Time is an Ally

Last month my father-in-law, Robert G. Parr, died at the age of ninety-five. His death was not a surprise but it was still an emotional moment for his family and for many of his scientific colleagues.

Bob Parr and I were close friends. This was (and still is) a peculiar fact. The two of us were at opposite ends of just about any scale that you can imagine. He was a brilliant, world-class theoretical chemist. I passed high school chemistry with a C-. Bob was careful and deliberate. He built his life and his career on rational, long range plans and consistent follow through. I have spent most of my life in a “Be Here Now” anti-planning model that has had numerous downside consequences and only a few invisible upsides. Bob was quiet, thoughtful, and serious. I am seldom any of those. The only thing Bob and I had in common was that we both loved the same woman, his daughter, Carol.

A few days after Bob’s death two of his younger colleagues asked me if I could explain to them how I became friends with Bob. These two young men deeply admired and respected Bob but I don’t think they experienced Bob as a close friend. I could not answer their question in any meaningful way but it did cause me to think about it.

Bob and I became friends with the help of an ally – time. We were in each other’s family life for a very long time. For much of that time we just tolerated each other. We co-existed through holidays, family vacations and many UNC basketball games. We did not judge each other. We just hung around each other long enough to allow opportunities to emerge. The opportunities eventually appeared as problems or periods of family crisis. During these periods of crisis Bob and I got to experience what it was like to help each other out. We tested the strength of our relationship.

We discovered what was behind the masks of our roles as father-in-law and son-in-law. We found that behind the masks we did have something significant in common that did not require words. We discovered that we could rely on each other as human beings - as friends.

During the final years of Bob’s life I felt his friendship through his subtle smile and occasional winks. My friendship with Bob Parr was well worth the wait.

 

Louisville Cops in Action

I recently visited Louisville and witnessed an episode that involved four local police officers. While eating a breakfast biscuit at MacDonald’s on Taylorsville Road, I noticed a very large African American man sleeping at a table in the corner. He looked like some of the homeless people I have met in my neighborhood. There were several other people eating near him but he was not creating a problem. 

Four local policemen entered the MacDonald’s and surrounded the sleeping customer. They were well armed and equipped with gear that looked intimidating to me. One of the policemen nudged the customer and said firmly, “MacDonald’s called us and said you have to leave.” The policeman told the man to stand up but the man refused to do so. He said it was cold outside and that he had no place to go. Most of the other customers seemed to sense something bad was about to happen, and they quickly left the area. 

The lead policeman who woke the man talked with him for about fifteen minutes while the other officers just stood by quietly. The man’s speech was incoherent, and he sounded like he might have a mental illness. The policemen never moved nor spoke in a threatening manner. They just continued to surround him. Eventually the policemen were able to gently escort the man out the door. I followed them out and heard the policeman still talking with the man on the sidewalk. The policeman was asking the man where he was going next. The policeman offered to take him to a hospital if he could describe a specific illness or injury, but he could not.

I needed to move on. Before I left I tapped one of the officers on the shoulder and said, “I wish I had videotaped what you guys just did and then shared it on the internet. You handled that the way policemen should. Thank you for your service.”

How Can I Help?

I have a friend whose daughter recently graduated from college. In the absence of a better idea the new graduate moved back home to live with her parents. Her parents are happy to be her safety net but they are also a little worried. They wonder how long she will be living with them. They wonder if they are "enabling" her to avoid getting started with the normal stages of adult development.

I think the young woman is worried, too. I think she has not built enough self confidence to admit to herself that she doesn't know what to do next. She wants a job but she is paralyzed by her fear of rejection or failure. She has not yet recognized the strength of her own character nor tested her own unique abilities. I doubt that she knows how many old people like me remember being her age and stuck in a similar situation.

I wish I had a strong enough relationship with this young woman to offer a suggestion. I would suggest that she temporarily give up on her job search. Instead I would suggest that she start each day by looking at herself in the mirror and asking, "How can I help?" She would then just need to listen to her own inner voice for an answer. If she doesn't hear anything right away then she could ask the same question to her parents, her neighbors, her friends. If nothing happens on the first day she could start over on the second day with the same question. Very soon she would find an interesting place to get started. 

She only needs to remain open to possibilities and nonjudgmental about herself. Ironically, these are the same concepts and practices I need to remember as I approach retirement. Life's transitions don't seem to stop or get any easier. 

