OSHA Will Not Amend its COVID-19 ETS Despite CDC Guidance

OSHA recently determined it will not be making changes to the healthcare emergency temporary standard (ETS) after reviewing the latest guidance, science and data on COVID-19, and the recently updated CDC face mask guidance. However, OSHA will continue to monitor and assess the need for changes monthly.

OSHA determined that neither the CDC’s guidance on health care settings nor the underlying science and data on COVID-19 in health care settings has materially changed in a way to necessitate changes in the June 10, 2021 ETS.

Revised CDC Guidance

The CDC recently announced updates to its face mask guidelines, recommending that fully vaccinated individuals should wear a mask in public, indoor settings in areas where there is high or substantial COVID-19 transmission, including of the new coronavirus delta variant. Prior to this update, the CDC guidance allowed fully vaccinated individuals to stop wearing a mask in most settings.

OSHA’s Healthcare ETS

Since OSHA has not changed its requirements for the healthcare ETS, the face mask exceptions under the standard still apply. The healthcare ETS covers employers in various health care industries, such as hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, emergency responders, home health workers and employees in ambulatory care settings where suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients are treated.

Next Steps

Health care employers should continue to monitor the OSHA website for updates on how changes in COVID-19 transmission affect agency policy and guidance. OSHA will continue to assess the need for changes monthly.

ETS Face Mask Exceptions:

Employees are not required under the healthcare ETS to wear face masks when:

  • They are alone in a room;
  • They are eating & drinking;
  • It is important to see a person’s mouth while communicating;
  • Employees are unable to wear face masks due to a medical necessity or condition; or
  • Use of a face mask presents a hazard to an employee of serious death or injury.

EEO-1 Deadline For 2019 & 2020 Now Extended to August 23, 2021

Employers now have some extra time to submit equal employment opportunity (EEO-1) workforce data from 2019 and 2020, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced on June 28, 2021. These reports were previously due by July 19, 2021. Employers now have until Aug. 23, 2021, to complete their submissions.

The EEOC’s collection of this data, the portal for which opened on April 26, 2021, had been delayed numerous other times due to the coronavirus pandemic. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the EEO-1 Report is usually due by March 31 every year.

EEO-1 Reporting Background

The EEO-1 Report is an annual survey that requires certain employers to submit data about their workforces by race or ethnicity, gender and job category. The EEOC uses this data to enforce federal anti-discrimination laws.

Employers Subject to EEO-1

Reporting In general, a private-sector employer is subject to EEO-1 reporting if it:

  • Has 100 or more employees;
  • Has 15-99 employees and is part of a group of employers with 100 or more employees; or
  • Is a federal contractor with 50 or more employees and a contract of $50,000 or more.

Employers that are subject to EEO-1 reporting now have until Aug. 23, 2021, to submit data from 2019 and 2020.

Employer Action Items

Employers subject to EEO-1 reporting requirements should ensure that they complete their EEO-1 submissions by Aug. 23, 2021. These employers should also review the EEOC’s home page and website dedicated to EEO data collections for additional information.

Important Dates

  • July 19, 2021: Prior deadline for submission of 2019 and 2020 workforce data.
  • Aug. 23, 2021: New deadline for employers subject to EEO-1 reporting to submit 2019 and 2020 workforce data.
  • March 31, 2022: Deadline for submission of EEO-1 data from 2021.

Preventing Turnover Post-pandemic

The wake of COVID-19 leaves in its path a tattered and disheveled global supply chain in nearly every industry sector imaginable.  Everything from high end computer processors to basic building supplies like lumber to commodities as fundamental as toilet paper have been impacted.  As the vaccinated slowly begin to emerge and life resumes, a new supply chain shortage emerges – that of human capital. 

The need for a capable and willing workforce is evident in every corner of commerce. One impactful way for an employer to address this need is to retain the employees they already have.  To this end, I share with you the following HR Insights article published by Zywave on Preventing Turnover Post-pandemic. 

A pdf of the article can be downloaded by clicking here. 

Preventing Turnover Post-pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic is finally getting under control. As more Americans get vaccinated, states are gradually lifting restrictions, and life is returning to pre-pandemic normalcy. Finally, individuals can get to the tasks they’ve been postponing for more than a year. Unfortunately for employers looking to retain employees, some employees are now ready to find new jobs.

