Andrew: Today we have the pleasure of having M.
David “Mick” Meagher on the line. He is the CEO and
Executive Director of The Gooden Center in Pasadena,
California, and also operates a law office, M. David Meagher
in Escondido, California. Thank you very much
for joining us today, Mick. I really appreciate your time.

Mick: Well, it’s my pleasure, I appreciate you asking me
to be here, thank you.

Andrew: Absolutely. Well, you have a very interesting
background and I’d like to, speak to that perhaps, just
a bit. Can you tell us, a little about your life as an adult
and the path that it’s taken along the way in the various
twists and turns that you’ve experienced?

Mick: You know it is kind of a strange little path I guess.
I had the good fortune of getting sober at ripe full age
of 20 while I was on active duty in the United States
Marine Corps, a very unusual thing, I only know one
fellow that’s gotten sober younger in the marine corps.
So anyway, when I got sober at 20, I was part of the
team that did the evacuation of Vietnam and Cambodia
in 1975. I’d been sober at that point, 18 months. I
decided that what I really wanted to do was to help
others deal with their alcoholism like I had been given
the chance to do, and applied for and was accepted
into the Navy Alcoholism Treatment Specialist
course in San Diego. It was a great experience for me.
I worked in the treatment field for two years with the
Marine Corps. I ran a treatment center at Camp Pendleton.
Got out, and in large part because of my age,
because I was such a young sober marine, I got to go
to all of the great schools around the country. I got to
go to the Johnson Institute and learn about intervention.
Back in the middle 70s, I got to do a lot of work with
intervention and the like. In fact, after I got out of the
Marine Corps I went to work, helping various programs.
I spent, four years at Scripps Hospital in La Jolla,
and structured the intervention program there. I wrote
the training program for professionals there. I taught
how to do interventions and how to set up intervention
programs back in their own environments. When I
left there I used my undergraduate degree in business
administration and I went off and restructured a treatment
center, and had a lot of fun doing that.

I wrote a book on the subject of intervention back in
the 80s. It came out at Health Communications as publisher
back in the 80s. It was a lot of fun for me to have
that book out. So, that was pretty much what I did for
almost 20 years.

I worked in the field at one level or another, one position
or another, and had a lot of fun, like I said. And
then, frankly, I got tired of dealing with the hassles of
managed care which I thought to be enormously difficult
at the time. I just didn’t personally see all of the
benefit that could come from understanding a little
better so I said to heck with it, I like the old style better,
and that’s what I clung to. And so I went off to law
school, decided that I wanted to become a lawyer and
did just that. I practiced law for 20 years but I kept my
hand in working closely with treatment centers and
treatment providers because that’s where my heart
has been all along.

So a lot of the area of law that I worked in was First
Amendment protection, helping individuals that are
being bullied. A lot of my efforts were to help treatment
centers and individual providers understand
which laws apply and how they apply to them and
what they can do to make sure that they eliminate
or at least reduce, as much as possible, the risks that
they face for the kinds of services they offer. Especially
when it comes to things like litigation since ours is a
litigation prone society. But I got to the point where
I missed working in the field of addiction. There’s just
something about working with people that have their
heart and soul in helping others. And I just love that
feeling, and I missed it terribly.

The Gooden Center in Pasadena asked me if I would
come in there. Their CEO was retiring, a great guy
named Bud Williams. He was getting ready to retire,
they wanted to bring in somebody that could bring
new perspective to the place. And I thought that’s a
great challenge for me, it’s the kind of thing I love doing,
so I said yes and I took the job. I’ve been here now
for 15 or 16 months. I’m having a ball again working in
the field.

Andrew: Fantastic. Well, The Gooden Center certainly
has a wonderful reputation in Southern California.
That’s where I’m located and I’m familiar with Gooden
Center. What have you experienced so far up there by
way of operating the program?

Mick: Well, you know, one of the things that I’ve been
able to do here is make sure that we had a pretty good
handle on our finances. I have a business background
as my undergraduate degree is in Business Administration.
And one of the problems confronting treatment
providers today is how do they manage the money
that they have coming in. How do they insure that
they’re getting fair market value for the services they
offer. At the Gooden Center, even though we’re a very
old-line non-profit treatment center, we’ve been here
in Pasadena since 1962, we’re no different than anybody
else. We have to manage our budget on a day to
day basis and we have to be very careful about how
we do things. I’ve been able to bring my expertise in
that area to the facility. We’ve also expanded the type
of service and the scope of our services.
But the same time we’ve improved. We do take insurance
payments so I’ve been able to help get new
contracts in play. So the new contracts allow us to get
better quality reimbursement. We’ve been able to upgrade
the length of stay here by doing specific training
around utilization review. A wide range of things
that I’ve been able to participate in, and it has made a
difference for our residents certainly, and the biggest
thing in my mind is that the community knowledge
about addiction is still pretty low. And no matter how
many ads we see on TV, no matter how many programs
we all participate in, our fundamental community,
the market that we really look at - the families,
still don’t understand much about addiction. And so,
I’ve also been able to help establish, or reestablish, our
ability to go out and talk to people and interact with
the community. I do a lot of talks for attorneys, I do a
lot of talks for chaplains, you know, the clergy, so as
to be able to give those individuals who are dealing
directly on the front line with the problems of addiction,
thinking about treatment as the proper course of
referral for them. And that has been very interesting
for me. I enjoy doing education. I love doing public
speaking. And I’m finding more and more there is an
openness, and an opening, for us who work in the field
to get out there and talk to these groups where in the
past they may not have been as willing to have us in.
I’m finding very little resistance now.

