Autodom Conundrum: Consumer-Goods or National-Defense Industry?
With Gerard J. Senick
Contributing Writer and Editor
“Conundrum: A fun word to repeat over and over again when no one’s listening; actual meaning is as puzzling as the need to chant the word.”
— Richelle E. Goodrich, American author (goodreads.com/quotes/tag/conundrum; regoodrich.blogspot.com)
“Here’s the thing.... I don’t give a ten-penny f*** about your moral conundrum, you meat-headed s***-sack!”
— Daniel Day-Lewis as Bill the Butcher in Martin Scorsese’s film Gangs of New York (Miramax, 2002)
The Winter Holidays are over and Valentine’s Day has passed. Le Nain Rouge (Detroit’s Red Dwarf) does not make his appearance until next month. Second-year law students are back to their studies. While sitting around with their colleagues in study groups, a few of them might wrestle with the conundrum of who is hotter, billboard Joumana or bus-placard Joumana. However, we have another conundrum upon which legal minds may reflect.
In this month’s column, we present an explanation of a little known facet of the auto industry that has a direct impact on attorneys in many fields of law. This facet involves the history of the industry through the present day. A conundrum has encircled the automotive industry for almost a century. This conundrum comes in the form of a pair of questions that have surfaced periodically in the relatively short history of the industry. I (Dr. Sase) first listened to the debates about this conundrum when I was a child growing up in Detroit during the 1950s.
The Conundrum
This conundrum poses two questions: “Is the automotive industry a consumer-goods industry that takes government defense contracts for military hardware production during periods of conflict?” and “Is the automotive industry a national-defense industry that uses its surplus capacity during peacetime to produce cars, trucks, buses, and other consumer-oriented products?”
To this two-legged conundrum, we can add a third leg to form a stool. I became acutely aware of another complementary view when I spent five years with folks who lived in small towns and on farms throughout Michigan. In essence, the point of view of this conundrum expresses the opinion that Michigan is a community of farmers. Therefore, this conundrum inquires “Does not the automotive industry exist to produce ‘field’ cars, trucks, tractors, and other auto-mobile tools to help to ensure ample production of agricultural products during war and peacetime?”
During the past two months, the U.S. government sold 200 million of its 500 million remaining shares of New GM stock to the General Motors Corporation. On 19 December 2012, the U.S. Treasury Department announced that it would sell its remaining 300 million shares “through various means in an orderly fashion within the next twelve to fifteen months, subject to market conditions” (http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/19/news/companies/treasury-gm-shares/index.html). Some writers, such as Paul A. Eisenstein of The Detroit Bureau (thedetroitbureau.com) have suggested that this episode has cost billions of dollars to the American taxpayer. If this is true, then the conundrum raises the issues as to whether taxpayers have paid to retain jobs in a consumer-goods company or have made an investment in preserving what had been coined as the Arsenal of Democracy during World War II.
Furthermore, if the first statement is accurate in the context of autodom being a consumer-goods producer, then it makes little difference who acquires the controlling interest in stock. However, if the industry forms the core reserve of national defense-production, then any diffusion of stock quickly becomes problematic if foreign nationals or their governments acquire those significant holdings.
We hope that we will not experience another conflict of the scale of the First and Second World Wars. However, history reminds us that warfare has been rooted in human history since time immemorial. Given the aphorism that the best offense is a good defense, it follows that maintenance of defense-production capabilities provides a low-profile deterrent for avoiding future wars.
Ancient History
In tracing the history of this conundrum, let us look at the auto industry in the first decade of the Twentieth Century. Having emerged from incubator firms such as C.R. Wilson and other wagon-and-carriage companies, the industry, which then was composed of several hundred small firms, produced vehicles for high-income consumers in their major markets of America and Europe. However, the onset of the First World War marked the end of this first industrial wave. Failing European-export markets for consumer automobiles and U.S. exports in general drove many small firms out of business.
