Hi, I'm Rusty Komori, and this is Beyond the Lines. We are broadcasting live from the beautiful Think Tech Hawaii TV studio in the Pioneer Plaza in downtown Honolulu. This show is based on my book, also titled Beyond the Lines, and it's about leadership, creating a superior culture of excellence and building winning teams. My special guest today was the Chief of Police of our Honolulu Police Department from 1998 to 2004, and he served as a police officer for a total of 40 years. He is Chief Lee Donahue, and today we are going beyond law enforcement. Hey Chief Lee, great to see you. Well, thanks for having me on the show. Well, welcome to the show. It's an honor having you here. Now I want to know Chief, when you were a young boy, did you always want to be a police officer? There were two professions I really wanted to be in. One was a pilot, and the other one was to be a police officer. Wow, yeah, me too. When I was really young, I wanted to be a pilot. Police, I think it was just too dangerous for me. What ethnicity are you? I'm half Korean and half Irish. So your mom is from Korea? My mom was a picture-bride, and she came to Hawaii in, I think, 1918. And I got married to her first husband. And then they were living in the Palama area, and she had four children. And then her husband passed away unexpectedly. So then she opened a store, and that's when she went by dad. Oh, OK. Now Chief, what schools did you attend? Oh, yeah. I first went to Waikiki Elementary, and it was adjacent to where Thomas Jefferson is now. And then from there I went to Lincoln School, because in those days you had an English standard system. So if you wanted to go up to an English standard high school, which would have been Roosevelt, you'd have to get into the system. So I went to Lincoln, which was in the system. So from Lincoln you go to Stevenson, and then to Roosevelt. And that was the English standard system. And so I went to Lincoln. And in the fifth grade, my mom felt I needed a male role model. She and my dad have already been divorced. So they shipped me to live with my older sister and her husband. His name was Glenn Kaisoji. He was a Japanese-American, born and raised in California, Los Angeles. Couldn't have asked for a better role model. He was interned in Cam Manzanar, and he had a hard life. But I think what it was good about it, he had a gardening route. And that's how he supported his family. And he had three children, of course, married to my sister. But I used to go with him to help him on his route. And I learned a lot. He taught me how to fish. He taught me how to do a lot of things. I couldn't ask for a better role model. And when I was about 14, I came back to Honolulu. And I went to Washington Intermediate, then St. Louis, and then back to McKinley. And I finished up at McKinley High School. Great. And what college did you go to? I went to Shamnaud University. Nice. I graduated from there. So Chief, you and your wife, Lucy, how did you guys meet? We met in church, St. Luke's Church, up there on Judge Street. So she and her twin sister went to the church also. And my cousin and I would sit behind them. And when you kneel down to pray, we would be tickling their feet because the feet were coming back. But that's how we met. I like hearing that, tickling the feet. So Chief, tell me about your family. My family is, of course, my mother from Korea. And she came here as a picture bride and raised the first family. And then I came along. And then my dad was funny because he was orphaned. My grandparents, his parents passed away within a week of each other. And the influenza that was going out throughout the country at that time. So when he came of age, he joined the Navy. That shipped out to Pearl Harbor. And then he took his discharge there. I was working at Pearl Harbor. And then I guess I don't know why you're shopping down by my mother's store, but he met my mom. Wow. All things happen for you. I like hearing those things about family. Now, Chief, a lot of people know that you are into karate.  How did that all start? Well, when I was 14, I was involved with jujitsu. OK. And then when I went into the police force, I joined the police judo team. And then there was a shooting up on Polly Highway. Polly and our leader was wounded. And I was getting transferred off to Pearl City. So when I went out there, I had a friend that was teaching karate. He was also a police officer, and probably one of my best friends. And he became my instructor and started from there. Now, 10th degree black belt, that's the highest? Yes. So impressive. A lot of years. Well, I need you to be my bodyguard. Now, Chief, let's talk about your amazing journey in law enforcement. How did that part begin with you? Well, like I said, when I was young, I wanted to be the pilot or a police officer. And after graduation from high school, I got married and I was working in construction. But then the time came that you could apply for the police department. You had to be 21. I applied for two departments. One was the Los Angeles Police Department and Honolulu. And I passed both tests. I had to decide which department I wanted to join. So I asked Lucy, are you willing to go to Los Angeles? Because I thought, living in Los Angeles before, I thought it'd be neat going back as a police officer. And she said, no, I want to stay in Hawaii. So we stayed in Hawaii. So Lucy made the decision. She did. Now, as you were rising through the ranks as a police officer, how was that experience for you? You know, it was a great experience. I can tell you that I had just bought a house. We were living in Pacific Palisades. And we had three children at that time.  I don't know how we did it. I got to give credit to Lucy. She handled the monies. We struggled. But that was a tough time. And at one point, I wanted to quit. I wanted to go back to construction because I knew the money was good there. And then I decided, don't just stick it out. In fact, my first year of my period, I never forgot it. My paycheck was a dollar less than the previous paycheck. Really? Well, pay raise, everything went to taxes. Wow. So anyway, I just stuck it out. And then things started to improve. I got to work special duty a lot. And thank God for special duty. I know the police officers today depend on it also. Yeah, the overtime. Yeah, well, you make some extra money. And if it wasn't for that, I don't know how we'd survive. But then we moved on. And then things got better financially in the police department. And then I just kept going up. I never thought I'd be a sergeant. Wow. I just thought, those sergeants were like gods. You go to work. And they say, we have enough guys. You go home. And they send you home on count time. And you had no say about it. So anyway, it was good coming up. I had a good experience. And I had good leaders. So chief, you became chief of police in 1998. Why were you so successful as the chief during that time? I think it was my philosophy of being collaborative in my leadership. Making sure that everything the officers needed, not wanted, but needed. And of course, they want a lot of things, but you can't give them everything. But whatever they needed, we tried to give to them so that they would see that the upper administration was really trying to support them. And along the same lines to build a bridge between the community and the police department. And so that was I think the biggest thing that we could do. And one of the biggest things that I achieved as chief was to bring in accreditation of the department, which took us three years. And one of the biggest things that I remembered was, I mean, safety was a big issue that you really wanted to address. Right. And so one of the first things we did along those lines of safety was to bring in the bulletproof vests. So the question was, do they have to? It was a mandatory to wear when you're on duty. And I had to make that decision. And I know it was unpopular, but I said, you have to wear it. You have to wear it when you're on duty. And lo and behold, three weeks after that decision, there was an officer walking up to a domestic dispute. I came out of the door, shot the officer right in the chest. But because he had his vest, he survived the shooting. So I knew I made the right decision. Of course, yeah. Now, you also started the Kickstart Karate Foundation or Association. Tell me about how that all started. Back in the early 1980s, chief Magnafamora sent me to Japan to learn about the Koban system. Koban system is a system used by the Japanese police where they have what they call police boxes strategically placed throughout the city. And they have a light over the station. So if you see the light, you can go and get help there. So we were sent to study that. And the Japanese had done their research on me. And they knew that I was involved in martial arts. So every station that I went to, they took me to the dojo, and they would put on a demonstration. But I learned there that the police officers, to be a police officer in Japan, to graduate from the academy, you have to have your black belt in either Judo or Kendo by the time you graduate. So with that, when they get assigned to their different stations, they would invite the kids in from the community to learn Judo or Kendo. And this was their way of building a rapport with the kids, teaching them character, self-discipline, and as well as making them just good community members. What are some of the principles and some of the things you have the kids recite? We have 16 bylaws in it. We, everyone has to recite a bylaw. And they're simple bylaws that we live by. One of them is, I'll never use any profane language. And I think that's important, and we tell the kids that. As I say, there's one thing that disturbs me is if I'm walking through a shopping center and there's a group of young people and they're using profanity and it's just disturbing. So I would want my students to be good, decent people and know the difference between right and wrong. What are some of the other interesting things that you have them recite on a daily basis? Well, we have never say in one house what you hear in another. Never speak ill of the absent. Never misuse these arts or use them for self-gain. Those are some of the real interesting. And protect the innocent, forgive the ignorant and tame only the wild. However, let us tame ourselves first before we tame the wild. Words of wisdom. Love hearing those. Now, you're also the director of security for Securitas. I am. And you're the president of Crime Stoppers? Yes. Are you busier now than you ever been? I'm busy. I'm busy. How's everything with Crime Stoppers nowadays? Crime Stoppers is good. I just became president and we're redoing our bylaws and we have some new