  I wonder how I can help.

The Time for This Will Come

On July 20, 2012 a man with a serious mental illness entered a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. He set off tear gas grenades and then shot into the audience with multiple firearms. He killed 12 people and injured 70 others. At the time of this incident it was the largest number of casualties in a shooting in the United States. 

_____________________________________________________________

Two nights later my son, Patrick, showed me an editorial cartoon he was reading online. The cartoon pictured a man with a disability standing on the sidewalk gazing up at a very long stairway that led up to a psychiatrist sitting in the clouds. On the sidewalk right next to the man was a gun store with an open door and a sign saying, “Come Right In.”

Patrick and I discussed the obvious irony in the cartoon for a few minutes. Neither of us could find words to express our sadness about the Aurora incident. Like most people across the country we had watched and listened to many stories on television about the victims of the shooting. As we talked about the cartoon I felt my eyes tearing up.

At that moment I felt an impulse to do something. I felt compelled to respond to the horrible incident in Aurora in some small way. So I went upstairs to my computer and sent the following email to an acquaintance of mine who worked as a fundraiser for the NRA.

Hello Ben. I have wondered lately if the NRA supports (or would be interested in supporting) improved access to mental health programs for high risk individuals. I think this represents a win/win opportunity for otherwise opposing interests. What do you think?

I did not expect a response to this email. But the act of writing and sending it helped me feel a little better. Taking a useless action felt slightly better than taking no action at all. At that moment I had no 
idea why or how the NRA could support improved access to mental health services. I just had a feeling that something as counter-intuitive as this might be a good idea.

I forgot about the email so I was surprised to receive a response from Ben about a week later. He emailed me and asked me to give him a call. We chatted for a few minutes about a mental health project that the two of us had worked on prior to his accepting a position as Vice President of Development for the NRA. Our former project involved teaching basic business planning and fundraising skills to people with disabilities who wanted to start their own “micro-enterprises.” Ben and I worked on this project intermittently for three years and helped several “teams” of people with mental illness launch their own very small businesses. Our phone conversation eventually got around to the subject of my email.

Ben said that it was possible, although not likely, that the NRA would support the idea of improved access to mental health treatment for people who might be at risk of violent behavior. I found his opinion encouraging so I kept my mouth shut and just listened. Ben explained that for years the NRA had supported the idea of restricting gun sales to people with mental illness. As an example, he described an appearance of Wayne LaPierre, the CEO of the NRA, on a TV talk show years several years ago. During the talk show Wayne (as Ben referred to him) expressed his support for restricting gun rights to people with mental illness. According to Ben, Wayne got really angry and said something like, “but the damned ACLU won’t allow it to happen.”

I eventually searched around on the internet and figured out that the “it” that the American Civil Liberties Union would not allow was the NRA’s idea to limit gun sales to people with mental illness by creating “an electronic universal mental health registry of people adjudicated to be incompetent.” I saw some obvious legal and ethical problems with that idea but it seemed like a good place to start a search for common ground between the NRA and advocates for improved mental health services.

Ben told me that he had a very good relationship with Woody Phillips, Chief Financial Officer, of the NRA. Woody also managed the NRA Foundation. Woody’s office was right next door to Wayne LaPierre’s. Ben said he thought Woody Phillips would be the most receptive person within the inner circle of executive leadership of the NRA. Ben said that he would present the idea to Woody. This was beginning to sound very interesting.

On August 1, 2012 Ben sent me the following email message and copied Woody Phillips.

Michael - Thanks for your note of July 23 asking about NRA's possible interest in improving access to mental health programs for high-risk individuals. I spoke today with Woody Phillips, the CFO for NRA. NRA has a strong interest in mental health issues as they relate to the protection of the Second Amendment. Woody would be happy to speak with you about NRA's interest and hear your thoughts.

Woody invited you to join us in a phone meeting to discuss these matters. My assistant will be in contact with everyone to set up a time and the details of the call. I will also have her set up a time for you and me to talk before the phone call with Woody.

Please let me know any thoughts or questions in the meantime. I look forward to talking again soon. thx ben

Ben

This was now sounding incredible. I was about to have a conversation with the CFO of the NRA about the organization’s possible support for improving mental health services. After a series of emails with Woody’s secretary a conference call was set for August 16, 2012. Ben and I agreed to have a conversation prior to our phone call with Woody to get clear on the “what” and “why” of our message.