Current Job Market Outlook

Turnover is a common occurrence throughout any given year. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, year-over-year turnover trends drastically reduced. Workers instead clung to their jobs as a way to maintain financial security, having seen countless others get furloughed or laid off.

Now, as the economy opens back up, employers are pushing for employees to return to the workplace. But, a significant number of employees are unwilling to return to the status quo that was established pre-pandemic.

Instead, they are taking stock of their current positions and contemplating what they truly want out of their jobs. For some, the most direct path toward their goals is to find a new employer.

That’s why experts are predicting a “turnover tsunami” coming in the latter half of 2021; all the turnover that would typically take place in a given year is expected to come virtually all at once.

What Employees Want Post-pandemic

Each organization is unique, and its employees may have varying opinions about what’s most important to them. However, workplace survey data from the past year illuminates some commonalities between worker desires across industries. The following are some of the most coveted changes workers are looking for post-pandemic.

Remote or Hybrid Work Models

Many employees were forced to work from home at the start of the pandemic. As businesses reopen, employees are reluctant to return now that they’ve tasted greater flexibility and autonomy.

In fact, 47% of employees said they would leave their current jobs if their employers forced them back into the workplace, according to an Envoy survey. Additionally, 41% of employees said they would take a job with a slight salary cut if it meant having a hybrid work model (working some days in the office, others from home).

Given this and other data from countless surveys conducted in the past year, it’s apparent that employees want at least some remote work opportunities. And they are willing to leave their current employers to get it.

While remote or hybrid work is perhaps the most desired workplace perk at the moment, it’s not all that employees want.

Protection From Burnout

The COVID-19 pandemic has left many employees feeling burned out and overworked. According to an Indeed survey, 52% of employees are experiencing burnout, and 67% say burnout has increased during the pandemic.

Worse yet, now that businesses are reopening in full force, employee workloads are likely to increase rather than reduce. This increase is spurring employees to lobby for greater mental health benefits, time off and other resources for reducing stress levels.

Greater Compensation

Compensation has been an employee motivator well before the COVID-19 pandemic, but it’s particularly salient now. Across the country, the most recent example of this has been among fast food and retail workers. These segments have been working throughout the pandemic amid strict constraints, reduced staffing and elevated dangers.

Now, many industry workers are demanding better pay and benefits as compensation for their continued efforts—even walking out or quitting when their efforts are disregarded. In fact, 35% of surveyed employees said they would leave their current jobs for better compensation and benefits, according to an Achievers Workforce Institute report.

Turnover Prevention Considerations for Employers

At this point, it’s clear that a significant number of employees are feeling restless in their current roles. According to that same Achievers Workforce Institute report, only 21% of employees feel very engaged at work. Additionally, nearly half of respondents (46%) said they feel less connected to their workplace now than at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

To combat these trends and avert a “turnover tsunami,” employers will need to look inward toward their unique employee populations. This inquiry may include directly asking employees about their current mindsets (i.e., whether they’re considering quitting) and what concessions would make them stay with the organization.

Generally, employers can also consider implementing some of the changes employees are looking for, such as:

  • Providing remote or hybrid working arrangements
  • Expanding employee assistance programs to help with mental health and burnout
  • Increasing compensation or bonuses
  • Having managers meet more frequently with employees about engagement levels and ways to improve them

While these methods may be sufficient for the majority of workplaces, they are not silver bullets. Even higher compensation may not be enough to prevent turnover if other problems exist. That’s why employers should consider surveying employees about their individual opinions. Doing so can help identify unforeseen opportunities and potentially give employers ideas for improving retention without breaking the bank.

Reach out to Libertate Insurance Services, LLC for additional retention strategies.

This HR Insights is not intended to be exhaustive nor should any discussion or opinions be construed as professional advice. © 2021 Zywave, Inc. All rights reserved.

California Senate Rejects Workers’ Compensation Proposal

Close one!

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The California Senate on Thursday rejected a bill aimed at making it easier for health care employees to have hospitals pay their medical bills related to COVID-19 and other diseases that may have been contracted on the job — a move business groups said would have cost them too much money.

Companies pay their workers’ medical bills if they get sick or injured while on the job. In some cases, workers must prove their injury or illness is work-related to get the benefits. Last year, the California Legislature passed a law that assumed COVID-19 was work-related, shifting the burden to employers to prove it wasn’t.