members that have come on. The members that will help us to help spread Crime Stoppers and help with the... The intent is really to catch all those who are wanted, right? Yeah, for sure. So, you need a board to do that and we have a good board. Well, you as president, that's awesome. Now, Chief, we're going to take a quick break and then when we come back, we're going to continue going beyond law enforcement. Okay. You're watching Beyond the Lines on Think Tech Hawaii with my special guest, Chief Lee Donahue. We will be back in 60 seconds. Hey, Loha, my name is Andrew Lanning. I'm the host of Security Matters Hawaii. I'm airing every Wednesday here on Think Tech Hawaii, live from the studios. I'll bring you guests. I'll bring you information about the things in security that matter to keeping you safe, your co-workers safe, your family safe, to keep our community safe. We want to teach you about those things in our industry that may be a little outside of your experience. So please join me because Security Matters, Loha. Aloha, I'm Cynthia Sinclair. And I'm Tim Apachella. We are hosts here at Think Tech Hawaii, a digital media company serving the people of Hawaii. We provide a video platform for citizen journalists to raise public awareness in Hawaii. We are a Hawaii nonprofit that depends on the generosity of its supporters to keep on going. We'd be grateful if you'd go to thinktechhawaii.com and make a donation to support us now. Thanks so much. Thanks so much. Welcome back to Beyond the Lines on Think Tech Hawaii. My special guest today is an extraordinary leader who was the Chief of Police of our Honolulu Police Department from 1998 to 2004. He is Chief Lee Donahue, and today we are going beyond law enforcement. Chief, in my book Beyond the Lines, a big part of it is about leadership.  What do you feel the best leaders do? What are the qualities of the best leaders, in your opinion? That they listen to their people and find out what their needs are and their wants. I mean, it's good to know what they want also, but there is a definite separation between the two and try to satisfy their needs and do it on a daily basis. That's to me the most important part of a leader and making it known how you're trying to get their needs met. Because it's important to them because I know that when we did surveys, the farther you go away from your core unit, like if you're in a sector, the farther you go away, the less trust you have of those above you. And it's just something that goes with any organization. So knowing that, you have to be able to come down and provide what they need. I think you have to be able to listen to them. You should never, I'll give you an example. I had this, I was on a way to a meeting and I was walking through the hallways and I was gonna be late, but this officer stopped me in the hallway and said, chief, can I ask you a question? And I could have told him, I'm not down. I'm late for a meeting, but it was important for him to ask me. So I said, sure, ask me the question. And I answered his question and at least it satisfied his need at that time. But you have to do that as a leader. You have to, you can't stop that. And empathy is huge with your team and building trust, like you said, and respect and loyalty.  I mean, really, and it's not easy. It's not easy because there's so many demands on a leader, but you have to understand, without your people, nobody's gonna follow you. That's right.  What were your top priorities with your team of police officers? Well, one was safety. Yeah, for sure. Safety first, and we covered that. And the other thing was accreditation. Yeah. And so we went for accreditation because accreditation would show that we met the standards of law enforcement and that we could match ourselves with any major city police department. So a major city police department in the United States at that time, I'm sure it's about the same, it has a population of at least 500,000. Wow. And of that, there are probably 55 major city police departments. Of the 55, there were only 12 that were accredited. So we became the 13th. Oh, that's great. Yeah, so, you know, it was something that we could, because you can use that to the good of the officers. The reason for that is when you get sued, you can show that through your accreditation process, you have met the standards of law enforcement. Yeah. And that goes a long way in helping the officers. Chief, let's talk about Chief Susan Ballard. And she's very well respected and she's taking the department in a great direction. Why do you like her so much? Susan worked for me. Yeah. And I saw her coming up through the ranks. And if I'm correct, I think I was the last one to promote her to major. You know, but she knew how to take care of her people. And that was one of her strongest things that I saw in her as she was coming up. And I remember one time she was in finance and I was starting Kickstart. Okay. And, you know, I was getting a lot of flack because people say, how come you're using department money to do this karate? I said, no, it's not about just karate. It's about working with youth and at risk youth. Yeah. So she had the foresight to tell me, Chief, why don't we just put this as a line item budget and the budget? And then you don't have to justify this every year. I mean, that's the way she was thinking. Yeah, that's awesome. And all of a sudden, I thought of that. I remember she lost the officer in her cabane and how that impacted her. But you know, she was able to carry through. And when I saw her make Chief, I was so happy for her. Yeah, sure. We all are. Now what do you see as her biggest challenge right now as Chief? I think the vacancies that she has to fill is one. And getting the support of the city administration, which I think she has, it seems that Mayor Caldwell is behind her. But without the city support, it's hard to get funding that you need. I remember one time when Chief Nakamura was the Chief, the mayor at that time, he was upset with Chief Nakamura. He wouldn't let us buy cars to replace the old cars. And we were driving junk out there. Officers were getting upset with us. So it's good that the mayor supports you. But yet I see that she holds her lines. And she makes her demands known. She does very well. Awesome. Now Chief, have you had any major adversities in your life that you have to overcome? I think in answer to your question, in my youth, it was not having a dad. But I had great mentors that took care of me, my brother-in-law, my brothers. Then going on in life, I think there was this one time when I was trying to get the defibrillators. There were 80 defibrillators available through the city council, but the union was fighting me on this. They said, no, you're stepping into a different realm of work. And I said, no, I don't think so. I think our job is to save lives, and this will help us do it. So the union said, well, OK, if you can get volunteers to do it, we won't object. So the sign-up list was going very slow. And Boise Correa was in charge of the project at that time. So he and I went into a competition. And it just happened. He had the very first defibrillator that we had, he had it in the trunk of his car. And I went through an exercise. And when I got through, I actually collapsed. And I was having a heart attack. So what happened is Boise got the defibrillator out of the car. Because they were giving me a CPR, but it wasn't working because I was turning purple. Hamdons was on the way. But he was able to get that defibrillator out of his car. And they hooked it up to me and boom. And as soon as they turned it on, you could see the color coming back in me. So I survived. I survived that. I landed up in the hospital. And when I came out, I had no problems with people signing up for defibrillators. So today, we have defibrillators in a lot of the cars out on the patrol. Wow, the irony that you wanted it and it ultimately saved your life. Now, everywhere we go, there's defibrillators. Exactly. And I think because of that incident, a lot of United Airlines was told they had to put defibrillators on their planes. So I heard a lot of stories afterwards. Thank you for sharing that. Chief, what has been the greatest advice you've ever received in your life? Be nice. Yeah, simple. Be nice. Why can't everybody be nice? Everyone's capable of that. And I used to tell the recruits when they're graduating, they're going to leave you with two words that will affect your career. And these two words are, be nice. Yeah. Well, and I think that's very important. Yeah, I totally agree. I second that. I want to know, what are your thoughts about the homeless crisis? I mean, it's not just here, but it's nationwide. But what are your thoughts about and how the police officers, sometimes it seems like they're handcuffed in what they can do. Right. And it's a tough problem. The one that I don't think will ever see the answer to fully. Yeah. I think the answer to homelessness is the government getting involved and providing living spaces for these people. And you see it going on, but it's not enough. As I understand it, people have said that a lot of families are one paycheck away from being homeless. Yeah. You know, so it seems to be growing. And no matter how much the government tries to place them, the problem grows even bigger. Well, the police officers in dealing with this, they're charged with either moving them along or making sure they're following the rules wherever they're at. And it's a tough job because who wants to be homeless? But I mean, if you've ever dealt with homeless people, you'll find that they're a little bit different. A lot of them are really good families that have met tough times. Then there are others that don't want to don't care. They just don't want to be told what to do and have to live by rules and regulations. And so they like it in the parks or on the sidewalks. Chief, in closing, I want to ask you one more thing. What gives you fulfillment?  So whenever I see her happy, then that gives me fulfillment. You're getting me. You're getting me all. I'm sorry, but that's what gives me fulfillment. I love that. Seeing that my family is doing well. And I help them if they're in trouble. If they're not, then you just support them. I love it. Thanks for your insights. And thank you for sharing that about Lucy as well. Thank you. Thank you, Chief. And thank you for watching Beyond the Lines on ThinkTekHawaii and a special thank you to my clothing sponsor, Eolani Incorporated. For more information, please visit RustyKamori.com. And my book is available on Amazon and Barnes & Noble. I hope that Chief Lee and I will inspire you to create your own superior culture of excellence and to find your greatness and help others find theirs. Aloha.


