A Message in Support of Dr. Albert Ellis
from Three Former Directors of Training
of the Albert Ellis Institute
By Dr. William Knaus, Dr. Jon Geis, and Mr. Ed Garcia
On January 28, 2007, one of us, Bill Knaus, met with 93 year-old Dr. Albert Ellis. At the end of the meeting, Knaus asked Ellis, "What is the one thing you want most at this time?"
Albert Ellis unhesitatingly said, "Freedom and liberty."
THE TIME FOR ACTION IS NOW
Freedom and liberty are powerful words. It is a value that we see woven throughout Albert Ellis’ career as an REBT therapist. He continues to value freedom, perhaps even more now, than before.
Dr. Ellis wants to be free to live, work, write, speak, visit friends, see clients and feel safe at the Albert Ellis Institute, as he has done since he purchased the AEI townhouse in Manhattan in 1964. He reports that his sense of safety and freedom at the AEI changed for the worse over the past 2.5 years.
Albert Ellis no longer believes he has the freedom to help direct the destiny of the Institute he founded and nourished for more than 45 years. He blames the controlling members of the AEI board of trustees for creating conditions that restrict his freedom, and that have negatively impacted the REBT community, whom he sees as the silent victims of dysfunctional Board practices and policies.
Albert Ellis reports that the current Board is going in the wrong direction. When the Board resigns, the members’ departure will auger in a new era for the positive advancement of REBT through the efforts of Albert Ellis’ Board in Waiting.
If you want to help Albert Ellis achieve a serenity that can come from knowing his Institute can be returned to him, and he can live out the remainder of his life feeling free, read on.
THE BOARD HAS HUNG ON TOO LONG
We former directors-of-training at the Albert Ellis Institute, reaffirm our 2005 statement that the AEI and REBT community can greatly benefit from the resignations of Board members James McMahon, Michael Broder, and Ann Vernon. AEI and the REBT community can further benefit from the inauguration of a new Board that is dedicated to rationality, openness, authenticity, fair play, and the evolution of REBT.
We want to share with you why we have reaffirmed this position:
New York Supreme Court Judge Returns Albert Ellis to the AEI Board
We concur with New York Supreme Court Judge Edward Lehner that a small group of Board members followed a disingenuous process when on September 18, 2005, this group took control of the Albert Ellis Institute and ousted Albert Ellis through an illegal procedure. The Judge’s ruling can be found at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_26023.htm
Partially based upon Judge Lehner’s ruling, we believe that the Board members executed a plan that resulted in depriving Albert Ellis of some of his valued rights, liberties, and privileges at the AEI. We believe that these members maintain control over the AEI today as a result of that original disingenuous and illegal process described in Judge Lehner’s ruling.
Board Stacking
Dr. Albert Ellis’ ouster from the Board was accomplished by four members of a seven person Board. Thereafter, we allege that the controlling members engaged in board stacking practices to consolidate their power.
Board stacking occurs where a group–usually with a slim vote margin–seeks to consolidate then expand its power through expanding the board with friends or others who are likely to vote the same way.
Nonprofit boards, in particular, are better postured to serve the public when the members operate with independence and transparency. This autonomy reduces the risk that a Board will serve its own interests in favor of those of the interests of the organization or community.
In our opinion, the Board followed a biased process in selecting and confirming Jeffrey Bernstein, Francis Chasin, and John Lenton as additional Board members. We believe that the Board voted these members in because it knew, or strongly suspected, each would vote in lockstep with the majority. These candidates were not Albert Ellis’ choices, and he either voted against them or abstained.
Although allegations are not grounds for removal, this allegation appears to be supportable, and serious enough to warrant an investigation.
Negative Actions Against Dr. Ellis
For about 2.5 years now, Albert Elli has faced a twin burden of declining health along with an increase in negative activities against him. We chronicle a few.
In viewing this sad scenario, we allege that some Board members and their staff allies made statements against Albert Ellis and Debbie-Joffe Ellis that seemed designed to put them into a false light.
The denigration of Albert Ellis’ life partner, Debbie Joffe-Ellis, appears particularly severe. It could cause the uninformed to view Albert Ellis as foolish for picking her as a mate. In particular, the attacks against Debbie Joffe-Ellis by Raymond DiGuiseppe come across as nasty enough to raise questions about this man’s sense of humanity. Meanwhile Joffe-Ellis continues to watch over Albert Ellis during his sickness making clear that she took her "in sickness and in health" vows very seriously.