In the days prior to the conference call I had some moments of doubt. This certainly seemed like an interesting opportunity but an opportunity for what? What was I really talking about? What did I want to see happen?

I decided that a realistic expectation for my conversation with Woody Phillips would be to get an agreement from the NRA to meet privately with representatives of national mental health advocacy groups. I thought if human beings from these divergent groups could meet together in the aftermath of Aurora they might spontaneously find some areas of agreement. I fantasized being the facilitator of the meeting and moderating the discussion.

Suddenly a different problem occurred to me. What if the mental health advocacy community was unwilling to participate in a discussion with the NRA? So I called Linda Rosenberg.

Linda Rosenberg is the President and CEO of the National Council for Behavioral Health. The National Council describes itself as “the unifying voice of America’s mental health and addiction treatment programs.” The organization has 2500 member agencies across the country. Among many other activities, the National Council hosts a program called Mental Health First Aid which trains teachers, church leaders, court counselors, and others who are not mental health professionals to recognize the signs and symptoms of mental illness and to make appropriate referrals for treatment. I had recently introduced Linda as a keynote speaker at a conference in North Carolina and I hoped she might remember my name.

I am not sure Linda remembered my name but she took my call. I said something like, “Linda, I have a very unusual idea.” I went on to make the following points:

• I had two contacts within the NRA.
• The NRA might be motivated to do something positive related to improved access to mental health services.
• The NRA and the National Council are both headquartered in Washington, DC and both are very effective at lobbying Congress. Imagine the possibilities if the two organizations could find even one policy position that they agreed on.

There was a long pause. I don’t remember exactly what Linda said but she did not sound convinced so I made another point.

• One of my contacts at the NRA is a fundraiser and the other is the administrator of the NRA Foundation. The National Council might be able to persuade the NRA Foundation to fund an expansion of the Mental Health First Aid program.

I do remember what Linda said then. “Michael, we will talk to anybody.”

So, game on.

On August 16, 2012 Ben and I had a preliminary phone conversation in which he gave me some background on Woody Phillips. Ben cautioned me to keep the conversation on “the right issue” which was mental illness, not guns. I told Ben that I did not have a gun and never experienced the need for one. I did not know anything about guns but could contribute some ideas about mental health issues.

The conference call with Woody was extremely friendly and interesting. I learned that Woody was from Henderson, NC, a town with which I was very familiar. Woody graduated from Wake Forest University. He was fluent in the language of college sports. He sounded like a pretty regular guy.

Once we got on topic of the call I talked a little about some of the barriers to treatment that many people with mental illness experience. Woody and I discussed the cultural stigma associated with mental illness and addictions. We talked about the lack of services in so many rural communities like the one he grew up in. I spoke briefly about how Mental Health First Aid was helping people in rural and urban communities across the country.

Eventually, Woody reminded me that the business of the NRA was protecting and promoting the Second Amendment and that mental health was not part of their mission. He asked me to explain my proposal. I told him that I was merely suggesting a private conversation among leaders of the NRA and the National Council of Behavioral Health. I told him that I did not know what specific outcomes would flow from the conversation. I pointed out that both organizations were highly effective in shaping public policy. If they could find a shared goal or a common policy position they might surprise people in both camps. Woody sounded interested.

He stated that “nothing is going to happen until after the election in November.” He said he would ask his secretary to remind him to revisit this topic after November 6, 2012 and to schedule another meeting with Ben and me.

Shortly after we ended the conference call I got the following email message from Ben.

8/16/2012 Appreciate your being on the phone with Woody. It was a very positive conversation. I will keep encouraging Woody to look for a date for a next meeting after the election. It would be great to consider other potential mental health partners that could work together to accomplish the shared goals we discussed. Will be in contact as we look to next meeting after 11/6.  Thx ben

   

I was encouraged, even excited. There was something exhilarating about this. Perhaps, it was exhilarating because it was an attempt to do the impossible.

The Presidential election came and went. I waited impatiently for a few days and then started sending short, friendly email reminders to Ben. I was probably annoying. Eventually, Ben responded.

Hi Michael. Thanks for this note. I have a reminder set on this for Monday, November 19. I will reach out to Woody at that time to try to get something moving forward on this. Thx ben.