Hey everyone, I'm Celeste with Cal TV Entertainment and today we're here at BAM, see what I did there? Anyway, so today we have an exclusive look at some of the exhibitions that are about to be leaving soon so y'all should definitely check them out before the month is over. We also have an exclusive interview with Julia White who is the senior curator of Asian arts here at the museum. So can you tell me a little bit about the inspiration for what made you want to create this exhibit? Well the inspiration really came because of the artists that we're focusing on is C. Kaki Kaki-san and we happen to own here at the Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archives some very important works by that artist including the pair of screens that's behind us which were purchased for the art museum in 2012 by Professor James Cahill. He purchased them from Japan and had them shipped here and so with these as the sort of the cornerstone of the exhibition we then looked at the rest of the collection and we have a number of other works by C. Kaki Kaki-san in our collection as well as some of the other later artists who were inspired by Kaki-san's work. So this collection at the Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive has a number of Japanese and Chinese paintings and what I wanted to do was to show the influence of Chinese painting on Japanese painting of the 18th century a school developed during that time called the Nanga School and the gentleman Kaki-san was one of the first people to really explore this new technique and adopted Chinese paintings into the Japanese context and so we have a number of works by him and then the people that followed in his footsteps people that became actually much more famous and well known within Japanese art circles but Kaki-san still provided us with this foundational you know block to really build on this exhibition.


Thank you for watching today's webinar recording. My name is Lynne Smith from the Residential Tenancies Authority. Today's information is collaboration between the RTA and the Body Corporate Commissioner's Office and the focus is on the upcoming tenancy law changes regarding the framework for negotiating renting with a pet and more so how this applies to the community title schemes in Queensland, so your apartments, units and townhouses. Before we start I'd like to acknowledge the traditional owners on the land on which we are recording today and pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. Today the focus is on the framework for negotiating renting with a pet and the new tenancy laws commencing on 1 October 2022. I'd like to introduce our guest speaker Sharon from the Commissioner's Office of the Body Corporate and Community Management and Sharon will be taking you through today about the role of their office, Body Corporate bylaws and the approval process from the Body Corporate or their committee and their dispute resolution process. Thank you for joining today Sharon. Thanks Lynne, I really appreciate the opportunity to be here today. Just a reminder before I go into the new pet laws, owners or managers of units, apartments and townhouses where there is a Body Corporate and bylaws must give a copy of the relevant bylaws to the tenant that relate to their complex. The bylaws form part of the tenancy agreement and therefore a breach of the bylaw is a breach of the tenancy agreement. Owners and managers are encouraged to ensure the right bylaws are provided to tenants at the start of the tenancy. So let's start with the tenancy law changes in relation to the negotiation with renting with a pet. The RTA does not regulate the laws for the prospective tenant application or the selection process. We do regulate the law for the start during an ending of a tenancy. The new laws about pets are for existing tenancies and will commence on 1 October 2022. This new framework provides guidance and structure around conversations and negotiations associated with requests to have a pet in a rental property. The owner still does need to give permission and likewise for apartments and units under Body Corporate bylaws so does the Body Corporate Committee and we have Sharon to talk with you more today about that. Tents will also need to ensure that they do comply with any local council laws regarding the pets and any damage caused by the pet is not considered fair wear and tear. It will be up to tenants to pay for any costs to rectify the damage. It's two steps involved. Firstly the tenant will need to seek permission and then the owner or the manager will need to respond with approval or refusal in writing. For tenants you'll need to be able to provide information about the pet including the size, type, weight, colour and they may also consider including a photo or other information so that the owner or the agent can make an informed decision. The RTA will provide a new form. It will be a request to keep a pet form and also a template for owners to respond. These will be released on 1 October 2022 and available on the RTA's website to download. The owner or the manager can only refuse the request sorry for identified reasonable grounds and will need to do so within 14 days. If there's no response from the owner within 14 days it is then deemed that the pet is approved. So the legislation outlines what are reasonable grounds to refuse a pet under the new laws. It's what you see on your screen there and it includes exceeding a reasonable number of animals to be kept but the property is not suitable or that the pet is likely to cause damage that could not be repaired for the cost of the rental bond amount. It could also contraven a bylaw or another law. It could also be that there's a risk to health and safety of another person or if the tenant does not agree to reasonable conditions that have been proposed by the owner as part of the conditions of having a pet. The RTA recommends self-resolution in the first instance for any tenancy disputes. We encourage property managers and owners and tenants to respectfully speak to each other communicate is the communication is the key to resolving most disputes. If you're unable to resolve a dispute and also if a tenant believes the owner's grounds for refusing a pet is not reasonable or valid the tenant can apply to the tribunal but first must go through the RTA's free dispute resolution service before applying to the tribunal. The role of the conciliator is impartial they're not there to take sides nor are they there to make decisions the parties to the dispute own the dispute and the outcome. The RTA resolves over 70% of disputes where parties will participate in the conciliation process. If it's not resolved a notice of unresolved dispute is issued then the next step is QCAT the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal where an adjudicator will make a decision. Going to QCAT is self-representation and you will need to ensure that you have all your paperwork organised and any evidence. Information on the application and fees can be found on the QCAT's website which is qcat.qld.gov.au. The RTA also has other resources available on our website regarding the new tenancy law changes and that includes the framework for negotiating renting with a pet. So I'm going to welcome Sharon back to talk to you now about the role of the commissioner's office and who's who in the complex when it comes to the body corporate and also body corporate bylaws. So over to you Sharon. Thanks Lynn. The commissioner's office is established under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act and we provide an information and community education service as also a dispute resolution service. The information and community education service provides a callback service and also responds to written inquiries. The dispute resolution service consists of two stage process, conciliation and adjudication. We're not a complaints body, an advocacy service or an investigation agency. Who's who? When you rent or own in a body corporate there's a few titles that get thrown around and it can sometimes get a bit confusing about who is who and what they actually do. So I'll just briefly explain about the roles of the onsite manager, the letting agent and the body corporate manager. The onsite manager is engaged by the body corporate manager to perform maintenance duties for the body corporate such as your gardening and your cleaning. They also have letting rights for the scheme, not always but sometimes. Owners aren't obliged to use the onsite manager to let their lots, they can use external agents. The body corporate managers also engage by the body corporate but their jobs to perform more administrative functions on behalf of the body corporate. This includes things like organizing meetings, keeping the body corporate records. Sometimes body corporate managers will only deal with tenants through their letting agent but there's nothing stopping a tenant dealing directly with the body corporate. If you want to ask permission for a pet you can write directly to your body corporate manager and their role is to pass your request on to the committee to make a decision. It's important to understand that neither the onsite manager or the body corporate manager have any capacity to make a decision on behalf of the body corporate. The committee is made up of owners or their representatives of the body corporate and they make decisions on the day-to-day running of the body corporate. So if you're seeking approval for a pet it's going to be the committee that makes the decision. So what are bylaws? So today we're here to discuss bylaws or pets in tenancies within a community title scheme. The ability to bring a pet onto common property or into a unit is usually governed by body corporate bylaws. So what are they? Bylaws are additional rules made by the body corporate to manage behavior on the common property or within lots in a community title scheme. Everybody corporate has a different set of bylaws so it's really important that you check. If a bylaw is not registered on the community management statement it's not enforceable. Tenants are required to comply with the bylaws of the body corporate and if they don't they may be issued with a contravention notice. Contravention notice is like a breach notice and it might ask them to stop a particular behavior within a given timeframe. So for example remove your pet within seven days or the contravention notice may say that a particular behavior can't be repeated within a three month timeframe. So for example remove something from the common property. If a tenant doesn't comply with the notice the body corporate has two choices. They can go to the magistrates court for a penalty of up to two and a half thousand dollars or can lodge a conciliation application with the BCCM office. It's important to remember that a body corporate cannot evict a tenant for not complying with the bylaws but they can ask you to remove your pet if it's causing a nuisance. So pet bylaws specifically as I said earlier most schemes have a bylaw that relates to the keeping of pets. Regardless of what your landlord says about whether or not you can have your pet you also need to check the bylaws of your body corporate and most likely we also need to have permission from your body corporate. There's many different types of pet bylaws. The most common type is permissive and basically that means that you can have an animal provided you ask the body corporate for approval. Bylaws with conditions are also popular and usually means you'll still need to seek permission but there