Michelle K. Morgan
Draft 2
April 20, 2004

A Journey, Not a Destination:
Discovering The Practice of Facilitation and Its Role in My Future 

	I stumbled onto the concept of facilitation in the midst of researching several different ideas for my research & engagement project.  This turned out to be a delightful serendipity.  As I researched the practice, I came to understand that facilitation is not only a career in itself, but the skills and techniques required to be an effective facilitator are necessary to affect change in any organization.  This paper outlines the journey I took to understand facilitation and its place in my future career.

I.  Identifying Ineffective and Effective Change

	As a teacher, I found myself extremely frustrated with the top down hierarchy of the school system I worked in.  Our state held annual standardized tests and the results were used by the state to evaluate the students, teachers, schools and districts.  Decisions regarding curriculum, instructional materials and programs were made at the district level.  The choices of the administration were passed on to us at monthly staff meetings and professional development trainings.  Often these meetings and trainings felt like debriefing sessions where we were given information on the changes that would be made and how we were to make them in our individual classrooms.  Although we were trusted to modify the curriculum to meet the needs of our special needs students, we were not provided the opportunity to participate in the decision on which particular models of instruction we would use with our classes.
	Our district implemented a new math curriculum that called for ability groups and required a significant amount of class time.  Many of us felt that the program was not effective as we watched our kids struggle with the program’s presentation of abstract concepts.  However, we were observed using this new method by district evaluators.  I remember feeling the administration had no idea what went on in my classroom and there was no way they could know what would work most effectively for my students.  This frustration coupled with the knowledge that my students’ test scores on the End of Grade exams would be used to evaluate me as an educator left me feeling as though I were hired to be a robot hired to “teach” students to correctly fill in bubbles on Scantron sheets so the district would look good on paper.  
	After two years, I left teaching to pursue a Master’s in Critical and Creative Thinking (CCT) at the University of Massachusetts Boston (UMB).  I found myself surrounded by people like me who could not stand idly and take direction. To be part of a community that rejects the traditional top down hierarchy in the workplace in favor of collaboration and ongoing evaluation of change is liberating.  I find myself increasingly dissatisfied with letting change happen to me.  I discovered being an active part of change allows me to invest myself in it.
Through my coursework at UMB, it became clear to me that I am not alone.  In order for change to be effective in any situation, the stakeholders affected by the change need to buy into it; and the best way to gain this support is to involve the stakeholders in designing the change.  Reflecting on my teaching experiences, I realize that because I didn’t feel my ideas and thoughts were valued by the administration because even though I spent every day on the front lines with my twenty-eight students, I was not consulted about changes in my classroom.  I resisted the attempt to changes my instructional practice because as a stakeholder I didn’t buy into their solution to teaching math.  I can’t help but wonder how I would have felt about the new math program in my classroom if I had been a part of the group that decided on the change. 

II.  Recognizing the Value of the Group

	In several of my courses at UMB, I was a member of a small group that was required to collaborate throughout the semester to create a single final product.  Through these experiences I gained an appreciation for the power of groups.  The products we created were far superior to what any one of us could have come up with on our own.  I also gained an understanding of the complexity of group dynamics.  In any given group there are a learning styles, communication styles and personal preferences unique to each individual.  Managing all of these differences is challenging, but integral to successfully making group decisions.  
	A group is made up of individuals with different knowledge, experience and ideas.  In his book The Art of Focused Conversation (2000), R. Brian Stanfield points out that: “If ten people are conversing around a table, the truth lies not with any one of them, but in the centre of the table, between and among the perspectives of all ten.  These ten people are co-creating what is true (or real) in their situation.”  Group decision making involves sharing power and drawing on each member’s wisdom.  The result is a synthesis of ideas, viewpoints and knowledge.
	Recognizing and embracing the value of group decision making is easier said than done in a culture where we often face with the “tyranny of the or” (Stanfield, 2000); meaning solutions and ideas are often presented as “we can do this or this to solve our problem.  Stanfield (2000, 10) advocates embracing the “genius of the and: “the ability to embrace a number of dimensions at the same time.”  A group facing a change, given the power to delve into a problem and consider the issues surrounding it can design a solution that meets the needs of the entire group.  Together, the stakeholders in the change create their future.  They own the change and become invested in it.
	Even in an ideal situation with all of the stakeholders in one room ready to converse and empowered to make a decision, other factors may impede the group’s ability to reach their goal.  For example, power struggles can emerge, assumptions can go unquestioned and the conversation can veer from its course.  In addition, lack of a process for discussing the topic can impede the success of the group.
	A group member can be assigned the task of keeping the conversation on course, but it is much more difficult to recognize when power struggles, nonverbal cues, assumptions, lack of process and personal agendas are adversely affecting the group’s work.  Ineffective group function hinders the group’s ability to meet its goals.

