Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Hello and welcome to Localization Today, the show where we talk about the language and localization industry, what is happening today and the opinions of those who drive our industry today. Carol Bellandia is joining us. She is a multilingual professional whose career bridges advocacy, entrepreneurship, social work and interpreting. She is the founder and CEO of Equal Access Language Services, a company grounded in the mission of preventing language based discrimination across public service systems.
Carol is also the creator of the Effective Inclusion to Language Access framework which is using healthcare, legal and public service spaces to integrate language into broader cultural competency and diversity strategies. At the University of Maryland, she serves as instructor in the Office of Continued Education teaching language Access and plain language. With a background of fuses, practice and policy, Carol brings a human centered perspective to discussions about inclusion, training and access in the language industry. Carol, welcome.
[00:01:14] Speaker B: Thank you, Eddie. I'm very happy to be here and.
[00:01:17] Speaker A: Very happy to have you. You were just telling us you came back from Colombia. How was that?
[00:01:22] Speaker B: Colombia was wonderful. I was there celebrating my birthday and that of my father and my grandmother. She's turning 95.
[00:01:30] Speaker A: That is great. Great to have you share with us your experiences and of course, getting to it. How about we talk a little bit about Equal Access Language Services? So you've described language as a civil rights issue. Can you talk about how the company was born out of that understanding and how that mission shows up in the day to day work for your team and for yourself?
[00:01:53] Speaker B: Yes. Well, I'll tell you that when I first started as an interpreter, I was feeling a little dejected, thinking I was underutilizing my skills because my orientation was actually in marketing and completely different from interpreting, but for different circumstances related to my sponsorship. I ended up becoming an interpreter. And at first, as I said, I had to take a pay cut, et cetera.
And finally I met one day Jose, who was.
And of course I'm using a fictitious name, but Jose was a patient at the hospital where I worked as an interpreter. And when we were in the waiting room, he seemed relieved. He said, I'm so glad you're here because they postponed my appointment. That was two months ago.
And Jose told me all the things that happened to him before he he came to the US which included fleeing a very dangerous country in Central America trying to survive the gangs. Then he went on to jump on the La Vestia, which is the train that is called La Vestia because it maims or kills people.
Then he comes to the US and he gets deported right back and has to come now, this time through the desert. So his story was really a horrible story. He had to come with a coyote, right? And in the worst of circumstances, seeing people getting injured in the way, even rescuing a woman, I mean, it was such a horrible story.
And as he was telling me this story, he also describes for me that the time he came to the hospital and unfortunately they hadn't scheduled an interpreter and he was sent back to, you know, to his house.
And he tells me that he lost the day of work. And I mean, he paints a picture of what happens to many, many immigrants, right? And then we go into the appointment and he get, he gets bad news about his condition. So that really made me think about the, not only the horrors that people go through to get to the US but also that the only asset and the most important asset that we all have is really our body. And they are not the exception. The immigrants are not the exception. Many immigrants come to the US and I'm sure to many countries with the expectation of having a better life, and they rely on their body to be able to work, send money back, et cetera. And that was Jose's case. And now his body was compromised because of his health.
So it made me think about how important it was at that point, two months prior that Jose had language access so that his health didn't deteriorate even further. Right.
So that was the first time I had a thought about like, oh my God, this is really important.
So when I realized, working as an interpreter, that the, that I had just a certain amount of agency with regards to advocating for this.
So when I left the hospital and I created my company, well, I left the hospital, went to school again to study social work.
And in social work, I was the most annoying student because everything was language access. So you can imagine the student that always asks about the same thing. The same issue is like one single, single focus. And I kind of became like the language access lady. And people were like rolling their eyes like, oh my God, she's asking again about this topic. Because I was in every topic. Clinical social work. How do you deal with the language accent with the limited English proficient person?
Macro social work, how do you. The same question over and over. So all of my papers are on, well, my school papers, I mean, are on language access.
And then I decided to combine the different skill sets, the different skill set that I have, that include psychology, social work, and also business, a business background, into equal access Language services.
That's why the name is SQL Access Language Services.
[00:06:15] Speaker A: Yes, thank you for giving us the context. And of course, of the Recording. We were talking not only about the company Equal Access Language Services, but also your course and framework, effective Inclusion to language Access. Could you tell us a little bit about, can you tell us a little bit about the framework and the course? How is it aiming to shift institutions that deliver services and what are the gaps in public systems that you see there that this is looking to help with?
