Podcast appearances and mentions of bob scott

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Bob Scott and David Tripp are back to talk stamp and coin collecting with you. Ray Graf hosts.

From the Row Crop Short Course in Starkville, Tom and Jason visited with MSU Extension's John Byrd and Bob Scott from the University of Arkansas about proper use of BASF's new Liberty Ultra with its new label passing steps of the Endangered Species Act.  That led into further discussion related to potential mitigations required under that legislation.  For more episodes from the Crop Doctors, visit our website at http://extension.msstate.edu/shows/mississippi-crop-situation #mscrops #MSUext

Today I am delighted to be joined by Bob Scott, Honorary Treasurer and Board Member of the Operational Research Society for this third podcast exploring Operational Research (OR). Bob is a former Senior Vice President of Capgemini. Today we explore OR applied to the automotive industry and the effect of having decisions taken in isolation. We talk about how a deep understanding of a business is only formed by being at the coalface or on the shopfloor.

Today I am delighted to be joined by Bob Scott, Honorary Treasurer and Board Member of the Operational Research Society for this second podcast exploring Operational Research (OR). Bob is a former Senior Vice President of Capgemini. Today we explore the difference that OR can make to the North American paper industry and in vastly reducing packaging costs in Europe.

Today I am delighted to be joined by Bob Scott, Honorary Treasurer and Board Member of the Operational Research Society. Bob is a former Senior Vice President of Capgemini. This is the first of a short series of podcasts that explore Operational Research (OR) which is using scientific methods to make better business decisions. In this episode Bob shares some of his stories of OR. We talk about Bob's career journey from Mining Engineer, through to Operational Researcher, consultant to the DTI ultimately becoming Senior Vice President of Capgemini. Bob also talks about optimisation and how this can improve industries from mining to airlines as well as business simulation and how this has benefited the oil and gas industry.

Bob Scott and David Tripp are back to talk stamp and coin collecting with you. Ray Graf hosts.

Bob Scott and David Tripp are back to talk stamp and coin collecting with you. Ray Graf hosts.

Episode 190 - Microsoft Sunsetting Dynamics GP and Bob Scott Retires

Recap of College FB with Bama Bob, Scott Dochterman on the Hawkeyes & Mr. Monday Night presented by Circa Sports

Recap of College FB with Bama Bob, Scott Dochterman on the Hawkeyes & Mr. Monday Night presented by Circa Sports

Comic Reviews: DC o        Gotham City Sirens 1 by Leah Williams, Matteo Lolli, Triona Farrell Marvel o        Blood Hunters 1 by Erica Schultz, Robert Gill, Rain Beredo o        Spider-Man: Black Suit and Blood 1 by J.M. DeMatteis, Elena Casagrande; Alyssa Wong, Fran Galan; Dustin Nguyen; J. Michael Straczynski, Sumit Kumar, Craig Yeung, Dono Sanchez-Almara o        Uncanny X-Men 1 by Gail Simone, David Marquez, Matt Wilson o        Venom War 1 by Al Ewing, Iban Coello, Frank D'Armata; Al Ewing, Carlos Nieto, Frank D'Armata o        Marvel Unlimited §  Dogpool 3 by Mackenzie Cadenhead, Enid Balam §  Savage Wolverine 1 & 2 by Tom Bloom, Devmalya Pramanik Boom o        Garfield 1 by Ryan Estrada, Sarah Graley, Axur Eneas o        Red Before Black 1 by Stephanie Phillips, Goran Sudzuka, Ive Svorcina Dark Horse o        Arkham Horror: The Terror at the End of Time 1 by Cullen Bunn, Andrea Mutti, Valerio Alloro o        Prodigy: Slaves of Mars 1 by Mark Millar, Stefano Landini, Michele Assarasakorn IDW o        Godzilla Rivals: Vs. Manda by Jake Lawrence o        Monster High: New Scaremester 1 by Jacque Aye, Caroline Shuda Image o        C.O.W.L. 1964 1 by Kyle Higgins, Alec Siegel, Rod Reis o        Cyber Force: Shootout by Billy Muggelberg, Bruno Abdias, John Starr o        Ore: A Starhenge Graphic Novella by Liam Sharp o        Power Fantasy 1 by Kieron Gillen, Caspar Wijngaard Mad Cave o        Kosher Mafia 1 by David Hazan, Sami Kivela Oni o        EC: Cruel Universe 1 by Matt Kindt, Kano; Corinna Bechko, Caitlin Yarsky, Michael Atiyeh; Chris Condon, Jonathan Case; Ben H. Winters, Artyom Topilin, Brittany Peer OGN Countdown o        A Phone Call Away by Rich Douek, Russell Olson o        Cat on the Run Vol 2: Cucumber Madness by Aaron Blabey o        Life in the Present by Liz Climo o        HoverGirls by Geneva Bowers o        Beneath by Steven DeKnight, Michael Gaydos, Toben Racicot o        Bendy: Dreams Come to Life by Christopher Hastings, Adrienne Kress, Alex Arizmendi o        We are Big Time by Hena Khan, Safiya Zerrougul o        Unico: Awakening by Samuel Sattin, Osamu Tezuka, GuriHiru o        Molly and the Bear: An Unlikely Pair by Bob Scott, Vicki Scott o        Loving, OH by Matthew Erman, Sam Beck o        How it All Ends by Emma Hunsinger o        Pet Wizards by Kirk Scroggs Additional Reviews: My Neighbor Necromancer, Legends of Tomorrow final season, surprise reality TV review (Blue Ribbon Baking Championship), Trap, Stephen King's Holly News: David Lynch retirement, HBO sneak peak, Box Office records, D23, Avatar 3 title, Inside Out spinoff series, Monster Trucks movie, Toy Story 5 plot, Hoppers, Incredibles 3 by Brad Bird, Zootopia 2 details and casting, DD s2 confirmed, Iron Heart, Marvel animation news for X-Men/Spidey/What If, Disney Parks announcements, new Transformers all-ages OGN from Skybound, Omninews, James Wan rebooting Creature From the Black Lagoon Ray pitches Inside Out 3 Trailers: Moana 2, Win or Lose, Agatha All Along, Skeleton Crew, Snow White, Mufasa Comics Countdown (07 August 2024): 1.     Deviant 7 by 2.     Birds of Prey 12 by Kelly Thompson, Javier Pina, Sophie Campbell, Gavin Guidry, Jordie Bellaire 3.     Power Fantasy 1 by Kieron Gillen, Caspar Wijngaard 4.     Public Domain 7 by Chip Zdarsky, Rachael Stott 5.     Uncanny X-Men 1 by Gail Simone, David Marquez, Matt Wilson 6.     C.O.W.L. 1964 1 by Kyle Higgins, Alec Siegel, Rod Reis 7.     Boy Wonder 4 by Juni Ba, Chris O'Halloran 8.     Space Ghost 4 by David Pepose, Jonathan Lau, Andrew Dalhouse 9.     Kosher Mafia 1 by David Hazan, Sami Kivela 10.  Doctor Strange 18 by Jed MacKay, Pasqual Ferry  