III.  Learning What Facilitation Is

	In at summer course at UMB, I spent a weekend learning about organizational development.  It was there that I was first introduced to the idea of facilitation.  I understood a facilitator to be a neutral party who oversees the group and intervenes to guide them toward meeting the goals of the conversation. We participated in several activities where we modeled and discussed facilitation techniques and practices.  The more ideas we came up with, the higher the energy level in the room went.  I found this intriguing.  Although the workshop consisted of a group of people who were not all in the CCT program, the same excitement I’d grown accustomed to over creating new ideas pervaded the atmosphere.
	When I decided to focus my research and engagement project on facilitation, I reviewed my notes from the workshop and located several books on the techniques we were introduced to.  I found each contained explanations, tools, tips and examples.  I also consulted the website of the International Association of Facilitators (IAF, 2004).  What I synthesized from the material is my general definition of what facilitation is and what a facilitator does.
	Facilitation is a process that begins with clear definition of the purpose of the experience.  For example, the group may be creating an action plan, problem-solving, making decisions or gathering to manage a conflict.  In addition, the time frame and agenda for the meeting need to be established.  Participants need to know in advance why they are meeting, how the outcome of the meeting will be used and what future follow up will look like.  It is beneficial to provide this information to participants so they understand the overall context of the meeting and the value of their contribution to the process (Schwarz, 2002).  
Another important piece of the facilitation process is making certain everyone who needs to attend the meeting does.  For example, if the group is meeting to make a decision, the people with the power to make the decision need to be in the room.  If the group needs specific information at the meeting, arrangements need to be made to guarantee the information will be there.  This may mean the person with access to it is at the meeting, or the information is provided in another manner.  According to Roger Schwarz (2002, 109), “sharing relevant information ensures that members have a common base of information on which to make an informed choice and generate commitment”. Without the right people in the room and all the necessary information, the group cannot effectively meet their goals.
	The role of the facilitator needs to be clearly defined as well.  Schwarz (2002), distinguishes between five different facilitative roles: facilitator, facilitative consultant, facilitative coach, facilitative trainer and facilitative leader.  The facilitator is described as a third party process expert who is content-neutral and is not a substantive decision maker, nor mediator.  The other facilitative roles require the facilitator to be a content expert or involved in the content.  In addition, group members can fill these roles, and the person may be involved in content decision making.  
As a neutral third party, the facilitator is charged with monitoring and contributing to the group’s process and structure.  “A facilitator’s job is to get others to assume responsibility and take the lead (Bens, 1999, 3)”.  While the participants focus on the content and the task at hand, the facilitator attends to group dynamics and procedure, manages conflict and communication, creates an open and trusting atmosphere and helps the group identify and test assumptions.  A successful facilitator is almost invisible.  According to Ingrid Bens (1999, 18): “Facilitating should be an egoless activity….An effective facilitator will leave a group convinced that ‘We did it ourselves!’”.  “Successful facilitation helps people that have the answers to come up with them themselves” (Spira, 2004).

IV.  Becoming an IAF Certified Facilitator

	When I entered the teaching profession in 1999, educator standards were becoming stricter.  Increasingly, states were requiring teachers and their students to pass tests and performance assessments; and each state had different standards.  This trend was labeled “accountability”.  The goal was to use test results to hold teachers and schools accountable for student performance. 
	Many other professions have certification (e.g. M.D., J.D. etc.) and ongoing professional development requirements.  Standards and certifications are necessary to ensure professionals have sufficient knowledge and training to practice in their field.  In 1998, The International Association of Facilitators (IAF) recognized the need for an assessment tool for facilitators and developed a certification process (IAF, 2004).  
	The process begins with sending an application and a fee to IAF, followed by a resume and evidence of facilitation experience and competency.  Two Accredited Assessors are assigned to the candidate.  They review the application and submitted information and then set up an assessment day.  During assessment day the assessors interview the candidate and observe facilitation of a workshop (IAF, 2004).  
The candidate is evaluated based on the following six competencies as defined by the IAF:
1.	Create Collaborative Client Relationships	
2.	Plan Appropriate Group Processes	
3.	Create and Sustain a Participatory Environment	
4.	Guide Group to Appropriate and Useful Outcomes	
5.	Build and Maintain Professional Knowledge	
6.	Model Positive Professional Attitude