Other firms that possessed adequate economies of scale, the means to produce trucks and other heavy machinery, and the ability to convert civilian production in order to serve the military needs of America and its allies survived and continued onward after the war. An example of one of these firms is the Universal Motor Truck Company, which was founded by Albert Fisher after he sold his holdings in Fisher Body to his seven nephews.
The booming urban-consumer culture of the 1920s obscured the underlying defense nature of the industry. Furthermore, much of the younger population of rural America, who were armed with a plethora of skilled trades, headed for the city lights. Concurrently, agriculture turned to mechanization in order to farm large, consolidated tracts of land. However, the decade of depression that followed the collapse of Wall Street in 1929 severely impacted the economies of the United States and its trading partners around the world. This era produced a chain of events that became a textbook case for the complexities that arise under foreign ownership against the emergence of militarized aggression.
For this illustration, we turn to two complementary sources that address the example of General Motors Corporation and Adam Opel AG and their relationship with the nation of Germany during the 1920s, 1930s, and beyond. The first source comes from author Henry Ashby Turner Jr. His book “General Motors and the Nazis” (Yale University Press, 2005) is based upon documentation derived from a project that he directed twelve years ago under the sponsorship of General Motors. This project came in response to pending class-action suits on behalf of victims of forced labor against American corporations that held German subsidiaries during the period of the Third Reich. Turner wrote his volume after the project was completed, using the documentation that was donated to the Sterling Memorial Library at Yale University by GM.
The second source comes from a book written by Edwin Black, “Nazi Nexus: America’s Corporate Connections to Hitler’s Holocaust” (Dialog Press, 2009). It offers a markedly different perspective on the documented facts as noted by Henry Ashby Turner, Jr. In his Introduction, Black states, “This volume will shock, sadden, and shake many as they look at the monetized evil constructed by the intersection of American corporate force and German genocidal desire.” For the purposes of this article, we referred to Black’s fourth chapter, “GM and the Motorization of the Reich.” In the following timeline, we used this discussion as a counter-balance to Turner’s work:
Das Autogeist
Founded in 1908, the General Motors Company went through a “reformation” in 1916 to emerge as the General Motors Corporation after the bailout provided by DuPont interests. Alfred P. Sloan ascended to the corporate presidency in the mid-1920s. With Sloan at the helm, the firm sought a large-scale subsidiary to serve the European market directly. Near the end of this decade, the Weimer Republic had stabilized the German economy under Chancellor Paul von Hindenburg. However, this economy lagged in automobile ownership. In contrast to a 20 percent rate in the United States, the saturation of auto ownership in Britain, France, and Germany was less than 3 percent. Germany trailed with less than 1 percent.
Given the increasing tariffs imposed on imported parts and finished automobiles along with a European demand for smaller models, Sloan and others decided that the firm would need to produce vehicles in Europe. In 1928, the family-owned Opel firm stood as the largest manufacturer of cars and trucks outside of the United States. In addition, Opel, a major employer and exporter in Germany, had pioneered the manufacture of small cars. With the owners of Opel willing to sell, General Motors bought 80 percent of its stock in the spring of 1929 (a half-year before the Wall Street crash) and the remaining 20 percent two years later.
However, during this period of rising nationalism in Germany, General Motors sought to preserve the appearance of Opel as a German firm that was independent of American ownership. As such, Opel remained a wholly separate German corporation, though GM determined the composition of the Opel board, which included two sons of Adam Opel. Until the late 1930s, the majority of Opel executives were American citizens who lived and worked in the United States. By German corporate law, General Motors was able to vote 100 percent of the stock, to which flowed 100 percent of the dividends. GM maintained ultimate authority to appoint or dismiss board members. Though Opel existed as an independent corporation under German law, it functioned as a wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors.
Shortly thereafter, expansive plant modernization and construction commenced. In spite of planning, the investment in the German subsidiary slid downward before the Crash of October 1929. In the following year, Opel production sank by almost 25 percent. During the next two years, large numbers of employees were laid off by GM/Opel, which also shut down plants, reduced work weeks, and internalized the production of parts in order to reduce losses. Furthermore, General Motors drained company resources by heavy borrowing in order to prop up the failing Opel.
