ASHLEY: Welcome to Outgrowth: A Slice of Pro Beauty with your hosts Ashley Gregory Hackett.
JAIME: And Jaime Schrabeck. As legislation gets introduced and moves through the process, we have an opportunity to share our opinions in support or opposition of a bill.
ASHLEY: Submitting your position puts you on the record and may create allies you wouldn’t expect. When it comes to taking sides, consider all angles. Let’s grow together.
JAIME: Ashley, the timing of this episode could not be better because if we were to reflect on our last two episodes, this brings it all together.
ASHLEY: It does, and it’s so funny because we recorded the last two weeks’ worth of episodes in opposite order from when they were released, but it ended up being pretty serendipitous how it all worked out.
JAIME: The reason why we made the switch in order was because the newly introduced language for SB 803 was so important that we couldn’t wait.
ASHLEY: So we bumped it ahead in the schedule, and had previously recorded Consider the Source, and it just ended up being perfect because as we’ve seen things play out with the support or opposition and discussion of SB 803, we found it to be a good opportunity to consider the source and look into the information we’re being provided just to make sure that it’s on the up and up.
JAIME: Why does it matter? It’s because these sources have a significant impact on how legislators perceive our industry and will influence how SB 803 looks when it does finally pass and goes to the governor’s desk.
ASHLEY: That’s very true and a great point because all of the discussion that’s happening, whether in public or in private, on social media, or through written letters, it all tends to filter down into the zeitgeist of the conversation around a specific bill and the industry in general. And so that’s why it’s so important to be informed so that when you do take a position or make your feelings known, that it’s a decision that you’ve made based on all of the facts and all of the potential obstacles and considerations, instead of just having a knee-jerk, gut reaction to something.
JAIME: We encourage everyone if you haven’t had the chance already to listen to the last two episodes. They’re not long, but to give a brief recap, SB 803 is a bill in the California senate that was introduced by the chairperson of the senate business and professions committee, a Senator Roth. And Senator Roth’s bill is the result of the sunset review process whereby the government actually reviews the performance of a state agency, in this case, California’s Board of Barbering and Cosmetology. And this bill is meant to set the course for the next approximately four years of the board’s life. The board only exists because the legislature authorizes it to exist and the legislature directs the board into the types of improvements, changes that it wants to see in the way that the board operates. So when this bill was first introduced, it didn’t look like it looks now. The more recent changes, the most significant being the deregulation of haircutting and hairstyling is what has earned everyone’s attention.
ASHLEY: And ire.
JAIME: And ire. Yes, so really, when I say everyone’s attention, I don’t mean just people in California. I mean people throughout the country who are connected to our industry are waiting to see what California will do because if this bill were to become law as it’s currently written, you wouldn’t need a license to cut hair and that would be the most drastic deregulation of any state.
ASHLEY: I would greatly encourage anybody listening who hasn’t listened to at least our episode on SB 803, stop what you’re doing right now. Go back and listen to that episode. It gives a lot of good background as to why this bill is happening and why it’s different from every other bill introduced into a legislature in any state. This is a bill that has been introduced by a committee. It’s not just from a singular legislator. It is coming from the sunset review process, which means, I guess if you want to be very high level with it and very basic about it, it has a little bit more weight and credence only because it seems to be more informed, right? You’ve gone through this process. You’ve talked to the board. Everybody has presented what they’d prefer, and what they think should be happening, and so this is really the culmination of a lot of effort and a lot of time. And so when a committee chair brings a bill like this forth, it doesn’t seem to be open to a lot of debate. Am I right in making that assumption, Jaime?
JAIME: The assumption is exactly that, that the due process of having hearings, and having the board submit a report, and having stakeholders contribute during the hearings, during the public comment portion and submitting letters, there’s a lot that’s taken into consideration. So that it’s introduced now on the senate side, it still has to move through the assembly and we are likely to see the bill move out of the senate and into the assembly in the next couple of days. So this is a critical juncture. So we’re seeing now all this attention being placed on this bill. And again, go back and listen to our episode because at this point forward we’re going to assume that you know at least some fundamental things about it, and we’re going to be taking a deeper dive on some of the positions that have been taken. But that being said for any bill, you know, taking a step back when you read a bill and you want to express your opinion about it, you have some options. You can either agree with everything the bill says which is not very likely. You can disagree with everything that it says which is also not very likely because bills are complicated. And then there are some in-between positions you can take. And one of those in-between positions would be that you support if amended or support with amendments. And that means that in general, you support the bill, but you want certain things changed and you need to verbalize or write exactly what it is that you think needs to be changed. Or you could take the opposite tact, which would be to oppose unless amended, which means that generally speaking, you oppose most of the bill. You might like a few things, but on the whole, you are more negative on the bill than positive.