In this Forecast episode, Chrissie shares the 10 kidlit books releasing during August 2024 that she is most looking forward to.FEATURED TITLESPicture BooksMas. Menos! by Rhode Montijo (8/6)The Dictionary Story by Oliver Jeffers and Sam Winston (8/6)Pizza for Birds by Bob Shea (8/13)The Great Expedition by Peter Carnavas (8/20)Review by Mac Barnett in the NYTThe Ship in the Window by Travis Jonker and Matthew Cordell (8/20)Makers by Young Vo (8/27)GraphicsAn Unlikely Pair by Bob Scott and Vicki Scott (8/6)Let's Go Coco: A (Sorta) True Story by Coco Fox (8/13)The Legend of Tiger and Tail-Flower by Lee Gee Eun, translated by Aerin Park (8/13)Middle GradeRead At Your Own Risk by Remy Lai (8/13)Be sure to subscribe to the show wherever you get your podcasts. You can follow the show on Instagram @bookdelightpod, follow Chrissie on Instagram @librarychrissie, and subscribe to Chrissie's kidlit newsletter at librarychrissie.substack.com.If you want to support the show, please consider becoming a paid subscriber on Substack. For $7/month, you are helping to pay the costs of the show and receive exclusive content like extra booklists, roundups of kidlit books that have received starred reviews, reviews of books Chrissie did not like, and more.

Bob Scott and David Tripp are back to talk stamp and coin collecting with you. Ray Graf hosts.

Jason did a recent episode of the Weeds AR Wild Podcast with Bob Scott from the University of Arkansas Systems Division of Agriculture and Tyler Hydrick, a crop consultant from Jonesboro, AR.  They discuss ryegrass management, focusing on herbicide treatments, but also on some cultural practices too.  The episode is really not crop specific, but it does contain some information tailored to rice.    

Bob Scott and David Tripp are back to talk stamps and coins with you. WAMC's Ray Graf hosts.

 In this episode of season 4, Drs. Bob Scott, Jason Bond and consultant Mr. Tyler Hydrick discuss ryegrass resistance and control in burndown for multiple crops including Rice.

Drs. Bob Scott and Jason Norsworthy,  Rice Agronomist Dr. Jarrod Hardke, and  special guests Dr. Tim Walker, CEO of Horizon Ag, and Van McNeely president, head of US business with RiceTec, discuss rice seed availability, potential impact of the number of rice acres planted this year, current status of this years crop and rice weed control programs for 2024.

Drs. Tom Barber, Bob Scott and Jason Norsworthy discuss Italian ryegrass burndown mixtures prior to planting, glyphosate-resistant annual bluegrass (Poa), BMP's for glufosinate applications and necessary residuals for a successful start to rice weed control.

In this insightful podcast episode, we sit down with Bob Scott Jr, the mastermind behind Rabid Baits, a leading name in the fishing lure industry. Bob shares his journey of passion for bass fishing and how it led he and his father, avid fly fishing aficionado Bob Sr, to create innovative bait solutions that have revolutionized the way anglers approach their craft. From designing custom lures to understanding fish behavior, Bob's expertise shines through as he discusses the secrets behind Rabid Baits' success. Tune in to discover the art and science of fishing, straight from the visionary himself. Check out the lures and more about the Poultney VT-based company at rabidbaits.com

Rev. Dr. Rob Kasper, Michigan District, LCMS Director of Leadership Development, leads a discussion with Rev. Bob Scott and Rev. Steve Woodfin on alternate routes to becoming a pastor. They […]

Bob Scott and David Tripp are back to talk stamps and coins with you. WAMC's Ray Graf hosts.