I waited. Then all hell broke loose.

On December 14, 2012 a young man with a serious mental illness shot and killed 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. 

The entire country seemed to be in a state of shock. That afternoon I sent an email to Ben that ended with:

The news out of Connecticut is heartbreaking for everyone. I am sensitive to how busy you are and I do not want to push too hard on this. However, I cannot give up.

Ben sent the following response:

       You were the first person I thought of when I heard this                    news.I will contact Woody again on Monday.  Thx  ben

Things at the NRA seemed to be moving very quickly. I sent Ben another email with a list of suggestions that I thought they might consider regarding "the mental health issue." I thanked Ben for his courage in sticking with this. He responded with:
        
        I will. Today is probably one of the craziest days in history               there. Let me think about timing. I know it has to be right                 away. Thx. Ben 

On December 19, 2012 Ben copied me on the following email to Woody Phillips in which he summarized my suggestions.

Woody: Michael sent the following notes to me. I am sure there are plenty of discussions about NRA's response to this tragedy. Wayne, you and the gang know how to manage this far better than Michael or me. I believe Michael's thoughts were worthwhile as a possible forward stance that NRA could take. So for what they are worth...

1. More effective restrictions on gun procession for people known to be experiencing symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia

2. Protecting the Second Amendment rights of people with mental illness or histories of mental illness who are not a threat

3. Supporting an unprecedented national public health campaign to educate citizens about serious mental illnesses and appropriate individual and community responses

4. Promoting re-examination of state's involuntary commitment laws for people with serious mental illness

The question I keep hearing asked is - what if anything would have prevented this guy from doing what he did? None of the suggestions I have heard in the media would work or have done so. However, numbers 3 and 4 would certainly be steps forward that NRA could suggest and support. I liked them because they put the focus on mental illness and not guns.

All my best to you. Thx ben

Shortly after that email was sent Ben and I talked briefly on the phone. Ben had learned that someone else at the NRA was assigned to follow up on their response to the “mental health” issue. Ben said that the NRA was now considering the formation of their own Mental Health Commission to study the issues and make recommendations. He thought this might be announced soon at a press conference. Ben said he had recommended that I be included on this Commission.

On December 21 Ben copied me on the following email that he sent to the NRA staff person who was organizing the Commission.

Hi Millie.  Know it is crazy so I will be very brief. You should have an email forwarded to you from Woody about Michael Owen, including his resume.  Michael is someone that should be included on the NRA’s mental health commission. 

He brings great insights into the mental health community including how it really works (or doesn’t). He is a grassroots, community mental health person of very high intellect who is not afraid to challenge the status quo. In fact, my work with him was part of a state-wide effort in North Carolina to change the whole delivery system for mental health services in NC and Michael was the straw stirring the drink. He also can help Wayne and the NRA understand the mental health community and how to communicate with it and about it. Please note this. His original approach to me about organizing mental health leaders to work with the NRA to address the mental health/Second Amendment issues was more than six months ago, which I discussed with Woody this past summer. Michael, as he communicated in his note to Woody, is very committed to helping to solve the correct issue. If you need any further information on Michael, please contact me. 
You are in my prayers at this time of great stress to our Second Amendment right. Regards to Ralph.  Thx  ben  

Later that day Ben sent me a one-sentence email. He said, “I think we have been blown off.”

I did not immediately understand the significance of that sentence. However, it became clear when the NRA held a press conference that same day - Dec. 21, 2012. I was hoping they were going to announce the formation of their Mental Health Commission. Instead, Wayne LaPierre announced the formation of National School Safety Shield Program. This NRA-funded initiative was being created to put an armed security guard in every school in the United States. They had decided to go in a different direction.

Starting in January 2013 I have sent an email every few months to my contacts at the NRA. The most recent one was last week. The messages are always short, polite reminders about the potential value of building a relationship within the mental health advocacy community. Back on October 24, 2013 I got a reply that offered enough encouragement to keep trying. It said:

The time for this will come. Stay in touch.

You Gotta Believe

Many years ago I was a regular member of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship in Durham. Now I am a very irregular member. Actually, I am not really an official member at all. But I do attend the Men’s Group there every other Thursday night and I identify with the values of many past and present Unitarians.

