 2006 that is now fairly old and will need to be replaced. We need to replace it with something that’s secure. We don’t have the budget in most states to do that, but that conversation ends up being held hostage to the partisanship of our legislatures, unfortunately. And so it would be really nice to be able to have a conversation about electoral reform and the electoral college and some of these more sort of technical issues, that could be a bipartisan civil conversation, about how to do what’s best for the process and not for specific interests.
Debra: Right, and right now that’s probably not going to happen in the United States because we’re not speaking nicely to each other. Isn’t that an understatement? I just love politics and the community that I really, really care about a lot is a community with disabilities. It was exciting and rewarding to watch one of the candidates really pay attention to the community of people with disabilities in ways that we’ve never felt. We felt like our voices were heard- having town hall meetings specifically to talk about disability issues felt so powerful and empowering. Unfortunately, when that candidate didn’t win (for whatever the right thing is for America) I know a lot of people felt very, very discouraged. Especially, the community of people with disabilities felt very, very discouraged. Once again, I know the Carter Center is very focused on international work, but I’m just so glad you are helping us here in the United States, too. But for the listeners who would like to know how they could help strengthen democracy and what actions they can take, especially in our current world- what can the average citizen do to help strengthen democracy here in the United States and abroad?
David: I would say in short: listen, learn, and engage. I think people need to learn. They need to get themselves educated about politics; about political economy; about our society; about democracy; technology. Things are changing very, very quickly and people need a deeper understanding. Secondly, people need to really listen and try to understand what’s going on, but also try to understand, as best they really can, what people who they disagree with are thinking about. This is in the United States, but also around the world- to try to really fundamentally understand different perspectives and try hard to put yourselves in the experiences of others (and that doesn’t come naturally for most people) is so essential to really making a difference in the world; to try to understand other people’s perspectives and hence their motivations. It can be so easy to impugn motives based on a fundamentally limited understanding of other people- their interests, their perceptions, what they’re trying to achieve- and this is definitely true in our own country. When we look at other countries around the world we don’t really understand, as Americans, what’s going on in other societies. We see it from a very U.S.-centric lens. People need to learn and listen. And lastly, I think, especially in the U.S., people need to engage directly in the political process, hopefully, based on some genuine learning and understanding and listening. But i think you see it now in this country. On the one hand, I’m very concerned about the polarization and the divisions, but I am hopeful about the extent to which I see people feeling more energized and wanting to engage and run the whole gamut- from volunteering locally, getting involved in a voter registration drive, getting involved in any kind of awareness raising activities, getting involved socially and any other kind of campaigns, running for office, getting involved in a political campaign, contacting your legislators (both at the very very local level, state level, and nationally)- there’s so many things that people can do but it takes a commitment that you’re going to engage.
Debra: Avery, before I let you answer, I would just like to make a comment. After the election, I was upset. Anybody that follows me knows. When I went over to Norway right after the election, I had a professor say to me, David, that one thing that he noticed about the U.S. is that we didn’t listen to each other. And he said, “Debra, you have a large following on social media, but I’m willing to bet that a lot of the people that follow you on social media believe a lot of the same things that you believe. So I perceive that you are preaching to the choir there, as opposed to really listening to the other side”. And I remember listening to him and thinking about that and I had to admit that he was probably correct. As I talked to Doug the morning after the election I was very upset. He had already had to walk his fiancé through this process then he had to counsel me, too. But [laughs] it’s like “stop crying!”. I think you’re right, David, in that I think it woke a lot of us up. I know that my son voted and Emily, his girlfriend, also voted in the elections, but a lot of their peers did not vote. They were like: “Oh, man, it’s going to take so long”, “It would be such a hassle”, “Oh, I don’t need to vote because this candidate that we think is going to win is going to win by a landslide”. It was, I think, a real eye-opener for a lot of people. So, Avery, do you want to address this?