In today's episode of Building Texas Business, join me as I welcome Corey Harlock of Key Hire Solutions to discuss his transformational journey transitioning from hospitality management to revolutionizing small business recruitment strategies. We explore Corey's grassroots experience and how reflecting on skills and networking empowered changes benefiting businesses, employees, and communities. From precision management to respectful rejection, Corey shares recruitment nuances and emphasizes reputation's role in success over time. As remote options demand adaptation, Corey relates relatable career anecdotes and perspective-shaping reads. His insights illuminate relationship-building, timing, and vision for seizing opportunities in fluctuating job markets. SHOW HIGHLIGHTS Corey discusses his transition from the hospitality industry to recruitment, highlighting the impact of hiring on small business owners' lives and the broader community. We explore the importance of reflecting on skills and the value of networking in Corey's journey to founding Key Hire Solutions. I emphasize the significance of managing the entire recruitment process to improve hiring success rates for small businesses. Corey explains the importance of treating candidates with respect throughout the recruitment process, including providing clear communication in cases of rejection. We examine the current job market trends, including the scarcity of candidates and the rise of remote and hybrid work arrangements. Corey advises on the critical nature of timely decision-making in the hiring process to secure top talent. We discuss how to hire for future growth, highlighting the need to find candidates who can scale with the company and align with its values and culture. Corey shares personal anecdotes about his early career, his move to Texas, and his reading preferences, such as "The Energy Bus." I recount the importance of meaningful connections in business and how books like "Barbarians at the Gate" await on Corey's reading list for inspiration. Corey offers advice to business owners on upgrading their hiring standards to attract professionals with the capacity to significantly grow their business. LINKSShow Notes Previous Episodes About BoyarMiller About Keyhire.solutions GUESTS Corey HarlockAbout Corey TRANSCRIPT (AI transcript provided as supporting material and may contain errors) Chris: In today's episode you will meet Corey Harlock, founder of Key Hire Solutions. Corey's goal at Key Hire is to improve the lives of business owners by improving the talent they hire, so they can focus on what is important to them. Corey, I want to thank you for taking time to join me here on Building Texas Business. Corey: Oh, great to be here. Yeah, good, good. Chris: So you're the founder of Key Hire Solutions. Tell us a little bit about what Key Hire is and what it's known for. Corey: Key Hire is. It's a business solution for small business owners. So we really target those small business owners five to twenty five million dollars and the reason we kind of the goal and mission of Key Hire is to make the lives of the business owners better by improving the talent and the capacity and the experience inside their business so they have time to focus on the things they want to focus on Whether that's getting a better night's sleep, spending more time with their family, going out and getting more sales, improving their business. And we can improve the lives of the business owners. They can be more focused and more happy at their business. It in turn improves the lives of their people in their business who then can go out and be more successful in their personal and professional lives and in turn that reflects on the community. So we really do see a holistic hesitate to use the word global because it's really community focus. But if we can do right by the business owner, they can do right by their people who can then go out and do right by their community and their families and their surroundings. Chris: It kind of builds each segment, kind of builds on the other right, correct. And when you tell a story that way, it emphasizes how connected it all is. Corey: Has to be yeah. Chris: So how did you get started with this, or what was a little bit about your background led you through your journey to get to Key High? Corey: Sure, yeah, I'm a recovering hospitality guy. I worked in restaurants for years and years. I did high-end, fine dining in boutique hotels out in Banff, alberta, canada, in the Rocky Mountains for years and years. That's where I met my wife and one day I came to the conclusion I was. I didn't want to be in that game anymore, and so I went through this kind of reflection process and said what skills do I have? And I kind of came out with three areas, three things I thought I could, that would could transition from the hospitality world into other worlds, and one of them was marketing, one of them was sales and one of them was recruiting. And at that time I was working six days a week and I had one day off a week and I made a promise to myself I would have coffee with anyone on that one day off a week and for about three, three months I just had coffee with. You know, you send out a help notice to your network, right? I'm looking at making a change. Here's what I think I can do. Does anyone know anyone I should talk to? And people get back to you. So I started having coffee and I ended up with this guy named Bob Scott who was a partner in a company called Questus recruitment in Calgary, alberta, and told him about my hospitality experience and in hospitality, a large part of what you do because of high turnover you do a lot of hiring. So I thought I was pretty good I thought I was good at it and he told me about how they had this great hospitality program at recruitment. He then also went on to tell me that none of us know anything about hospitality. So they hired me to build at this hospitality program and so that was my foray into recruiting and that was agency recruiting and I was with them for a number of years and it progressed that the main owner was a guy named Morgan Art and so eventually I created a company within a company called Questus hospitality recruitment and then Morgan and I partnered in that and then I bought him out, went out on my own and changed the name of the company of the hospitality recruitment network and did that for a couple years and then we got transferred to Houston. So I closed the doors and came down here. But I never liked the agency model. I mean it works for some people, but for me it just didn't, because it was so transactional and oftentimes you would work with business owners or corporations and you could see the problem they had or the disconnects or how they could be better. But as a transactional agency recruiter they just find you people right and don't bore me with that, just give me some. Chris: Yeah, I don't want to be better. Corey: I just need people. So you know, oftentimes you're putting people into a situation where you kind of didn't know how it was gonna work out and there's a lot of big failure rate in that type of recruiting and key hire. I wanted to create it to work with those little guys on a long way around. But I wanted to create it to work with the small business owners to really help them and impact them and work side by side with them and allow them to leverage that experience and improve their experience and their business and then their lives of their people and their lives of the community people in the community yeah. Chris: So I mean, I think one of the things that employers maybe don't realize on the front end, but certainly at some point come to realize how expensive recruiting can be for your business, from not just dollars out the pocket for a recruiting fee but you spend time away from your business doing the recruiting, sure, you have the onboarding, you have all these things until someone can be highly productive and, quite frankly, from the the hiring side, you know the transactional agency model. Sometimes you don't think they really care, like said, they just want to place them once they get a fee. Corey: So there's this bad taste about even having to engage in the process and I think where I never aligned with that is when my motivation is to get paid and your motivation as a business owner is to make your business better. Those don't line up in the big picture right. There's a big disconnect in there and what do you do then, I guess? Chris: or what have you done? Key hire to you know. Bring that right in the line yeah, that and that's the question. Corey: So when I built the business, the three kind of core values I wanted to that I thought were important were the value of the time of the small business owner, because, exactly what you said, I don't think anyone starts a small business or starts a business because they love to hire people. They have a passion and something they love to do and part of growing a business is hiring right. Chris:Well, I can promise you everyone that's come on this podcast, as a business owner has said, how important it is to have good people, and right means hiring good people, not missing. So, to your point, though, they think about the passion, the idea that's the core to the business, but they all acknowledge down the road that hiring good people is the key to success yeah, and so I agree with that. Corey: And you golf, I do so. I haven't golfed in a while, but I used to golf quite a bit. I was never very good and I've probably hit tens of thousands of golf balls. Could I be an instructor, golf instructor? no, because I probably hit 10,000 golf balls wrong yeah right, and just because we hire every day doesn't mean we are experts at hiring. It means we've hired because we've had to and so we wanted to honor people's time. We wanted to impact their business through kind of experience and talent. But we also wanted to create a pricing model that was fair and equitable for both sides. And that was the biggest key for me was, you know, not having huge fees, not have a business owner feel like man, I paid up a lot or I've invested a lot in trying to get someone and the results were me yeah so we, the model of key hire is, you know, we get paid for the work we do, but we guarantee the hire and the work we do is a lot more exhaustive than what a traditional agency might do. And so, if I break down those three criteria, on average our clients pay less than 15% per hire, if you wanted to compare it to the agency model. Right, sometimes they're less than 10% and I think that's great because I want them to get value and we show up as a fixed cost on the P&L. There's no surprises, there's no gotchas, it is what it is. You can budget for what we do and we have monthly fees that are very affordable for the business. But the second piece of that is, you know, making sure that we're valuing their time. We dive into the business and we spend, you know, 8, 10, 12 hours inside a business before we do anything. We want to create an action plan for that business owner. You know we're an in-sourced solution, so we become their fractional department of talent. So we want to make sure we understand the business almost as well as they do before we go to work for them, so we can tell their story in the marketplace, right? Chris: Correct and be looking for the right fit from a cultural standpoint, mindset standpoint for that company right. Corey: Exactly. And then the you just touched on something really important, right? There's the kind of three things we want to break down. We want to break down the experience they need in their business. We want to break down the culture fit, because that is super important. If you have a small business, if you have 20 employees and we're bringing someone in, that's 5% of your culture. And if that's not aligned or we always like to say, if we're going to put someone on your bus, we want to put them at the front so all the people behind you are saying, wow, that's a really great, they're really good at what they do and they're a really good fit. I need to raise my game right. Rising tide raises all boats, so we want to make sure we're doing that. The third and most important and overlooked element is capacity. So many people hire for their current needs because they're in this kind of fire drill. I just need someone and they look good enough, right, reactionary, correct. So we want to get in there and build capacity in the business. One of our favorite phrases is we're not hiring someone to run your $10 million business. We're hiring someone to run your $50 million business, currently doing 10. So we want someone who can bring the experience and the capacity to build process and procedure and has leadership capabilities to scale. Chris: Well, I, you know, full disclosure for everyone out there. I can speak from experience. Have them work with you now for the better part of 2023. It's a totally different experience, in a good way and dealing with the hiring and recruiting and acquisition of talent, Love the investments you made in learning our firm and our business, and how can't imagine how much time I didn't see you put in behind the scenes to make sure you were bringing us the right candidates and cutting out the first two rounds of interviews, just to you know. It is a huge time savings, you know, for us. Corey: Yeah, well, I think we put two people in here, and, if my memory serves me, you guys have conducted a total of four interviews to hire those two people. Chris: Yeah. Corey: And I bet you the total man hours on that would be two, four, probably in the neighborhood of 12 total man hours to make those two hires from Boyer Miller. Yeah, I would say max. Chris: Yeah, so it does seem like. Well, obviously there's a model that I think has value you know talk about. Maybe. I guess you know what led you to that. Because in my mind, what you're doing in the hiring process is innovative. I don't know anyone else that really does this. What? Corey: was it. Chris: I guess, based on your experience, that kind of led you to this. What feedback did you get? You know, would you draw upon? Corey: The agency model is kind of go out, hunt, kill, throw it over the fence and then turn it over to a company who may or may not have a really effective interview hiring process. So, selfishly, I thought if I can control everything from beginning to end and understand the needs of the business and the needs of the candidate and manage those expectations, you would have a bit of better success rate and you can learn from what's happening. You know, a lot of times we'll go through the process with someone, like we did with you for the first role, and we didn't get it right