This economic dilemma set the stage for an ethical dilemma. Germany benefited from foreign currency that was derived from international trade as Opel sold almost two-thirds of the cars and trucks exported from that country. However, the benefit to Opel and its parent company came from its orders for trucks. The firm became the primary truck-and-car manufacturer for the German government throughout the remainder of the 1930s and through World War II. In respect to trucks, sales to the military brought a bonus in profit per vehicle to the firm at a rate 40 percent greater than sales to the civilian market.
At this point of our story, we will continue by iterating dry facts while avoiding the blame game. During the 1920s and 1930s, a significant global economy with many multinational firms flourished. However, the Second World War disrupted this trend. Nevertheless, the global economy, which was populated by multinationals, redeveloped and expanded to its present state during the postwar decades.
Throughout its history, Old General Motors remained a highly factionalized concern. Factions were drawn around family ethnicity and ownership as well as politics, religion, and other characteristics. The cultural dissonance existed in the hourly workforce, the supervisory level, and middle management. Furthermore, key players in the upper management of GM — including Alfred P. Sloan, William S. Knudson, and Charles E. Wilson — held overt political leanings that reflected their strength of conviction to the authority of the U.S. government. The players held their positions of authority at GM during the administrations of both FDR and Harry Truman.
Just the Facts Ma’am
The interests of the largest automotive firm never consolidated under one over-arching principle. Therefore, let us remain objective as we lay out the concepts of foreign-versus-domestic ownership and control in companies that have morphed between consumer-good and defense-good producers. The facts that constitute the story read as follows:
• As the 1930s progressed and the world began to emerge from the Great Depression, General Motors agreed to locate a new Opel factory at Brandenburg. In the following decade, this location proved to be less vulnerable to bombing by Allied forces than other locations.
• Between 1937 and 1938, Opel increased the sales of its popular Blitz truck from 17 percent to 29 percent (with a new annual total of 6,000 units) to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) that controlled the German military.
• During the 1930s, GM-owned Opel doubled its employment, making it one of the leading employers in Germany. Meanwhile, Opel overtly embraced the political philosophy of NSDAP and grew more integral to the vision of the ruling party in that country.
• The NSDAP provided internal security throughout the Opel plants in order to maintain discipline and to ensure that the firm would meet production quotas.
• In 1935, private industry in the United States began to transfer technology to Germany for the production of tetraethyl lead (leaded gas). Using this additive gave a performance boost to Opel vehicles. However, the United States War Department remained apprehensive about the transfer of these proprietary chemical processes, which eventually gave Germany a strategic advantage during World War II.
• By late 1938, German armament officials increasingly directed the output of Opel and mandated that most vehicles would be produced for military use.
• On 1 September 1939, Germany launched its Blitzkrieg against Poland with many troops transported in Opel Blitz trucks. Following this event, the board of Opel was restructured. For the moment, the restructuring insured that the executives of General Motors maintained an invisible, though controlling, presence.
• At the start of World War II, the German government conscripted the Opel Brandenberg plant and converted it to an airplane-engine plant that supplied motors for Luftwaffe bombers.
• By mid-1940, the U.S. government “drafted” General Motors and its facilities to become major suppliers of military hardware for the Allied forces.
• In early 1941, the FBI conducted a probe of GM senior executives having links to the German rulers. The FBI found collusion with Germany, but no evidence of any disloyalty to America.
• Four days after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, German diplomats delivered their Declaration of War against the United States. At this juncture, General Motors severed all direct contact with its Opel subsidiary in Germany. However, they maintained communications through GM operations in Denmark.
• For the duration of the war, the German government placed Opel under appointed custodial control. The duty of the custodians was to continue the operation of the firm as efficiently and profitably as possible (given the circumstances) and to hold all assets and profits in escrow until settlement hearings that would occur after the conclusion of the war.