Photo by Hush Naidoo on Unsplash

That law is scheduled to expire in 2023. A bill by Sen. Dave Cortese, a Democrat from San Jose, would have made it permanent. It would have also added other presumptions to the workers’ compensation law for hospital workers, including cancer under some circumstances, post traumatic stress disorder, certain respiratory diseases and muscle or ligament injuries.

The bill had to pass the Senate by Friday to have a chance at becoming law this year. But it fell short on Thursday before the Senate adjourned for the week. Lawmakers are not meeting Friday.

Cortese on Thursday agreed to change the bill to remove respiratory illnesses such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). But it wasn’t enough to get the bill passed.

Cortese said his goal was to give hospital workers, of whom he says 90% are women, the same protections as other medical professions, including emergency medical technicians.

“It really comes down to equal work, equal compensation,” he said.

Business groups, led by the California Chamber of Commerce, opposed the bill, labeling it a “job killer.”

“Such a drastic shift in the law will create an astronomical financial burden on healthcare employers and the system, creating an appreciable pact on the cost of healthcare at a time when we are trying to make healthcare more affordable,” Ashley Hoffman, policy advocate for the California Chamber of Commerce, wrote in a letter to lawmakers that was signed by 35 other groups.

The bill is part of a broader discussion in California about which coronavirus modifications should continue. Gov. Gavin Newsom said he will lift most of the state’s coronavirus rules on June 15.

The state Senate passed a bill earlier this week that would let restaurants continue to serve alcohol outside. The state Assembly passed a bill that would require local governments to keep letting people comment during their meetings by telephone or the internet. Both bills still must pass the other legislative chamber and be signed by the governor before becoming law.

Written by Adam Beam, Associated Press (June 3, 2021)

https://www.westport-news.com/news/article/California-Senate-rejects-workers-compensation-16223712.php

Moody’s Says COVID Impact on Insurance was ‘Moderate’

Moody’s opinion echos that of NCCI regarding the impact of COVID on the Workers’ Compensation system. More rate decreases to come???

Neither COVID-19 nor legislation enacted because of it has seriously harmed the creditworthiness of the property and casualty insurance sector, according to a report released by Moody’s Investors Service on Friday.

Businesses have filed about 1,700 business-interruption claims because of COVID-19 shutdowns, but those cases are largely being decided in favor of insurers, Moody’s said.

“US property policies typically require direct physical loss or damage to the property for business interruption losses to be compensated,” Moody’s said. “Moreover, most policies specifically exclude coverage for losses caused by a virus or communicable disease.”

But the battle for coverage, of course, is far from over. Only 20% of the cases filed have been resolved so far.

“A handful of courts have recently ruled in favor of insured parties despite standard policy wordings,” the report says. “Additionally, court decisions are subject to appeal, a process that could take years to resolve.”

Moody’s says it believes that ultimately, policy provisions will limit insurers’ business-interruption losses is the United States.

Photo by Nick Fewings on Unsplash

“Nevertheless, we expect the ongoing litigation will lead to inconsistent outcomes, appeals to higher courts, elevated legal costs, and some uncertainty on this matter for the next couple of years,” the report says.

For workers’ compensation, which makes up 14% of commercial line P&C premiums, the coronavirus pandemic has had only a “moderate” impact on claim costs, the report says. Moody’s echoed a report by the National Council on Compensation Insurance released earlier this month that said total COVID-19 workers’ comp losses amounted to $260 million in the US.

“The severity of these claims was generally low with 95% of the claims less than $10,000,” Moody’s said. “With more states enacting presumption laws in 2021, insurers will see additional claims but we expect them to be moderate.”

While the passage of presumption laws led to more claims for work comp, state lawmakers also enacted laws that limit exposure for commercial liability. Moody’s said the coronavirus liability protection for businesses that was adopted by most states is a “credit positive” for insurers.

The report says eventually, government might step in to create a public-private risk sharing agreement to cover business interruptions caused by future pandemics. Moody’s said bills were introduced in a number of states last year that would have required insurers to pay COVID-19 business-interruption claims, but none passed.

“With an eye toward future pandemics, some insurers and US legislators are considering public-private risk sharing arrangements to compensate small and large businesses for business interruption caused by pandemics,” the report says. “Common elements of these proposals are that P&C insurers would administer the coverage and assume a limited portion of the risk, while the US government would assume the bulk of the risk.”