DiGuiseppe appears to be kicking Joffe-Ellis when she is down. Imagine watching over and caring for your mate 24\7, while knowing that DiGuiseppe was scattering derisive and libelous E-mail messages about you to cause others to think badly of you. Meanwhile, the Board assures the public that Al will be safe. Words are cheap. Actions speak louder.
Currently, James McMahon, Michael Broder, Ann Vernon, and Rory Stuart, along with staff members Raymond DiGuiseppe and Kristine Doyle, face serious charges before the Court. These defendants are charged with elder abuse, human rights violations, and defamation. They may get off the legal hook by making a settlement offer to Albert Ellis that he won’t choke too badly on. That can help mitigate the damage. It can’t erase the past.
We believe that current AEI executive director, Robert O’Connell, acted in an unnecessarily negative manner when he wrote to Albert Ellis to say Dr. Ellis would be subject to a trespass complaint if he used the AEI lecture hall without O’Connell’s permission. O’Connell’s threat followed Albert Ellis’ use of the lecture hall on a Sunday to accommodate a group of students who came to speak with him about REBT.
The student discussion group did not interfere with any scheduled AEI program. Albert Ellis did not charge the students for his time. No goods or services were sold. It was a purely voluntary effort on Albert Ellis’ part to share what he learned with students. There were more students than he probably anticipated, and so he needed the lecture hall space. Yet, O’Connell showed him no quarter over a matter that O’Connell could have easily overlooked.
In our view, through this threat, O’Connell placed another unnecessary restriction on the sort of privilege that Albert Ellis had historically enjoyed. We think that O’Connell’s actions were unwarranted, excessive, and could be considered administrative harassment. O’Connell might argue that as the landlord he was protecting the property. But where was the harm?
Having Albert Ellis’ guests sign in and out, and allegedly invading his privacy by using a key to open his apartment door and entering without knocking suggest a lack of sensitivity for the privacy of Dr. and Mrs. Ellis. Forcing Albert Ellis to requisition two boxes of tissues at a time, can be viewed as an insensitive, hostile, and demeaning act. We define these acts as administrative harassment.
Excessive Expenditures
The financial data available to us suggests that the controlling Board members authorized excessive expenditures of finite AEI financial resources to pay lawyers to defend their illegal action to oust Albert Ellis from the Board, and, thereafter, to keep themselves in power. We understand that Michael Broder drew a significant income following his role in the plan to remove Albert Ellis from the Board that Judge Lehner described as disingenuous. In his role as part-time acting Executive Director, he clocked out at $150 per hour, and at a time billed for as much as 60 hours a week.
The money spent by the Board to defend its actions against Albert Ellis includes paying public relations firms to put a good spin on Board actions. The reduction of dollar resources for their legal defenses, for PR propaganda efforts, and other related expenses, reduced the dollar reserve from $9 million in 2003 before the current Board took over, to an estimated $4 to $5 million as of the end of FY 2006.
Although significant and worrisome, the dollar loss is likely to be greater than it first appears. The spend down included interest and dividend payments that could have helped boost the reserves. The spend down decreases the amount that the reserve could potentially earn. Would you tolerate those types of losses if it was your money?
Ellis’ generous contributions to the AEI were made possible due to a combination of his high earning power coupled with frugality with regard to his personal needs. He doesn’t take vacations, eat in expensive restaurants, nor buy automobiles and fancy clothing. Accepting a meager subsistence salary, he donated the majority of his earnings to support the AEI.
It’s too bad that the current Board has followed more extravagant spending patterns.
The Board now runs up $400 per hour in legal bills in its defense, possibly to monitor web sites, and to write letters to people who complain about the AEI’s treatment of Albert Ellis.
Changed Mission Statement
Against the strong objections of Albert Ellis, Board members changed the mission of the Albert Ellis Institute to include the promotion of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT).
The Albert Ellis Institute was formed by Dr. Ellis in 1964 to promote Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) as an effective psychotherapy and life philosophy. The Board action of including CBT, changed the AEI mission in a way that appears to be a breach of Albert Ellis’ plan.