• During the war years, General Motors declared that it had “abandoned” Opel. The parent firm took a complete tax write-off under special legislation passed in October 1942.
• Meanwhile, Opel produced trucks, bomber engines, land mines, and other hardware for the Germany military. The custodians used some of the profits to acquire companies and other assets in Germany.
• When the war ended in 1945, settlement procedures commenced. In 1948, General Motors started to regain its control over operations and assets as well as the wartime dividends of Opel that had remained in escrow. In addition, its parent company collected “war reparations” for facilities damaged or destroyed by Allied bombing.
Reversal of Fortune
We hope that we have presented this example of the complications that have arisen with consumer/defense industries with equanimity. These industries have cross-national ownership issues at the times when military conflicts arise — a scenario that could and probably will arise again. We now ask our readers to consider the situation in reverse (though with some alternate players). We restate the opening conundrum: Is the American automotive industry a consumer-goods industry or a defense-goods industry? Perhaps it is both. However, if the U.S. automotive industry is a defense-goods industry even to a minor degree, it still constitutes a matter relevant to national-defense policy.
In our present decade, sizable blocks of equity in many companies are in play across international-investment markets. Therefore, we need to solve this conundrum clearly and firmly. Of the Big Three, Ford appears to be the most closely held by domestic interests while Old Chrysler has passed hands between foreign nationals more than once. The New General Motors exists somewhere in the middle, with large blocks of stock moving between the federal government and the private sector. Currently, GM has 1.57 billion shares outstanding (i.e. public shares minus repurchased shares). Does General Motors plan to hold its newly acquired shares indefinitely in the company treasury, to feed them to the market, or to retire them in order to increase the value of remaining shares? How does the U.S. Treasury plan to divest itself of its remaining 19.1 percent of outstanding shares? Also, if readers have the time and inclination to view filing SG 13G/A (Statement of Acquisition of Beneficial Ownership by Individuals) on the Electronic Data-Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system (EDGAR) at the Securities and Exchange Commission, they may want to dig down into the interesting detail for Motors Liquidation Company, Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust, Wilmington Trust Corporation, Canada GEN Investment Corporation, Canada Development Investment Corporation, and the UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust. Finally, Berkshire Fund (Warren Buffet) increased its holdings to twenty-five million shares (1.6 percent) according to recent SEC filings.
What obfuscation may arise if shares of automotive stock fall into a new generation of Hedge Funds — Stock-Backed Securities? In order to take the conundrum beyond a purely philosophical debate, we need to consider the real probabilities that we will find international interests that are not currently, or may not remain, key trading partners or military allies of the United States. We conclude by asking this question: when might these interests gain ownership of assets (both physical and intellectual), operational control, and the rights to dividends?
Tail Lights
We share this conundrum with our readership of attorneys because the solution falls largely to numerous legal matters. For example, these may include disputes over the creation, ownership, and transfer of intellectual properties; labor representation and disputes under multiple sovereignties; and contract disputes on both the input and output sides of production. Therefore, attorneys could have a great deal of influence in solving the autodom conundrum, thus possibly avoiding the wrath and rancor of our opening spokesperson Bill the Butcher.
—————
A PDF copy of this article is posted at http://www.saseassociates.com/legalnewscolumn.html. We continue to post videos related to our monthly column on www.YouTube.com/SaseAssociates in the Legal News Features playlist.
—————
Dr. John F. Sase has taught Economics for three decades and has practiced Forensic and Investigative Economics since the early 1990s. He earned an M.A. in Economics and an MBA at the University of Detroit and a Ph.D. in Economics at Wayne State University. He is a graduate of the University of Detroit Jesuit High School. Dr. Sase can be reached at 248.569.5228 and by e-mail at drjohn@saseassociates.com. You can find his Economics videos of interest to attorneys at www.youtube.com/saseassociates.