the first time. But because I was there and managing the process and a part of it, I could hear the feedback, I could learn about your company more so that I could be better at going into the market, telling your story and identifying who's right for your business. So I think what's different is if we're going to work with you, it's required that we manage the whole process. We will never when people say well, look, you just bring us the people and we'll take it from there. That's a hard no for me, because for me to do all that work you know you talked about stuff behind the scenes For us to do the 10, 12, 15 hours of work behind the scenes before you give us an hour of your time. It doesn't make sense, right To just say here, I've done all this work, here's what it is Now, give it to you and then be blind about why didn't it work? Why was it a fit? Why was it a fit? Chris: Right. I guess it prevents you from learning and adapting and getting to that success point, because you said you earlier, you guaranteed the hire. Corey: Yeah, and I can't guarantee someone I was an involved with from the beginning to the end. And the other thing is we keep people on time. Yeah, because timing is a big issue in terms of getting people on board in this marketplace. So if we're driving that process and kind of, you know, tapping our clients saying, hey, I need to hear from you, we need to get this done, and they expect that right, if that wasn't part of the agreement and I'm just this pushy guy who don't worry about it, you've done your part, we'll let us handle the rest, it doesn't make sense. So we just want to control the process, because this is all key hire dots. We just do talent strategy acquisition and develop processes for hiring. This is what we're expert in. So in our process, the data says the process works pretty good. Right, we have a 90% success rate in terms of putting people into companies and getting them to their six months and beyond. We have some people that have been working. I have a client the second client I ever signed seven years ago, the person I put in one of the first people I ever put in a business as operations manager, is now the VP of operations seven years later and the owner is still aesthetic with that person. Chris: That's awesome, so it brings up a good point. You clearly have built your business off of key relationships, partnerships with companies and others. What's some advice you can give to other business hours out there about how to go about building those relationships so that they're sustainable and help kind of grow your business from them? Corey: And when you say relationships, you're meaning just within their own markets. Chris: We're both, I think, within your own market and maybe beyond. You've done that to kind of grow your business off of relationships, so what? Are some of the things that you would say you found to be successful in helping you do that. Corey: Well doing. Whatever your product or service is, you have to deliver it well. Right, and I think that's the goal of every business that gets set up. But I think one of the more overlooked things is reputation is one of your biggest recruiting tools. Your reputation in the market, your reputation amongst your peers, reputation cross market who other people might interact with you but the big one is the reputation you have with people who have applied to your company and whether they were hired, interviewed or not. And let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. We don't post jobs, but I know a lot of business owners do, and that's kind of what you have to do as a business owner to try to attract people. So you post a job and 50 people apply to that job and 49 of them don't hear anything ever from you in return for that application. Those 49 people are three or four times more likely to never reapply to your company, even if you get successful and become a big company, they have a bad taste in their mouth and they will not apply to your company and they will tell people I mean, I applied to those guys and they never even come back to me. That's reputation in a really important market, the candidate market. Now, if you were to create a template that just said hey, thank you for your application, your experience looks really good. Unfortunately, I don't think it aligns with the job we have right now and I wouldn't want to put you in a situation where you weren't going to be successful. But I would love to keep your information here on file and reach out. If something more suitable does come open in our company, all the best. What's that person going to say now? Chris: You're definitely going to feel like you cared enough to reach back out. Corey: And you'll be one of the one in a hundred that took the time to reach back out. I can tell you this I've interviewed people and I believe in the good, the bad and the ugly. So throughout the interview process I might come to the conclusion they're not the right fit, and I'll have a conversation with them at the conclusion of our conversation and say here's where I land on this. I don't think this one's a fit, and here's why. You're obviously very good at what you do and I get that, but what we're looking for is really specific and I don't doubt you could figure it out. My challenge is we don't have time for you to figure it out and I would not want you to start a new role where the expectations are super high and you're disappointed and we're disappointed. I don't want to do that too. And man, I bet you 99% of people say you know, corey, that makes a lot of sense. Thank you for being honest with me. Then some of them and I might say 10% or less will follow up with this. I get it. I'm not right for me, but I have someone you should talk to. I've just told them they're not getting the job, but because I took the time to be honest and respectful and clear about why they say you sound like a good guy. Let me help you. Chris: That's amazing yeah. I can see how that would be right. So let's, talk a little bit about just what you're seeing out there in the job market. I mean, you know. Corey: I was talking a minute ago, you know, here we are, and you know, kind of starting a new year. Chris: What are some of the things you think employers should be looking for? And then maybe the other as a candidate, you know what kind of things. What should the expectations be Right, because I think a lot has changed even in the last 12 months about you know those two topics. Corey: Sure, a couple of things. The unemployment claims are going up slowly and they've been talking. I think we're supposed to be going into recession what for about 18, 24 months now. So if it's going to happen or not, it's still unknown. It feels like we're dipping a bit, but what's important to remember is, even in our current market, which feels a little softer than it was, there are still fewer people available than there are jobs open. And I think that number sits around like 0.7, 0.8 people per open job, really Okay. So we're going to be the thick of it and now that the people coming up in the system, there are fewer of them, right, Like we're past the baby boomers and there are just fewer people and there are more open jobs. So even if we get into a bit of a recession, there's never going to be that well, there's going to be so many people apply for this role that we'll just pick right. We are, for now, an imperfectity in a situation where it's a candidate driven market and they can be choosy. So that's something worth knowing. Chris: And just to kind of tag on that, I would have to believe that some of the flexibility and work remote has contributed to that as well. Correct? Corey: Yeah, so I'll touch on that in just a second. So we understand we have fewer people that are going to apply or we're going to be competing for people. If you're excited, I always tell my clients if we're excited about someone, I can promise you someone else's too, because they didn't just apply here. But that's one of the advantages using like a key hire, because we kind of go out and get people, even if they're not looking, and we can kind of get in the rear and have a conversation and engage with them. Chris: That makes sense. I mean it's a competitive. Corey: But if someone has decided to make a move, they're not just talking to you, and if they're good, more companies than yours will be excited about them. So speed matters right. It's the, I think, the stat is. Most candidates, when they start looking for or interviewing for jobs, are off the market in two weeks. So you have 10 business days to get it done. Chris: That's not a lot of time. Corey: But it can be done, right, when we do. That's part of the process that we have, because that's one of those key elements and landing that, those people you want. So then you touched on so we have fewer people and now we have these classifications of schedule that didn't exist what three years ago? Right, we have remote, we have hybrid and we have in-office schedules. Now, they always existed, but they were never prominent and they're the remote. People were told they weren't able. We can't afford to have you working at home, we're not set up for that. Then overnight was like hey, go work at home, we were set up for that. So, people, you we hear this right like, well, I've always wanted to do this and I was told I couldn't. And now the big companies are calling people back, they're starting to. So there's a movement back to the office. But there's also a movement amongst individuals and people out there saying, well, I don't need to go back to the office because I know there are other jobs out there that will let me work in the office, and so this is a conversation we have with our clients a lot. I think I had this with you guys. Chris: Thanks. Corey: It was about the. So if we have an in-office role, we need to target people that are, if argument's safe, in a 10 10 mile diameter from our office for make the commute, have the commute make sense. Now, if there are a hundred people in that diameter or radius or a diameter, right, that's the whole. So there are 100 people that can do our job in that diameter 10 10 mile diameter. There's only about 20 of them, 20% that are willing to come to the office. So we've taken our candidate pool and chiseled it at down to 20 out of 100. Now we have to have those 20 people. We have to a find them, be, make sure they have the skills we need and See, make sure they're even open to a new role. Right, 10 of those people are probably gonna say, no, I'm not even interested. Right now we're down to 10 people. If we move to a hybrid and I think I need to practice by saying there are two types of roles there's flexible and inflexible roles. So if I'm at a machine Turning a metal part, I can't do that remotely. That's not a flexible role, sure. But if I am in in accounting or an administrative function or sales, those are flexible and we can allow people to have that flexibility. So if we move to a hybrid role, we can expand that diameter a little bit, say to 20 miles, because if people only have to come to the office Two or three times a week, they might drive a little longer. But we also might increase our talent pool by 3x. Now we maybe have 300 people and we have 80% of 300 to draw from, because there's 20% of those are like I only want remote. But the people that are in office and the people that want hybrid will look at increases. Yeah, right, the interest correct. So now we're at 80% of 300. We're at 240 people versus the 20. Now if we go remote within the city say look at, I want someone remote, but I need them here in Houston because I want to bring him into the office once a month or twice a month to do whatever. Now we have, you know, 10x. Now we have a thousand people and the people that like being in the office won't be interested. So we have 80% of a thousand people. Yeah, so it's just a. For me it's working, the probabilities of it and whatever you choose to do is fine, man, I think what I'm hearing a lot about hybrid is. People are saying things to me like this a lot more. I'm happy to go in the office, but I want the flexibility if I have a doctor's appointment, just to work from home that day, so I can go to the doctor and come back and I don't have to drive all the way in the office and all the way back. So people are looking for Hybrid is starting to take on a bit of a different. If I could get a like one day or two days from home, or have the option like, if I have stuff going on, if my son has an early game on Thursday, if I could just work from home that day so I can just like get my work done, not be stuck in traffic, and then go see my child's game or performance or whatever. Chris: Up to 30 minutes for game time instead of hour and a half. Corey: Right, because they can you. So I think Hybrid, the definition of hybrid, is shifting and changing a bit. I am hearing more people saying yeah, man, I just want to. I'd really like to be back in an office. I like being around people. This remote thing just doesn't work for me. It's not going to go back to the way it was, but I think it's going to normalize here a bit. Chris: So let me ask you this from a company standpoint. I think from what I've experienced talking to friends, you know, read it in Wall Street Journal or whatever the companies are saying. Look at this, the fully remote Maybe or hybrid, that bias towards remote is a roadie. Our company culture because our people aren't too bad, there is much. What are you hearing from employees and the candidates about their view of Building culture or fostering culture and the need to either be any office some versus Really think it can be done fully remote. What's the kind of the censure getting in the candidate pool on that topic? Corey: I think it's easier to do in a smaller company. You know, I have a client now. They're 20 people, but every morning they have. They're all remote, but every morning they have a video call and they talk about who's working on one and what, who needs to interact with who and so. So they do it that way. In a larger company, I see it being harder. Chris: Yeah, it's just yeah, and there's just. Corey: There's more moving pieces and more departments and more people that have to get connected. And trying to get 500 people on a video call every morning would be hard, sure, but I do think and it might boil down to the person, chris, you know, some people are at home and they just do what they do and those I always say these employees, the people that just want to go work in a in their office and close their door and say, yeah, please don't bother me, I don't want to talk to anyone. They're super valuable people. If you have them in