[00:06:50] Speaker B: Yes, thank you.
So the course was born out of the need I saw to include again, language access as part of bigger concepts like diversity, equity and inclusion was one of the big ones. I realized that the efforts in that section only or mainly included race and gender.
And again, I was like, well, how about language differences?
And it does include to a certain degree language as a part of the intersectionality of people, but it doesn't really talk about what happens when there is an interaction between a person that speaks one language and a person that speaks another language.
So I went deep into the concept, even took a course at Cornell University and realized it's not here. Language access is not mentioned here.
So I said, we can't talk about diversity, equity or inclusion, specifically inclusion, if we are living out of the equation, 26 million people. And that's why I emphasize on that number so much. I mean, we have 26 million people in the United States that speak no English. How are companies and organizations actually accounting for inclusion if they don't have language access? Because the language access is the only thing, the only link, or, well, one very important link. Let's say with the limited English proficient population, if you don't plan for language access, you're not effectively including anybody in that segment of the population. We're leaving out 9% of our population in all of our diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.
That's the main gap I saw in institutions and that's how my course was developed. I started to see, okay, let's see how or what kinds of concepts we need to change in an X institution that has to do with language. So I started to observe my own experience at the hospital where I worked and seeing the misconceptions every day and try to work with those misconceptions to create a course that will debunk them. You know, and I, I, I can talk about the misconceptions, but I think that might come later.
[00:09:17] Speaker A: Yes, and, and, and a little bit about that. Of course there are some practical elements of, of the conversation. And you, you're talking about 20, 26 million Americans or rather citizens of the world that have these challenges. How do you bridge this gap of, you are in a country where you need to learn language to work and thrive versus the institutions and the systems need to have in place structures that allow for that to actually take place. So how do we bridge that conceptually? What concessions and commitments you think we are lacking or what, what concessions and commitments you think we need to put in place to actually bridge the gap that you are talking about?
[00:10:02] Speaker B: Let me see if, if I, I can approach this from the. So we need to learn a language of the country we're going to believe. Right? Is that more or less? That's the conception. And I think that's a perfectly valid conception. And in fact, I think every single person that goes to another country gives it a shot. Right. So I would never say like, don't learn English if you're coming to the United States. Of course not.
But on the other side, I think the points where we question whether the person is proficient in English or whether or whether the person should have learned the language are the worst points. Like we shouldn't talk about, well, this person should have learned English when the person is having a heart attack and needs and its services. Right. I mean, let me see if this is the orientation of the question, like what concession do we get when we talk about a person going to a country and how do they kind of like get involved in the daily living of the country? Of course they have to learn, they should attempt to learn the language, but also there should be sufficient elements for them to do that. And then on the other side, that shouldn't be part of the equation when you are. Or the, the efforts of the person trying to learn the language should not be part of your decision making process when it comes to accessing public services. That's all I'm saying. It's like I'm not, I'm not adjudicating right or wrong with a person learning English or not. And, but I do, and I think, and you know, that's a different conversation is what I'm trying to say. But I adjudicate responsibility to the people that are involved in public services to do something about the fact that there is a communication gap and that they also have an ethical obligation to bridge the gap. Right. So does that answer the question?
[00:12:05] Speaker A: It does. And I like to dig a little bit deeper because it reminds me of that expression we have in Spanish. Right. Lo uno, no quita lo otron.
[00:12:12] Speaker B: Right, exactly.
[00:12:13] Speaker A: The fact that there is some merit into the one argument doesn't mean that it demerits the other side of the argument. So I completely Understand what you are saying from the point of view of, yes, there needs to be a concession by the citizens to make an effort to get onto the knowledge that they require to be able to operate within a given country. But then when you say if you do not speak one specific language, you will not be able to access any of the rights. And can you tell us a little bit more about that? Because there are American citizens that their first language is not English, it's an indigenous language. So when you start saying make English the first and only official language, then you immediately say something of what I'm mentioning. Unless you know English, you would not have access to that. So in practicality, like when you come to the day to day, do you see a lot of that happening, like people not getting access because they just don't have anyone who speaks their indigenous language as an example in the US to access those rights?