are conditions that are attached to that approval. The types of conditions that are common include keeping the pet restrained on common property or picking up and disposing of its mess or not allowing the doctor cause a nuisance. Whilst they're becoming less and less some bodies corporate do have blanket bans on pets and it's important to make sure that the body corporate where you're renting doesn't have this type of bylaw as it will make it much more difficult to get approval and therefore take much longer as the bylaw actually needs to be changed so that the body corporate committee can approve your pet. So how do you go about getting approval for your pet? In a body corporate situation a tenant can seek approval for their pet directly from the body corporate. So this might be through the body corporate manager or going straight to your committee. Sometimes it's difficult when you're a tenant to know how to contact or who to contact the appropriate people. If you don't know who your committee is or who the body corporate manager is you can ask your landlord or perhaps another owner within the complex. Most of the time the decision about your pet will be made by the committee. They can either do this by voting outside a committee meeting which is usually a much quicker way to make a decision or the committee meeting and that takes at least seven days to call. If the committee write backs you and tells you yes you can have your pet then you can bring your pet onto the complex provided your landlord also agrees. If the committee write back to you until you know or they don't respond to your pet request then you may wish to consider lodging a conciliation application with the BCCM office. I guess it's important to remember that whilst the landlord has 14 days to respond to your request for a pet under the tenancy laws a body corporate's not bound by that same law and just because the landlord says yes to your pet doesn't mean that you still don't have to ask for permission from the body corporate. When you bring your animal onto the scheme you have to comply with any conditions imposed by the body corporate. If your pet causes a nuisance and you're not a responsible pet owner the body corporate may ask you to remove the pet. Sashan what would be a reasonable time frame for a committee to respond based on your experience? We'd like to think that they'd respond in at least a few weeks. If you don't hear anything back after a few weeks it's probably a good idea to follow them up in writing again. If you still don't get a response after two attempts at trying to resolve it then by all means lodge a conciliation application with our office. And also too are you seeing any trends at present regarding the approval process like something that's a little bit different than the norm that you currently would see? Yeah in somebody's corporate what's happening is they're making decisions to make it decisions about pets a restricted issue for the committee and basically what this means is that the committee is not able to make a decision in relation to pets. As a consequence it needs to go to a general meeting of the body corporate. Bodies corporate are compelled to have at least one annual general meeting a year so it can make it a much longer process to get your pet approved. Because tenants can't lodge or submit motions for the general meeting they're going to have to ask an owner either their owner or another owner in the scheme to propose a motion or they can write to the committee requesting the committee to propose a motion on their behalf. Disputing the decision so if the decision of the body corporate you believe is unreasonable we have three stages in our dispute process similar to the RTA. The first step is the self-resolution process. Because tenants can't propose motions like I just explained self-resolution may include simply writing to the body corporate making a request for their animal. They need to consider that most body corporate will take time to make a decision. If you haven't heard anything for a few weeks as explained before you might want to follow them up you'll need to provide evidence of your attempts of self-resolution when you lodge a conciliation application so it's really important that you make those requests in writing. The next step with our process and which is the formal step is lodging a conciliation application. Conciliation for us is a three-hour meeting where parties come together to make a good will agreement. If that agreement isn't complied with or you don't reach an agreement in that process the third stage of our process is adjudication. Adjudication is where you need to submit all of your evidence again because the conciliation isn't taken into consideration. Both parties get to put side their point of view and an adjudicator will make a binding order based on the evidence in front of them. Just on that Sharon with applying for the conciliation and adjudication is there a fee that people would have to pay to go through your office? There is a fee at the time of this recording the cost of the conciliation and an adjudication application is $88.90. More information about our fees and services can be found on our website but just bearing in mind that if your conciliation fails it's an additional application for adjudication plus an additional fee so you may be up to two lots of $88.90. If you're unsure of what your rights and responsibilities are in a community title scheme whether you're an owner or whether you're a tenant you may wish to contact our information and community education unit on the details provided on the screen. Okay thanks Sharon can I just clarify some of the more commonly asked questions that we are also hearing so just some clarification like who makes contact with the Body Corporate Committee is it the owner or the managing agent or the tenant or either one can come to the Body Corporate? It can be either party bearing in mind that it needs to be the tenant that lodges the conciliation application the self-resolution needs to come from the tenant now that may be the tenant responding or directly writing to the Body Corporate or it may be that their written request is passed on by their property agent if the Body Corporate won't deal directly with the tenant. Right now we know that under tenancy laws you can't ask for a fee outside of what the legislation says, nor can for pets can you ask for a pet bond but does a tenant have to pay a fee to a Body Corporate Committee to get an answer on their pet application? There's no legislative basis for a tenant to have to pay for body corporates to make decisions that being said as body corporates are only compelled to have one annual general meeting a year and don't have a strict time frame in which they need to respond it's purely up to the tenant whether or not they choose to pay for that cost of that decision to be made bearing in mind paying for it doesn't necessarily mean you get a positive response. And just clarifying it is the owner and the Body Corporate so both do actually have to approve a pet before they can reside in the complex or the apartment. That's right. And what happens if the pet is all approved and there's a complaint made to the Body Corporate about say like the dog's barking in the apartment or dare we say using the common area for the wrong reason um now you mentioned before about nuisance can a resident or a tenant be asked to have the pet removed if it is causing a nuisance? Absolutely so if another lot is affected negatively by a pet's behavior um and the pet owner is not a responsible pet owner the Body Corporate can ask for the pet to be removed. Great so we just want to go through a couple scenarios here so a tenant Greg is renting an apartment and completes a pet request form and applies to the property manager Sally to have a small dog during the term of his tenancy. Sally then forwards the request to Bill the owner. Now Sally and Bill are aware they need to respond to Greg's request within the 14 days as outlined under the tenancy laws and have also advised Greg that the Body Corporate will also need to provide approval for the pet. So let's just have a look at what happens if Bill says he has no problem with the pet however the Body Corporate needs to give permission first so Greg applies to the Body Corporate and does not get a response within that 14 days. Bill has the option then to refuse the pet application due to Greg not having the Body Corporate approval within that 14 day timeframe. Now the tenant Greg finally gets approval four weeks later from the Body Corporate so Greg reapplies to Bill by Sally for the um the agent for approval and shows that he now has Body Corporate approval so then yes pet's approved Body Corporate's approved owner's approved so same situation but if this was the case where the Body Corporate Committee has approved within the 14 days again Body Corporate's approved owner's approved pet's approved. So first what we want to have a look at too is some situations where if there is an issue which side to go whether it's a Body Corporate or an RTA disputes so the tenant applies owner says no but tenant knows that there are other approved pets in the building. Tenant applies to the Body Corporate for approval and complies with the bylaws and is approved three weeks later. Tenant advises the owner he has been he has approval from the Body Corporate however the owner still says no. Tenant can apply to the RTA's free dispute resolution service if it's not then resolved they then can apply to the tribunal which is QCAT. So tenant applies the owner says yes but the Body Corporate says no so Sharon this is where it would come to your office for dispute resolution. That's right the dispute then lies with the Body Corporate. And last too the tenant applies to the Body Corporate Committee and no response within two weeks. Tenant makes a follow-up request with the Body Corporate Manager still no response. Tenant's quite concerned at this stage it's been over a month and still no reply. What do they do? What's their next step Sharon? If they've got written evidence that they've made a couple of attempts to contact the committee with their request and they haven't received a response after a few weeks then the next step would be to provide that evidence and logic insulation application with our office. So there will be a lot of information to come out over the coming weeks relating to the new laws. The RTA produces a range of educational resources including webinars on Tenant's legislation and key topics as well as our Talk Intenses podcast series. You can access these through the RTA's website and the links around will screen. If you are into social media you can also follow us on the LinkedIn. So our RTA website has a lot of information and resources available to help you regarding tenancy laws and processes. Our contact sentence available Monday to Friday 8 30 a.m to 5 p.m excluding public holidays on 1300 3 6 3 1. Thank you Sharon for your time today in stepping us through the world of Body Corporate bylaws and pet approvals and who's who in the complex really do appreciate your time in sharing your knowledge and also information for the rental community. So for tenants and owners and managers where to get more information from your office. Thanks Len for having me. If anybody has any Body Corporate questions please please feel free to reach out to the Body Corporate Commissioners Office. Our phone number is 1800 060 119. Leave a message for a call back and we'll get back to you within 24 hours. Great thank you.