5 Ways Cyber Business Interruptions Differ from Traditional Interruptions


Content taken from Andrew G. Simpson’s May 2021 article in the Insurance Journal and is a reformatted post

While a typical business interruption can often be a confusing insurance situation, the picture gets even muddier when it involves cyber coverage.

According to Chris Mortifoglio, who is a Certified Public Accountant and a Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE), understanding the “nuances and differences” of a cyber insurance business interruption exposure or claim compared to a traditional one is more important now than ever.

“I will tell you that in my experience business interruption is often the most misunderstood part of property coverage. Part of that has to do with the fact that it can be very subjective. If you have 10 accounts looking at the same set of financial data, you’ll oftentimes receive 10 different calculations or estimates of what a business interruption loss might be,” said Mortifoglio, who has been dealing with business interruption exposure assessments and claims for more than a decade as the director of forensic accounting at Procor Solutions and Consulting in New York.

A cyber business interruption risk can be difficult to estimate and manage. To further the understanding of cyber BI, Mortifoglio identified five areas where cyber BI differs from traditional BI: period of measurement; period of restoration; personnel involved; geographic constraints, and reputational risk.

1. PERIOD OF MEASUREMENT

The differences between traditional and cyber business interruption begin with the period of measurement or evaluation of lost business income, a period that typically runs shorter for cyber. The timing of a cyber incident can have a major effect on the amount of a potential loss. “Traditionally, when you have a property loss, you’re usually valuing the disruption for a period of weeks or months or years as it takes time to physically repair the property damage that was occurring,” he said. In a cyber incident, the loss may last for just a few hours or a few days. This much shorter time period requires detailed or as Mortifoglio refers to it “granular” on the impact and the disruption on a company. “This means that in order to properly evaluate cyber business interruption, you need much more granular levels of data, maybe even hourly revenue data, or certainly daily sales data, as opposed to a traditional business structure loss where, in some cases, monthly profit and loss statements are enough to evaluate the impacts of the loss,” he said. The granular data is particularly important, for example, when the business operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week making online sales. “There may be much more greater impacts, and there may be more of a need to really drill down into the disruptions that happen at different times of the day. What happened at midnight versus what happened at 8:00 am?” he explained. When comparing traditional versus cyber BI coverage, the waiting periods following an event before coverage begins are usually different as well. The waiting period for a cyber policy is often denoted in hours, whereas a traditional policy is typically for at least a few days, although it may be written as 48 hours or 72 hours, as opposed to perhaps a 12 hour waiting period for a cyber business interruption loss.

2. PERIOD OF RESTORATION

Another difference is the period of restoration. Defining the period of restoration is very important because that drives the ultimate value of a cyber business interruption loss. The period of restoration is defined as starting on the date of loss, which is the date of physical damage, and ending on the date “when the repairs should have been completed if the insured had utilized due diligence and dispatch.” That period of time is the period of time that an insurance policy will provide coverage for any loss of business income. But determining when this period starts or ends is not always easy. “When it comes to property losses, there’s usually a very clearly defined start to that business interruption period, known as the date of loss. We can define very easily what that period of indemnity is and what a potential extended period of indemnity is because it all depends on the physical damage,” he said. If a fire, earthquake or hurricane impacts an organization, it’s not hard to define when that physical damage occurred. That is the starting point for the period of restoration. However, when it comes to cyber, “there is much less certainty, not only to when a cyber event has started, but also when a cyber event ended” including when the system was repaired and there no longer is a breach. These dates are critical to figuring out the period of time that’s going to be evaluated for a cyber business interruption loss. Mortifoglio recited some questions that come up when evaluating cyber business interruption: “When did the loss start? How do we know that it started at this point in time? Was there a full disruption for an organization or just partial. For example, was it a specific system that was impacted, an email system or an accounting system that went down? And then when did this loss end?”