About twenty years ago the Fellowship had a practice of inviting individual members to deliver short statements during the Sunday morning services. The purpose of this practice was to give individuals an opportunity to tell the congregation what they truly believed. I always thought this was a great idea. Since Unitarians are not restricted by dogma every individual can believe whatever he or she chooses. So how could any of us know what our fellow travelers really believe about life, death, God, or no god, etc. if we didn’t ask and didn’t tell? 

In the early 90’s I was recruited to deliver my “credo” as they called it. I actually appreciated being asked because I thought the exercise might be interesting. Over the years I had sat through quite a few credo presentations of other people. In a way they were all interesting. Yet, I thought they usually represented missed opportunities. Most people just read biographical statements about growing up as a Catholic (or whatever), giving up their original religion and discovering a more comfortable experience as a Unitarian. After they spoke I still did not know what they really believed about anything important.

So when it was my turn I prepared a list of sentences that all started with the words “I believe.” I think I wrote about sixteen statements of belief back then. Sadly, I did not keep a copy. I do remember a few of the statements. The list below includes the statements I remember and a few updates for 2015.

_______________________________________________________________________

I believe that stating what I believe in public is harder than I expected.

I believe in the power of paradox. That means I believe that two seemingly opposite experiences of reality can co-exist at the same time. Sometimes these opposing experiences can even support each other. The Tao is a great representation of this idea. I believe my marriage is another.

I believe that everything vibrates. This is really more than a belief. I believe it is a fact. I wonder if the expansion and contraction of the Universe is a really big example.

I believe in the force that keeps my heart beating (vibrating) even though I am not paying attention to it. I believe that the same force keeps my brain waves oscillating and my thoughts flowing.  

I believe that I usually experience reality on only one narrow, egocentric channel. I have occasionally stumbled onto another channel that seems to have much more band width.

I believe we all have more in common than we realize - a lot more.

I believe there is something important - maybe even spiritual - about the ability to witness ourselves acting in the world.

I believe I frequently forget what I believe and I appreciate being reminded.

I believe that it is valuable to test out what I really believe within the context of a group. This also allows me to learn what others really believe. I suspect that is why so many of us keep coming back here every week.

I believe that when I die my mind, body, and everything else that I identify as Michael will be dead. I also believe that nothing in the universe can ever be completely destroyed, thus we are all (much like the IRS) just frequently changing forms.

I believe I frequently forget what I believe and I appreciate being reminded.

I believe we are fortunate if we have the curiosity and courage to ask and share with others the question, “What do I really believe?”

______________________________________________________

Behar Now...but be able to look back

Please do not read this story. It is too long, too boring, and too detailed to be of interest. However, it describes a traumatic episode in my life that I want written, even if not read.
___________________________________

August 2001
My attorney was saying something like, “I am pretty sure we can get use immunity for both of you. Maybe even blanket immunity but that’ll be a lot harder to get. For blanket immunity we will need approval from the Department of Justice in D.C. It may take a couple of days.” 

I did not understand the distinction between the two types of immunity deals that could be offered to witnesses who were willing to testify before a Grand Jury. My new $500-per-hour criminal lawyer was happy to explain. Use immunity meant that anything I said under oath that pertained to a specific area of inquiry could never be used against me in court. Blanket immunity meant that anything I said under oath regardless of the topic could not be used against me – unless I lied. In that case all bets would be off. 

Just being in the office of a criminal defense lawyer and discussing immunity agreements to avoid federal prosecution was…surreal.  My business partner and I were looking at each other trying to process this avalanche of new information while still vibrating in and out of denial. It seemed impossible to us that we were capable of doing anything significant enough to need immunity from prosecution for a felony. Yet, here we were paying a criminal defense attorney $500 per hour to scare the hell out of us.

My anxiety level was about to top out. It got higher with the answer to my next two questions. I asked, “What if we don’t get an immunity agreement? What is the worst case scenario?” The attorney opened a large book that listed multiple federal crimes and the mandatory sentencing guidelines. He flipped it around so that we could read it ourselves. He told us that we would probably be charged with obstruction of justice and/or conspiracy to defraud the government. Either way the mandatory sentence would be three to five years. With no prior convictions we would likely get the minimum mandatory sentence. He asked, "Do either of you have any prior convictions?”