ASHLEY: And it is a point we did make in that previous episode is that most legislation is a compromise. It’s very rarely all or nothing. And even if you’re not in California, this just demonstrates how quickly something affecting our industry can happen. I believe that this bill was amended on the 11th of May. And now we’re looking at it leaving the senate chamber at the end of May. So about 20 business days total from when it was introduced to when it moves on into the other chamber, that’s very quick. And we talk about how legislation usually moves pretty slowly. It’s a process where we can get engaged and we can start our advocacy steps. This is everything on fast forward. And so I think that’s why we’ve had such extreme reactions from different parts of our industry where they’re saying oppose, oppose, oppose, kill the bill, stop the bill instead of necessarily wanting to take part in a collaborative process only because the timeline is just so advanced.
JAIME: It’s very advanced, but that gives us hope because once it moves beyond the senate, then it lands in the assembly where that same committee exists, but now it’s made up of assembly members and that committee has an assembly chairperson, Evan Low, who will be taking lead on amendments.
ASHLEY: Great, and that’s where I think a lot of the discussion will happen, hopefully. So I wanted to pick your brain a little bit and talk about some of the conversation that’s been surrounding this bill in the past 10 days or so, and maybe dispel some myths, and talk a little bit about how we can apply what we learned in Consider the Source to the conversation around this bill and why it is so important to form your own opinion first.
JAIME: What’s been interesting is to watch others become aware of this bill is to understand where they’re getting their information
JAIME: And as they get exposed to more information, watch their position shift. Let’s do this. Let’s go through some of these arguments because some people don’t think the board should exist at all.
JAIME: Right? So you’ve got people who don’t think licensing should exist. The board shouldn’t exist, no rules. It should be left up to the individual to open up a business and to operate, and up to the consumer buyer beware. You know it’s too bad if someone burns your scalp. You’ll know better for next time. Go on Yelp, write a review, and that should take care of everything. There’s, there’s that attitude about government regulation, right? So in that camp, any regulation is bad. Anything that deregulates is good. That’s one extreme. And on the other hand, you have individuals who may want even more regulation than we have now because they think that is the solution to creating safer services and protecting consumers. So you, you do have these two extremes, and again, compromise being what it is, the right answer is probably somewhere in the middle. We just don’t know exactly where that is.
ASHLEY: Right, and trying to get those two extremes to even be on the same planet, as opposed to represented in the same bill is very difficult as anyone could surmise. But specifically about SB 803 and the fact that there are these wildly divergent camps, it seems that a lot of the attention grabbing bullet points that are being used to garner support for their position are just outright incorrect. And the, the conversation, it’s so interesting, Jaime, because as you’ve brought me into this advocacy process, I am seeing new advocates being born every day.
JAIME: It’s working.
ASHLEY: It’s working, but to watch someone else go through the process of, wait, what? Uh, I don’t want that. What can we do? It’s so funny to see that timeline sped up and happening over the course of a Zoom call or a Facebook comment section. And the part that I find interesting is that as humans, we try to tend towards the easiest option, right, or the path of least resistance. And so a lot of us are very willing to take what someone tells us at total face value, and then take up torches, and pitchforks and say, well, I don’t want that. I’m going to sign a petition, or I’m going to write my senator, or I’m going to download this letter and fire it off in an email without taking the time to really understand what’s at stake, how it potentially affects my business or my industry personally, and then just hit the ground running. And so when you talk about taking the time to get informed, even if it takes an hour to read through the bill and do a little bit of research, it’s an hour very well spent.
JAIME: Incredibly well spent. And it’s obvious that not everyone is willing to devote that time because a lot of what I’m seeing is once they are paying attention, a lot of them take a step back and say, well, tell me what to think and then tell me what to do.
ASHLEY: Yes, yes, and one of the things that I thought was so interesting I’ve, I’ve actually pulled together some of the bullet points from positions taken by different members of our industry and the fact that a lot of it is pointing to using local nightly news adages, “if it bleeds, it leads.” It seems like they’re trying to grab everybody with the most egregious parts of this bill. Obviously, exempting haircutting and styling from licensure is very grabby, as well as referring to booth rental and how this bill will outlaw booth rental, which we both know, since we’ve read the bill, is just not true.