[00:13:18] Speaker B: Well, several things to unpack here. One, that let's remember that there are at least 3.5 million people in the US whose first language is Spanish. The whole territory of Puerto Rico speaks Spanish, mainly right. So when you issue a law or an executive order that says that English is the official language, you're forgetting those people, basically.
And besides all the hundreds of language that we speak on a daily basis now, I do have at least a recent example of a person who went in front of a judge. It wasn't my direct example, but it was in the court I was present and there was another interpreter who experienced this. The person, the limited English proficient person, had been in the US for 26 years, but his level of proficiency was not enough to be in court.
And the judge was angry about the fact that he had been for so long in the US and denied language services. He dismissed the interpreter and it was to us was like a scandal because that had never happened before and in that setting and the way it happened.
So keep in mind that you can try as much as you want to learn a language. And to some people it's not an easy task. I was very humbled when I moved to India for a year. I was living there as part of my social work degree. And I tried to learn the language, the local language, which is Malayalam.
And I was very humbled by that exercise because it had, I think it's 56 vocabs and I come from, I don't know, 26 from Spanish. It was nearly impossible for me in that amount of time to actually grasp enough to have a conversation.
So one thing is if you're learning a romance Language, Maybe it's easier or something, but there are so many factors to learn a language. And. And I think when you just throw like a blanket statement, you should have learned this language in this amount of time, it's like, well, are we even providing the necessary tools for the person to learn the language? Right. So this happened. Thankfully, it doesn't happen every day. And keep in mind also that each state is different in the way they approach language access in the courts.
They have different standards in different courts. Maryland, where I live, is a really good state when it comes to language access. We have a lot of protections for language access. And this judge was like an outlier.
But it happens even in Maryland, which is such friendly, is such a friendly state when it comes to language access and in other states. I just got a story from Virginia, for example, where a Spanish interpreter witnessed that the judge was asking the child of a Guillarati speaker to interpret in that setting. And he was like, oh, well, you should be very proud of your daughter. She's so. I mean, so we still have a lot of work to do. Right.
In that.
In that setting. And it depends on the setting. You find different things in the medical setting.
Because I have the fortune to be in sort of a medical hub.
I think we are pretty advanced.
I am around the Johns Hopkins Hospital, the University of Maryland Hospital, Union Memorial Hospital, many hospitals around. And it is my personal observation, of course, I haven't gone and assessed every single one of them, but it seems that they are more attuned to providing language services. But in a rural hospital, maybe not in a faraway hospital from the city of Baltimore, maybe are not as equipped to offer this.
[00:17:24] Speaker A: And you are right, Carl, that it should surprise us that we are okay with having a child interpret in these highly complex and sophisticated places. And it's probably the lack of clarity on these basic notions that drive a lot of the misconceptions and misunderstandings. So could you tell us a little bit across your line of work? Right. Healthcare, legal, social services, what are those common misunderstanding conceptions, misconceptions organizations have when it comes to language access?
[00:17:57] Speaker B: Well, not necessarily in the order or importance, but I would say the first misconception is that is about proficiency, really. I think we need to understand what proficiency really means. I don't think in organizations don't usually go out of their way to test language proficiency to assess a person's bilingualism, and then they would just use that person. You know, they hire them for one job, but use their language skills for interpreting when they haven't even test their proficiency.
And that also, the implication of that is also they think that a person who has rudimentary English but is nodding their head is understanding what they're saying. So I've seen it over and over in court, in, in hospitals. Oh, no, no, no, he understands English. And their only measure of understanding is that the person, the limited English proficient person is going like, that's, it's nodding their head.
That's not a test of understanding. So that's one of the misconceptions. The other one pervasive misconception is that language access is expensive, that it costs money.
Well, of course it costs money. But whether or not it's expensive is a matter of, of what you're measuring at the moment. Like, of course, yes, it is going to cost you money to hire a good interpreter for an interaction, but if you don't hire a good interpreter for an interaction and you have a mistake. Right? Like I have an example from my work at the hospital where the person who, the person I encounter was coming back after surgery, he had a leg that was like the size of an elephant leg because of the infection he acquired. He had had surgery on his knee, was discharged with no instructions in Spanish and days later he comes back with an infection. And the doctor was absolutely furious. He said, why didn't you wash the wound? Et cetera, et cetera.
And it turned out that the patient didn't have an interpreter upon discharge and he had to be readmitted for 10 days.