the right role and if they're working remotely, that might be just fine. But then there are some more Dynamic roles in the company where you do need that interaction and I think that's where that hybrid piece is Important to say, hey, we do need you in the office and I know your company culture here is really built around human interaction and keeping people close together. And, yeah, it's important to be able to walk down the hall and knock on someone's door. So I think that's where the hybrid model if you can pull someone in instead of a fully remote to a hybrid and kind of transition them there, you're gonna get that kind of dynamic Interaction and you're gonna foster culture more and people get to know each other and kind of on a personal level as well as a professional level. But it's, I don't know that there's a One answer, because every company needs to figure out Every company's per. I always say every role is perfect for someone. We just need to be honest and really define what that role is and what the company is and what the culture is, and then find the Person who's looking and craving that Right, and so I think a lot of what a lot of people will do is Find people and tell them what they want to hear and then when they get in the door they kind of think well, maybe I don't know if they told me the truth here. Yeah and then they start that relationship off a little bumpy. But if you're clear, like you guys are, about what you are and who you are and how you, you see the people interacting. People are either gonna love that or they're not. But that's all you want, right? The bet getting a hell yeah or a hell no, that's, that's a gift. There's value in both, right. I mean hell knows as valuable as a hell yeah, because you're not gonna waste any more time if you put it up front, say this is who we are and what we do, and if that excites you, let's talk more. If that doesn't sound exciting to you, probably not, for you. Chris: There's another place. It's right for you. Corey: Yeah, for sure there is. That's what I told you all the time. That make you bad person. Chris: There's just no different places they're gonna fit yeah that's exactly it. Corey: I think we do get a little people get a little hurt or whatever when they get rejected by someone, but sometimes that's Best thing that could to get happen. Chris: Yeah, any. You just thinking about the business owner out there, make you know, with the pressure of making some hires or filling some roles, trends, that you're seeing any pointers you might add you know, provide, say you know if you're gonna, if you find yourself in the need, you know hiring. Here's some things to focus on to make sure you get it right. Corey: Yeah, so what? The business owners I deal with? And I love working with business owners as they're always passionate, smart, driven people and they're all different personalities and I love speaking with them and learning from them. That's kind of that the secret behind why I started key hire to? Because Hang out with business owners is a really Awesome experience, just to hear how they think and what they do and why they do it. I love hearing the stories and I love be able to take those stories out and tell people about them, the if I could give them a piece of advice and I'm speaking to small business owners here right. But so we're always looking to bring people in with capacity. So don't hire for current needs. Hire for what you need five years from now. That's number one, right? Remember the phrase we're not hiring you to run our business currently. We're looking for you to run our business 5x Currently doing with our current revenues. So if you do that, you'll redefine what good looks like. And I have a client in Birmingham. His name is Edgar and he runs one of the coolest food manufacturing businesses in Birmingham. I worked with him four years ago and he wanted he had a role within his business that he thought he needed and after we did our diligence and spending time, I flew it to Birmingham, spent two days with them. I said I think you're too small on this. You know, we got a dream bigger and so we redefined the role. We found an amazing guy and put him in there and Edgar loves him and he's now his director of operations. Right, he wanted him to do this kind of smaller role, but I said no, we need to hire someone with the capacity to take over your whole operation. So I'm working with Edgar again, but I asked them this question. I said when we talked four years ago, you thought you had a really great team and then we put this new person in there, a professional, someone who had more experience than you needed today and was a true professional at what they do. Did that change your definition of what a good employee looks like? And he didn't even hesitate. He said absolutely, and I could see it in them. The way he viewed his hiring was different. The people he had hired since we worked together were Different. They were. They were just bigger, better, more capacity. They had that level of professionalism. And I guess what I want to stress is you have to grow your business a certain way, right. You hire your friends, your relatives, your neighbors your relatives are your neighbors and you hire a team that you hope can get it done. And if you're successful here's the paradox if you're successful, your business will outgrow the ability of all the people how who helped you get where you want to go. That sucks, because now you want to grow and all the people that helped you get to this level of success Don't have the jam, they don't have the capacity, they don't have the experience, the draw upon To help you get to the next level. And it's a horrible position for a business owner to be in it. And I've said to them all. I said the hardest. I don't care how long you've had your business and what you've gone through. The hardest decision you will ever have to make is looking across the table from someone who helped you get where you are today and telling them Thank you for everything you've done, but I don't think you can get me where I want to go from here. Chris: Yeah, it's. I've seen it happen time and time again Company out grows their capacity. Corey: Yeah, they just, and they're not. They're great people doing the best job they can. They just don't have. You know, the busiest business They've ever worked in is your business today. The business business they will ever work in is your business tomorrow, and they don't have anything beyond that to say, oh, this process is broken, or here's where our constraints are, or here's what we need to change. When your only input becomes ours, you've run into that wall where you think, okay, we need to upgrade process procedure, we need to include automation if people don't understand how to do. That's kind of your real limiting factor, that's your biggest constraint. So if I were to give business owners advice, it's that right, understand what 2.0 looks like in terms of your talent and capacity and experience. And I never advocate for like abandoning those people who got you where you are. You have to treat them well, but there will become a point where they could turn into a constraint to your growth and I've had lots and lots. I mean that's the other part of what we do, right, we sit with business owners and we walk them through these, like how to have these conversations with someone, and we can help them leave the company gracefully. We can reposition them within the company. There's lots of things we can do, but we always want to make sure we're treating them with respect, because they've probably given you blood, sweat and tears to get where you are and you just don't want to. I don't think I've ever come across a business owner who's like yeah, I just need to get them out of here. They're like it tears them up. It's a hard decision to make. Chris: Yeah, no, I can see that. That is great advice, though, for anyone that's out there running a business about to start one that you got to you know. There's another analogy and you're a hockey guy, I'm not, but I've told us before it's kind of the same to business. Is you look to where the keep your eyes on, where the pucks going not? Corey: where it is right. Chris: That's it, yeah, so they're always looking forward and what do you need to be doing to drive forward? And talent, your talent's the key to that. Corey: Well, I don't know how much time we have, but I can give you a kind of a quick walk through in terms of the kind of growth through a business that we've identified. Let's do that and then we'll wrap it up. Okay, so we've identified kind of five stages of growth through a business owner, and so the first one we've identified is what we call the paralyzed business owner. Right, it's a fire drill. They need instant relief. If you use a car analogy, the wheels have fallen off the machine. Right they're. If you look at their org chart, they're sitting in five, six, seven different seats because everyone's trying to do everything and they're at this. My only input is time, right. And so their mindset is I just need help. And they often think if I can just hire the right person, my life will be better. But obviously that's not how it works. But if you can hire the right person, you can take a little pressure out of the tire. Right, give them back a little time. You know, maybe they can have one dinner at home with the family versus zero, and then from there, from this kind of paralyzed state, they move. Then they move into the unsure state. So you put a really good professional person in the business, whether it's operations or in the administration or in the sales department, and they go oh, that's what good looks like, this person's really helping me. So they transition into this unsure and they start thinking, well, what else could I do? I know I have other problems in the business, but I don't know what they are right. So we call this the wobbly wheel. Now the car is kind of it's. They're on the road but they're wobbling down the road right. And so they know they have some constraints in their business, but they're not at the point yet where they can put their finger on and say that's a problem. So then you put kind of another professional in there to kind of take a little more pressure out of their tire, and they go oh, now they have a little more time to focus on important things. They have some professionals, some transformational talent in key places. So now they transition and this is a big transition where they go into the curious owner where else can I make upgrades in my business? And this is where they start looking. Now they can say I think this leader is a problem. You know, I've expected. I've asked them to, told them here are some deliverables. I need them done by this timeline. They're missing them. I think that is a problem there. So they're starting to now understand where the problems are. And this is where we say you know, you have a flat tire right. You just need to put some air in that tire and you can get back up on the road. And then they transition into a growing company. So now we're kind of putting professional, transformational talent in key roles and now they're at the point where they move to a growing company where you know, before they were paralyzed, then they were kind of walking, and now they're kind of in a growing like. They're moving forward, they're confident in their team. And growing company is now we're adding new talent. I need new layers, new levels, new roles we never thought about. So we're creating a lot of new roles and we're really kind of bolstering the company with the talent and the capacity and experience they need to continue growth. And then the final transition is they become strategic. That's just like we know exactly what we need, just start filling in the spots and let's roll right. So that's kind of the progression we take our people through and that how we identify where people are and that kind of okay. Chris: Yeah, I love it. Yeah, it's a great, almost visual, as you, you know, describe it and walk through it right. Corey: And so if you do the wheels right, so the curious person has the flat tire, so you go from wheels off the machine to a wobbly wheel to a maybe a flat tire. And then the growing guys like we just upgraded the wheels, gave them low profile, new rims, the whole deal right. And then it's strategic, is like we're adding wheels on the car, on the machine, because it's just flying down the road. Chris: Awesome, yeah well, court, thank you for coming on and sharing this. Let's let's talk a little bit on the personal side, sure? What was your first job? My? Corey: first job was a dishwasher at a restaurant called Casey's Roadhouse in Oshawa, ontario all right. Yeah, I started literally in hospitality that was probably why I stayed with it, because when I was 14 I was washing dishes. The unintended consequences of that job is I met two guys that I went to school with. That I didn't really know very well actually, I didn't go to school with them at that time. I was, I think I was, maybe I did. I didn't know them very well, but you know, fast forward 40 years later and one of them still a good friend of mine and I was able to hang it with them last summer and so made some lasting friendships out of that very. I mean, it was a horrible job, right the right of all the service coming in, all the cool people like you're 14 and there's all these 18, 19, 20, 21 year old cool kids coming in, throwing slop at you and yelling at you and making your life miserable. But yeah, built character. Chris: I guess yeah, okay, so you know from Canada, newer to Texas, but do you prefer Tex-Mex or barbecue? Oh man, that's tough okay, tex-mex yeah any books you read you or read recently you recommend. Corey: I just listened to the energy bus that was recommended by Bart Pitcock in my Vistage group. Okay, it's kind of a fable that's along the lines of the home man who sold his Ferrari oh, mongu sold his Ferrari by Robin Sharma. It's just kind of this fable about kind of changing your mindset, which is cool, and I have barbarians at the gate sitting on my desk right now, which I'm about to get into. Chris: Okay, a little holiday reading well again, corey, I really appreciate your time. I think what you're doing at Keiher is great. I certainly appreciate the relationship and the friendship yeah, I mean thanks for having me on. Corey: I think you guys are doing a great job too. I love this company and can't say enough nice things about the way you run your business. You guys are clear on what you do, you're in a great organization and I'm super happy to be helping you. Oh, thank you. We appreciate it. Take care, thank you.