I stared straight through the eye contact of the attorney into some distant space far away. My audio track was stuck at “three to five years.” I think the attorney must have sensed that he was getting out ahead of my anxiety level so he backed up. He tried to reassure me that he thought we were going to be okay. He hit the reset button by summarizing his understanding of our situation. My partner and I helped with detail and clarification as he went along. The summary went something like this.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Michael and his partner own and operate a small business called Triangle Training & Communication Associates (TT&CA). The business works under contract with state and local government agencies to produce training manuals, videos, conferences, workshops, and other training-related services. Most of the work of TT&CA is in the area of mental health services. The state Division of Mental Health in Raleigh occasionally allocates money to a local mental health agency to carry out specific projects. Sometimes the state Division of Mental Health asks the local mental health agency to contract with TT&CA to accomplish the state’s intention. This is a common business practice that is both legal and transparent.

One of the state officials with whom TT&CA has frequently worked is Dr. Lenore Behar. She was, until recently, the Director of Child Mental Health Services for the North Carolina Division of Mental Health Services. Dr. Behar is a psychologist with a national reputation and is recognized as a prominent expert on child mental health. Michael and his partner describe Dr. Behar as creative, intelligent, and capable of doing great things. They also consider her to be a narcissistic bully who relies on intimidation as a means of influencing the behavior of people with whom she works. Let’s just stipulate that she is a complex and difficult person.

In 1994 Dr. Behar was invited by the Governor to join a delegation of people from North Carolina to go on a state-sponsored trip to Israel. The trip was part of an economic and cultural exchange initiative. Michael’s business partner and her husband, a prominent member of the psychology faculty at UNC, were included in the group of dignitaries on the trip. At the conclusion of the trip the Governor announced the creation of a new organization, the North Carolina/Israel Partnership. An office of the Partnership was set up in Tel Aviv and a Director in Israel was hired. Dr. Behar was assigned a leadership role for the Partnership in North Carolina. Michael’s partner became an enthusiastic volunteer and supporter of the Partnership.

Early in 1995 Dr. Behar asked Michael’s partner to help her get some money to the North Carolina/Israel Partnership office in Tel Aviv. Dr. Behar explained that she had access to funds that were critical for the success of the program in Israel but she had no way of getting the money there. She suggested the idea of a “pass through” contract to TT&CA through a local mental health agency. Dr. Behar said she would arrange for an allocation to the local agency. TT&CA could bill the local mental health agency for the project work and then simply write a check to the Partnership in Tel Aviv. Michael’s partner asked Dr. Behar if this arrangement was approved by other officials in state government. Dr. Behar told Michael’s partner that this specific arrangement had been discussed and approved in a meeting with representatives from the Governor’s office. Michael’s partner agreed to the arrangement.

When Michael’s partner explained the arrangement to Michael he thought it was “crazy.” He wondered what would be the rationale for a local mental health agency to contract for work done in Israel. He also wondered why the Governor’s office would approve of this deal. But since this was his partner’s project he did not pay much attention to the details. He thought it would be another example of his partner’s “volunteer work” for the Partnership since there was no money to be earned except for a very small administrative fee. 

A few weeks later Michael noticed an invoice to a local mental health agency in the outgoing mail box. He read the invoice and was confused. The $10,000 invoice was for the completion of “Case Management Training Modules.” TT&CA had not done this work. He carried the invoice into his partner’s office and asked for an explanation. His partner said, “That is for the Israel project. That’s how Lenore told me to invoice it.” Michael said, “We can’t do that. Even if we disregard whether it’s right or wrong. It’s definitely illegal. We cannot bill for work we didn’t do.” Michael asked to see the contract that supported the invoice. He read the contract terms that Dr. Behar had sent the local mental health agency. The contract signed by Michael’s partner was for the creation of case management training modules. It made no mention of Israel.

Michael insisted that the invoice could not be sent. His partner then told Michael that she had already sent a prior invoice for a similar amount to the local mental health agency and that TT&CA had received payment. She also had written a check to the NC/Israel Partnership for the same amount minus a 3% administrative fee. After lengthy discussion Michael and his partner agreed that this matter was unlikely to ever be scrutinized. They also agreed that it was still a problem. Michael’s partner acknowledged that she had made a naïve mistake. 