3. PERSONNEL INVOLVED

So in addition to requiring more and different types of data, and presenting complexities around the period of restoration, cyber business interruption also typically calls for more personnel to become involved from an organization. Mortifoglio cited a need for personnel from the risk manager and legal counsel to financial, technology and operations officers as well as others to contribute to the assessment. First and foremost is the risk manager, the “quarterback of the insurance recovery process” who is helping to manage the actual claims process once something happens, not to mention being the purchaser of the insurance on the front end. After a loss has happened, somebody from the accounting or finance department — perhaps the CFO or the controller—should be called upon to provide the financial data required to quantify any business interruption loss. In addition, it’s important to have someone from operations to assure that the full impacts of the loss are being documented and also connected to the actual financial calculation. And there’s more. “You now have to bring in more folks from your organization to help really provide the picture in the story of what happened and help to properly and accurately quantify cyber business interruption,” Mortifoglio added. This means calling in folks from the IT team to help to identify the status of the cyber incident and define the period of indemnity and the period of restoration. “That’s going to help narrow down the exact period of time that we need to evaluate from a financial perspective to quantify the loss,” he said. Also, the chief systems or technology officer may be needed to oversee data privacy and records issues that may come up in a cyber incident. The legal department may also deal with privacy issues, general legal ramifications and coverage issues, as well as interface with outside counsel brought in to help deal with a cyber breach. “The addition to these extra personnel can add to the complexity of the process,” the Procor executive said.

4. GEOGRAPHIC CONSTRAINTS

Whereas a traditional business interruption claim may be geographically constrained, the same is not always true for cyber exposure. In a traditional scenario, the property damage is contained to either a single location or region that has been hit by a widespread catastrophe. “Think of a hurricane that hit the state of Florida, and if you’re an organization that has multiple locations there, you may have multiple instances of damage. You may have multiple locations that are being impacted,” he noted. When it comes to a cyber loss, these geographic constraints do not exist and an entire organization could be impacted around the globe at the same time. “If you are an organization with a global presence and you have systems that are connecting all of your physical locations around the globe, then a cyber incident may impact you around the globe without any sort of restraints as far as geographic regions. With traditional business interruption, organizations can mitigate their risk by spreading out their operations geographically to avoid a catastrophe, really hampering the entire organization. When it comes to a cyber loss, those types of geographic constraints no longer apply,” he said. For risk mitigation purposes, Mortifoglio stressed the importance of understanding that if a global organization is running systems used by the entire workforce, all operations around the globe can be impacted immediately. “It can make it more complex because you can’t just look at a single isolated location. You have to look at the interconnectivity of your systems to see if something were to happen to them, what would the operational impacts be on your organization? And that’s what’s going to help you evaluate the potential cyber business interruption,” he said. In short, there are no geographic constraints with cyber business interruption and therefore it is harder to mitigate.

5. REPUTATIONAL RISK

Finally, cyber BI carries with it a reputational risk that traditional property business interruption does not. When there is a traditional BI loss such as a fire at a factory, customers and the general public usually do not to have any sort of reaction. Most of the time, the general public is not even aware of the fire and here is no effect on the company’s reputation. However, if a company is hacked and customer records are stolen, Mortifoglio said this can result in a “breach of trust in the public’s eye” and the reputation of an organization can be significantly harmed, often resulting in extended financial losses. In the case of a data breach, even though the system has been repaired and the breach fixed quickly, customers may be hesitant to return to do business with the organization “until they have absolute confidence that it won’t happen again. It’s hard to determine how long that might go on.” However, the forensic specialist noted, cyber business interruption policies are building in coverage to help recover any losses tied to the transitional risks, in a way that is similar to the extended period of indemnity coverage in traditional property policies. “The thought is that once a cyber incident is repaired and a breach is fixed, there may be lingering impacts due to some reputational risk” and there should be coverage there to help capture those losses, Mortifoglio said.

“The notion of implied meaning is the root of misunderstanding.”

— Eric Parslow

PEO Compass brings insight to your PEO related business through real-time reporting, application of innovative technologies, and expert opinions on the industry’s most turbulent topics.  Learn about the latest trends in healthcare, risk management, workers’ compensation, and many other topics that affect the PEO community. To register and start receiving breaking industry news, legislative updates, small business, risk management, safety, property casualty, and all things relevant to the industry of professional employment organizations (PEO) click on the link below to register for free.


CDC Says Masks Are No Longer Required in Most Settings for Fully Vaccinated Individuals

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has released new guidance for people who have been fully vaccinated for COVID-19. This long-awaited guidance loosens the CDC’s recommendations for fully vaccinated individuals, allowing them to stop wearing a mask in most settings. In addition, the agency says that those who are fully vaccinated can safely resume activities they had participated in pre-pandemic.