Needless to say, this is a quality crowd. So I'd like to invite you all to move a little bit closer. Indulge me. Indulge us. Make us feel like we are closer to you. We will have a conversation this way. Come up and make us feel warm. Thank you. My name is Carl Hoffman, and I'm the president of Population Services International, PSI. And I am here with this distinguished panel to talk about doing well by doing good, which, after all, is an underlying theme of the entire presence here at SoCAP. I will introduce each of them briefly. And then we're going to have a bit of a conversation based on questions. But as I introduce them, I'm going to ask them also to just give us a few sentences about their own organization, where they work now, so they can speak in their own words about what they do. First to them, my immediate right is Jenny Yip, who is a program investment officer with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I'm sure you've all heard of it. Jenny came to the Gates Foundation after over a decade at Goldman Sachs and is working on program-related investments at the Gates Foundation. Jenny, do you want to say a word about the Gates Foundation and your role there? Sure. I'm sure most of you in the organization knows about the Gates Foundation. But essentially, we have three main programs, global health, which you can think of as upstream development, drug discovery, vaccine discovery, et cetera. Global development, which encompasses our agriculture and livestock programs, as well as downstream delivery for health products. And then the last program, which is US programs focused on domestic education. Thank you. And I should say full disclosure, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a funder of ours, as is USAID. So let me turn second to Wendy Taylor, who is director of the Center for Accelerating Innovation and Impact at USAID's Global Health Bureau. USAID is probably one of the few institutions that expressly says its mission is to put itself out of business. Who among us would actually say that? Prior to that, she worked in the biotech space as a venture capitalist and also at the Office of Management and Budget. Wendy, say a word about where you work now. Great. The tent doesn't fall down on us today. I lead what is called the Center for Accelerating Innovation and Impact, which, as Carl said, and we're really a center of excellence that was just recently created to bring more business and marketplace thinking into how we not only develop innovations, but how we can accelerate their introduction and scale up in the developing world. So we are engaging not just in catalyzing new innovations, but also thinking about bringing in a lot of industry practices and thinking about how we invest, how we think about business frameworks for introduction and scaling. So we can talk about that. Thank you. Next to her is Pony Subaya. Pony is Global Program Leader at PATH. And comes to PATH, the PATH is a large international NGO program for accessible technologies and health, appropriate technologies and health, pardon me. Based in Seattle, but with offices all over the world. And a focus on innovation to bring innovative solutions to global health challenges. Pony came to that role from a long professional involvement with Pfizer, including managing Pfizer's Global Access Program, which is very much about bringing that large multinational into contact with the lowest parts of the health consumer pyramid, I would say. Pony, tell us about your work now at PATH. Great, so I'm the Global Program Leader at PATH for drug development. So PATH, as mentioned, is a large nonprofit. It's about 1,200 employees. And the focus is on global health and using disruptive technologies to meet unmet needs. Now there are actually five platforms at PATH. Drugs is one of them, but it also includes vaccines development and delivery, as well as technology solutions, for example, cold chain to deliver vaccines, diagnostics, in addition to community-based intervention. So really the whole gamut from research and discovery to really having impact at the field across the value chain. And finally, we have Laura Diakanu, who is vice president of the Health Services Fund at Global Partnerships, which has, for 15 years now, been doing work in the microenterprise and microfinance fields in Latin America, focused on Latin America, but I think also looking elsewhere in the world, if I understand it, bringing investors here into contact with partners in the developing world for sustainable outcomes. Talk about your work, Laura. So as mentioned, Global Partnerships is a nonprofit impact investor. We deliver debt, grant, and knowledge capital to social enterprises in Latin America and the Caribbean. Currently, those social enterprises are principally microfinance institutions and cooperatives, but we're expanding that concept of what a social enterprise is, as well, in the future. Those institutions, basically, they serve as existing last mile platforms through which financial services and nonfinancial services are being delivered to marginalized populations in the sectors of health, ag enterprise, microentrepreneurship, and green technology. And I happen to be focused on the health services part of that work. Thank you very much. So the context is global health and the changing landscape, the rapidly changing landscape in global health. And each of us, myself included, actually, but certainly each of the panelists, has an important and unique perspective on how that landscape is changing and the ways in which new partnerships are possible. Traditional government funders, which have been critical to taking global health interventions to scale, are creating new cross-sectoral partnerships these days to solve global health challenges in new ways. Corporations and foundations and impact investors, and we have those represented here on the panel, both in their present incarnations and in their past incarnations, invest in innovative and sustainable and replicable solutions that, when proven attractive and effective, can bring in public funding, which can then provide continuity and take some of these solutions to scale. So I want to talk with this panel about their roles in this new era, when the rules are sort of changing in terms of how we fund effective interventions in global health. First, let me start with Jenny and Wendy. So as I mentioned, two funders of my institution as well as many others around the world, your organizations are both using new forms of partnership across different sectors to create greater impact in global health. What can you tell us from your perspective about what's changed in the global health funding landscape, and what are these new partnerships that are emerging as a result of those changes, and how are those partnerships proving themselves effective? Jenny, can you start? Yeah, sure. I think it's becoming a very, very large part of what we do and specifically where I sit on the program-related investments team. Just so everybody knows, program-related investments is we essentially make regular debt and equity investments in for-profit companies whose business missions closely align with the foundation's charitable goals. So the primary purpose of our investment is to forward the foundation's charitable goals, but we are expected to make a financial return. We, frankly, we like it when we make a financial return, obviously. But one way that we've been really structuring these types of partnerships with for-profit companies is in a term called global access. And I think, Tony, you're going to hear a lot of the same themes at Resonade, probably with you. But one way that we think about it is if the Gates Foundation invests in, for example, a biotech company that has a platform technology that can be applicable to multitudes of diseases, the Gates Foundation only cares about a very small subset of those diseases in a small subset of countries. But if we're one of the funders of this technology, what we do is then structure what we call global access. And it essentially means a quick dissemination of information, products, and services to the populations that we care about. So it's actually a contractual term that we use with all of our PRIs to say, we invest in this platform technology. When you apply it to diseases that we care about, you either have to have price ceilings, price maximums that are certain, depending on the country or whatever it may be. But if you were to apply that technology to cancer in the developed world, then you can kind of use that technology and sell it at whatever price you want and, frankly, make your millions and billions of dollars. So that kind of structure, it's essentially a cross-subsidization structure. That contractual structure has worked pretty well with our deals, and I think it's something that we're gonna get continuously sophisticated on and hopefully bring to our other deals as well. So you're leveraging really a global public good through the market potential of new interventions that- Exactly, exactly. Fascinating. When the USA, particularly under the current administrators leadership, has done a lot to develop partnerships between public and private sector, looking at new business strategies to bring into the development marketplace. Talk about how that is changing the role and the way USA looks at its work. Yeah, well, certainly partnerships has become a core part of what we are doing and we're looking to the private sector to help us look beyond our traditional operating models and find new solutions. And what's been interesting in the space is really to see industry's interests shift as well. I think shifting both in terms of seeing an opportunity to have impact where in global health, we still are seeing seven million children dying each year and 270,000 moms dying each year and companies are seeing the potential to be able to have unique ability to innovate and have a real and sustainable impact in those particular areas. But they're also seeing the real market opportunity and I think we've seen the market shift even just in the last decade. So looking to emerging markets as a new source of growth, you've got stagnating growth here in US and European markets and a lot of companies looking to the emerging markets as the new growth opportunities, the new frontier and in Africa is now very much part of that equation in ways that it really wasn't certainly in the health sector not too long ago. So the healthcare commodity market in Africa is poised to in the next several years which have become a $30 billion market and by 2020 a $45 billion market and you've got these changing economies where even the healthcare budgets are rapidly increasing in both low and middle income markets. So it creates the space for this kind of shared opportunity and a aligned interest between the public and private sector and so with the companies in terms of where they're engaging, I think they see the opportunity for both kind of short and long-term market growth and they're able to align or whether, modify, adjust, repackage existing products but also look to new innovations. So companies are actually licensing technologies that address more of the bottom of the pyramid. We're seeing companies actually look to new distribution models and recognizing that to actually enter into these markets they have to look at them differently and they have to think about new ways of using their sales force or new ways of distribution and we're also seeing companies actually look at not just delivering products which they're very good at but strengthening the health systems because that's critical for them to be able to move their products through these markets and so kind of shifting how they operate and in each of those areas there's opportunity for partnerships, there's opportunities for the companies to reduce their risk by partnering with the public sector through NGOs to reduce the cost to learn about operating in these markets in ways that they perhaps may not know otherwise and even to kind of piggyback off of delivery channels so it's been a real interesting, I think, shift in how companies are approaching. So that's an interesting point. It's not just USA working with corporations, public sector and private sector but in a way what you're talking about there is your role making markets, you're creating a space within which other partnerships form, corporations with NGOs, corporations with host country governments, I assume. Let me ask you though, since we're talking about the public sector, public money and public private partnerships, do you run into the risk or how do you manage the risk of picking favorites, of deciding which corporation might be worthy of which partnership when there may be multiple corporations