In 2005, Dr. Ellis objected to what he saw as a Board move away from REBT and toward the promotion of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) and other types of general psychotherapy. Although CBT is an allied system, it does not duplicate Dr. Ellis’ creation, REBT. Promoting CBT was not Albert Ellis’ intent for the AEI.
We understand that Michael Broder responded to Dr. Ellis’ objections over the mission change by saying there were no changes in the AEI mission statement or in the training curriculum. Today the AEI says in official documents, "AEI’s therapeutic approach is based on rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT) and cognitive behavior therapy (CBT)." That does sound like a change to us. And if there is no change in the curriculum, then why add CBT to the mission? Moreover, if you look at Broder’s website, you might come to the conclusion that he identifies himself with CBT.
The Board refuses to change the mission statement back to its original form. Why?
This change in mission, and the denial of this change, may add to the list of causes to justify asking a regulating agency to investigate board management practices.
Albert Ellis wants to see the Albert Ellis Institute in the hands of those he trusts and he has designated the members the Board in Waiting as among those he wants to help continue to advance REBT along the lines of the original mission. The Board in Waiting is listed on REBTnetwork.org. It consists of some of the most senior fellows, associate fellows, and strong advocates of Albert Ellis and REBT.
WHO OWNS ALBERT ELLIS’ NAME?
In 2005 and 2006, four Board members stripped Albert Ellis of opportunities to help set the future direction of the AEI. They stripped away his opportunity to conduct his Friday Night Workshops at the AEI. They refused to allow him the use of the lecture hall to see students. They greatly restricted his opportunities to do his clinical work and lecture at the AEI, which limited his freedom to contribute as he saw fit and was able at the AEI. Then, Board members started 2007 by taking steps, through threatening legal actions against a volunteer group who supported Albert Ellis, that can be seen as stripping away Albert Ellis’ right to assign the use of his name to REBT organizations.
Claiming to own trademark rights on the "Albert Ellis" name, AEI threatened to sue the Albert Ellis Foundation in Federal Court unless they dropped Albert Ellis’ name. Whether the Board intended this or not, this act negatively impacted Albert Ellis.
Albert Ellis Foundation Transforms Into "REBT Network"
Even if the Foundation website prevailed over AEI in Federal Court and won the right to keep the original website name, the cost in terms of time, energy and money would have made such a success a Pyrrhic Victory. A simple, rational cost/benefit analysis showed that changing the website’s name was the most rational choice. Defending the suit could have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars–perhaps millions.
Pragmatically, the Albert Ellis Foundation website was renamed. You can access it at http://www.rebtnetwork.org.
This switch happened without the site missing a day of providing free information about Albert Ellis and REBT. The change did come with a high price in time and effort.
The site continues operating and supporting Albert Ellis’ visions and interests. The REBT Network web site continues to celebrate Albert Ellis’ accomplishments.
The Power of Free Speech and the Internet
We believe the Board’s threatened lawsuit against the Albert Ellis Foundation represents multiple agendas. We suspect the threatened suit served as a thinly veiled attempt to intimidate the Foundation webmaster into dismantling the website in order to limit or suppress the flow of potentially embarrassing information about Board conduct toward Albert Ellis.
This all-volunteer operation is organized to support Albert Ellis and his work. The website does not generate an income, nor does it intend to do so. The website exists to disseminate information at no cost to its visitors. But the Foundation did compete with the Board with ideas and information that some on the Board probably do not want to go public. That may be the "rub" with the Board.
We believe the website was and is a thorn in the side of those Board members who prefer secrecy to disclosure. The Foundation website provided a valuable public service by helping to lift this veil of secrecy so the public could see what is beneath it.
Albert Ellis’ Interpretation
When the Board threatened a lawsuit against the all-volunteer Albert Ellis Foundation, Albert Ellis believed that the Board intended to stop him from assigning his name to organizations as he saw fit. He asked that we fight for his freedom to assign his name to organizations of his choice.
Al did not give the Albert Ellis Institute written or oral permission for the exclusive right to use his name. Albert Ellis did not object to the creation of websites using his name in association with REBT whose purpose is to advance REBT. He continues to encourage the expansion of REBT.
