Timothy Johnson -- Part 3 of 3

Timothy Johnson was with CRS from ‘84 to 2010 and the positions he held were Reconciliation Specialist, Chief of Field Coordination, and then Senior Conciliation Specialist.

There are 3 parts of this interview and a summary: Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 and The Summary This is Part 3.

Play YouTube Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am7V8k6oUGY

0:05     Bill Froehlich: Well, welcome... back Tim. It’s good to see this afternoon. It's May 10, 2022, and this is the third part of our conversation with Tim Johnson: for the CRS Oral History Project Revisited. And today we're going to focus on a couple of points in the conversation we're going to talk about table-oriented processes, street-oriented processes, and hopefully we'll get towards the end of the conversation as well. 

So Tim, I have some specific questions about what conciliation or mediation or facilitation processes look like, whatever word you were using. Specifically, about table-oriented processes and community mediation processes. So you wrote me, I primed you, you wrote me that you would define a table-oriented mediation as formal talks between two or more parties. And so we'll just start... from there. So if you could tell me, and I think you wrote more than. But, I think we'll get to everything else you wrote through these, through the questions that I have. So first, in a table-oriented conversation, who was at the table? Who chose the participants and were there challenges getting some of those participants to the table?

1:30     Tim Johnson:   Okay, who's at the table are people who are in dispute. In CRS, when that usually meant a community group, or community leadership, on one side of the table, and on the other side of the table a representative of local government, mayors, police chiefs, school superintendents, and the like, depending on the issue. 

In the CRS process, there is an alert where a conciliation specialist becomes aware that a problem may exist and they become aware of this through a myriad of ways: previous contact, news reports, reading the newspapers. Which I don't guess they do anymore, because they have the Internet now. But I read seven newspapers a day. Every day. And we would receive those papers at the New York office, so I would read papers from Buffalo, and from Albany, and from Atlantic city, and from Newark, and the like. On a good day I could tell you where the cheapest eggs were. But once we got an alert, we would write that down and we say “okay, this is a possible case.” We would then try to figure out who... are the players? Who should I talk to in the community about this? Little easier than it sounds because if it were a complaint by the leadership of NAACP you go to NAACP. If it were a complaint by a local parent group, we find out who those parents are. You contact them and say who's in charge. You go to them. Going to the other side, to the folks that the community might be concerned with, complaining about, or alleging a bias from, you figure out what the top leadership there is. Is it... the police department? Is it the school system? Is it the municipal system? Is it the mayor's office? You try to figure out who's the top person and call that office. Now, this is all happening in what's called the assessment stage, okay. Now in the assessment stage what I'm shooting for is to say: “okay, is there a conflict here? Do you see a conflict here? Do you feel concern from the community? Is this something that you would be willing to sit down and talk about in confidence.?”

You find out your parties are, you find out whether or not they'd be willing to sit down and talk, and then you find out what they want to talk about. Wow. What are the issues here? And I defined issues as what do you want? Okay, what are the interests here? Why do you want what you want? Pretty simple, straightforward. Most important, I would ask in good faith, I would say: “are you willing to hear what the other side says? Are you willing to say what you really think and what your positions really are? And if that's the case then okay great. We can... begin the process.”

If I had time, sometimes I didn't, I would sit with each side to the dispute, and I would say: “what do you think the other side feels? What do you think the other side is gonna talk about? What... is one side going into demand and the other side going to excuse?” And things like that. So just to be ready for a good faith conversation. 

If we got that far, then we could say: “okay, let's find a place to talk.” I would always choose as neutral a place as possible. So, if it was with the police department, I would prefer not to go to the police department. If it were with the school system, I would prefer not to go to the school. Didn't always work out that way. But very often City Hall might have a place. There might be a church that has a meeting room. But you want to get as neutral as possible setting. “Okay, everybody show up at seven o'clock this evening, we'll... start the discussion.” And at those discussions I would reiterate all the things that I said in the assessment, alright. You’re here with good faith. Both parties would like to reach some resolutions to these frustrations that have been experienced. You have identified certain concerns. Side A, why don't you tell Side B where you're coming from on this. Side B I don't want you to answer, I just want you to listen. Just want you to listen. Remember what we said in the assessment, that... the idea here is to get things on the table and then to look for options. And then to look for compromise. But let's... put the things on the table first. 

Once we got to that point, and notes were taken and... things like that, we could then move towards: okay, what would it take to move forward on issue a? How can issue A be made better for both sides. Reminding them that, you know, compromise is something both parties can agree to. Everybody doesn’t get everything that they want. But, both parties get something. So, how can we, how can we do that? How can, how can you get something out of this to move forward? 

And generally that kind of management if you will, facilitation of the conversation, worked fine. The very best jobs I ever did were the ones where they said: “well thanks a lot Tim, but you really didn't do anything.” Which was the perfect, to me, the perfect answer. That's one of those times when you get back in your little car and, you know, kind of congratulate yourself. Yes! You did it! So that's table mediation. A lot more formal.

9:20     Bill Froehlich: Let me ask you some follow up questions if you don't mind. Sure (Tim Johnson: ) So you identified particularly good faith. That's in essence a ground rule, or some might frame it as a ground rule... You ask the parties to participate in good faith, such that they would be able to articulate their interests in positions and come with an open mind to listen. Was there ever any... pushback about participation in good faith?

9:46     Tim Johnson:   Yes. I’ll listen but they're wrong.

9:52     Bill Froehlich: Okay. And what did you do with that?

9:54     Tim Johnson:   I'll listen but they... won't hear me. And this was before, it's always best to do these things separately, when the parties are separate. To say well “I can understand how you might feel.

How you've experienced these things for a long period of time and you can't believe that the other side would be willing to listen. I... understand that. If we're gonna go forward, if this process is going to help this community, then we have to go in with the idea: yeah they will. We have to go in with the idea of expecting good faith.” 

Now, sometimes even in the mediation process itself, one side would let slip that doubt in that, in transit position. And I would say “now, let's go back to what we said during the assessment. We're gonna listen. We're gonna hear. Then we'll talk about possible options. But let's listen and hear first. Just to make sure everybody's on the same page.”

11:11   Bill Froehlich: So, it also sounds like in that assessment you asked the parties to identify the issues. Which then we're going to discuss and potentially brainstorm and negotiate about. So, it seems like you set that agenda of issues yourself? Or was that a consensus-based process, they were articulating the issues for you?