JAIME: Not only is it not true from reading the bill, but having had some previous conversations with those who would know, who are responsible for the language that appears in this bill, that is not the intent at all. In fact, the reason why that’s being done is because while we use the term booth rental in our industry, we know that’s not how it’s described in labor and tax law.
ASHLEY: Right, and so it’s so funny to see that information pop up because you know when the term booth rental or chair rental is being used, it’s originating from somebody in our industry. They know the nomenclature. They know the verbiage. They know what to say to get your attention. What I would really caution our listeners to do, and I think if you’re a listener of Outgrowth, or at least a regular listener of Outgrowth, you’re already doing this. But considering the source here is so important because a lot of the opposition is coming from people whose businesses would be directly negatively affected if some of the provisions of this bill were to take effect.
And so it’s very easy to say, well, I just oppose this bill. Kill the bill, instead of focusing on the provisions that would protect their very small niche part of the business so as to not draw attention to the fact that that’s what they’re really out for. And a lot of this misinformation is coming from those whose interests want to be protected, something like let’s say discontinuing the practical exam. And calling it a practice exam, showing just how dialed into the process this really is by not even using the right words.
JAIME: And that’s an excellent point because as we review who’s opposed and who’s in support, we realize that there are recognizable names and they’re divided along these two lines. We’ve already talked about there’s a continuum of position, right? It’s not just on either end. There’s those middle positions of support if amended or oppose, unless amended. Then we’re seeing people align in interesting ways. And I think that those alliances such as they are, are not truly alliances, but maybe just strange bedfellows in this process. So you might have an organization that could represent a broader cross section of the industry taking a position that would be very different from an organization that represents only one section of the industry.
ASHLEY: Absolutely, and representing varying numbers of people, which is something you and I have discussed off air. As far as if you, you know, I could roll up to a public comment and say, I represent the Lollipop Guild of America and that’s just you and me. The other part I wanted to get into with you as well as one of these bullet points, talking about accepting out of state licenses, and how this is being referred to as a bad thing because of not having commensurate schooling, or similar hours requirements in that state, or whatever. Reciprocity is a thing that exists already.
I am a direct beneficiary of that. Talking about reciprocity as this big, bad evil is so funny to me because it’s already happening.
JAIME: Not only is it already happening, but I will have, you know, that one of our Insiders was able to source some information directly from the board as to how many licensees actually have California addresses. Oh, it’s not nearly as many as you’d expect.
ASHLEY: Well, that’s very interesting.
JAIME: Yes, so that’s always something that I suspected because unlike a driver’s license, you can hold as many licenses as you qualify and want to pay for across the country to practice cosmetology, barbering, manicuring, esthetics, electrology or whatever is that you practice as long as you qualify and you keep paying your renewal fee, and if you have to do CE. You can keep renewing your license and hold multiple licenses in every state if you wanted to. I don’t know anyone who would want to do that necessarily.
JAIME: Because it would be a waste of money unless you were actually practicing there. But where this gets us into trouble for California and reciprocity is concerned is that California does not have a hair only license. So this is one of the things that the board asked of the legislature. Please give us permission to issue a hair-only license and design a hair-only curriculum so that we could then offer reciprocity to individuals coming from other states who have a hair-only license from their state.
ASHLEY: Dure. Well, and it’s interesting too because it seems whichever way the wind blows, there’s support or opposition for reciprocity. It seems when salon owners are trying to hire and they’re not finding enough qualified applicants, reciprocity is a good thing. But when it comes to reciprocity as seen as lowering standards in order to align with other states, it’s now tantamount to deregulation. So we have to really kind of pick a side here, not to put too fine a point on it. But you can’t take a position and then decide to take the completely opposite position just because today it benefits you. I think that’s something we alluded to in the intro is that once you take a position officially by creating a support or opposition letter, or even talking about it publicly on social media, you’re accounted for. You’ve drawn your straw. You’ve raised your hand and said, this is where I stand. Now, obviously, as bills get amended and things like that happen, your position can change. But it’s just very interesting to me to see who exactly is opposed to this bill outright, and who is in a very big staunch support of it as it’s written today. I think that’s why it’s so important to have these discussions and to make sure that they’re ongoing so that there aren’t misattributions made, or nobody’s speaking for you when you haven’t really said anything yet yourself.