CDC Guidance for Fully Vaccinated People

According to the agency, people are considered fully vaccinated two weeks after their second dose in a two-dose vaccine series, like the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. They are also considered fully vaccinated two weeks after a single-dose vaccine, like the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The most notable update from the CDC’s new recommendations is that those who are fully vaccinated can resume indoor and outdoor activities without wearing masks or physically distancing, except where required by federal, state, local, tribal or territorial laws, rules and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance. In addition, this new CDC guidance says fully vaccinated people can:

  • Resume domestic travel and refrain from testing before or after travel, or self-quarantine after travel
  • Refrain from testing before leaving the United States for international travel (unless required by the destination) and refrain from self-quarantine after arriving back in the United States
  • Refrain from testing following a known exposure, if asymptomatic, with some exceptions for specific settings
  • Refrain from quarantine following a known exposure if asymptomatic
  • Refrain from routine screening testing if feasible

For now, the CDC recommends that fully vaccinated people continue to get tested if they are experiencing COVID-19 symptoms.

CDC Guidance for Unvaccinated People

According to the CDC, unvaccinated people should continue to take preventive steps, such as wearing a mask and practicing social distancing. However, according to the agency, it’s safe for those unvaccinated people to walk, run or bike outdoors with members of their household without wearing a mask. In addition, the agency says it is safe to take off the mask when attending a small, outdoor gathering with fully vaccinated family and friends.

Next Steps

As the CDC learns more, it will continue to update its recommendations for vaccinated and unvaccinated people. To learn more, the agency offers resources for choosing safer activities for both fully vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

Libertate will continue to keep you updated on changes to the rules and regulations surrounding Covid-19.

NAPEO announces in-person conference opening back up for September 27-29, 2021

NAPEO‘s President, Mr. Pat Cleary has exciting news about future in-person meetings and events!

The following post was from an eMail to the members from NAPEO’s President, Mr.Pat Cleary regarding the status of upcoming events and the status on in-person attendance.


Ten months ago to the day, I sent an email stating that due to COVID-19 and the associated risks that the committee voted against having the annual SAGE event and conference. It was a heartbreaking email to write, in that the conference was a speck of hope for us all, something out in the far distance that we all looked forward to, when this damned thing would be over. But it was not to be. I attached the email here because re-reading it today, it’s a bit of a time capsule, and reminds us of a low point that we experienced – and survived – together.

So today I’m writing with some very good news: I just this hour signed our contract with the JW Marriott San Antonio Hill Country to hold our conference there – in person – on September 27 – 29 this year. Just about every conversation I have had with any NAPEO member over the past few months has included a discussion of when we would be able to meet again in person. We are all suffering Zoom fatigue, that’s for sure. Looking at the email below, I said, “We want to gather with our members, and as soon as it’s safe to do so, we will.” Every organization has its own level of risk tolerance. Our litmus throughout has been the health and safety of our members and of our team here at NAPEO. Comforted and fortified by the upward trend in vaccinations and downward trend in cases – and the slow easing of restrictions – we will hold our first in-person meeting, our CFO Seminar, at the end of June (location TBD) and hold our Georgia Leadership Council Forum in-person on June 28. And the conference in September. 

I’ve said so many times that the arc of meetings during COVID was like this: Plan the meeting, book the hotel, promote the meeting, watch the registrations climb, meeting draws near, registrations begin to cancel, then the meeting cancels. We did that dance too many times in 2020. For our November Board of Directors meeting, we asked our 24 Board members if they wanted to meet virtually or in person. Twenty two said they wanted to meet in person, so we planned the meeting. The week before, in the face of too many cancellations, we moved the meeting to virtual. It was a discouraging, defeating, and tiresome cycle.

So if the cancellation of the 2020 in-person conference was a sign of despair, let this now be a sign of hope, of light, and of hopefully reaching the end of this pernicious thing that has dogged us for so long. As I said in the email below, “The sun will shine again.” And indeed it will – in San Antonio, in September.

I want to thank all of you who have stood by us, who have gamely pivoted with us to the virtual world. It wasn’t a world we wanted, but it was the world we were handed. I want to especially thank our associate members. The face to face meeting is their lifeblood, an option they didn’t have for the past year. They, too, stood with us, and we are grateful. And finally, I want to thank my team here at NAPEO. I use the royal “we” all the time, but the truth is they are the ones who are doing the innovating, the pivoting, the work. 

As I always say, this thing isn’t completely over yet, but we appear to be moving in the right direction. I look forward to seeing – and celebrating with – you all in San Antonio. 

All the best,

Pat Cleary
President & CEO
NAPEO
707 N. St. Asaph St.
Alexandria, Va. 22314
703-739-8163