11:30   Tim Johnson:   I don't have any issues. I don't live here. You know, these are your issues, your concerns, tell me what they are, and let me write them down. And I would write them down and say “now, if you like, you can... prioritize these. Tell me what the most important one is and what the least important one is.” And I would do that with both sides. And I would share that information with both sides. “So, here's what they want to talk about. Here's what you want to talk about.” So, let's be ready when we get there, rather than show up at the meeting, you know, with our hands like this. Let's go “oh yeah, I, Tim showed me, you know some of these issues and I had no idea that issue four was an issue. We had no idea.” “Well, we'll get to issue four after one, two, three.” You know, that kind of thing. But the more I put ownership of the process on the disputants, the better I did. And the better they did. 

12:55   Bill Froehlich: With respect to the issues that they identified and prioritize, in your table-oriented mediation sessions, did those issues shift or change during a mediation? Or were they usually stagnant? 

12:59   Tim Johnson:   I wouldn’t say stagnant I would say they... might be reexplained in a different way. They might be redefined. They might say, you know, our first priority really shouldn't be our first priority let's talk about priority four or whatever. But for the most part, they know that this is pretty much what we want to talk about. Now, sometimes somebody will say: “you know what we didn't mention was blahdy blah.” You know we’d write that down and I would say: “let's cover these first and if there's time let's see if we can’t talk about blahdy blah.”

13:46   Bill Froehlich: So when you were initiating a table-oriented process, what's your goal? Do you have a goal? Is it a goal to get to a written agreement? Just to get the parties to talk? And, did you tell the parties what your goals were?

14:04   Tim Johnson:   I did tell the parties what my goal was. And my goal was not a written agreement. Which was not a good thing in CRS because they want written agreements. I said, “my goal here is to provide you the opportunity to move towards resolution and to do that by facilitating this process with you. That's my only goal. Your goals, as you've already stated, were to see what you can do about issues one, two, three, four, whatever. And if we have time, you want me put on the table. And the way to do that, as we've already discussed, is good faith, listen, share. See where things could be done.” 

I don't remember ever being involved in a session where one side got everything it wanted. I do remember. And that very often, that was just ego. You know, one side would say “well I’m not doing that.” “Okay, well put that aside.” Then towards the end we would say “would you like to revisit that?” And both sides would say, it’s not that important. You know we got this let's... go with that. So, my hope was that the parties involved would feel like they made progress. If they felt like they made progress, good enough.

15:50   Bill Froehlich: I like that. So, a couple more specific questions, even more specific. As I know you've taught mediation for the mediators out there in the world perhaps. How at the table, or in your assessment process, did you build trust between yourself and the parties and between the parties?

16:15   Tim Johnson:   Okay. How I built it between myself and the parties was by being as honest as I possibly could. As I said, in early discussions sometimes my color was a hindrance. And I would explain to them: “I’ve never been brown. I've never been black. I've never been Asian. My whole life I've never been these things, okay. What I have been is a person who has received training and experience in helping people to talk. I won't represent you. You have to represent you. I won’t propose or suggest that I know what's best for you. I don't. You know what's best for you. You know what's best for your community. And it might be different in Podunkville then it might be in Shmukatuey. I don't know. It's up to you. This is your process. And it's a voluntary process. At any point if you feel I've violated your trust, if you feel like I'm misrepresenting you, if you feel like I'm trying to fool you, call it. Just say stop. I'll ask you, you know what went wrong and I'll try and answer any doubts that you have. But if you don't want this, I go home. I get paid by the year, not by the case.” So, very often, that was enough to say okay, sometimes reluctantly, they would say okay. You know it would be better if you were Latino, if you spoke Spanish, if you were African American. Well, I'm not. And I never claim to be. 

I’d say in my written response to you, I could never be Patt Glenn. A.) I'm white, she's black. B. I’m male, she’s female. C.) She grew up in Chicago, I grew up in New York. Now are there any similarities? Yeah, we're both city people. Great. Wonderful. But her life experience and my life experience, different. Wally Warfield grew up in my town, Queens. Alright. He went to a high school that my high school played in basketball. So, we had a few more similarities than Pat and I did. But A.) I’m not black, he is. B.) I did not get as far in education. He has a doctorate and very, very well versed. Very articulate. Way more articulate than I could ever hope to be. So I can't be him. What I can do is I can listen to Wally or Victor Rizzo or Miguel, or you know, any of these folks. Ben Lieu, who was my partner in Philadelphia. And I can go, that was a good idea. I like the way he did that. It’s mine. And then I would try it. And it would work out for me. 

Ben was very good at street mediation. And I suspect he honed that skill as a street cop in Baltimore. Very, his approach was very disarming. “Hey, we're here. Something’s gonna happen. Hopefully nobody gets hurt. Why don’t we talk about this for a minute?” That kind of thing. So yeah.

20:36   Bill Froehlich: So let's come back to Ben and street mediation a little bit. And I wrote down disarming because I want to come back to that quality as a street mediator. I, you’re talking about, you know, as a white male particularly, how did you deal with power disparities, including disparities where we might have lower power, generally lower power groups, African American, Hispanic, etc.? Did you do anything specific to empower them or uplift minority or low power voices in your... table oriented conversations?

21:15   Tim Johnson:   I tried to ensure that everybody got a fair shot. Some community leaderships would appear to be intimidated by high level government types: mayors or superintendents or chiefs. Which they picked up on. And they would try to exploit. “Well, you don't know anything. You know, you're just a citizen here. You have no idea what you're talking about.”  And so, when those kinds of imbalances happen, I would ask questions. I would say “Well, Chief Sensitive over here said you don't know what you're talking about. How do you feel about that? Do you think... you have some issues here? Because somebody told me some and you articulated rather well I thought, you know, where you come from. “Well yes, as a matter of fact.” And then they would you know, go on. 

It did not always work I must say. I did have a case where there was clear insensitivity if not outright prejudice on the part of the local sheriff's department. And the local sheriff came in very bombastic and very: “Well if you people think this is bad wait, you know, this... could get a lot worse.” Which was a threat. And the African American leadership folded. They said “well, I guess that's... everything is going to be okay.” And there was no way I could ask a question or encourage further discussion without violating my neutrality. So sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn’t. 