JAIME: Yeah. Before we start boycotting companies, or organizations, or whatever it is, what I find even more interesting than the actual position is the explanation of taking the position. Because if in reading the position statement, I recognize misinformation, I’m discounting that position. I am not going to rely on that person as either an ally or an adversary if we’re not even understanding the same set of facts when it comes to what it is that the bill states and what the likely consequences are.
ASHLEY: Right, and we are seeing as well the opportunity to download position letters, and sign your name to it, and fire it off to a list of legislators. I’ve seen better writing in Highlights magazine. I think a lot of these letters are illiterate is a word I would use for some of them
JAIME: Yes, yes.
ASHLEY: And I would never sign my name. First of all, I mean just me being me, I would never sign my name to something I didn’t write myself. But secondly, I guess I would never really act as a foot soldier in the army of someone protecting their own interests and thinking I’m doing something here that I’m really like, I’m really out here working as an advocate by downloading a letter, signing my name, and forwarding it in an email.
JAIME: Well, and thank you for using that military language too because this is a war, Ashley. This, we are fighting a war.
ASHLEY: Yes, look out.
JAIME: You need to arm yourself and be prepared to take a life or surrender your own in defense, apparently. I want to take another step back here because.
JAIME: We can understand that legislators are concerned about what their constituents think and constituents are individuals. Constituents are people. Now not to say, cause people vote. Corporations don’t vote. Businesses don’t vote, but certainly, you know, people own corporations, and they own businesses, and they have financial interests. So what I don’t understand is how much of this is coming from businesses and not individuals. Because those of us who hold individual licenses, whether you’re a barber or cosmetologist, a manicurist, an esthetician electrologist, we’re the ones impacted. We are the ones most significantly impacted. And I find it quite disingenuous when organizations or businesses who aren’t us but use us to generate their income would represent us, or pretend to represent us, and tell us what to think without telling us exactly what their interests are. So for example, those who want to stop this bill altogether, which I don’t think is at all realistic given what we know about this bill, would it change your mind at all If you understood that the person who is organizing this owns a company that sells kits that students use to take the practical examination?
ASHLEY: Exactly. Would you willingly to sign your name to an official position letter protecting the interests of a huge corporation that up until now has been completely fine with the status quo? We’ve talked before in previous episodes about how the beauty school system could use some massive reform. We’ve talked about how the testing system could use some massive reform because the practical examination is really just a choreographed dance. Most states, including Illinois where I’m from, do not have a practical examination. You know, where were they on AB 5? Where was this company on, where are they on the personal services permit? Where are they on other pending legislation in California? It’s only when their livelihood is directly threatened by making money off of you that there’s now a website, an opposition letter written, multiple Zoom calls. So it’s really interesting to see who’s taking action and why. And that’s what we talked about in Consider the Source. Who benefits by you changing your behavior? Who benefits, whether materially, or by status, or whatever? Someone’s going to benefit. And we as an industry have acted too long against our own self-interest in support of distributors, huge beauty school conglomerates. It’s like at what point do we start to put ourselves as beauty service providers first? And with this bill, we are seeing so many potential positive changes. Let’s talk about estheticians for a moment. They haven’t had a review of scope since 1978, and this bill does that. Yet, because somebody’s school kits are no longer going to be purchased, they want to completely throw the entire bill away. That’s just not realistic, as you stated, but it also has the potential to harm a large part of our industry in California, which are estheticians. At what point are we going to become partners with each other, work interdisciplinarily? Is that a word?
ASHLEY: Then we can really achieve true success as an industry instead of just being led wherever the hair part of our industry says we should. And I don’t even think that this is necessarily the hair part of our industry speaking up. I think it’s just those with the biggest megaphones.
JAIME: The status quo has brought us to this point. And it’s not served us well, obviously. And anyone who is surprised by any of this has not been paying attention. It’s been obvious that things are trending this way. Does some of the bill go too far? Well, that’s up for discussion and that’s why we need to have the discussion. But to say, no, absolutely not. We are not changing a thing. We’re not reducing the hours. Everything should be the way it is. It’s worked so far. It hasn’t worked so far.
JAIME: Why is it that we have so many licenses issued in California, but very few of them are actually active and a huge number of them are actually delinquent, right?