that want to partner in a particular space? Well, it's something we have to walk that line very carefully and we have competitions where it goes through a procurement process and it's a competitive fair process but we also have mechanisms like our Global Development Alliance where companies can propose ideas to work with us and we have much more flexibility in how we can work with the private sector, can partner up in ways that don't necessarily have to go through a much more open, rigorous process. Tony, so PATH has had a very interesting trajectory over the years, it's, as you mentioned, done a lot of work in innovation and bringing new technologies to the consumer, to the health consumer in the global health context and recently you were a part of the exciting new partnership that PATH pursued in acquiring One World Health, a pharmaceutical company. So bringing that capacity inside its own walls. Talk to us about the sort of unconventional or non-traditional partnerships that you at PATH are pursuing now as you go about achieving your mission in the developing world. Who do you find yourself working with now that's new and different? Yeah, so I think it's kind of building what you had mentioned about partnerships because I'll give a couple of examples where I think very non-traditional partners were brought together, not just public and private but also, for example, academics. So our group, which is focused on drug development is in the process of developing and now we're in the market of a semi-synthetic artemisinin. Now this is actually a particular compound that is in the, what's malaria treatment called artemisinin-based combination treatment. This is the gold standard for treating malaria. However, this artemisinin used to come from a botanical source. And again, the prices and the supply would go up and down which meant patients with malaria didn't always get access to this important medicine. So the Gates Foundation recognizing the need actually funded previously One World Health Now PATH to work as the project coordinator and manager of this project. We first started out by working with the University of California Berkeley. And we looked and working with them that new technology was found using synthetic biology. And then from there, the baton was handed to a private sector, small biotuckle amorous. And from there, they took it and validated it. And then the next step was then turning the baton to a larger company who can take it and scale it and then distribute it to full-scale industrial capacity. And that was Sanofi eventus. So it really, as you can see, very different partners that have come together and it was a 10-year project. And over these 10 years, there was a lot of hurdles. And I would say not always smooth sailing because I think one of the important things we've learned from the different partners coming together is it's really important for different partners to understand each other's agendas, their goals, their pressures. And what is ultimately resonated is that we always have the goal in mind, the mission in mind. And I think that helped us get to currently now where we've actually achieved a full-scale production and we're hoping to be able to bring out the semi-synthetic artemis and base treatment into the market by the end of the year. But it goes to show that you can bring very nontraditional partners together and you can really make a end product that ultimately will have global health impact. It sounds esoteric. Anybody here ever suffered from malaria? If you were to suffer, if you had the misfortune to contract malaria these days, that's what you need. Artemis and combined therapy is the frontline treatment for malaria. So this is critically important. Thank you. Laura, impact investing. It's obviously a theme of SoCAP. It's a relatively new discipline. In your time practicing this craft, what have you learned at Global Partnerships about what works and what doesn't work in impact investing? What are the ingredients for success in impact investing? And do you think that it's really proven itself in the emerging market context? Yeah, I mean, as you mentioned, I think impact investing still means a lot of different things to different people. So the definition is still emerging. I think what we've learned over the last several years that we've started to see ourselves in this light is that, first of all, there's kind of no one-size-fits-all solution. When we started down this path working on health services business models that could really serve thousands and thousands of women with a fundamental essential package of health services sustainably and not rely on donor funding over time, we felt, along with our investors, that if we just kind of cracked the nut and came up with the secret business in a box, it could be replicated and scaled throughout the world. And I think one thing we've learned is that certainly not the case, that there are some perhaps basic principles to sustainable business models that can deliver essential services to millions of people, but each country context, each organizational context, makes our impact investment the reason the business case for investing very different. We have to measure our impact in different ways, depending on what that investment really is about, what we're trying to learn, what we're trying to achieve out of each individual investment. It's kind of more of a boutique approach now than what we thought we were embarking on several years ago. Another thing we've learned is that it really takes different types of capital to respond appropriately to different types of investment. Several years ago, Global Partnerships kind of came at every impact investment with one tool, and that was debt capital. And over the last couple of years, we've kind of expanded that range of capital, that range of tools that we're bringing to a problem, which is how to expand access to essential services that really make a difference to a certain population. And we've expanded it to include now grant capital as well as knowledge capital, because we're recognizing that investments in really early stage pilot models are not suitable for kind of a debt capital instrument, and that we really need to first go in with kind of knowledge capital, partner hand in hand with our partners to really design a business model that we have confidence in, present a business case for investment, and then bring some grant capital to bear that can prove that out. And once it's proven, then we can come behind that with loan capital to kind of expand it and scale it in that context. So those are two things that we've learned. I think that's very interesting actually. Jenny, would you agree that, so program related investments that you're helping to manage at the Gates Foundation, is it, it's a cousin of impact investing, it's related, you said in your remarks that your program related investment portfolio at Gates is expected to generate a positive financial return. Can you elaborate a little bit on that? I mean, at market rates, above market rates, below market rates, what is an acceptable financial return for the Gates, without giving away any secrets here, for Gates program related investments? I think we shoot for greater than zero. And I think the other way of framing that exact same question is also being able to assess risk and minimize risk. I think if we were to tell Bill in five years that we generated extra turns, he wouldn't necessarily be happy or be saying that you did a terrible job because I think how we are assessed is how well did you predict the risk today in something that's gonna happen in five years from now or 10 years from now? Because we are not a traditional impact investor, we're not a traditional VC. We're not necessarily looking for an exit opportunity because sometimes our projects do require 15, 20 years. If you're talking about seeding the adjuvant to a potential HIV vaccine, who's to say how much money that's gonna generate in the future? So I think for us, really it's the idea of calculating risk and calculating it well and balancing that with some of the charitable aspects and the social aspects that we expect. So several of us work in the non-profit environment and all of us have some experience with or in the non-profit environment. You know, we talk about the Gates Foundation. I mean, Microsoft would easily, I suppose, invest a million dollars or more to test and develop a potentially game-changing new product or intervention and has to accept the premise that many times it's gonna fail to do that and it will lose. It's part of its research and development activity. Pfizer obviously spends billions in this regard. But in the non-profit space where organizations are expected to deliver this health impact at scale, there's virtually no tolerance for that sort of risk taking. There's no pool of risk capital that's easily available. So I guess my question to the panel is, you know, is the conventional non-profit model broken in given today's realities? How do we deal with this problem of risk taking among in the not-for-profit space? Wendy, what would you say? Well, I mean, I think it's an interesting one. I mean, it's something we struggle with as well. One of the things that I did was spearheaded a grand challenge around saving lives at birth and it was really intended to be a global call for those really innovative groundbreaking transformational ideas. In other words, we would have to make some riskier investments to find those. But we have to be very careful in how we talk about how we invest in more riskier propositions because we're dealing with public funds. But at the same time, we expect only a small portion of those investments that we're making to be wildly successful. We hope everything will be successful. We will work to make sure everything gets set on the right foot. But we want to be able to create the space where we look for those big groundbreaking ideas and that does involve some element of risk taking. It involves failing. And there may be some failures. In fact, our administrator has talked about wanting to do failure summits and be able to- We'll be there. We'll be there. It's helpful to learn from your failures and you learn probably more from your failures than your successes. So I think we do have to create that space where it's okay to talk about failures. It's okay to present those learning so that we can avoid them in the future. So as a donor, I think there's, at least I can say there's some level of tolerance for that. That's good. Of course, they may not still be the capital pool available to do the experimentation. Pony, what would you say? Compare and contrast Pfizer and PATH in that one. I do think the whole industry, but also I think research itself is really evolving. And I think that some of the same questions are being, I guess, addressed both in the private sector and the non-profit sector in research as such. So I do think that when, I think like for example, when we're looking at new products and development, we're looking at ways of how can we kill projects early? Because I think one of the, including in the non-profit is projects are going on too long.  