—————
Gerard J. Senick is a freelance writer, editor, and musician. He earned his degree in English at the University of Detroit and was a Supervisory Editor at Gale Research Company (now Cengage) for over twenty years. Currently, he edits books for publication and gives seminars on writing and music. Mr. Senick can be reached at 313.342.4048 and at www.senick-editing.com. You can find some of his writing tips at www.YouTube.com/SenickEditing.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Client must convince hearing officer he has both a problem and a solution
Dear Mr. Brock,
I discovered your website about a week ago and have been reading it with some diligence and interest. Having been a DLAD/DAAD hearing officer for almost 25 years and having heard 8 to 16 appeals on average five days per week, I think I can speak with some authority regarding your thoughts about the Michigan Department of State (Department) appeal hearing process.
Also, I should note that at Walsh College and various other locations throughout the state, I trained substance abuse counselors, therapists, physicians, et al, (herein after referred to as professionals) on how to properly prepare a substance abuse evaluation. Further, since my retirement, I currently have come over to the dark side and represent Petitioner’s in their attempt to regain a license.
First, we both agree the MAST is an accurate tool and predictor of a persons underlying substance abuse problem. Significantly, most appeals I heard involved Petitioners with three or more alcohol related convictions and who had already experienced difficulties at work related to drinking. Hence, they already had achieved a MAST score of six and only needed four more points to reach the threshold of identifying them as having a substance abuse problem. Further, I’m not sure you know this, but prior to 1983; individuals with two or more drunk driving convictions anytime in their lives were by statute designated as “habitual drunkards.”
That being said, it was my experience that substance abuse professionals did not think like a judge or hearing officer perhaps due to training when filling out the substance abuse evaluation (SAE). For instance, many professionals would provide a diagnosis of alcohol dependency or a non-diagnosis of dependency, but could or would not back up the diagnosis with any DSM-IV criteria or underlying facts. The professional might be absolutely correct, but the failure to bring out concise data to support the diagnosis was the true cause of the appeal failure. All the hearing officer is looking for is a “reasonable basis” for the professional’s diagnosis.
The Hearing Officer is as equally concerned with the person being overly diagnosed as being alcohol dependent, when the facts suggest the person is alcohol abusive! It all goes to whether or not the professional’s opinion appears reasonable given the known criteria for a given diagnosis.
Many times a Petitioner would present a SAE with a diagnosis of alcohol dependency, in full sustained remission with an indication in support thereof that the person was currently on Antibuse therapy and had not been drinking for six months or more. Obviously, the diagnosis was improper and was unreasonable on its face using the DSM-IV. (Correct diagnosis being alcohol dependency, on Agonist Therapy.) Given such evidence the Hearing Officer would not give any weight to that particular professional’s opinion and the appeal was doomed.
Your comment, “...there are two things a client has to convince the DAAD hearing officer of:
1. that he is an alcoholic, and;
2. that he is doing every thing he needs to do to arrest the problem...” to justify the return of a license is incorrect, at least in all the hearings I held.
A non-diagnosis of a substance abuse disorder and/or a diagnosis of alcohol dependency rather than alcohol abuse is only a concern to the hearing officer if the counselor fails to reasonably document that basis for the diagnosis.
But, as indicated above, a person with three convictions is over half-way to being identified as having a substance abuse problem using the MAST, hence the hearing officer may have some genuine concern for looking askance at a non-diagnosis. (I found less than five cases in 25 years that were supported by sufficient facts to support the professional’s conclusions.)
I will concede to you that the newer HO’s within the Department of State may have not been trained to the extent that some of the old timers were. My prior training included lectures with Dr. McDonald at the Brighton Hospital and multiple appearances at Departmental training meetings with various MD’s and certified substance abuse counselors. Such training is no longer a common element, but I digress.
If the Petitioner really does not believe he is alcohol dependent, he needs to establish that his belief system is correct. (Alternatively, a professional might want to engage the Petitioner into going in to appropriate counseling with another therapist to avoid any conflict of interest.)