So it has been already, this has been studied at length and this is some of the topics of my course to measure sort of what happens to the limited English proficient person. This person gets readmitted. How much does it cost to the hospital to have a person 10 days in a hospital with, with a antibiotic? It's much more expensive than hiring that interpreter that's going to interpret the discharge instructions that the nurse was explaining. Right. So that the part about cost is a big misconception because it's going to be much more expensive to not have language access. In fact, one of the numbers I have in my course is about how much we spend, spend on health care. You know, healthcare represents 18% of our GDP. And of that 18%, almost 50% is wasteful spending. And of that wasteful spending, like a big portion of it is miscommunication. Right. And who is, who is sort of, or the people that are having that miscommunication are usually people that are uninsured and undocumented, et cetera. So you can draw the conclusion, even though the research is not exact on this, but you can draw the conclusion that a lot of miscommunication happens when there is no language accessibility. Right? So how much money are we, the taxpayers paying for healthcare that goes to waste because we don't have language access, effective language access in the hospitals, for example?
[00:22:02] Speaker A: And that's a very interesting point which I haven't thought about, but probably miscommunication is much more expensive, like you're saying, than anything else. And not only in this context, but in pretty much every single context that we have in the states and outside of the United States as well. Of course, you teach these concepts, you are advocating for these concepts in different places with the organizations that you work with. You also work with the future interpreters and future social workers.
What are the things that you would recommend to this group of people? What do you think they need to understand about language and equity?
[00:22:41] Speaker B: Thank you for that question. Well, I emphasize the idea that when you are thinking about language access, when you're thinking about equity, you have to center your lens from the limited English proficient person.
I've seen it over and over, even in advocacy efforts. In recent advocacy efforts, I've seen it language access advocacy, and it doesn't even mention the limited English proficient person. So having that focus is very important. What sort of like, have you seen those shirts that say, those T shirts that says what would Jesus do? Is basically what would the LEP need? Right. What would be the limited English proficient need?
That question has been my guiding question for everything I do, everything I teach is like how, you know, how would it be to be in the situation of the person who doesn't speak the language. Right. And that mindset will help you a lot developing your language access plan. It will help you developing your advocacy because that perspective is what really matters. Ultimately, that's what I would tell the interpreters I train now.
I think the context is right for really talking about that one on one advocacy that interpreters can do in the courts and in the hospitals. And let me tell you, Eddie, a lot of people are really afraid of talking about this because our code of ethics as court interpreters and also as healthcare interpreters basically have a lot of issues with advocacy. What does it mean and how not to become like the loose cannon. For example, if we're talking about focus on interpreting for a bit for a second, how not to be a loose cannon. Right.
And that's where advocacy is always problematic because you don't want the interpreter to become the social worker of the patient or of the limited English proficient at court. But in my observation also as a court interpreter, I realized that, and this is kind of like a question in my mind that the code of ethics maybe is thought, at least in the judiciary system, as if the limited English proficient was always the respondent. Right. And so it makes sense. Like when you are in the middle of a trial, you're not there to explain anybody's rights, right?
You're there to interpret and you're there to interpret in every setting. But there are so many other situations, for example, in the court, court that happen every day with limited English proficient persons. There is the victim that comes to seek services at the court that the domestic violence victim doesn't know where to go, for example, or doesn't know that she has language access services that are supposed to be given to her, for example, here in the course of marriage. So there are many types of limited English proficient persons, not all of them are the defendant and not all the situations are a hearing.
So we need to talk to be more flexible about how we approach informing people about their rights, which is something that I've been advocating for many years. But I have a lot of pushback because people feel uncomfortable saying to the limited English proficient person, sir, if you have an issue, you have a right to language access. And this is where you can ask for language access. That's all I'm saying. You should say to the, to the limited English proficient person.
So that's what I teach to the interpreters that I work with. And as far as social workers, they have a much more bigger range. And I go more in depth about advocacy with professionals that are actually not interpreters. They have to be their nurses, social workers, mental health professionals. They can do a lot more than what the interpreter can do because obviously the interpreter has to be impartial.
And so they have limitations. Even though I'm advocating for being a little flexible with some of the limitations in some of the contexts, they are still more limited than a social worker and other professionals.
[00:27:06] Speaker A: And I'd love to get your thoughts on advocacy and activism in just a second.