Is there ways we could kill projects early? So there's a lot of research going on. Is can we have biomarkers? Can, and the other thing I think is not only the science, but I think we're also learning, we were talking earlier about how important it is for human-designed approach and market research. And I think we're learning, even when you're in early phases of development, go back in the field, is the profile of the product, is it appropriate for what the end user wants? And how do we continue to do that and not wait till a product is seven years down the road before checking with the end user? So I do think that rigor is important and I think it's because it is a small, a limited amount of money and how do we effectively use it? And this is where I think to your point, we have to learn from failures. And I think there needs to be more openness about sharing those because I think we help build other things for the future. I think that's a great point. Laura, do you feel like global partnerships, you trumpet your failures? I wouldn't say that we trumpet them yet. There has been a lot of conversations about expecting that not everything is going to succeed, although we hope that everything will succeed. But I do, I think that Pony makes a great point in that to the extent that we can be really, really clear about why we're making the investment to begin with and what success wouldn't look like for us, what do we hope to learn from the investment? It's kind of redefining instead of failure, it's learning, we're always learning because there will always be assumptions that are off that are built into models. So as long as we build into our investment, that monitoring, we really try to identify what are really the key indicators of success. How do we know that this model is on track? And we monitor that on a quarterly basis with our partners in one case monthly so that we can catch things early. So if things are really off course, we can know sooner rather than later, oh, this assumption that we made looks like it's totally off. What can we do about it to course correct to hopefully encourage it back on the path towards success, but I think also be clear about when do we say, okay, let's chalk this one up to learning and move on to the next one, yeah. Let me go back to your earlier comments which I just want you to amplify a little bit. So when you talk about the different varieties of capital that may be necessary for an impact investment environment, I think we often might think of, we think of patient capital in that regard, but we might all perhaps be thinking of financial resources. You're pointing out that there's knowledge capital, there's partnership capital, there are all sorts of different ways in which you might be investing without financial resources being a part of the picture. Yeah, but it's worth, I mean, we invest a lot of knowledge capital or partnership capital before we even get to the point of investing dollar one of grant in the case of the investments in the health services fund. I would say global partnerships invest almost a full year of staff time and travel, like really working with the partner to build their own capacity to really define, to make sure they're at the end of the day really owning the investment and they have the management team fully on board and aligned with, everybody's aligned with where we're trying to go and that's not cheap. And that's not something that actually a lot of donors are interested in putting their money behind or understand necessarily. So I think that's important to signal, but we do think that that's a really important part of kind of success or success rate at the end of the day is really investing that time and effort up front. So I would, can I echo that? And one of the things that we've noticed with our saving lives at Perth program, we have lots of innovators, we choose them, we choose those that we think have the most, greatest chance of scaling, yet we know that scale is one of the most difficult things, we might have lots of successful pilots, but many really fail to reach scale and so we're looking to invest that additional sort of technical assistance, knowledge capital and we've created an accelerator to be able to help a lot of our innovators think through pathways to scale, remind them that they should be designing with the end in mind, you don't want to be fixing technical problems at the point where you're in the market, you want to fix them in the lab and just a lot of helping them think through how it's going to be distributed at the earliest stages. But also we are looking at building a pipeline of innovations even in the private SMEs, we've developed an African Challenge Fund, it's the health enterprise fund and recognizing for a lot of those really really early stage companies, they need a lot of TA. And so in that model, and this is just we're investing with grants now, they're probably, it's too early for debt, certainly too early for the acumen's of the world to step in and they, we're putting in almost 50% of our investments going into TA just to make sure that they have that additional. The TA, you mean technical assistance, people sitting with them, working with them, teaching transferring skills. So I think it's critically important to set many of these enterprises up for success. Right. Yeah, actually I want to echo that too, because technical assistance, whatever you want to call it, technical assistance, portfolio management, consultants, time, resources, whatever it may be, we actually count that and that's a criteria in our investment criteria. So meaning if we don't have the time, energy, resources or expertise to do something, that actually might not be the right time for us to be investing in that company. Because if it fails, we don't have anybody to receive the learnings, we don't have the ability to then help out our potential portfolio company. So evaluating the portfolio management aspect of it, that could be three or five years in the future today before you make the investment. It's actually a huge criteria for us. So maybe even more important than the money is really the stewardship requirement. We've gone through about two thirds of our time. I think we should invite some questions and see if we can get a conversation going with all of you. In fact, each of you may have to ask a question. There are mics that are available from Cheyenne and from Bjorn if we need him, but certainly from Cheyenne. Does anybody have a question about any of the things that have been raised so far in this changing landscape in global health? Yes, sir. I'm Joseph Stuy. I work for the National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance. We fund, grant fund, and support mostly student innovation teams, but we are also working with Saving Lives at Birth and some other programs to help accelerate innovation. I guess my question is, if you're, they're incredibly smart, ambitious, young entrepreneurs, innovators who we work with, people who are doctors and decided that wasn't enough, I'll get an MBA, and I'll also do a startup all at the same time. And many of them are interested in global health. So what do you, when you talk to young innovators, what kinds of opportunities do you see that you wish young innovators were looking at and what kind of approaches do you recommend that they think about? Tony, can I ask you to take that first? Yeah, I think, and in fact, PAP has done that where, you know, they've reached out to like small startup companies and it's turned out to be an amazing product like we have this vial monitors that's being used and that started with a very small company of six employees. So I do think that you don't know where the ideas come from. So I think that's something philosophy at PAP is encouraging ideas to come through. And so we do have like open forum settings, sometimes like in Seattle, and we're going to start one in San Francisco to be able to bring in people who are interested in some of the same therapeutic areas we're working in, but they may be looking at the problem very differently. So I do think getting involved and contacting organizations, whether it's PAP or PSI, depending on which part of the value chain there is interest in. I think that is very important. I also think it's very important to look at the whatever organizations website to see where they're focusing on and what are some of the challenges they're facing because there's so many areas in global health you can go to and you got to make sure you're aligned with the right organization. So coming to PAP for something that may be more important for PSI, it'll just help decrease the time. But I think it is needed because ideas can come from anywhere and I think a fresh perspective is always helpful. Any other? I would just add, I mean, I think what's exciting in USAID is we've now brought in this grand challenge model and it's actually opening up the door to those kinds of innovative ideas and giving them a conduit to actually get funding from a big organization like USAID. Gates Foundation has its grand challenge program. Canada has a grand challenge program and they tend to fund more of the Canadians for some of their, they have a STARS program to fund entrepreneurs. So there are different funding sources but it's still a hard pathway to find that funding and I think just in recent years we're starting to see better opportunities. It's also just, a lot of the universities seem to be aligning themselves around sparking innovation for global health or innovation for development and that's I think opening up the door for possibilities for some of the young students, entrepreneurs to find these new solutions to these seemingly intractable development challenges and through our grand challenge we have numerous examples where the ideas have actually come from students. They've been student projects that they did their senior year and now they're actually turning into something that you're getting scaled country wide and saving hundreds and thousands of lives even in their earliest age. So it's very exciting to see what young entrepreneurs are coming up with and finding their path into these larger development spaces. I'm gonna use the prerogative of the chair to also answer that question from my perspective if you don't mind, which is that energy that comes from young entrepreneurs and innovators and all the people who wanna move into global health is really exciting for all the practitioners but many of the challenges in global health are really not one susceptible to a new technological innovation. Some of the simplest, most effective, cost effective ways to save lives exist and what's really needed is something that winds up feeling and sounding unsexy but it is simply process improvement. It's simply figuring out how to deliver that last mile or that last 100 yards and that I think for anybody who's passionate about global health, you don't ever want to leave those who may not have a technological bent thinking that the only way to innovate in this space is through technology because a lot of it is just getting things into the hands of people who need them. Can I add to that? Yes. So I was gonna say, we're really not in the business of inventing new things or coming up with new technologies. Our challenge really is exactly that. Finding ways to deliver what's already tried and true and maybe has lost its sex appeal out there in the market but the fact is that millions of people still don't have access to those really basic essential services and products and a lot of that has to do with the information gap to even know what it is that they're experiencing or that they can manage a certain condition from their home or that they can't even prevent it. So I think what we're seeing is that there still is this kind of rural access frontier that remains to be solved so to the extent that there's innovation around how people receive basic information to educate them about how to handle a situation or when, because right now a lot of people in rural areas simply self-medicate or don't go to a doctor or receive any medicines at all because they just simply don't have access or don't know what it is that they have. Systems, I mean to the extent that there are IT solutions to help if there is a rural pharmacy to distribute products and services to bring down the costs and that and to just deliver really essential services that for whatever reason the public sector has simply not figured out. They don't have the capacity yet to be everywhere in their countries and so for that reason there are private sector providers delivering basic health services but they haven't yet figured out how to turn a profit off of the really rural remote communities. So there's this white space where there does need to be innovation to kind of push forward that near market solution frontier in terms of rural access. And the other big one that I think is on the frontier is chronic disease in the developing world that hasn't risen to the level of sexiness in terms of international community funding really flowing into this yet and yet we're seeing an epidemic in terms of folks, clients of microfinance institutions testing off the charts in terms of risk factors for to develop chronic disease in the future and this will become a huge burden, cost burden for governments in the future. So there's a lot of innovating to be done around that because I think chronic disease is still seen largely as a developed country issue. Great point. You had a question, somebody had a question. Hi, my question was there's often a lot of criticism in global health about the role of aid organizations or other organizations bringing in first world solutions and often allowing governments off the hook in terms of meeting halfway in solving these issues and I was wondering to what extent your organizations really focus on also capacity building and holding local governments accountable in putting their resources to meet you and help solve problems in a more sustainable manner. So the trade off between impact and system strengthening really. Jenny, would you like to give your perspective on that? Yeah, and I think the Gates Foundation is a little bit unique in that sense because we do have some clout in the international community to be able to do all those things. So the head of our global