My concern comes because your comments suggest that you might attempt to influence a Petitioner into stating that he is alcohol dependent, when in fact he has no such belief. If this is correct, then I believe you have over stepped your profession’s guidelines. Of course, if I am incorrect in reading your comments, I withdraw my concern.
Perhaps, I might make a suggestion. What I think you mean to be suggesting is that the Department is looking for the “compliant patient.” A compliant patient is one that understands and accepts the diagnosis of the professional and follows the recommendations for their particular disease/disorder. HOs look for this component whether the person is alcohol dependent, epileptic, diabetic, etc.
Because the Petitioner has already been without a license for over a year, it is quite easy for the hearing officer to determine whether or not the Petitioner has been a compliant patient or not once the diagnosis is established on the record.
If you truly believe, that the Petitioner does not have a substance abuse disorder, then it is your burden and obligation to sufficiently document facts to support the diagnosis.
You as do all professionals who elect to complete the SAE for the Department have a tough decision when meeting with a given Petitioner. Who is your client? I contend it is the Department; the Petitioner merely foots the bill. Further, do you keep your objective standards as an “evaluator” for the Department/Court or do you become the therapist. May I respectfully suggest you can’t be both?
I wish you well in your practice and thank you in advance for your time and thoughts.
James M. Flint, Esq.
Dear Mr. Flint,
Thank you for your well thought out and detailed feedback. I haven’t had any direct response from a hearing officer or former hearing officer before, so it was good to hear from someone who has been in the trenches. I did have one attorney who sends me work say that I was recommended to him by a hearing officer — actually one of the tougher ones — and I took that as a sign that my work is respected.
Not everything on the website is up to date; I’m still learning. Several years ago when I began to do DAAD evals I contacted the State about getting some training, but they could not direct me to any. I wish I had known about you then; I may not have had to learn everything through trial and error. I don’t share your view, however, that representing appellants at their hearings is inherently “dark.” (I know you were being facetious.)
I was aware that a person with two or more DUIs was in the past considered habitual. I think back in the day when drunk driving tickets were harder to get it was always an indication of a serious problem. These days a wild and crazy kid can get into a world of trouble without necessarily having an advanced addiction. I still find that most of the people I see are alcohol dependent, though I am much more aware of degrees of addiction than I used to be. Sometimes I refer to early stage v. advanced dependence in my reports. More importantly, I see that people who arrest their addiction early on may not need a lifetime of AA to have a productive life. People recover in many different ways, but the common denominator is always an across-the-board better life because the person wants something more than what alcohol or drugs have to offer.
When I provide a diagnosis I enumerate the symptoms of abuse/dependence that show up on the MAST vs. the ones that don’t and that seems to satisfy the hearing officers. You mentioned that if someone has three DUIs they already have six points on the MAST. I would also say that it’s hard to get to three DUIs without drinking abnormally, or someone noticing that you are drinking abnormally, or without having an increased tolerance to alcohol (confirmed by a high BAC). Nor can you legitimately argue that you can control your drinking, etc, etc.
Some people want to say they weren’t that bad because they believe the hearing officer will judge them on whether he or she considers them to be a “good” or a “bad” person. Of course, they had enough of a problem to to get caught breaking the law multiple times, so “I wasn’t that bad” is a tough argument to make convincingly. They are better off to make the case for how their life has changed. Most people aren’t going to get a license back while they are on probation, so they usually have at least two years and often longer to show what they have done to rebuild their lives. The proof is in the pudding.
Regardless of diagnosis, the fact remains that the client has to convince the hearing officer he has both a problem and a solution. He can’t have one with out the other. Substance abuse professionals who give their clients unsupported abuse (v. dependence) diagnoses are typically guilty of the same delusion as their clients--they think it will help the client if he doesn’t look “too bad.” The process is counter intuitive, except for people who have accepted the AA disease/recovery model. They can easily talk about “hitting bottom” and having a “spiritual awakening,” what it was like before, what happened and what they are like now, etc. For those who have recovered through other means and are not particularly religious, the “born again” speech is harder to deliver.