ASHLEY: Or out of state.
JAIME: Or out of state which means, you know, who knows what that means? I mean I don’t think it means that that person’s flying out to California every third weekend.
JAIME: I don’t think that’s what that means. But I having participated in two meetings recently on two consecutive days, captures the dysfunction up to this point. So the first meeting was on Monday, and it was directed to schools,and sadly it was not recorded so that you guys could punish yourselves with watching it for yourselves, because I had to watch it because I needed to hear it. But it had to do with changes in the practical exam now that we’re sort of emerging from COVID protocols. And to have to listen as individuals we’re typing in questions, like what’s the uniform I have to wear and how do I have to label things? And what do I do with my dirty towels? And where do I store my supplies while I’m taking the written test? I mean just the same questions over, and over, and over again on this practical exam. How do I remove the sculptured nail? Can I use acetone? I can’t answer that question. That’s a procedure question. How frustrating. Anyone listening to that would walk away saying, you know what? Who needs the practical exam?
ASHLEY: Clearly it’s a broken system, and if we can’t look at ourselves, and look at what’s broken, and admit it, and acknowledge it, and work towards making it better, then someone’s going to do it for us and that’s SB 803. It’s a bill that was written by someone who’s not in our industry, obviously with information from what came from the sunset review process. But I don’t think that it’s necessarily coming from the point of view of someone who has a lot of respect for our industry. I think we’ve really kind of shot ourselves in the foot, especially with who was the loudest during stay-at-home orders through COVID, because just as we had suspected, our yelling about how much training we have in health and safety and why we are such a safe profession has come back to hurt us a little bit and is now being used as justification for why hours can be reduced. Because we held up our online certifications that we took during COVID, and we slapped those certificates on our front windows saying I took a 30-minute long webinar, and now I can tell you I’m very, very safe. Well, if you can do it in the 30 minutes, you don’t need a hundred hours for it. And we’re coming back to that again in even official documents.
JAIME: Well, and as someone who studied curriculum and instruction, that this is a conversation I’ve been wanting to have for a really long time. And to understand more about the arguments and how people are feeling about this, you could have watched yesterday’s state board meeting, which was solely focused on this subject. In fact, it was the only item on the agenda was discussion of SB 803, and the staffer who’s responsible for this bill was presenting, and you will be able to go back and rewatch that because it will be posted. We’ll put a link to where it will land, which will be the board’s YouTube channel. And you’ll go back and watch. It was a long meeting. It was about two and a half hours plus of discussion with the board alone. And then it opened up to public comment which went on for another hour or so. And it was sort of all over the place in terms of the understanding, even of the board. Because as we mentioned previously, the board changes. The executive officer stays the same. She has been in her position for many years and she’s fabulous at her job, but the board members from whom she takes direction change as they’re appointed by the governor.
JAIME: So there’s a lot of like getting caught up of board members. Plus you saw, again, some of their justifications, and some of them make sense to me, and some of them don’t, and again, you will not agree with everyone.
ASHLEY: Very true, and that’s why it’s so important to have your own position firmly planted because it’s very tough to argue or convince someone else of your position if you’re not entirely sure what it is yourself. And so it needs to be well-researched and even just informed with a few facts, because if you are armed with facts, and you are armed with the correct information directly from the source like the bill, you won’t get duped by bullet points on someone’s flyer telling you it’s going to eliminate booth rental. And it’s going to make sure that we have the lowest standards in the entire country for reciprocity reasons. No, it is not. And if you had read the bill and were able to articulate that you won’t get duped by, by bullet points, from special interests telling you what you should think about this bill. We have our own individual thoughts about it. We’re not going to go on record here and say this is what we think because, first of all, the bill’s likely going to be amended in some form or fashion. And second of all, that will happen between when we record this and when you listen to this, whether it’s the day it comes out or six months in the future. And so that’s why it’s so important to be fluid in your position and know how you feel about each one of the different propositions. And if you do support with amendments or oppose if amended, whatever, you’re going to be a much better constituent, a much better licensee, and you will serve the industry better by just being informed.
JAIME: You’ll certainly be more credible.