We are prepared to say that the timing of the Board’s action to deprive Albert Ellis of the freedom to assign his own name as he wishes, couldn’t have been worse. Imagine being in an elderly state and wanting freedom to live out your life as you wish. Then you face an ongoing barrage of what you view as hassles and harassment by a Board of people you view as having betrayed you. Financed by money you earned, they seek to stop you from assigning your name as you choose. In Albert Ellis’ case, do they have a legal right to attempt to do this. Sadly yes.
Is there a moral issue regarding the timing of this incursion and its potential on Albert Ellis who previously signaled that he was against this type of Board action? We’ll leave that to the REBT community to debate and decide.
The website is still up and running. Paradoxically, that is good news for the AEI. They cannot be seen as having successfully acted to dismantle this news source.
Exposure of Flaws in the McMahon Report
Board member James McMahon created a document where he made, in our view, many groundless ethical charges against Albert Ellis. McMahon figuratively threw into his report "everything including the kitchen sink."
The Foundation website exposed serious flaws in James McMahon’s thinking. We think his report shows bias.
Although he understood that many of the complaints he reported had no merit, McMahon still used them to slant his statements in a manner that we believe could negatively bias a reader’s thinking.
In his statement, McMahon reported confidential client information in a manner that we believe may have violated HIPPA privacy regulations.
The critique of the charges McMahon levied against Albert Ellis can be found at: http://rebtnetwork.org/aei/documents/mcmahonanalysis.html
Rebuttal of the "Dear Doctor" Letter
The Board put out a document dubbed the "Dear Doctor" letter. The "Dear Doctor" letter was sent to Dr. Ellis’ most trusted peers and colleagues. Arguing that they were getting out the truth, the document appeared designed to lionize the Board and to put Dr. Ellis and his wife Debbie Joffe-Ellis in a false light. It was later posted on the AEI website, where it remains.
The pro-Ellis REBTnetwork.org website carries a rebuttal that exposed the numerous misrepresentations, half-truths, innuendoes, and logical fallacies contained in the "Dear Doctor" document. Under scrutiny, statements that the Board presented as truths took on the characteristic of illusions. The REBTnetwork.org website balances the negative statement that the AEI Board carried about Albert Ellis, and continues to carry on their website. And that gives REBTnetwork.org an added value.
The critique of the "Dear Doctor" letter can be found at: http://rebtnetwork.org/aei/documents/deardoctor.html
Other Websites use Albert Ellis’ Name
As far as we can tell, other web sites that use Albert Ellis’ name, that appear friendlier toward the Board, were not threatened with a lawsuit alleging a trademark violation. That observation speaks for itself.
PRESIDENT BERNSTEIN SEEMS NO BETTER
Some looked hopefully toward Tru Food’s CEO, Jeffrey Bernstein to help provide a compassionate result for Albert Ellis. Bernstein replaced Lyle Stuart as President of the AEI. As of this writing, Bernstein appears to us to act more like the proverbial Trojan Horse than a man with a compassionate solution.
Bernstein claimed that he wants to know nothing of the history of the conflict, and only wants to focus on the settlement. We think he knows the history as reported to him by the Board and by his friend, Lyle Stuart. Judging from the results he has produce thus far, we don’t think he is doing a good job with the settlement.
If you believe that Bernstein hadn’t spoken to Stuart, McMahon, Broder, and Vernon about this matter, we have a gold brick we’d like to sell you. We think his head is filled with their collective bias.
In a November 7, 2006, letter to Dr. Chuck Cairns, Bernstein gave a defense of his fellow Board members. He suggests they were falsely accused. How does he know this to be so? (By omission, he did not say how they were correctly accused.) In REBT 101, we teach the importance of tagging vague generalizations and challenging them when they can potentially distort reality. What questions would you like to ask Bernstein about his statement?
In the same letter, Bernstein attempted to put Debbie Joffe Ellis into a bad light. He blamed her for stalling the apartment repair process. He omitted saying that Joffe-Ellis prepared the sixth-floor apartment for the anticipated repairs by October 13, 2006. She did what she had agreed to do, and did so on schedule. As president of the AEI, Bernstein could be expected to know this fact.
Some may callously say that if Albert Ellis doesn’t like the way the Board is treating him, let him do REBT on himself. They miss the point. REBT is effective for taking away needless stresses, not the normal sadness and frustration that can come about when a person loses privileges, suffers losses, and faces betrayals. Regardless of how hard one works to maintain a perspective on difficult circumstances, externally imposed stresses can have a harmful, cumulative effect.