23:29   Bill Froehlich: When you did engage in efforts, some elicitive questions, that you discuss with the low, low power party, was there ever any pushback from you know, that police chief, where you said “well before, you know, you articulate you did an effective job of articulating your concern about X, Y and Z.” Did you ever get pushback from a chief who said, “well why are you asking them that question?” Or something along those lines. 

23:57   Tim Johnson:   Yeah. And I would say I ask that question because we want to be sure that all the bases are covered. That when this is over, there are no questions.

24:09   Bill Froehlich: So did you have any effective techniques for persuading a party to reframe a problem to transition it from a negotiable, or one that's not negotiable, to an issue that is negotiable? So, by it way of example, a lot of your peers have said: “look parties come into these conversations and say you got to fire the chief immediately, the mayor’s got to resign.” And to the chief, who they're negotiating with, that's not really a negotiable issue.

24:45   Tim Johnson:   Yeah. What I would do is I would say: when people say you got to find the chief, what I hear is something different. What I hear as an outside person is: we're very confused, upset, dissatisfied, with the relationship that we currently have. So instead of talking about firing chiefs, let's talk about what's the ideal relationship between community and police department. What is it that you want?

25:21   Bill Froehlich: So, you would ask the party elicit information on the party designed to focus on that relationship and then move from there. Okay. 

Say, let me just give you an example, assume there’s a police involved shooting, and you're called in to a table-oriented negotiation, and the parties, hypothetically the police department, and NAACP, and the family, right, are at odds over facts. How do you deal about what happened at the shooting? How do you deal, as a mediator, with disagreements over facts or perspectives?

26:02   Tim Johnson:   First, I would never involve a family... They can't possibly come with good faith. They can only come with anger, and a thirst for revenge, and possibly looking for a mistake to be made on the part of the police so they can sue for wrongful death or whatever. And second, I would say: we can't undo what's been done. So, what is it from this point forward that we want to look at so that both the police and the community can feel secure in being able to have police protection and police services and the police can have confidence in what they do and confidence that the community understands that. And you know, let them go back and forth. 

Now if a situation, George Floyd for example. I wouldn't be there. Because that's a legal matter. Because the family is suing the police and the police are you know focused on the legal issue. Okay. That would not be jurisdiction to CRS. If however, beyond that, the community wanted to sit down and revamp and revise the relationship between police and community, that's something we could do. 

I mentioned earlier Patt Glenn did this at least twice. And was there for weeks. He was there for weeks. Unheard of in CRS, by the way. And came up with very detailed arrangement. Now  Bob Lamb would say that was a good job. Because that changed capacity. That changed the relationship. The reality is that a year, maybe two years later, all the parties are gone. And it's just like “oh yeah we did that back in ‘78. Who cares.”

28:42   Bill Froehlich: So, after you get to a solution, then we’ll loop back to a few other questions but you’re on solutions right now, what do you do to ensure that they're actually carried out?

28:57   Tim Johnson:   What a great question. Nothing. I did nothing. I went onto the next case. And the reason for that was economic. We would... assume, CRS would assume, things are going okay if we didn't get another complaint. Now, I did invite people to contact us if there was a problem. But I never got contacted. 

29:27   Bill Froehlich: Never? No (Tim Johnson: ). Say there was, was there ever any role in post, in the post negotiation, post mediation phase, that you played?

29:39   Tim Johnson:   No. No, I wanted to. And I think CRS should have. And we should have gone back, you know, a year later and met with the same people to see what progress has been made, and what arrangements were met and were not met, you know, to evaluate. We used to do a program called SPIRIT in school and we never went back to schools. We should have went back to the schools in the following year and said “so how are things going? Let's sit down and have some pizza with the kids and see where they are at this point.” 

Money. You know, we had, when I was in New York there were three conciliators covering all of New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Isle.  Alright. Three conciliators couldn't cover New York City. So. You know, my attitude was okay, do the best you can with what you got while you got it. Teddy Roosevelt, by the way. 

30:58   Bill Froehlich: It’s Teddy Roosevelt, you said.

31:00   Tim Johnson:   Teddy Roosevelt said that. Yes he said: “do what you can with what you got while you have it.” And Teddy Roosevelt also was a police commissioner in New York City and the desk that he had as commissioner is in the police chief's office. And was back in the 70s and early 80s. Big huge, really nice stuff. And so, when I met with that guy he explained the whole: “this is Teddy Roosevelt’s desk.” Oh, cool. 

31:33   Bill Froehlich: That is cool. So, based on your observation, were the solutions that communities came up with, were they durable? Do you know?

31:46   Tim Johnson:   I think they would be with continued monitoring and continued open communication. You know, what people want is, okay fix this and it’ll go away. Well you fix it, but you’ve got to keep working on it. It's like people say, fix racism. Well that's not gonna happen. What is gonna happen is building better ways to address allegations of biased behavior. On both sides I might add. 

Now you know, I'm 100 years old and all of these things were happening back in the 1940s, 1930s. Okay. We're almost 100 years later and they’re still happening. Right so, when I see people yelling and screaming about why is it still happening, it's still happening because we try a little solution instead of the long-term solution. We say “okay we're not going to do xyz anymore that's it.” Without thinking that xyz is soon going to be replaced by 123. Which is equally insensitive, or harmful, or what have you.

33:20   Bill Froehlich: So, let's think about solutions that, at the table. Did the party's themselves develop the solutions or were there ever times when you suggested solutions to the parties. 

33:38   Tim Johnson:   The parties always chose solutions. And pre mediation assessment, I might say something along the lines of “you know there's a police department in Podunkville. They tried this. I don't know if that would work here. Or there's a program, Smokatuey, they tried this. I don’t know if that applies. That, I only did that if it seemed like they were at an impasse and couldn't come up with a viable route. 

34:17   Bill Froehlich: So you may have articulated or highlighted ideas that have worked in other communities or had been tried in other communities. But they always chose. And I was gonna follow up with that. You use “chose,” didn't, not necessarily “develop.” Often the communities develop them, but if they were stuck you might help them develop based on the experience of other communities?

34:40   Tim Johnson:   Well, I would do that or they would make a suggestion and then say “we should do this.” And I would say “okay, how would that work? What are you gonna, you know, how is that gonna be? Is that something that needs to be funded? Is that something that needs monitored? Is that something that needs written down? Is that something that's gonna require training? How are you gonna do that?”

35:07   Bill Froehlich: So, during conversations I imagine there was often significant tension at the mediation table. What strategies did you use to diminish tension? 