Today we talk stamps and coins with Bob Scott and David Tripp. Call with your question. 800-348-2551. WAMC's Ray Graf hosts.

With Mansfield police arresting Bob Scott's murderer, the case looks like it'll be closed quickly. But revelations before the cops reach Devil's River will cause a sensation – and leave the Victorian government with a controversial decision to make.Murder at Devil's River - Part Three: Australia's First Femme Fatale will go general release on 27 November.Part Three is available early and ad-free to Apple and Patreon supporters.Support Forgotten Australia:Apple - http://apple.co/forgottenaustraliaPatreon - https://www.patreon.com/ForgottenAustraliaTo send a question to David Hunt for the Book Club episode:Email - forgottenaustraliapodcast@gmail.comAudio - https://www.speakpipe.com/forgottenaustraliaBuy my books, Australia's Sweetheart, Hanging Ned Kelly and The Murder Squad at:https://www.booktopia.com.au/australia-s-sweetheart-michael-adams/book/9780733640292.htmlhttps://www.booktopia.com.au/hanging-ned-kelly-michael-adams/book/9781922806406.htmlhttps://www.booktopia.com.au/the-murder-squad-michael-adams/book/9781922863836.html Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

College Football talk with Bama Bob, Scott Dochterman on the Hawkeyes & Mr. Monday Night presented by Circa Sports