JAIME: And not only would I encourage you to do that research before you take a position, but once you take a position, be transparent about who you are and what your interest is in the industry. There’s no shame in saying, hey, I’m a licensed salon owner and I’m concerned that other establishments or other businesses, they won’t even need to be establishments, could open up, and compete against my business, and I will lose out financially if this bill passes. There’s no shame in saying that. Be upfront about what you’re most concerned about. And I think that’s where I get frustrated with these organizations trying to pull people together or these businesses trying to enlist either their customers or in some cases, the schools were prompting students to call. Now talk about working against your own self-interest. Yes, please. I want to go to school longer and I want to incur more debt before I could ever enter the industry. And oh, please make me, make me take that practical exam.
ASHLEY: Yes. Yes. Yes. That’s, I mean, you want to talk about an imbalance of power. Students, I think, in our industry have the least, which is no surprise to anyone, but then asking them to really vote against their own self-interest is yikes. Yeah, I guess at this juncture, I would just really caution anyone from signing their name to anything written by anyone else, whether it be a position letter, an email, a petition, anything like that. We in the past have offered a position letter for previous bills in different states and I fully expect our position on things to be questioned. I think it’s part of a healthy discussion and debate where we can all learn together about every different part of our industry from different beauty professionals to companies, to organizations and associations, whatever it might be. We are a far reaching industry. We are a pretty scattered industry, and that’s why it’s very easy to come at us because if the past year is any example, we will fight each other more viciously than we will come together to make sure that the legislation that reflects our industry is appropriate for what we’re doing in 2021. So sad state of affairs, but I am very encouraged by the amount of conversation that’s happening and the fact that at the end of the day, there are people that are aware of a current bill in the legislature that affects our industry is a win for everyone.
JAIME: That’s progress. It really is. And that we just have to apply critical thinking, and ask the questions, and don’t be afraid to, I don’t want to say challenge, but to, if you need further explanation of someone’s or some organization’s position, ask them. Ask them to explain themselves because through that, you might find something to like or something that you don’t agree with and that’s what you need. You just need more information and it actually helps. It actually helps you to be challenged on your position. It actually strengthens your argument to face that challenge.
ASHLEY: Absolutely, because you then have to justify to yourself why you feel the way that you feel and why you have the position that you have. And sometimes you’ll see through being challenged that you might actually change your position, or change why you have the position that you have, and that’s important. And I think just as a critical thinker and a citizen of the world, it’s a great thing to do. And B, is really think about why. Why we are, we’re doing any of this in the first place?
JAIME: I’m thrilled that the comments reflect that individuals are finding something to talk about and they’re feeling confident that they can reach out and express that. I mean, we do want people expressing their opinions. We just want more informed opinions.
ASHLEY: That conversation is happening on our Instagram, as well as our email inbox of all places. But we definitely encourage open conversation. If we’ve been receiving DMs from people talking about this bill, we’re encouraging them to leave a public comment on our social media so that we can have that conversation in the open. We’re happy to defend our individual positions on this with facts and sound conversation, and not just knee jerk reactions because as we have stated many, many times, all legislation is a compromise. And in order to come through this process unscathed, we’re going to have to compromise. It’s just a matter of where and realizing that if you make it all or nothing, you’re going to be disappointed.
JAIME: Whenever you use the term knee-jerk reaction, my mind focuses on the word jerk.
ASHLEY: Well, in most cases, it applies.
JAIME: Yes, exactly. And not as a verb, as a noun, for sure.
ASHLEY: I highly encourage everyone to share this episode, especially in places where conversation about SB 803 is taking place. Share the SB 803 episode. I think the more people that can get exposed to, not to pat ourselves on the back here, but we’re, we’re pretty level headed when it comes to these conversations and I think we’re not going to tell you what to think. We’re not going to tell you even what we think necessarily. We’re just going to encourage you to take the time to get informed and form your own opinion. And then go ahead and fight for that opinion, and be able to back it up in conversations surrounding it. That’s really what we’re after is just a more informed industry that is more active in advocacy.
JAIME: That’s an excellent summation, Ashley. Thank you.
ASHLEY: Thank you. All right. Well, if you’re enjoying Outgrowth, we would highly request that you leave us a review on Apple podcasts. You can do that now with just one click. Visit bit.ly/outgrowthpodcast.
JAIME: As always, you can follow us and comment on recent episodes on Instagram at @outgrowthpodcast.
ASHLEY: Well, I’m excited to see what happens in the next few weeks surrounding this bill, Jaime. And of course, we’ll make sure our listeners are informed every step of the way.
ASHLEY: All right. Until next week everyone, be smart.
JAIME: Be safe.