35:22   Tim Johnson:   Anytime there was any level of recognition on either side’s part to say “oh, I hear what you're saying. Oh, that's a good point.” I would try and reinforce that. I would say “okay that's what this is all about. That's why we're here. That's what listening in good faith is all about. Let's mark that down in your book so that as we move forward you can say “Oh, we’re not at complete loggerheads. There's some light at the end of both tunnels. 

36:10   Bill Froehlich: Were there ever discussions you were involved in where the hostilities and tensions actually increased during the mediation and what would you do then?

36:23   Tim Johnson:   The only times that I can think of is when mediation failed. You know, well, you know, one side or the other would say this isn't working. And in spite of any efforts on my part to reopen willingness to sit and talk. And there was sometimes when the parties really didn't care for a solution. They cared for political points. They want to make political points. They want to run for mayor or whatever. And tensions would get higher then. 

37:10   Bill Froehlich: That’s interesting so when politics were involved and people were trying to score political points, that would often create and increase the tension in the room. Did anyone ever...?

37:20   Tim Johnson:   And in the community. 

37:25   Bill Froehlich: Can you give me an example of that?

37:27   Tim Johnson:   For example, I tried in one city to get the parties to be. The community leadership was more interested in making political points and made a big show of standing up and walking out.  And it was clear to me that they had misrepresented their intentions. But I can't say that to the city. I'm certainly not going to talk to the press about it. But following that, the very next day, there were a community, minority community wide strike against all downtown businesses. Led by the same people who were at the table. So, I think that we were used as an excuse and then they went back to the community and said “see we tried, and they won’t talk to us. Now we have to force them.” At same time one of the main representatives announced his run for mayor.

38:38   Bill Froehlich: And I assume they did not come back to the table.

38:39   Tim Johnson:   No. Which is more, it’s a pity because I think the city was ready to make some major concessions. You know, what are you gonna do, it’s like politics that we have now. They’re not interested in solutions; they’re interested in points. And it’s, you know, people make their living coloring their words so that the insurrection becomes an overblown riot. And the gas prices are directly related to the current administration. And the immigration problem is much worse today than it was then. It’s not, by the way. Rather than talk about solutions, they talk about how can we call the other side wrong.

39:52   Bill Froehlich: So, you know what, your politics is close to values, and so I want to ask you a question specifically about values. What happened at the mediation table when you're dealing with conflicts over fundamental values that are likely nonnegotiable? How did you work through those issues?

40:18   Tim Johnson:   Generally, the conflicts were surface conflicts. And if you dug a little deeper, they both had the same values. So, you say that you believe in the Constitution. Okay. And you believe that everybody has a constitutional right to worship how they choose. And there have been attacks on mosque. Should those attacks be handled both from law enforcement point of view and a community point of view as much as you might respond to a burning cross? And if so, you know, what's the basic value? The basic value is that everybody should be free to worship the way they choose.

41:22   Bill Froehlich: So, you often looked for core values and found values that were in common. Yeah (Tim Johnson: ). Okay. Did you... always work with groups at table-oriented mediations together at the same table in a joint session? Or did you use caucusing or shuttle diplomacy?

41:44   Tim Johnson:   I prefer everybody at the same table. It's quicker. It's more direct. I have done shuttle diplomacy. And sometimes that was because of schedule problems one side of the other might have had. And the weakness there is that I had to report to one side what the other side said. Was I accurate? Did I do it the way they wanted it done? I would tell them what I was gonna say and tell them how I was gonna say it. “Yeah, yeah, okay, that’s good.” But I always felt better to let them do the talking, not me. 

42:32   Bill Froehlich: So, other than scheduling reasons what were other reasons you used shuttle diplomacy or caucusing?

42:39   Tim Johnson:   Anger. Animosity. Hostility. You know, let's see if we can’t bridge that gap and then come back to the table. 

And you know, I would tell them, this is not unusual. This is not, you know, there's nothing wrong with anybody here that feeling should remain high. This is a normal thing. And one way we can handle that is by, you know, you sit in this room, and I’ll sit in this room, and we’ll rush back and forth. But eventually, we're gonna come together. And we're gonna check with each other. “Did you hear what we said? Did you hear how we replied? Did you hear what we suggested? Did you hear what we counter suggested?” Things like that. Because, you know, eventually, you’ll have to come to some sort of agreement.

43:41   Bill Froehlich: So, what, I have two more questions about the table process. How long would a typical table-oriented process last? Was it one day, or?  Yeah (Tim Johnson: ). I know it seems like a one day. Okay. So you would do these in one day. Yeah (Tim Johnson: ). Okay. And whereas Patt Glenn would be working for weeks on particular projects. Okay. Very good. Excellent. Is there anything else you want to say about table-oriented processes before we transition to street or community-oriented processes?

44:15   Tim Johnson:   That table orientation looks long term solutions. And that helping people define and understand good faith efforts, ultra important.

44:38   Bill Froehlich: So you, one more question and I appreciate that note about long-term solutions in particular. What, you noted that your colleague, your partner, Ben Lieu, was disarming as a community-oriented mediator and that, you implied that that was an effective trait. What is an effective trait or skill set of a table-oriented mediator?

45:09   Tim Johnson:   Competence and organization. Competence in knowing the process. And giving me the parties confidence that: “okay, we’re with the right guy. This is... what they said was gonna happen, this is what's happening.” An organization, you know when to move from point A to point B to point C. So, if you are not competent and organized, they will pick up on it, the [] will pick up on it immediately. They’ll know immediately, “this is not the guy we want.”

45:51   Bill Froehlich: Okay. Thank you for sharing those values. So let's... move on to street-oriented processes and a similar set of questions, but a little bit... shorter. So street-oriented processes, which you've defined in what you've put, what you wrote to me as: what you did at demonstrations and protests. And that's exactly the type of mediation that I'm thinking. You wrote your goal was to avoid violence, specifically. So, did you share that goal with the folks you were mediating with, or consolidating with? No (Tim Johnson: ). Or did you not have time?

46:33   Tim Johnson:   No. It would be nice if we could, you know say, “well you're about ready to run over there and punch that fella. Let's sit down and talk about, you know.” No. What we would do is first separate. Do everything you can to get party A as far away from party B as possible. 

46:567             Bill Froehlich: When you say party, do you mean group A from group B? 

47:04   Tim Johnson:   Yeah. Alright (Bill Froehlich: ). And... example. The Klan was gonna do a meeting. A lecture. In a public library. In the meeting room in the public library. 