If a person is truly in denial, I’m not going to give him a good prognosis. But if he or she says they’ve been sober/abstinent five years and seems to be able to backup a substantial lifestyle change, I’ll ask them why they had to quit and radically change their life if their drinking/use of substances weren’t that bad. Usually they’ll express concern about their chances to get their license back if the hearing officer thinks they’re “a bad person.” Unless they are in AA or otherwise “born again,” they are ashamed to talk of their past and see themselves as having been “bad” people, but they are hoping to be seen as “good” people now. As a retired hearing officer and a practicing attorney, I’m surprised you don’t have that insight into human psychology.
To clarify this conflict within the client, or between the client’s behavior and his self-concept, allows him to embrace his recovery in whatever form it takes, and to put his best foot forward. If a person genuinely doesn’t believe he has a problem that requires him to remain abstinent, then I am not going to recommend him for a license, but I’m going to tell him that. I’m not going to send a report in to the DAAD after he leaves my office; I put two copies of the report in his hand. It’s up to him if he wants to send it in.
Of course you are aware that the December 2012 changes to the evaluation forms now ask for the history of medication assisted treatment. That whole area is murky. Like most
hearing officers, I’m kind of skeptical of people taking antibuse, or medical marijuana, or especially opiates, but I can’t overrule the doctor. I just bring it to the hearing officer’s attention and let him deal with it.
As far as the hearing officers looking for a compliant patient, I take your point. However, that is also a two edge sword. I know that if I make a recommendation the client is not compliant with, he will be denied. A hearing officer recently asked one of my clients if he was following up with continued AA meetings, and learning and working the steps as suggested. He said no, though his attorney also told him that would be a good idea. The hearing officer told him, “There is a price to pay for stupidity, and you’re going to pay it.” Fair enough, but if the person has been abstinent without AA for five years and is leading a productive life, why would I recommend that he return to meetings? He probably doesn’t need it, and if he doesn’t go he may be denied on that basis that he is non-compliant.
As far as who I represent in a DAAD appeal, it is neither the client, nor the Secretary of State. The hearing officer represents the State, and his or her duties seem to be both judicial and prosecutorial. Either the client has an attorney, or he represents himself at the hearing. I am an independent forensic evaluator, and I view my role to be the same as if I were appointed by a judge to provide or assess forensic evidence for the court in a custody or child abuse case. My job is to make sense of the evidence and put it before the court as objectively as possible. Any number of things can then happen; the hearing officer can decide the evidence is not sufficient to warrant issuing a license; the client can sabotage his own cause by lying about something that’s in the record or changing his story at the hearing; he can get his license back and go on being a productive and law-abiding citizen; or he can get his license back and be one of those who never learns, deciding to drink again once he finishes jumping through all the hoops and making a bigger mess of his life.
You are right that I can’t be both therapist and evaluator with the same client at the same time. The rules, however, do not forbid me from acting as the evaluator for a former treatment
clients. If I have confidence that the person has made a good recovery, then I can write a stronger recommendation on his or her behalf. I very much enjoy seeing people who have had serious problems with substances decide that there is a better way to live, and again become productive members of society. People who do so deserve another chance, and I believe that society as a whole benefits from these reconstructed lives.
Yours truly,
Michael Brock
––––––––––
Michael G. Brock, MA, LLP, LMSW, is a forensic mental health professional in private practice at Counseling and Evaluation Services in Wyandotte, Michigan. He has worked in the mental health field since 1974, and has been in full-time private practice since 1985. The majority of his practice in recent years relates to driver license restoration and substance abuse evaluation. He may be contacted at Michael G. Brock, Counseling and Evaluation Services, 2514 Biddle, Wyandotte, 48192; (313) 802-0863, fax/phone (734) 692-1082; e-mail, michaelgbrock@ comcast.net; website, michaelgbrock.com.