The IAF holds annual certification conferences for facilitators.  The Institute for Cultural Affairs (ICA) in Canada offers workshops that teach the skills required for IAF certification.  Hiring a Certified Professional Facilitator (CPF) allows a group to ensure the person is skilled in the practice.  Becoming a CPF validates a facilitator’s training and experience with credentials, but it is not necessary to be certified to be effective.

V.  Facilitative Tools

	Each of my sources defined facilitation and the role of the facilitator initially and then went on to describe facilitative tools.  I summarize three of them below.  

A.	Focused Conversation
	The Focused Conversation Method was developed by the Institute of Cultural Affairs (ICA) in Canada (Stanfield, 2000).  It is a four-stage process led by a facilitator “who asks a series of questions to elicit responses that take a group from the surface of a topic to its depth implications for their life and work” (Stanfield, 2000, 17).  The questions are organized into four levels to imitate the natural human decision making process.  
	The first stage is the objective level.  Questions in this stage focus on facts and external reality.  They are designed to gather specific, observable information that pertains to the topic (Stanfield, 2000).  The answers sought are objective and factual.  In our natural decision making process this would be manifested as observing a situation about which you will be making a decision.  For example, if a biker rode out in front of your car while you are driving down a busy street, you would observe the presence of the biker in your path.
	The second stage of the process is the reflective level.  Questions in this stage focus on emotions and memories (Stanfield, 2000).  Participants in the conversation are asked to reflect on the data they have just provided in response to the objective questions.  This piece of the process allows participants to acknowledge how they feel about a situation.  Validation of personal feelings, moods, associations and memories is liberating and enables participants to move forward in the conversation.  Without this opportunity, Stanfield (2000) claims, participants will feel frustrated and may vent their feelings outside the meeting, which is counterproductive.  In our natural decision making process, the reflective level of questioning is the emotional response (stomach dropping, sharp intake of breath, exclamation of surprise) we feel when the biker rides out in front of the car.
	The third stage of the Focused Conversation Method is the interpretive level.  Questions in this stage get at the meaning of the topic.  They are often “why” questions and include questions pertaining to the value of the conversation and how it affects the participants outside the conversation. Higher level thinking skills are used to define the implications of the data and reflection discussed thus far for the group (Stanfield, 2000).  In the human decision making process this stage would be reflected by thinking through immediate options for not hitting the biker that rode out in front of the car (swerve, slam on the brakes).  
	The fourth and final stage of the process is the decisional level.  Questions in this stage are designed to make the conversation relevant for the future (Stanfield, 2000).  As its name suggests, in this level the group makes decisions regarding implications of the conversation for the future.  In our example, the driver of the car would decide, in this stage, how to handle the biker in front of the car.
	The design of the Focused Conversation Method allows groups to talk through a decision together by answering a series of questions organized to mimic our natural decision making process.  The facilitator leads the group through the predetermined sequence and encourages participation from all members of the group (Stanfield, 2000).  Using this process creates authentic involvement in making decisions and taking action.  Participants are invested in the outcome they helped generate and are more likely to follow through with the results.