After thinking about this overnight and talking with his wife Michael told his partner that he thought she should tell Dr. Behar that the original contract would have to be modified. Dr. Behar would have to notify the local mental health agency that there had been an error in the original scope of work. A new contract would have to be written that called for work actually done by TT&CA. 

Michael suggested to his partner that she rewrite an existing training manual that TT&CA had developed for a private client. The revised manual could then constitute a legitimate contract deliverable to the local mental health agency. Michael suggested that TT&CA could then take the proceeds from that legitimate work and send the money to the NC/Israel Partnership. Since Michael’s partner had created the problem in the first place she agreed that it was fair that she would do the “pro bono” work of rewriting the training manual for this new purpose. Michael assumed this would constitute a legal transaction and, thus would enable him to sleep at night. Neither assumption turned out to be accurate.

Michael’s partner informed Dr. Behar of the problem and the changes that would have to be made. Dr. Behar called Michael and expressed her displeasure. She told him that he was creating an unnecessary problem. She threatened that this could jeopardize future business opportunities with her. However, she reluctantly agreed to the revised deal. Soon thereafter she sent an awkward email to the local mental health agency claiming that someone on her staff had made an error in the original scope of work. Within a short time the contract was revised. 

Ultimately, TT&CA billed $42,000 to the local mental health agency under the contract. In return the local mental health agency received a training curriculum on behavior management skills for front line workers. TT&CA sent the funds (minus 3%) to the NC/Israel Partnership in Tel Aviv.

Fortunately, Michael’s business partner retained extremely detailed documentation of every aspect of these transactions.

________________________________________________________________________________________

At this point the attorney stopped and asked us if we ever questioned Dr. Behar about the source of the money for the contract. At the time of the NC/Israel project we did not inquire or even think about the source of funds. However, we had since come to realize the significance of the source. The money was taken from funds (about $23 million) that Dr. Behar had improperly billed the federal government for “preventing unnecessary foster care placements in North Carolina.”

Our attorney was aware of an active federal investigation of Dr. Behar. Local newspapers were reporting on ongoing developments in the investigation. In fact, our attorney was representing another client who was peripherally involved in the scandal. The original investigation focused on an alleged abuse of federal funds in a mental health project that Dr. Behar supervised at Fort Bragg several years earlier. Because the funds came through Fort Bragg the investigation was initiated by the Department of Defense. Since Dr. Behar had administered numerous other federally funded projects, the investigation had broadened to include other questionable transactions around the use of federal money. This investigation had been going on for several years. 

My partner and I had been interviewed twice by federal investigators regarding our work with Dr. Behar. These were friendly, voluntary interviews that dealt with multiple TT&CA projects. We answered all of the investigator’s questions honestly and we were happy to show him written documentation to support our answers. The interviews covered years of TT&CA contracts. There was not a hint of impropriety found in any of them. However, the investigators never inquired about the NC/Israel Partnership project and we never offered any information about it - until now.

In the spring of 2001 Dr. Behar was indicted on over 40 separate violations of federal law. Her attorney made several high profile public statements about his client's innocence and her intention to fight the charges. My partner and I thought this storm was going to pass by us without mention of our work with Dr. Behar. 

But in July we got a subpoena to report to the federal building in Raleigh to answer questions under oath regarding the Behar investigation. This prompted our new relationship with the $500 per hour attorney.

As our session with the attorney was wrapping up he offered a prediction about how this saga would unfold. He said,

"I will present a summary of your story to the US Attorney’s office and obtain a blanket immunity agreement. Once the agreement is signed you will be protected from any criminal liability in this matter.

You will meet with a team of investigators and the prosecuting attorney for questioning. They will recognize the high value of your testimony and you will be subpoenaed to appear before the Grand Jury in Wilmington.

You will testify truthfully before the Grand Jury. Your testimony will result in additional charges being brought against Dr. Behar.

Your legal fees will be, at least, $10,000.”

Our attorney’s predictions were all accurate.

___________________________

However, he did not predict how quickly Dr. Behar would accept a plea bargain following our Grand Jury testimony. She pleaded guilty to charges of obstruction of justice. She was sentenced to six months of house arrest, a fine of $250,000, restitution in the amount of $274,000, and two years of probation. She also was prohibited from being the principle investigator for future federal grants.

Our attorney also did not predict that my partner and I would permanently close TT&CA within a month of our testimony as a self-imposed consequence of this stressful ordeal. But that is what happened.