College Football talk with Bama Bob, Scott Dochterman on the Hawkeyes & Mr. Monday Night presented by Circa Sports

On 11 November 1863 – 160 years ago this month – history was made in Victoria when the murder of drunkard Bob Scott was avenged on the gallows in Melbourne Gaol.But what had really happened when a midnight shot was fired in the darkness of a Devils River grog shanty?Was justice done at the hands of the hangman?Murder at Devil's River - Part Two: I'm Innocent But I Know I'll Hang will go general release on 23 November.Murder at Devil's River - Part Three: Australia's First Femme Fatale will go general release on 27 November.Part Two and Part Three are available early and ad-free to Apple and Patreon supporters.Support Forgotten Australia:Apple - http://apple.co/forgottenaustraliaPatreon - https://www.patreon.com/ForgottenAustraliaTo send a question to David Hunt for the Book Club episode:Email - forgottenaustraliapodcast@gmail.comAudio - https://www.speakpipe.com/forgottenaustraliaBuy my books, Australia's Sweetheart, Hanging Ned Kelly and The Murder Squad at:https://www.booktopia.com.au/australia-s-sweetheart-michael-adams/book/9780733640292.htmlhttps://www.booktopia.com.au/hanging-ned-kelly-michael-adams/book/9781922806406.htmlhttps://www.booktopia.com.au/the-murder-squad-michael-adams/book/9781922863836.html Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Caleb interviews Bob Scott from Lowe's Greenhouse of Chagrin Falls, Ohio, a full-service landscaping and garden center business that has been in business for nearly 100 years in the Cleveland area. Caleb and Bob discuss the history of Lowe's Greenhouse and how they navigated the challenges of the pandemic while continuing to serve their local community. NEW Hardscape Mastery Summit Announced March 1st-2nd, 2024 | Secure Your Spot! Lawn Care Life Conference - Reserve Your Spot! https://www.companycam.com/podcast Auman Landscape on YouTube www.companycam/kcpodcast 14 days FREE and 50% off the first 2 months Linktree/AumanLandscape @aumanlandscapellc www.CycleCPA.com  Use code "Auman" save $200 when signing up. Green Foundry Co. SteinerTurf.com Unilock.com bartellglobal.com LMN Software Code: AUMAN25 latux Diamond Blades: Auman NDS Drainage Certification Lawntrepreneur Academy LIVE Mailing Address: Caleb Auman  PO Box 203 Carroll, OH 43112

Today we talk stamps and coins with Bob Scott and David Tripp. Call with your question. WAMC's Ray Graf hosts.