We are talking about a 93 year old man whom, we believe, has repeatedly demonstrated his humanitarian interests. We think he has earned respect and deserves to be treated with dignity. We don’t believe that Bernstein and the other members of the Board are trying to help him, as they imply.
Did it help Albert Ellis to illegally oust him from the Board? Does it help Albert Ellis to insult his wife? Does it help Albert Ellis to prevent him from doing his Friday Night Workshops at the AEI? Does it Help Albert Ellis to threaten him with a trespass complaint for using the lecture hall on an off day? Does it help Albert Ellis to propose settlements that he views as unfair? Does it help Albert Ellis by making his freedom to use his name as he chooses into a legal circus? Does it help Albert Ellis to live at an AEI that he experiences as hostile toward him?
REBT philosophy is a humanistic philosophy. A prime REBT ethic has, and continues to be, to cause no needless harm! Is the Board following that tenet?
AEI HARASSMENT AND LEGAL INTRUSIONS
Board members involved themselves in what ethicist Elliot Cohen described as the hijacking of the institute. Part of this hijacking appears in tandem with threatening people.
Steinberg and Velten Threatened
Following the September 18, 2005 meeting, when the Board voted Albert Ellis out, Emmett Velten and Debbie Steinberg reported feeling threatened by Board Attorney Daniel Kurtz, Michael Broder, and James McMahon into voting with them. According to Steinberg, McMahon told her she should quit the Board if she wasn’t going to be with him on the vote. (Prior to that Rory Stuart told Albert Ellis that there would be no lawyers at the meeting. McMahon’s and Broder’s hand-picked lawyer, Kurtz, then appeared at the meeting.)
Later, when Steinberg and Velten retracted their votes, and refused to capitulate to Board pressure, they were called names. For supporting Albert Ellis, Broder called Steinberg a kool-aid drinker. Lyle Stuart called Emmett Velten, "Emmett the slime." We think such juvenile name calling has no place in an organization dedicated to rational thinking and humanism.
Balter Threatened
Psychologist and lawyer, Rochelle Balter, reports that Michael Broder attempted to intimidate her so that she would not speak with Albert Ellis to tell him about the specific charges pending against him by an ethics Committee James McMahon helped set up. As the Chair of the ethics committee, Balter knew that the accused, Ellis, had a right to know the charges that McMahon levied against him. She knew that the reading of these charges to a profoundly deaf Ellis, at a meeting presented to Ellis as a reconciliation meeting, hardly met the standard of a fair disclosure. When she found she could not do her duty, Balter quit. The next Chairperson quit. The committee disbanded. In any event, McMahon’s charges seemed silly in part, and disingenuous.
Legal Threats are Common
Some of Board threats involved veiled or direct legal threats. We’ve been informed that Jeffrey Zeig, the organizer of the 2004 Evolution in Psychology convention in California, received a threat letter from the Board’s attorney, Daniel Kurtz, regarding Albert Ellis’ then anticipated presentation. We understand that Zeig conferred with his own attorney, and ignored the threat. Albert Ellis made his presentation at the Evolution of Psychology conference.
Thereafter, James McMahon implied in an Email message he may have accidentally sent to Ellis supporter, John Minor, that Albert Ellis was the subject of a California legal suit. Albert Ellis’ lawyers reported that they had not heard about that suit. Albert Ellis doesn’t know about it.
Ellis supporter, Irwin Altrows, received an E-mail from James McMahon who told him that legal suits can span continents. Canadian citizen, Altrows, interpreted this as a legal threat from McMahon. Altrows had been outspoken about what he saw as negative actions by the Board toward Albert Ellis. Altrows conferred with his own counsel. He continues to speak out in support of Albert Ellis.
The Board threatened the now defunct Albert Ellis Foundation with a law suit.
The current executive Director, Robert O’Connell, threatened Albert Ellis with a trespass complaint.
Gayle Rosellini, who writes health updates regarding Albert Ellis’ medical condition, received repeated E-mail from AEI staff member, Raymond DiGuiseppe, which she experienced as offensive and coercive. He made unwanted commentary of a sexual nature to Rosellini.