But of course you've seen the progress in the past few years. You've seen the limitations. You've seen some countries try to do it right. You have seen some countries not do anything at all.
Of course this gives you some perspective as well as some frustrations. But on that, what are the biggest challenges and opportunities that you see in building a more inclusive and language accessible future in public service and as a society? As a whole, of course, yeah.
[00:27:40] Speaker B: So the biggest opportunity is really recognizing the professional linguist in the context of the public service. Right. I love the idea of working in teams. And I had the fortune to experience this, for example, at Johns Hopkins, excellent hospital.
And every time that they had the, that they, well, they had the rounds, at the end of my years there, they started including the interpreter, like, okay, let's let the interpreter hear what we're saying. Right.
So I think there is a big opportunity to incorporate that professional as part of your team. Right. Just like a social worker, just like the other members of the healthcare team, for example. That's an opportunity there that would make, in my opinion, a change that would create, that would change things and improve things.
The other opportunity, and I think that opportunities go in that direction. It's just like the incorporation of language and language access in everything that you do will of course reduce language based discrimination. People will have it in mind, like if you create policies that are suitable for a multilingual society, a multilingual country, let's start with the US Then you will have the benefit that people feel truly included, like in the conversation. They're part of the conversation. You have increasing compliance. For example, just the example with healthcare, if you have a patient that understand their case and understand their medicines and understand how they take care of themselves, this is going to reduce cost and improve our health in general.
So I see those benefits.
And I don't know if your question is also oriented about other countries and how they can benefit from this. And it's interesting because I always saw language access as a US kind of issue. But I had the opportunity to go a couple of years ago to Hondos, the conference Juntos conference, which is an international conference in Latin America. And my talk on language access was accepted and I was trying to make it relevant. And I started studying what language access is like in Argentina or Brazil and realized that if every country now with globalization, every country will have language access issues because there are foreigners, there are indigenous people that are trying to get access to services in the main cities, et cetera. So it's not only the U.S. in fact, we have Australia even ahead of us in terms of how language access works there.
So it is a topic that really impacts everybody. And I'm curious to know how different countries have laws and regulations for language access.
That would be the next step. Now I am very focused on the US and understanding the laws here. So I don't feel prepared to talk about the laws in other countries. I just know that there are countries that have laws and have strong laws, like Australia, for example, Canada.
And I think that those models should be replicated because ultimately it will improve society at every level of public services, in my opinion.
[00:31:25] Speaker A: And of course, we will be really happy to see how you write about those topics in your upcoming column. Those that are listening, they are getting the exclusive announcements on the column that we will have with you. Carl, I'll ask you a little bit about that in one second, but tell us a little bit about advocacy and activism. You rightly so mentioned that in the U.S. sometimes it feels, and I've lived in the U.S. you feel you have the luxury of caring about things because you have time and you have resources. In other places you don't even have the luxury of food. So caring about language access is just something that's just beyond of your thinking. But in terms of advocacy and activism, what are the things that you are proud of that you see around you, and what are the things that you still think we need to be doing?
[00:32:15] Speaker B: Well, I definitely feel very proud of the fact that the movement has started right. Like I think when, when there is a lone voice, nothing much happens. And I'm not claiming I'm a lone voice. There are a lot of people in this work already, but there it only took and I even like talk about like a movement a couple of years ago, etc. I think in the article I wrote for Multilingual, I talk about this, this was a couple of years ago.
But I think what's happening right now is that we are paying attention collectively because we found a common enemy, if you will, which was the the removal of the executive order 13166, which you talk about it in your previous podcast. And that common enemy, if you will, the fact that they took the pull, they pulled the rock from under us, made us realize that we had a wrong. It's like what we had a wrong.
And then we are finding the need for being united in advocating for that, for the sort of the implementation of language access. Because I think it was Bruce Adelson who mentioned that the enforcement was going. But by taking the executive order, what you don't have is the enforcement, et cetera, et cetera. So it's going to be up to us. So that's the positive aspect and the negative also is that, okay, now it's up to us to make sure that we are living up to the obligation of providing language access. Right?
So the other aspect about advocacy that makes me proud besides the collective is, is is that not only is collective, but it's also seen from different points of view. Of course this is going to affect companies that provide language services. It's not going to affect only the limited English proficient person. So we have to see all these different points of view. The company that provides the language services, the hospital that now you know doesn't have necessarily. Well, with hospitals it's different, but that they don't. People that don't know exactly what they need to do. Right.