47:21   Bill Froehlich: Yeah, you mentioned this story last time we talked. And separating and specific. 

47:36   Tim Johnson:   The Klan wanted more people in the room than was legal. So, we said, “we're happy to let your speaker come in. You got to get somebody out.” And they said “oh, we’ll get the anti-Klan out.” “No, no. You got to get one of your Klan people out. Not fair to these other folks.”  That was... an immediate solution to an immediate problem. 

Another example. Different session. Different demonstration. And the Klan was finished, and they wanted to go to a parking garage, get their cars, and get out. Alright. So, they started to walk to the parking garage and the anti-Klan people want to chase them and beat them up or whatever. So what we did was one of us took the Klan into the garage and one of us spoke to the anti-Klan. Alright. And that was, you know, “before you go in there, you know, let me run over some things, you know. that might not work out for you if you do go in there.” And by the time all that happened, they were in their cars and gone. So that keeps them separate. 

In a moving demonstration, where people are marching and there are anti-marchers on the sidewalk that want to yell at them. We would walk with the marchers. Not, you know. We would walk along side. So, we would be next to the barricades that separated the anti-people. And then on this side would be the marchers. And somebody would say “I’m gonna go over there and punch that guy in the nose.” You would try to isolate that one person. And, a number of different ways to do that. Give me five minutes. You say to the guy, give me five minutes. You’re standing there with a Department of Justice hat, Department of Justice shirt. You know, you’re obviously a fed. So they respond to that. And if you say you know, “what's it, you know, if you went over there and did that what would it accomplish, other than make you feel good? And it might make you feel bad. You know, by saying it was ineffective.” And you’d just talk to them for five minutes and maintain eye contact with the guy. By, you know, in two/three minutes that group of people had passed so there's nothing to fight about.

Another one.

50:43   Bill Froehlich: I’m gonna pause you there. How, so I imagine, I’m just imagining a group of 100 protesters. How do you identify that person who says I'm going to go punch that guy?

50:52   Tim Johnson:   He says it. 

50:54   Bill Froehlich: Do you hear it in a large group of protesters? 

50:56   Tim Johnson:   Yeah. 

50:58   Bill Froehlich: Yeah. Okay. With, let’s just say, you know, there’s 500 protesters and 200 counter protesters. Who are you working with? Is it just, you know, four conciliators, or two conciliators, or are there others involved? Seems like a one to 100 ratio is, I don’t know. Tell me more. 

51:22   Tim Johnson:   Sometimes it was one to 100. But, mostly in a demonstration like that, there would be local law enforcement. And we would meet with local law enforcement before the event. We would say “we want to be an excuse for you not to get involved with hot heads. For you not to have to arrest anyone. Just want to be your excuse. However, we recognize who the authority is here and that’s you not us. So if you say to us “get out,” we're gone. If you say to use “we’ll handle this,” we’re gone. But, while we're there, we can defuse the little incidents that could lead to a bigger one and save you guys a whole lot of trouble. That worked out pretty good. 

52:17   Bill Froehlich: Were there ever jurisdictions that said, “get out, we don't want you” right away when you told them that? Or were there particular demonstrations where they said, when they looked at you and said, “Tim get your people out of here, we're done with this.” 

52:34   Tim Johnson:   No, I didn't experience that, but other conciliators did. And they did the right thing, they left.

52:51   Bill Froehlich: If you... were about to explain the third scenario to me. So, there was the Klan scenario, there was the conflicting protestors. Go ahead.  

52:57   Tim Johnson:   Somebody breaches the barricade. And the five-minute thing doesn't count. It's not working. So, you surround that person with a number of people and all of you talk to him at the same time. All of you maintain contact, eye contact, with him and go “hey, Joe, talk to me for a minute, you know. Where did you get those shoes? I love shoes. Hey Joe, you got a sister? I think I know your sister.” Anything that came to mind, alright. And Joe was, you know, “what? What?” Alright. And in a very short period of time, you've gently walked him back behind the barricade. 

He gets to not get in trouble, and yet not be considered cowardly by his peers, okay. So we gave him a back door. And we get to have the thing continue without violence. So any... variation of those two things seem to do alright. And like I say, in my time I never had a problem. Granted, I'm six foot two and I weighed 240 pounds. So, you know, it's a little easier for me to... be a little more articulate, I guess, or verbal, than a little guy. 

54:42   Bill Froehlich: Did you try, did you ever re, try to end or redirect a protest in anyway? So, marchers demonstrating, redirect them to a different street or something?

54:55   Tim Johnson:   Oh yeah. Yeah. When we were told to do so by law enforcement.

55:00   Bill Froehlich: And were you more effective at redirecting as a CRS member than say, law enforcement, and why was that?

55:08   Tim Johnson:   Six of one half a dozen of the other. 

55:15   Bill Froehlich: Okay. Did you ever work with one side of a protest, for example, to train them to self-marshal themselves? Yes (Tim Johnson: ). What did that look like? 

55:25   Tim Johnson:   We got a whole training manual on marshaling. Yes, we would say, you know, identify yourselves with special T-shirts, or arm bands, or something. Know what your role is and where you’re going. How are you gonna get there? Understand that law enforcement is in charge. Have a message that you want to give to people during the process. You know, we're here to make a point. We're not here to burn buildings. Those kinds of things.” A backup plan so if somebody did get hurt, they could be evacuated. Have access to bathrooms, have access to water, and those kinds of things. And know where you're going before you get there. Draw maps so that everybody knows, starts on 48th street, it's gonna end on 9th avenue.

56:33   Bill Froehlich: When you were training those advocacy groups, how did you maintain your... neutrality? Were you able to maintain it? Or did you have a different view on it in that context? 

56:46   Tim Johnson:   I think I had a different view. What I did was say here are concepts that you might not be aware of. And that we know work. That will help you to achieve your goals. And some people would call it training. Other people would call it technical assistance. But basically, you’re just helping people who might not be, and almost never were, experienced in this kind of group activity. You have something to hold onto.

57:21   Bill Froehlich: So, when you said: “help you meet your goals,” what did you mean by that?

57:28   Tim Johnson:   The protestors’ goals. 

57:30   Bill Froehlich: Okay. Which were?

57:34   Tim Johnson:   Make a point. Demonstrate their dissatisfaction. Call attention. That kind of thing. 