DiGuiseppe has good reason to have the current Board stay in control. DiGuiseppe reportedly receives an $80,000 to $100,000 income for what is reported to be 3-4 hours of AEI work a week. Should there be an independent management and salary review taken of AEI staff, DiGuiseppe’s income would be a legitimate subject for scrutiny. We believe he has a strong vested interest in the status quo.
The Board Votes a Muzzle Order
Gayle Rosellini, in an Albert Ellis newsletter report, reveled that the majority members of the Board voted to put a veil of secrecy over all Board proceedings. Anyone who violated this gag order was subject to immediate removal from the Board. We believe this information is accurate. We also think that this type of reporting is important, and that Gayle warrants a continuing active support on the part of the REBT community for such reporting. Without a free flow of information, Albert Ellis and his plight would have been long forgotten. Instead, his cause is now a cause celebre.
We suspect that the Board’s vote for secrecy was intended to muzzle Debbie Steinberg and Emmett Velten. Their five minority reports exposed the fallacies in statements the Board made to the public, such as, "We had no choice" but to remove Albert Ellis from the Board. The Board obviously had choices. In our view, the Board chose the direction that best suited its agenda.
From reading relevant IRS codes regarding excessive compensation, and in consultation with legal authorities on this matter, it appears that the Board’s "excessive compensation" justification for dropping Albert Ellis from the Board, represents a weak rationalization. Steinberg and Velten’s Minority II report exposed the Board’s ample derriere on this point. After the Judge returned Albert Ellis to the Board, nothing happened. The roof did not fall in. The AEI did not lose its nonprofit status.
Steinberg and Velten have a responsibility to speak up in the public interest. Silencing them deprives the public of information that it has a right to know. And while most would agree that keeping sensitive strategic plans confidential is beneficial (that’s the purpose of executive meetings), we think the Board went too far in its blanket muzzle order. Demanding secrecy under penalty of expulsion, suggests that the Board is operating with a "bunker mentality."
Hiding Behind Lawyers
We predict that the Board will continue to hide behind various legal maneuvers, threats, and subterfuge to sanitize its actions, to confuse the public, and to intimidate people into silence. We believe the Board will let its highly paid lawyer do the talking as it continues to pile the manure high as the legal expenses mount.
The new REBTnetwork.org website reports that a computer at the McLaughlin & Stern law firm has visited the website frequently--including weekends. The current AEI attorney, David Blasband works for that firm. Is Blasband charging the AEI $400 per hour for this snooping operation? Does his firm get paid overtime for its weekend surveillance?
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
Many look back over their lives with some regret about what they wished they might have done to help a friend, family member, or associate in trouble. There is still time to support Albert Ellis’ wish for freedom. Your help is welcomed.
If you want to help, here are some possible actions that you can take:
1. Help get the story out. Speak to your press contacts -- print, TV, radio, web.
2. Write to United States Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and tell her what you want. Clinton is a friend of the elderly who may investigate this sad situation.
Senator Hillary Rodman Clinton
Attention Colleen Burns
780 Third Avenue Suite 3601
New York, NY 10017-2024
3. Contact New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He may have an interest in this matter. Instructions are provided here: http://www.tiny.cc/IXe9Q
4. Read the Huffington Post article, "A Quiet Hero Wronged," at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-hoenig/a-quiet-hero-wronged_b_39083.html.
5. Submit a testimonial to REBT Network.org to tell how Albert Ellis or his work positively affected your life or career.
6. Write to the current AEI president, Jeffrey Bernstein and tell him what you think.
Jeffrey Bernstein, President
Albert Ellis Institute
45 E. 65th Street
New York NY 10026
6. Sign Jim Byrne’s Internet petition at http://www.tiny.cc/AlbertEllisPetition.
7. Send Albert Ellis and his wife Debbie a letter of support. We know they would appreciate hearing from you.
Albert Ellis, PERSONAL &CONFIDENTIAL
Albert Ellis Institute
45 E. 65th Street
New York, NY 10021.
Articles and statements in support of Albert Ellis may not do much good in causing the Board to leave. After all, they are sitting on a building worth about $20 million. But such efforts are of current and historic importance. They will help form a public record of the events at the AEI that, we believe, are important to chronicle. They may supply information that could be used to trigger a regulatory or congressional investigation into this historical matter.
Collectively, we can make a difference. Let’s do it now!