B.	Consensus Building Workshop
	This workshop method was designed by ICA to enable groups to work together to create a shared resolve and plan for forward motion.  In contrast to the typical brainstorming workshop, the consensus workshop follows a process that leads the group from the chaos of brainstorming to organized, actionable results.  Consensus workshops do not mean that everyone agrees in the end.  “Consensus is a common understanding which enables a group to move forward together.  Consensus is reached when all the participants are willing to move forward together, even if they do not agree in all the details” (Stanfield, 2002, 5).  The group’s goal is to answer a specific focus question.
	To guide the consensus building process, the facilitator takes the group through five steps; the first of which is context.  It is imperative to set the tone of the meeting including stating the topic and focus question, describing the process, explaining the role of the facilitator and what the outcome will look like and how it will be used.  Only when all of the participants are clear on each of these items can the workshop begin in earnest.  Everyone will be on the same page and prepared to move forward.
	The second step of the process is brainstorming.  “The intent of the brainstorm is to father as many responses to the focus question as possible within a given time” (Stanfield, 2002).  In contrast to typical brainstorming, the intent is not to come up with as many ideas as possible; this brainstorm is designed to tease out all perspectives, while maintaining respect for everyone’s ideas.  The focus is quality not quantity of ideas (Stanfield, 2002).  The facilitator restates the focus question and seeds the brainstorm by encouraging individual reflection and thinking about the question from a different perspective.  As ideas are generated they are written on flip charts or index cards.
	The third step of the consensus building process is clustering the ideas.  The ideas from the brainstorm are clustered into groups of ideas with common themes.  The group starts by pairing ideas with similar answers to the focus question and then adds each of the other ideas to the pairs or creates new clusters for ideas as needed (Stanfield, 2002).  During this step of the process the facilitator is checking with the group to find out where each idea goes and asking for clarification from group members.  Stanfield (2002, 81) explains the clustering principle must be clear to everyone otherwise “confusion will reign”.  The ideas should be clustered around similar issues and, on a deeper level, similar root causes.  When all the ideas are grouped, each cluster is assigned a symbol, not a word.  Defining the clusters by name inhibits the group’s ability to draw out insight from the ideas later (Stanfield, 2002).  
 	Naming the clusters is the fourth step of the process.  The group gives each cluster a name that is indicative of the insight each particular cluster gives (Stanfield, 2002).  During this step the group engages in a consensus dialogue around each cluster and its name.  The format of the discussion often takes the form of a focused conversation (Stanfield, 2002).  As the group works through the four stages of the conversation they are able to synthesize the ideas into a named cluster.  The name of each of the clusters is an answer to the focus question.
	The final step of the consensus workshop is symbolizing the resolve of the group.  Together they have created several answers to the focus question and “in this paradigm, those who plan, implement” (Stanfield, 2002, 90).  The group may choose to write up their answers, create an action plan, plan further workshop time around one or more of the columns or create images to summarize their ideas (Stanfield, 2002).  Regardless of the chosen method of symbolizing their resolve, the participants should be provided with documentation of their ideas as soon as possible after the workshop in order to expedite implementation.  
	The consensus workshop method enables groups to collaborate to produce several answers to a focus question.  The method is effective because the group leaves the workshop with a clear plan for implementing the ideas they created and a shared responsibility for follow up. 

C.	The Diagnosis-Intervention Cycle
In his book The Skilled Facilitator , Roger Schwarz (2002) describes the diagnosis intervention cycle as a method for facilitators to process the behavior they observe in groups and decide whether to intervene and if so, how.  “A useful process of diagnosis helps you move from observation to inference in a way that minimizes distortion and increases the likelihood that an inference is valid” (Schwarz, 2002).  The first part of the cycle, diagnosis, has three steps and takes place in a few seconds in the facilitators mind.  In the second part of the cycle, intervention, the facilitator involves the group.
The first step of the cycle is observe behavior.  The facilitator objectively observes the words group members speak and the nonverbal actions they make (Schwarz, 2002).  The second step, infer meaning, is more subjective.  The facilitator draws a conclusion about what the behavior means based on information already known.  The facilitator then moves to step three deciding whether, how, and why to intervene.  In this step the facilitator determines whether the behavior is enough of a problem to warrant intervention and, if so, designs the intervention accordingly (Schwarz, 2002).
The last three steps of the cycle are intervention steps.  Step four, describing the behavior involves the facilitator describing for the group exactly what was observed.  Before moving on, the facilitator checks to be sure the observation is correct.  In step five sharing your inferences, the facilitator then verbalizes the conclusion made about the behavior.  The facilitator checks with the participants to ascertain whether the inference is correct.  If so, in step six helping group members change their behavior the facilitator helps “group members decide whether and how to change their behavior to be more effective” (Schwarz, 2002, 139).
During any of the last three steps the facilitator may choose to share the reasoning and intent behind the intervention in order to help the group understand why intervention is necessary.  As a process expert, the facilitator can help groups improve their process and achieve better results by pointing out ineffective behavior and describing a more effective way to express what is behind the behavior.  Schwarz’s (2002) model is a tool to aid facilitators in diagnosing and intervening when ineffective behavior is hindering the group’s process.