development, Dr. Chris Elias, who actually came from PATH is actually spending a lot of his time with ministries of health or whatever it may be, making sure that these governments or government organizations are getting held accountable. But that's a very tough thing to do because you're trying to tread the very, very fine line between telling somebody what to do and saying, oh, you need to do X, Y, and Z for polio or whatever it may be and frankly, offending them so that they close off the borders and then you don't get to do anything. So it's a lot of diplomacy. It's a lot of partnerships. It's a lot of working together as opposed to the Gates Foundation telling you, country, what to do. So. Any other thoughts, Pony? Sure, I would just add that country ownership is actually a big part of how we engage with countries and so it's also not about just coming in and sort of imposing the sort of west view of all the various things that need to be done and countries need to actually sort of set their own development agendas. And I think the reality in the development space is that because the economies of these countries are shifting so rapidly, overseas development assistance as a whole is becoming such a smaller and smaller part of our sphere of influence is diminishing rapidly and so our ability to even shape where countries are spending their money is changing and that's certainly true in India and as these economies boosted up, it will be true in many other parts of Africa. And so I think our relationships with countries are changing and so country ownership dominates how we interact but we also do look for things like crowding out and want to make sure when we're investing it's not getting sort of the country investments or not drawing up and moving elsewhere. You want to supplement and not plant. Right, right. Pony, were you gonna say something? Yeah, so I think just adding on that, I think early in the early in development I think you have to be able to bring in the government so it's not a top down approach. I think one example I could path is the meningitis vaccine. So it was very, it's very successful, about 100 million people have been vaccinated but I think the one of the reasons for the success was the idea was generated but involved lots of different partners from global organizations in WHO who gave the policy and the credibility to it but then partnering with the manufacturing, vaccine manufacturing in India, the Sermons Institute of India and then working with the governments in Africa to really roll out the program. So it really was a partnership from the beginning. It wasn't like a top down approach and your point is right because if that partnership doesn't come early sometimes it's very easy for some of the ministries of health is just a dependent on the global fund and they don't really take the baton and I think involving them right from the beginning and showing them the proof that it is having health outcomes and it's gonna impact their civilian population and have impact on their society I think has helped move them along and I think that's one example of where it's worked in the right direction. I would agree. I mean the best operating environment for an international NGO is when the host government takes ownership of the program, directs resources, be it its own or coming from outside and sets objectives and priorities but the reality is that's very rare. It's very rare, unfortunately. Other questions or comments? Yes. Hi, I'm Avik Bal from iCure. We've seen many small young entrepreneurs doing different things but the end goal is the same. For example, they're providing primary healthcare or they're providing AIDS eradication or they're providing, but in small pockets, some in Tanzania, some in Kenya, some in Bangladesh, India, somewhere. In your capacity as an umbrella organization, a much bigger organization, and maybe have incubated many of these, are being associated, how do you connect the dots and instead of them trying to kind of penetrate into distribution models and stuff, they all come together and make a much bigger impact than they could have otherwise. So global networks, global systems, how do we aim for global systemic change rather than just point to point? Anybody? Tony? So for me, coming relatively new to the nonprofit sector from the private sector, that was also kind of, for me, surprising because just like in the private sector, there was also some amount of competition and not necessarily the collaboration that was optimal between NGOs, but I think there are certain partners that it seems to be being more and more facilitated whether it's by USAID or Gates Foundation is, let's not fund two different groups to do the same thing. How can we capitalize on each other's strengths? I think it's a good one. I don't think we're there yet, but I feel the journey has started where because there's limited funding, we have to capitalize on strengths and then really look at the impact. And so, I mean, I think we're starting the journey, but I don't think we're there yet. I would say the marketplace is imposing that on us now, it really is. The era of limitless resources is perhaps behind us, at least for a while. Yeah, I would like to say that we don't fund two organizations doing the same thing, but we sometimes do, but we're quite cognizant of those things and I think there's internal processes we have in place, for example, so that we're not reinventing the wheel in every country. I think there's always an issue of pilotitis and I said this in an earlier panel. It's very easy to make something work with 10 villages or 10 small groups, but how do you actually scale that to 10 countries? That's the Holy Grail, right? Absolutely. Other questions or comments? Disagreements? That's fine. Hi, I'm Brad Michaels with Social Lab and I am mindful, of course, we are at SoCAP. So in addition to thinking within the global health market, do you also see opportunities for broadening and innovating and looking at new partnerships with some of the groups that are represented here that may be outside the global health sphere currently? So partnerships outside health, great question. Lara, what would you say? That's a good question. I mean, I think a big one that we've been thinking about, it's not necessarily a different sector, but I think speaking to an earlier comment, kind of the idea of how does the public sector become more of an active partner with the private sector partners that we support on the ground, I think would be a really great development to see actually the public sector emerge as more of kind of the systems designer and coordinator and regulator, but embracing the fact that in order to have a country-wide health system that works, you really need actors from all the sectors to make that happen, that the public sector simply isn't enough and maybe shouldn't be enough to do that. I do think, you know, one thing we come up with against a lot of times is kind of that combination of the socially-minded organization with the business skills, so kind of changing the mindset. I don't know if this is what you're speaking to, but a lot of our knowledge capital really has to do with kind of changing the mindset of how these programs are being conceived and managed, that they're more than a social project, it's actually a business, so to the extent that those kinds of skills can be brought from other sectors into the health sector as social enterprises emerge and grow and scale, I think that would be really helpful, particularly the marketing as a skill. We've seen it time and time again being kind of a real hang-up that we run up against in terms of how do you reach thousands of women living in remote areas with the same standard message and the same standard services, the same information, that really takes a marketing expertise that your average NGO founded for global health or a health project doesn't think maybe is the most important skill to hire on, so that's another issue. Wendy? I would add, and I think it's sort of the big obvious one with this crowd is how do we leverage the billions that are poised to be directed into impact investing? How do we leverage that for health and are there ways that we can come up with creative, innovative finance structures to be able to bring impact investing in to further our development goals? Certainly we can play a role in building a pipeline of innovations to come up with investable opportunities. We can play a role in de-risking those investments, which is something that we do, but finding a way to tap into that additional capital is, I think, would be a very exciting place to be in something we spend a good amount of time thinking about, but also for the entrepreneurs in the room thinking about where there are cross-sectoral spaces. So when we think about health, where energy and health may intersect. Education. Or education. On the energy side, thinking about the cold chain as being an important piece of health care delivery and where new innovations on the energy sector can play a role. So I think there's lots of interesting cross-sectoral spaces for innovation and need some creative minds to... And our funding doesn't always support those intersecting spaces. I think the Gates Foundation is probably better at doing that. We get funded in the asylos, and so it's a bit harder to fund outside of health. But I think there's a lot of room for innovation there as well. We're all victims of silos. We're all victims of silos. One more question? Yes. Hello. I'm Athalia, and I am actually a recent college grad and worked a lot with an organization called GlobeMed, which is a national university-based organization where chapters work with different grassroots organizations to address global health inequities. A lot of what we do kind of focuses on developing this leadership pipeline for students and people who hopefully will go into work in global health and development. And I was wondering what sort of advice or even expectations you had for these future leaders who will need to be able to innovate and to be able to create and build partnerships. A great question to close the panel on. Forward thinking. Laura, advice to future leaders. What should they be looking at? What should they be preparing for? Wow, so while it was mentioned as a key challenge, the silo effect that we have currently. So I think to the extent that your vision is really multidisciplinary and yet client-focused. So always keeping in mind kind of what is the end goal, but not limiting yourself to any one discipline or kind of skill set I think is going to be more and more important. And those fundamental relationship skills are not necessarily learnable in school, but I think sometimes make the difference between success and failure in artwork because you do have to bridge cultures, you do have to employ diplomacy. There's a lot of persuasion yet passing the ownership and so those types of political savvy skills are really key. Tony, what would you say? Advice to future leaders. I think, first I think having the diversity of thinking is going to be very important. I think especially as the world gets smaller. And I do think people who have experiences on the ground is going to be very critical. I think traditionally it has been leaders coming from the more developed countries. And I do think now many organizations are really looking to increase leadership presence in the ground with local up and coming leaders not just from the developed world. And I think that's going to be very critical. I do think leaders are going to come women, different experiences, different backgrounds are all going to be very critical. And I do think listening is going to be very, very critical. There's been a lot of learnings in the aid world of not listening enough so we bring products that end up becoming failures. And I think that's going to be a critical, critical skill. Great. Wendy? I would just say to believe and enter to know that your ideas can have a tremendous impact and we are seeing young entrepreneurs really be able to play a significant role in development and we need those new ideas and new ways of thinking and the belief that small ideas can actually have tremendous impact. So I applaud you and wish you luck. You're absolutely needed so keep it up. The last thing I'd say is just perseverance. I think it's a very, very complicated problem we're trying to solve not enough just to have one great idea. You're going to need that one great idea and hanging on to why you believe in that great idea for months, years, if not even longer. So perseverance is definitely the key. Great. Well, we've got 16 seconds left to go. No, we're over by 16 seconds. I thank the panel. I thank you all. Thanks for your questions. Thank you very much.