So that movement and that momentum I think is wonderful and I hope it keeps growing and it continues because more people need to know about this and I don't. I, I'm sorry, I forgot the second part of your question.
[00:34:51] Speaker A: I think it was about advocacy and activism. I think you, I think you got it.
I don't know if you want to add anything on that.
[00:34:57] Speaker B: Just, just what I want to add that I've also perceived is that unfortunately advocacy has a bad reputation sometimes.
And this is my personal experience when I talk about rights and when I talk about the limited English proficient person and there is passion behind my words.
It's been a couple of times where I get this, where I feel like I'm turning off the executive because they are like, oh, well, I don't know.
We only care about maximizing profits. Right. But my invitation is they are not separate. I mean, as a business you, even if you are a hardcore business person that is only thinking about maximizing profit, doing the right thing is going to benefit you anyway, whereas not doing the right thing is also going to have to be detrimental to your, to your bottom line.
So that's. But that's a characteristic of advocacy sometimes, is that it turns people, certain people off. But they have to see the connection between doing good or doing right and doing well, which helps.
[00:36:14] Speaker A: Thank you for bringing that up. Because I also fall in the same trap of thinking of activism, feeling like I'm doing something wrong when I say I'm an activist.
Almost like it's a scene, like I shouldn't be an activist. Like I should say I'm a professional. And being a professional is better than being an activist when really mission driven professionals, it's what we need in our industry and in all older industries. And of course I don't want to put you on the spot, but I'm very happy that we're working together on getting different content around Language Access and columns around Language Access. Is there anything you want to mention about the topics that you want to cover on that column and what we could expect to see there from You.
[00:37:00] Speaker B: Well, what I would like to say is that I would love to write about language access in other countries because I know Multilingual is a multinational magazine, so I want to let my curiosity run when it comes to exploring language access in Europe. For example, what's happening with the refugee population that's coming into Europe? Are they having language access?
Are the countries thinking about this? So I have a line of topics and that's one of them. Like, let's talk internationally how this works.
How do we have a common pain, if you will, in our daily living. Right. And then the other, the other thing I want to emphasize is that lens that I was talking about at the beginning.
What does it feel to be the limited language proficient. Right. And try to flip the script from just a limited English proficient, but the limited Spanish for proficient person. The limit French speaking person. Right.
Limited French speaking person.
Because as I travel a lot, I know that my fellow friends also experience limitations when they come to Colombia. And I find it a little amusing sometimes to see, for example, how angry they can get that they cannot get their word across. And I say, well, welcome to the life of an ellipse person. It's just like a flip of a script. So I really want that flip of a script. I want to accomplish that, if possible, with those columns that I'm going to write. And thank you so much for giving me that opportunity as well.
[00:38:45] Speaker A: Of course. And this will increase empathy, something that you have talked about, and perhaps that's the place where we need to be in empathy so that we can have a little bit of an activist and an advocate in us to move forward. It's been an amazing conversation, Carl. I think it's. We're going to have many more conversations around this in the future and the amazing writing work that you are going to be doing. Before we go, is there anything that you'd like to mention, anything you'd like to add to our audience and those that are listening?
[00:39:13] Speaker B: Thank you, Eddie. I love your point about empathy. I think this is what's all about being able to. We talk a lot about putting ourselves in the shoes of the other person. And I think language is the best, possibly the best way to do this because it impacts all, it impacts us all, especially if we are travelers or if we step foot, set foot outside of the US and that compassion is really what I think the world needs in general at every level. So thank you again.
[00:39:48] Speaker A: Thank you, Carl. And thank you everyone who has been listening to us today. We, we've talked about language, empathy and The Hope of a Better World with Carol Bellandia.
Remember, she is the founder and CEO of Equal Access Language Services and the creator of the Effective Inclusion and Language Access Framework. And course, we've been in for a treat today. We hope to read her content in the future Multilingual Magazine and have many more conversations. Carol, thank you so much for joining us today.
[00:40:19] Speaker B: You're welcome.
[00:40:20] Speaker A: Thank you for having me and everyone who is listening. Remember, my name is Eddie Arrieta. I'm the CEO here at Multilingual Media.
Until the next time, goodbye.