57:44   Bill Froehlich: Rather than have an alternative where there's violence, and that's the headline, and that's distracting. Okay. Did you ever help train protesters or advocates to more effectively advocate for their interests in positions? 

58:07   Tim Johnson:   No. Not my job.

58:13   Bill Froehlich: You mentioned police and law enforcement that were involved or affected by your efforts, or partners, when you were marshalling protestors yourself. Were there are other organizations that you worked with, nonprofit or advocacy organizations, that had similar interests?

58:30   Tim Johnson:   Yes. There... were God Squad. Local ministers who wanted to come out and be marshals. And we would talk with them about what to expect . . . they had at hand. Things like that.

58:51   Bill Froehlich: Which, can you give me an example of a community where they used the God Squad? 

59:00   Tim Johnson:   A city in New Jersey was experiencing significant racial tension that was exasperated by a really serious excessive use of force. And they had a demonstration. People were very angry. And so the local ministerial alliance came together. And we found out that they were talking. So we got in contact with them and said: “here’s some things we think you could do.” Sorry, go ahead (Bill Froehlich: ). Maybe, you know, I mean the ministers say “Jesus wants you to blah blah blah” is more effective than “the police guy said blah blah blah.” 

1:00:01            Bill Froehlich: Okay, so they took the perspective, and you as well, that their marshaling may have been more effective in certain contexts than law enforcement. 

1:00: 11           Tim Johnson:   No question. Absolutely. Sometimes the police were more effective. You know, it just depended on what the situation was.

1:00:27            Bill Froehlich: Okay. When you were doing... community-oriented street policing, how did you build trust quickly?

1:00:42            Tim Johnson:   Approaching people open handedly. Like this. Asking people their name. 

1:00:54            Bill Froehlich: And just for the transcript’s sake..., Tim is holding up his hands and his palms facing forward, when he says open handedly.

1:01:05            Tim Johnson:   “Hi. It's a bad situation, isn’t it? Gosh, I can't imagine how frustrated you must feel. Let me talk to you for a minute and see if we can move things forward for you and make sure that you, you know, you're here at the end. That you don't have to leave or anything. What would you like to see happen? How would you like to proceed?” Just pepper questions. Explaining that I don't have any answers. “You know, you have all the answers. Help me understand. I don’t live here. I’m from out of town. What’s going on? Why is everybody so angry?” You know, they get to vent a little bit. “Okay, I feel a little better,” and go back in the crowd. 

1:02:01            Bill Froehlich: So they, you would ask them their name. You’d come to them with a lot of questions... with open hands. What other techniques for building trust quickly did you use?

1:02:13            Tim Johnson:   Smiles. “Hi.” “Well,” and show surprise, “this is really something, isn’t it?” Sometimes it wasn't. You know, having done this several times you would say, “you think this is bad, you should have been in Brooklyn.” But you don't, you know, you don't say that to them because this is their big deal. And you go “wow, this is something.” You know and they go “well the Department of Justice thinks it’s something, I guess it is.”

1:02:52            Bill Froehlich: And how did you build trust with the police departments that you were coordinating with? How did you build trust with the advocacy groups and the God Squads? Quickly. 

1:03:01            Tim Johnson:   Meet with them beforehand. Before the event starts. Tell them who you are and what you want to do. Tell them who's in charge. They’re in charge, not you. Tell them that you and the rest of the CRS people will leave the area at any point they tell us to leave the area. That we are just another arrow in your quiver. 

You know, you don’t, you don’t have... It’s like use of force. It’s a continuum. Sometimes presence is enough. The cop is on the corner, I’m not going to do anything wrong. Sometimes it takes a little more than presence. The cop is on the corner and he’s walking directly at me. I’m not gonna do anything wrong. The cop is on the corner and he’s looking directly at me and now he’s coming over and he’s gonna talk to me. These are all graduations in that continuum. And one option is let the fed do. You know, that doesn’t work, you’ve still got all the other things. And plus, there’s no report. There's no paperwork. It didn’t happen. I wasn’t there. The fed took care of it. What do I know? And it worked out so, there you go.

1:04:32            Bill Froehlich: I love how you were both arming groups with information based on your wisdom and experience, particularly law enforcement, and empowering them to tell you what to do. And those are just core to a mediator’s practice. 

How...  did you just decide, you know..., after, there might be a protest, or demonstration, or competing demonstrations, would you just leave when it was over or did you stay in the community to try to take next steps with them, maybe at a table-oriented process or work with the community at the town hall or a discussion forum? How did you decide when it was time to end your involvement in community-oriented processes?

1:05:26            Tim Johnson:   When the demonstration was over, we went home. Follow up would happen. Generally, the demonstrations would happen, if it happened in your region, then you could identify some of the community leadership and maybe make contact with them a few days later. But many times we were called to go to another region because you wanted more than one guy. And so, I went to Mississippi. I went to Louisiana. I went to California. I, that’s not my jurisdiction. So what... happened after that I have no idea.

1:06:13            Bill Froehlich: And when it was in your region, you would follow up or one of your colleagues would follow up with those involved? Yeah (Tim Johnson: ). To do what specifically?

1:06:24            Tim Johnson:   Just to check to make sure that there's no room for table negotiations. Generally, we would debrief on the day with the police. And the police would call the formal briefing. 

1:06:40            Bill Froehlich: Tell me more about that.

1:06:43            Tim Johnson:   Well, quite often there would be more than one jurisdiction. So, you would have state police, police from other jurisdictions, and the jurisdiction itself. And they wanted to cover the area with law enforcement presence. And we would sit down, and they would all congratulate each other and tell each other what a wonderful job they did. We would, one of us would get up and say “thank you very much for allowing us to be here. We did not, you know, find any issues or concerns that are related to anything that you need have attention to.” 

1:07:32            Bill Froehlich: Were there ever law enforcement debriefing sessions where they identified concerns to improve upon and... No (Tim Johnson: ). And did you and your colleagues ever debrief and identify things “oh boy, we wish we would have done this differently. Or oh boy, these police jurisdictions, you know, they need to improve these practices and are other ways we can support that.” 

1:08:02            Tim Johnson:   We would debrief on our activities. Did we do a good job? Could we do a better job doing something else? Is there a way to be better prepared? Those kinds of questions. But again, depending on whether or not you were visiting a jurisdiction, we didn’t go further than that. 

1:08:25            Bill Froehlich: Were there any learning points from those internal CRS conversations that you could share?