Avery: Yeah. I would just agree with everything that David mentioned and also what you were saying. I think it’s important not to underestimate the influence we can have on those around us. It can be something quite small that sort of awakens a political consciousness in another person. So being knowledgeable about an issue, or issues that are important to you, and really knowing them inside and out- knowing who your representatives are; knowing what the process is to effect a change. I am ashamed to admit that I have had to learn a lot about the Georgia legislature here [laughs] because I didn’t really know. Honestly, I didn’t really pay that much attention to it before and now I feel a lot more committed to trying to interact with my state representatives, as well as my federal representatives. So I think knowing the process and how you can effectively engage with your elected representatives is really important and then sharing that information with people. Maybe it’s the conversation. Maybe it’s something that you post on Twitter or something like this. You really have no idea how much one thing you say or some fact that you share can impact another person. Being knowledgeable and raising awareness, reaching out if you can, to schools on the topic of interest to you is also a good thing to do. I’m sure (for example, I think of my son’s school) having someone come in and talk about disability would be amazing. The kids are so eager to learn things and thinking about these ways that we can just talk to each other, even if it’s not directly focused on making change right now, it’s an investment in the future. So we just need to learn and listen and show up.
Debra: Oh, good, that’s really good Avery. I love that answer. And one thing that I would think my listeners would think is, “Ok I totally get what you’re saying David. I get what you’re saying Avery. But there seems to be a lot of information out there that maybe I can’t trust”. It appears to me that the Carter Center is becoming even more valuable in these conversations. So the last question that I’d like to ask to both of you is, first of all, how can more people learn about the Carter Center and the work and how can they get involved? I’m always looking at what the Carter Center is doing and I’ve learned a lot about what I can do right here in the United States, even though a lot of the work is international. So I think one thing that the listeners can do, if you want to learn more about this democracy and the democratic process and the voting, go out to the Carter Center and get involved with what they’re doing because I think it’s going to help us here in the United States and internationally as well. But David, let me turn that question over to you and Avery maybe you can sum it up for us afterwards.
David: Sure. I would say, first of all, for people who want to get involved here in the U.S., any of these issues- democracy elections, and societal change, you name it- the Carter Center is a place to learn and get more engaged. But, actually, one of the best things about our country is that we have an unbelievably vibrant and strong civil society and there are organizations all over this country working on every issue at every level. And, frankly, there are many more organizations to engage with who have their primary mission and focus on domestic issues. So as proud as I am of the Carter Center and what we do, if you’re looking to get involved with issues in the United States, we’re probably not your first stop because there are so many others. That said, at the Carter Center, if you want to learn more about what we do of course we have a website: www.cartercenter.org. Our communications office has a lot of information you can sign-up for and receive. You know, there are Tweets and Facebook messages, so there’s all kinds of ways to stay informed about the work of the Carter Center. There is a volunteer office where people can get involved. The Carter Center is on the same campus as Jimmy Carter Federal Library and that also has exhibits on the work of the Carter Center so you can come and see some of the exhibits on the work of the Carter Center around the world. So there’s quite a bit of information to learn here about our work but, again, there’s many, many organizations that really have their mission and focus on the whole spectrum of issues inside the United States and I would really encourage people to, as Avery said, show up.
David: Because there are a lot of places to show up. There’s a lot of different things people can do once they make that decision.
Avery: I guess I would just add that if you’re interested in learning more about your democracy program at the Carter Center there’s obviously a page focused specifically on our work on the Carter Center website, but then we also have a sort of a satellite website that is at electionstandards.cartercenter.org and there you can find out more about the work that we do. And that’s also where we list election observation missions and things that are coming up if people are interested in applying to work with us internationally.
Debra: Well, I will say that I was very proud to vote for Jimmy Carter when he was in office. I voted for him twice, even though he only got in once. But the work that he’s done and that you all are doing after he left office is really changing the world. So I am very grateful, David and Avery, for you being on the program and I really, really am grateful for the work that you’re doing and I agree- we all need to show up and get more involved here in the United States and also internationally. So, thank you, David and Avery for coming to the show today. We really appreciate it.
Avery: Thank you.
David: Thank you. My great pleasure. Thanks a lot, Debra.
You have been listening to Human Potential at Work with Debra Ruh. To learn more about Debra and how she can help your organization visit: www.RuhGlobal.com. If you’ve enjoyed listening to this episode and you want to make sure you don’t miss any future episodes go to iTunes and subscribe to the podcast Human Potential at Work. Thanks for listening and we’ll be back next week with a new episode.