V.  Gaining Insight From Practicing Facilitators

	After surveying several facilitative tools, tips on facilitating and learning about IAF certification, I began working on my research and engagement design for this project.  Through receiving feedback on my work, I realized I hadn’t taken the opportunity to learn from practicing facilitators.  A wise professor suggested inquiring about the less tangible aspects of facilitation, specifically the more subtle shifts in thinking that come with facilitation experience and practice.  I also asked for stories about how each facilitator got started in the field.  I gained the following valuable insights from the seven facilitators I interviewed.  

A.  Becoming a Facilitator
	With respect to choosing a career in facilitation, I found my interviewees fell into two different categories.  One group discovered facilitation while pursuing another career.  These facilitators were sent to trainings on facilitation because their employers wanted employees with facilitative skills in their organizations (Burk, 2004; DeMay, 2004; Kelley, 2004; Spira, 2004).  The other group was comprised of facilitators who discovered the practice and pursued training based on their interest and personal skills (Faw, 2004; Matera, 2004; Yanow, 2004).
	The interviewees recommended several training experiences.  Gary Rush is considered the premier analytical facilitator in the world.  He is a master of conflict management.  “It was the best basic training I ever had in my life” (Burk, 2004).  David Sibbet is regarded as the father of graphic facilitation.  His tools and graphics are used on flip charts to efficiently and accurately record information during facilitation (Matera, 2004).  
	Many of the interviewees in both groups receive training in areas other than facilitation.  They then use the information they’ve learned and their facilitative skills to facilitate meetings and conferences around the topics they study.  For example, Nancy DeMay (2004) was trained in Object Oriented concepts and practices and now facilitates the development of use cases with teams.  Peg Kelley (2004) received formal training in creative corporate problem solving and now facilitates meetings that require it.
	Although formal training and certification in facilitation are available, neither is imperative to a successful career in facilitation.  The most important learning for each of the interviewees came from practice.  The first piece of advice most of the facilitators had to offer was “seek out opportunities to facilitate and observe practicing facilitators as often as possible”.  Matera (2004) commented that facilitation is one of those things you can’t fast forward your capability to do well.  It takes constant practice and you have to be patient with that.  

B.  Challenges
	One of the major challenges of facilitation according to my interviews is accurately recording information in real time.  There is always a temptation to paraphrase ideas or reword them while writing them down.  However, this is not conducive to accessing the wisdom of the group because by reworking the idea the facilitator has filtered it (Burk, 2004).  
	To avoid this challenge Susan Burk (2004) relies increasingly on “one-and-done” facilitation.  During the meeting a scribe documents what is going on by typing on a laptop that is projected onto the wall so everyone can see it.  Being a scribe is difficult, as it requires running several programs at once with speed and accuracy.  The benefits of this technique are first that inaccuracies can be corrected immediately and second at the end of the meeting the scribe should be able to spell check and print the information allowing participants to leave with written results.  She advocates this efficient method because our lives are so busy and fractured (Burk, 2004).
	Another challenge for facilitators is maintaining neutrality during the process.  “If I get too engaged in the content my clients are working on, I lose track of the process I’m facilitating” (Faw, 2004).  Facilitators are, by definition, neutral third party process experts.  As such they are generally expected to leave the content to the participants and keep their opinions to themselves.  Matera (2004) said it is counterproductive to take a position because he is there to advance the conversation.  He went on the say that he may make a comment but only after explicitly stating that he is leaving the role of facilitator. He tries to avoid this, however, because the opinion can have a residual effect on the conversation (Matera, 2004).  
	A facilitator is not working from a personal agenda and does not necessarily have an interest in contributing to the content of the conversation.  In fact, the facilitator may not be versed in the content of the conversation at all.  Susan Burk (2004) explained that she met this challenge through practice.  As she facilitated a variety of groups, she was overcome by the patterns she discovered in different industries.  For example, if a business creates something they may also have to cancel it, backorder it or withdraw it regardless of what product or service it is.  Understanding this pattern helps her diversify her practice, as it enables her to facilitate a conversation about something she is unfamiliar with.