1:08:32            Tim Johnson:   Yeah. I think that generally if we had more time then we'd be better prepared. If we knew what people, we’d be better prepared. If we could meet with more people prior to the event, we'd be better prepared. If we could develop written materials that we could send out to people, we'd be better prepared. And CRS has some of those materials. You know, they’ve written things so that if I’m a local conciliator and I’m hearing that these things might happen I can get some copies and send them to people. 

1:09:19            Bill Froehlich: And what, what are the top... one or two materials that you would send to a community in advance of the demonstration?

1:09:27            Tim Johnson:   Soft marshalling. Safety issues. Things like that. Okay (Bill Froehlich: ). Police community leadership relations. Make sure they know who you are, and you know who they are. 

1:09:51            Bill Froehlich: Okay. So wanted to keep talking a little bit more about street or community-oriented mediation. Everything okay? Let me finish the question. No, it’s okay. No problem. So, specifically I wanted to talk to, you mentioned your colleague, Ben Lieu and in what you wrote to me you said street mediation is called “combat mediation.” So, I’d love for you to say more about that. 

1:10:27            Tim Johnson:   That was his term. Yeah, that was his term. And basically, what we’re trying to do is get people to just keep moving. And you’re good at it if you’re comfortable on the street. If you’re nervous, if you’re afraid, if you lack confidence, you’re not gonna be very good at it. You’ve got to be, you’ve got to give the people the impression that: “I’ve been here before, I belong here, and we’ve done this several times. This is good for you.”

1:11:16            Bill Froehlich: The first time you were doing this combat mediation, street mediation. Did you have all those traits?  

1:11:24            Tim Johnson:   Yes. Based on experience that I had in prisons. 

1:11:28            Bill Froehlich:               Ah. Okay. Based on experience in prisons. Excellent. So, you previously described Ben Lieu’s demeanor as disarming and that resonates with the traits you just identified: confidence, calm. Can you say more about Ben’s work in combat mediation? Are there any illustrations that come to mind?

1:11:55            Tim Johnson:   Well, but, the example of the Klan and the library, that was Ben Lieu. He negotiated that by saying you know “I give you something, you’ve got to give me something.” And he had several years as a street cop in Baltimore followed by several years as the Chief of Homicide Division in Baltimore. So, he had the confidence to talk to anybody. And people sensed that. 

You know, if you grow up... I used to try to train trainers. And I would say to them: “if you walk into a room, they’re gonna know whether or not you’re gonna be a good trainer in the first 30 seconds. You’re gonna know, when you’ve got some experience, if this is gonna be a difficult class or an easy class. Just by the demeanor of people. Teachers in high school, they can do the same thing. They can walk into a room, they could walk into a cafeteria, got hundreds of kids in it, they can sense right away if there’s gonna be a problem. How do they do that? They do that through experience. 

And knowing there’s gonna be a problem and being able to handle the problem, two different things. So, inexperienced people will run away from the problem. Experienced people will run to the problem. Turns out. And folks like Ben Lieu could do that. 

1:13:52            Bill Froehlich: This... some colleagues and I have written before that during demonstration, during a protest, there are roles for traditional mediators to play. But this isn't one of them. Because the corporate courtroom mediator does not have the same skill set and you are highlighting precisely why in a way that is crisper and clearer than I have ever thought before. So, I appreciate that. Is there anything else that you want to say about street-oriented mediation or in the illustrations that come to mind?

1:14:30            Tim Johnson:   Well, as I was leaving CRS, they were moving away from that. They were moving towards not having a presence at demonstrations. And if there was gonna be a presence, they wanted it to be situated away from the event so if there was a problem they could be called in to mediate. So that... I don’t know where they are now, whether or not they... 

1:15:10            Bill Froehlich: Was that a political choice point or where was that in the hierarchy of CRS? What was the choice point?

1:15:17            Tim Johnson:   The administration. 

1:15:20            Bill Froehlich: Okay. Like AG administration, or?

1:15:23            Tim Johnson:   I don’t know whether it was the AG or Deputy AG or all the way down to the executive director. I don’t think executive directors made that many decisions. They were told what to do and often times they would sense what they should do based on meetings that they had. And they would shift their practices. 

1:15:50            Bill Froehlich: So, speaking of the administrative components of CRS, do you have advice, and you've written a little bit, for navigating the bureaucracy at CRS? And to be candid with you, I was in an oral history earlier just today, and someone said: “you should ask Tim Johnson that question because he's the only one that I know who’s moved from being in the field to headquarters.” So, please tell us.  

1:16:20            Tim Johnson:   Yeah, you have to understand why people ask staff to do what they ask them to do. Headquarters doesn’t do mediation. Headquarters doesn’t do conflict resolution. Headquarters does bureaucracy. Bureaucracy requires reports. Your reports don’t really have to make that much sense. They have to be given to congressional staff so that they can say “I have here a report that says there were 200 incidents of blady blah.” Whether or not each of those incidents resulted in a case, didn’t matter. 

Also didn’t matter, it mattered more to headquarters that an alert, an assessment, and follow up reports were done, than what was actually in them. So, what I would say to people is come up with stock answers. Then you can just: “met with parties. Parties said... We continue to deliberate. Thank you.” And if you could do that rather than complain about “oh my god they want me to do this and they want me to do that.” Just do it. Efficiently (Bill Froehlich). 

I called it the price I had to pay to do the work I wanted to do. And the work I wanted to do was be in the street, or in the community, with the people. 

1:18:05            Bill Froehlich: Any other tips for navigating the bureaucracy? How do you move from the regional office to the national office?

1:18:12            Tim Johnson:   I was asked to come in and be Chief of Field Coordination, which I had thought was gonna be a promotion. It didn't turn out to be one. But I figured that if I were Chief of Field Coordination, you could get more information to more conciliation specialists on a national basis. Because I would be required to read everybody’s reports. And so, I would see a report from somebody in Chicago and notice an assessment process in Seattle and I would put those two conciliators together, call each other up, talk about this. That had not been done before. 

1:19:07            Bill Froehlich: Innovative. So, you were putting people together to brainstorm. Others have mentioned there was hesitancy to share ideas across... regions and across offices. Was that the choice from a director, or do you know why CRS was hesitant to share information?

1:19:25            Tim Johnson:   When they found out what I was doing I was told to stop. That each region had to take care of itself, and it was the regional director's job to manage.