Today we talk stamps and coins with Bob Scott and David Tripp. Call with your question. 800-348-2551. WAMC's Ray Graf hosts.

Bob Scott was the son of a service family and travelled the length and breadth of the UK. He joined Essex Police as a cadet in the late 60s and his career as a regular officer.In March 1973 Bob was posted to Basildon as a PC. He loved the challenges that Basildon presented. He was quickly identified as a thief taker and aged 21 he was taken to the CID.He decided that he wanted to move from from detecting crime to preventing crime. This desire saw Bob move to the Regional Crime Squad which was another level.He talks candidly about his experiences as an undercover officer during a period when the rules had not been written. Bob went on to write the rule book and nurture officers who had a desire to become undercover officers and test purchasersBob retired from the police to begin his company IntraOrbis LimitedListen to his story Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today we talk stamps and coins with Bob Scott and David Tripp. Call with your question. 800-348-2551. WAMC's Ray Graf hosts.

Avon Lake City Schools Superintendent, Bob Scott, reflects on the school's history and talks about its plans for the future. Upcoming events happening in Avon Lake: February 21, 7:00 PM: Collective Committee Meeting February 21, 7:00 PM: Environmentally Speaking: Make, Thrift, Mend: Thrifting and Repurposing Your Wardrobe at the Avon Lake Public Library February 23, 6:30 PM: Avon Lake City School Community Forum at Avon Lake High School February 26, 12:30 PM: Strikes for Strays at Spevok's Nautical Lanes February 27, 4:30 PM: Deadline to submit ward meeting questions or comments February 27, 7:00 PM: City Council Meeting February 28, 7:00 PM: Avon Lake Play Space open house at the Avon Lake Public Library March 1, 7:00 PM: Wards 1 & 2 Meeting at Learwood Middle School March 4, 7:00 PM: Avon Lake Athletic Booster's "Booster Bash" at Tom's Country Place in Avon March 15, 7:00 PM: Wards 3 & 4 Meeting at Troy Intermediate School For information about these or future events/meetings in Avon Lake, please visit www.AvonLake.org/Events

Emerging Trends in The Social and Behavioral SciencesBob's Introduction to the projectAbout the Robert A. Scott Lectureship FundThe classic mud volleyball photo (click then scroll to the bottom of the article)Human Centered episode featuring Richard WranghamCASBS in the History of Behavioral EconomicsCASBS

Today we talk stamps and coins with Bob Scott and David Tripp. Call with your question. 800-348-2551. WAMC's Ray Graf hosts.

To learn more about Bob Scott and his campaign, please visit bobscottforassessor.com.

Law enforcement leaders in Linn County are asking Iowans to vote NO on a constitutional amendment that could make it harder to pass gun control laws. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments over a California law that would require breeding pigs be housed with a certain amount of space in order for their pork to be sold in the state. Plus, Sioux City mayor Bob Scott is calling upon the governors of Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota to prevent Tyson Foods from moving more than 500 jobs out of the area.

As mentioned in our previous episode, September is our History Month in honor of Angela Romero, and in this first episode of the series Amanda visits her childhood church Trinity Lutheran Church which just celebrated its centennial this summer. Pastor Nathan Hoff who has been with the church for seventeen years as head pastor and Sue Scott, retired Deaconess and long time member, share with us Trinity Lutheran's fascinating origin story. Trinity Lutheran, originally founded in 1921 in San Pedro, has deep roots in our early Norwegian fisherman community. Pastor Nathan also shares the theology and basis behind Lutheranism, its role in the Christian denomination spectrum and also addresses what he refers to as “church hurt”. You'll also hear some personal stories from Sue Scott about her introduction to Trinity in 1980 as an intern where she met her husband Tobiah Scott. The Scott family has been part of Trinity Lutheran since the late 1950's when Bob Scott, Tobiah Scott's father spearheaded the renovation of the church facade which is still standing today. This was such a fun episode, especially for Amanda, who grew up in this church as well as with Sue and Tobiah's daughter and still remain very close to the family. Be sure to check out this week's Patreon episode where Sue shares personal and funny stories of Amanda growing up. You'll also get the extended interview of this episode: patreon.com/hellosanpedro. Share this episode and information with friends, family or co-workers and leave us a review. Follow and subscribe to the podcast so you never miss an episode. You can also support the podcast by becoming a patron at patreon.com/hellosanpedro where you'll get access to bonus episodes and more. Follow us on instagram for more San Pedro content at @hellosppodcast. Thanks for listening, – Amanda + Jess LINKS: Our website https://www.hellosanpedro.com/ Trinity Lutheran Church Website https://www.trinitysanpedro.org/ Trinity Lutheran Church History https://www.trinitysanpedro.org/history Pastor Nathan Hoff's Interview with Pastor Hoffman Trinity San Pedro Era Three Growing 1956-1960 Trinity Lutheran Church Facebook https://www.facebook.com/trinitysanpedro Live Stream Service https://www.trinitysanpedro.org/live Service Schedule - Sunday Worship Gatherings at 9:30 am and 5 pm https://www.trinitysanpedro.org/service-times Trinity Lutheran Church 1450 W 7th Street San Pedro, CA 90732 310-832-1189 office@trinitysanpedro.org Thank you to Rock Ashfield at Palm Realty Boutique for the generous recording space at Palm Realty Boutique. Palm Realty Boutique San Pedro 255 W 6th St. San Pedro, CA 90731

Today we talk stamps and coins with Bob Scott and David Tripp. Call with your question. 800-348-2551. WAMC's Ray Graf hosts.

Bob Scott, the mastermind behind Xome, took time to sit down with us to discuss his many decades in the noise world. From living in Japan in the 90s to tricking Mike into thinking he saw him play in 1999, this was a super fun and informative talk. Xome is one of the greats that is still going to this day, so fill up a jar with mud and put this one on at your next party.

Bob talks about the challenges he sees before the county of Kootenai County.  I talks about the various job functions of a county assessor.To learn more about Bob or get involved with his campaign, visit bobscottforassessor.com.Idaho Speaks is a listener supported production dedicated to giving voice to Idaho Republicans.  To learn more about how to support the show, please visit idahospeaks.com/support/.Sponsors:Baby Boomers Radio - A monthly audio magazine devoted to helping seniors and boomers navigate their golden years.  Visit babyboomersradio.com to learn more.Zenith Exhibits, Inc. - Helping Small Business attract new customers and grow their business.  Website and digital marketing solutions for the smallest budgets.  Visit ZenithExhibits.com to learn more.

Mariners manager Scott Servais joins Dave and Bob for his first interview since the MLB lockout began in December. Servais shares a great story about seeing Robbie Ray throw for the first time and updates the guys about Kyle Lewis. Plus, some input on what the lineup would currently look like for the Mariners. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.