C.  Key Characteristics of An Effective Facilitator
	The most important characteristic of an effective facilitator according to my interviews is the ability to be a good listener and read the group.  Facilitators need to be able to attend to the verbal and nonverbal communication in the room simultaneously.  As neutral process experts they are charged with recognizing and intervening when behavior is ineffective or when assumptions are going untested.  It is also imperative that a good facilitator be able to discern when the group as a whole is off task or uninterested.  A tool at the facilitator’s disposal for re-centering the group or gaining a few minutes to process observations is taking a break (Matera, 2004).  
	Equally as important as the facilitator being a good listener and reading the group is being flexible and quick thinking.  Because facilitation is a process and involves human beings and does not take place in a vacuum, the facilitator can not possibly know how each situation will play out.  A good facilitator possesses the ability to “change the agenda at any time to better meet the client’s goals” (Faw, 2004) and “mentally switch horses midstream” (Kelley, 2004).  “Some of the worst facilitators ever just follow the agenda” (Kelley, 2004).  On the other hand, dynamic facilitators who respond immediately to the needs of the group are effective.
	Finally, facilitators must be willing to constantly practice and elicit feedback to improve their skills.  Matera (2004) says effective facilitators must be “self-examining, honest and truthful with themselves”.  Facilitators are never completely finished learning.  They accumulate tools and technique through practice.  By obtaining feedback from groups and peers, facilitators allow themselves to continually improve their skills.
	Gaining insight from practicing facilitators was a valuable experience because I was able to learn things I couldn’t read about in books.  I also made contacts and introduced myself to people who may one day become my peers.

VI.  Where Do I Go From Here?

	Reflecting on my journey, I realize that being a professional facilitator is not my destination.  I am not going to pursue facilitation as a career, but I do think facilitation and the skills an effective facilitator needs will be necessary in my future.  This project was an opportunity to investigate a career field in depth and interview several practitioners.  The insight I gained from the research and engagement process couldn’t have been taught in any course.  This was truly experiential, self-directed learning.  
	I have a new perspective on my future now.  I realize that I need to feel passionate and invested in my work for it to be satisfying.  A facilitator is not a content expert, nor is she an advocate during the course of the discussion.  I feel I could fill this role effectively, but I think I am more suited to becoming part of an organization and affecting change from within.
	I have discovered my knowledge, interest and passion lie in education.  I feel empowered by the tools I have uncovered and as a next step want to practice using them.  I am also seeking a teaching position for the upcoming school year.  When I left my previous job I felt helpless and defeated by the system.  I had misplaced my voice.  It’s back now and it’s much stronger.  I am confident that I can be part of a community of educators who are cognizant of the necessity for change in our current education system.  Collaboration is a powerful tool.  If I develop my facilitative skills and use them to access the wisdom of my peers we could create change together.  
	This project has been a journey that led me to an unexpected destination.  It has been a delightful serendipity that changed my direction and by allowing me the freedom to explore without consequence.  Facilitation may not be my final destination, but the learning I have done along the way will affect my choices forever.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bens, Ingrid. 1999. Facilitation at a Glance. San Francisco: GOAL/QPC, Association of Quality and Participation.

Burk, Susan. 19 February 2004. Telephone interview.

DeMay, Nancy. 1 March 2004.  Written survey responses.

Faw, Bob. 5 March 2004.  Written survey responses.

Institute for Cultural Affairs Canada. n.d. Facilitation Methods and Skills: become an excellent facilitator.  http://ica-associates.ca/ (viewed 16 April 2004)

International Association of Facilitators. n.d. IAF's Facilitator Certification Program.  http://www.iaf-world.org/about/Certification/index.cfm (viewed 16 April 2004)

Kelley, Peg. 19 February 2004.  Telephone interview.

Matera, Thomas. 26 February 2004.  Telephone interview.

Schwarz, Roger. 2002. The Skilled Facilitator. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Spira, Christine. 8 March 2004.  Written survey responses.

Stanfield, R. Brian. 2002.  The Workshop Book: From Individual Creativity to Group Action.  Canada: New Society Publishers, The Canadian Institute of Cultural Affairs.

Stanfield, R. Brian. 2000. The Art of Focused Conversation.  Canada: New Society Publishers, the Canadian Institute of Cultural Affairs.

Yanow, Abby. 31 January 2004.  Telephone interview.