1:19:37            Bill Froehlich: You've mentioned though that there are annual retreats where there's training, and I presume resources are shared, what's the distinction between having that annual retreat and resource share and doing it a basis as you were directing individuals?

1:19:57            Tim Johnson:   Control, maybe? I don’t know. I pretty much didn’t pay attention to it anymore. I just say “oh I just happen to be taking to someone.” So, you know, so. I was not the best [] staff they ever had. 

1:20:26            Bill Froehlich: So, let's talk about who you learned from. You've mentioned so many folks throughout your... time. You wrote about Wally Warfield and Pat Glenn and Ben Lieu. And talking about your lived experience you would never, you don't have the lived experience, I don't have the lived experience of an African American woman or a black man, and I assume Asian, I assume Ben is Asian, an Asian male. But you also said today that you would observe them and say “whoop, I'm gonna take that” and then try it and make it. 

I tell my students in my mediation clinic, when you're observing a co-mediator or another mediator, you’d pick something, you’d try it, and you’d make it yours. You’d make it authentic to you. And that's what I heard you say. Exactly (Tim Johnson: ). My it words now.

1:21:18            Tim Johnson:   Exactly. Exactly right. And, I would... If I wrote something, a training program or whatever, I would give it to people and say this is just a skeleton you put the bones on.

1:21:38            Bill Froehlich: So, who else did you learn from other than those folks we've talked about? And do you have any stories... that resonate?

1:21:45            Tim Johnson:   Not really. You know I tried to learn from everybody, both good and bad. And they were bad examples. We had a conciliator who continuously criticized the New York City Police Department and publicly called it the most racist police department in...

1:22:16            Bill Froehlich: He publicly, or the conciliator, publicly criticized the New York City Police Department as the most racist police department in America? 

1:22:27            Tim Johnson:   Not helpful. Not helpful at all. He would say this to primarily black audiences. Which endeared him to them. But again, not helpful. 

I had other people who tried to be pushy with their authority. “I'm from the Department of Justice, here's my badge.” Not helpful. One of the things that I would teach is humility. You're not that big a deal. You've got some ideas and some knowledge about process. Share that with two people. Do what they do.

1:22     Bill Froehlich: Yeah, that resonates and everything that you have said, and the conversations, whether it's talking to the police for street-oriented mediation or it's letting the parties identify and choose their issues to negotiate over, how they're going to resolve them. So that that idea of humility resonates as I think about this collective set of interviews the conversations we've had here. 

So, what sources would you advise someone entering this line of work to observe? You suggested talking to people. Figuring out what constitutes conflict resolution. Can you expand on that?

1:24:13            Tim Johnson:   One of your students graduates: “I’ve got a degree in mediation.” Okay what he's got is some knowledge of mediation, some knowledge of the process, some different approaches to the process. Great. Al right. Talk to people who do it for a living. Co-mediate with experienced folks. Watch them. See what they do. Piece of paper. 

1:25:02            Bill Froehlich: Said see how they sell it, handle non-believers. How they handle negative emotions.

1:25:06            Tim Johnson:   That's a big issue. You’ve got to sell the process. If you don't sell the process nobody's interested in buying. It’s got to be something you want to do. 

1:25:17            Bill Froehlich: How do you sell it with humility?

1:25:20            Tim Johnson:   I sell it based on their expertise. You guys know what's going on more than anybody else. So, you want to move forward, you’re the only ones that can do it. I can help you do it by providing the table and the process. You’re in charge. 

1:25:46            Bill Froehlich: You also wrote to establish in your own mind a continuum of approaches to conflict resolution that move parties towards a resolution. Why do you say in your own mind? You know I can point you to an article, or several articles, that have a continuum of conflict resolution. Why do you say in your own mind?

1:26:08            Tim Johnson:   Know where you’re going. Know where you are. Know where you want to go. Is this a situation where you’re just gonna chat for a minute? Is this a situation where you’re gonna do more than just a chat? Is this a situation where you’re gonna have to help identify issues and interests? Is this a situation for long term mediation agreements? Be aware of where they are in that process and work with them where they are. 

1:26:48            Bill Froehlich: Great. Love it. Any anything else about other sources? You also write about referrals, literature, talks, formal training, informal training, collect materials, etc. Anything else you want to add?

1:27:02            Tim Johnson:   Not really. 

1:27:06            Bill Froehlich: So just a couple more questions and they're really follow up questions for me. I asked for a written account, and you sent me a copy of the sacred trust note that you wrote and described in our first conversation, and I’m really appreciative of that. I think in our second conversation you noted, or I heard from someone else in this project, that Bob Lamb used the phrase sacred trust at times. And I also... noted, as I was looking up that phrase in the context of CRS, that in 1998, Rose Ochi gave remarks at a CRS annual award presentation. Here's what she says. 

“While our forces have been radically reduced in numbers, CRS’s dedication is not diminished. We’re strong of heart to what many of us believe is our sacred trust to securing equal justice.”

So that's the end of the quote. But I just wonder if you have any reflection. You said you weren't at that ceremony, but I don't know if you knew that she used that phrase or if you have any reflection on her use of the phrase “sacred trust” there?  

1:28:25            Tim Johnson:   Yeah. I knew she used the phrase. And your other directors have used the phrase. And usually they use it, they used it, in speeches. Which is nice. But I would have preferred that the concept be discussed more informally among staff. Some staff, you know, adopted it right away. And some didn’t. Some said “this is just my job. You know, I’m not a, you know. So.”

1:29:20            Bill Froehlich: Yeah. So informal, having that informal conversation with... staff and conciliators across the country may have been valuable from your perspective. Well thank you for that reflection and I know I didn’t send that to you in advance. So, my last question is really, is there anything else you want to tell me in this conversation?

1:29:45            Tim Johnson:   Working for CRS was the highlight of my career. It gave my career meaning and my only regret is that it didn’t last longer and that I didn’t do more. I consider myself extremely lucky to have had the opportunity. I am honored that I am considered a peer with people like Patt Glenn or Tommy Battles or Mike Hernandez or any of the others. 

1:30:35            Bill Froehlich: Well Tim I am honored to have had this extended conversation with you over a couple of months and it's been a pleasure. From everything you've said it's clear that you've done so much for so many people. So, I’m both appreciative and in awe of all that you've done. And I’m grateful for your willingness to have this conversation. So, thank you for all the work that you've done and for chatting with me about it. It's been a privilege.