Andrew: You’ve had a long history of, dealing with
people with regard to interventions. You have even
written a book, “Beginning of a Miracle, How to Intervene
with the Addicted or Alcoholic Person,” and that
book has a wonderful reputation as being one of the
best books on the subject.

Mick: That’s a quote by the by my very dear friend
Claudia Black, and she was very kind to say so. I am
very pleased with that.

Andrew: I’m sure that expertise brings with it a great
deal of influence when speaking with families and
also the neighborhood and the community when
you’re trying to inform them and educate them on this
disease of addiction and how to get somebody into
treatment.

Mick: You know, and thank you, yes it’s a fascinating
process to watch unfold because, what I’m seeing is
there’s still the notion that you can’t help somebody
until they ask for help which I find appalling. Most of
the individuals that I encounter talk like that aren’t
really familiar with intervention at all, and that’s unfortunate.
So I get to go out and spend a lot of time
doing education on that subject. But, one of the burden
areas that I’m seeing coming up, is that there are
successful programs doing well financially, and what
I’m seeing more and more is a large number of programs
coming into the marketplace with what would
will essentially be an alternative model of recovery.
And you know, there’s a lot of different room for ways
to help people get well. So I don’t have a great agenda
against that, I’m glad to see him in there, but where I
see the problem is that, too often, treatment providers
who come out of one discipline find it essential
to harshly criticize or even make wild and inaccurate
statements about the others. I did a talk not long ago
for an organization that is a non 12 step model. They
had these wild eye ideas about what the twelve steps
are and they were shocked to discover that most of
the programs aren’t that different. You know, when
you put them into a proper perspective, they’re all
fairly similar in nature. But what’s really harmful is that
there’s now a resurgence of programs and individuals
who suffer the delusion that they can teach somebody
to drink socially and that’s troubling to me because

clinically if you can teach a person to drink socially you
should have no problem being able to teach them to
shoot heroine socially. And I find no great ability for
anybody to come along and say “Yeah, we can teach
you to shoot heroine socially, not a problem” because
it’s absurd on its face. Yet, their notion is that they’re
going to teach an alcoholic to drink socially, and when
there’s no social benefit compared to the risk, the legal
risk is dramatic, the emotional risk is profound, and the
medical risk is, well fatal. So, those kinds of programs
are out there spewing a lot of information that I think
hasn’t been fully vetted from the scientific community.
And the problem is that there’s a lot of families getting
very conflicting information now, and for the chemically
dependent person, that allows them to exploit
that. You know, here comes my wife to tell me I’ve
got a drinking or drug problem, and I say, “That’s not
true, it’s not a disease, look at that program over there,
they’ll tell you it’s not a disease. For $40,000 they’ll
even teach me how to drink socially.” It’s absurd and
yet it’s going on. And I think that’s been a real problem
for us. Now we’re starting to see more and more of
these programs pop up where people are going to be
doing things that can’t be justified in my mind, and yet
they’re being done anyway.

Andrew: Let’s talk about how those kinds of statements.
The treatment center might say, “Hey, come on
over here, and we’ll teach you how to drink socially,
but you’ll be sober.” How does that, carry with it any
sort of, risk, for that treatment agency?

Mick: Well that’s a great question. The risk is profound
on a number of different levels. Let’s start with ethics
and work our way back into the law. From a purely
ethical standard, the question becomes is there any
definitive scientific proof that says a percentage of
heavy drinkers can drink socially once they’ve been
thought to be alcoholic? Well there’s some evidence
that some people who drink excessively can, in fact, regain
control under the right set of circumstances. The
Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous acknowledges that
fact. But for a treatment provider, the rub is this. Most
studies that I’m familiar with, with one or two glaring
exceptions, come along and say that somewhere
between one to 30 of the people that show up in a
treatment center are probably not really alcoholic, but
are people who are just abusing and could be taught
to regain control. Now I personally have some serious
doubt about those numbers. But assume for the sake
of argument, they’re correct. Let’s say that 1 of the 100
people that you encounter in your treatment center
are not really alcoholic. That means that 99 are. How
can anybody ethically say, I’m going try and help 1 of
my people to return to social drinking, when, in fact,
there’s no way to predict which 1 it is. That’s a serious
ethical issue, in my mind. I’m going expose 99 of my
patients to potential disaster and it doesn’t matter that
they ask for it or not? That’s the worst excuse I’ve ever
heard. When they say, “Well my patient really wants to
try.” It’s like, eh really?

You know, this is an ethical issue of profound consequence
in my mind. Somebody comes along and says,
I want to try to drink socially, where’s the baseline?
Where are they going to say, you can’t do it? Your
entire history has been a disaster. You’ve ended up in
multiple treatment centers. Your family’s a wreck, and
I’m going to help you? I just see that as ethical.
Now, ethics aside, there’s some legal considerations.
Very few people I’ve ever met end up in a chemical dependency
treatment center unless they’ve had multiple
attempts at quitting or controlling, and who aren’t
having some kind of serious, episode or medical issue
related to their chemical use.
So the first thing I asked as the therapist, when you
sit down and try to negotiate with the patient to
returning to social drinking, “Have you gotten clearance
from your physician who has done a complete
medical workup.” Can this individual continue to drink
without doing any grave detriment to their physical
well-being? Because if you don’t have a letter from a
doctor saying there’s no immediate danger and there’s
no likelihood of future danger, then what the psychologist
is doing at that point is practicing medicine
without a license. And the biggest problem that I think
they have from that perspective, is if there’s a medical
misadventure, the person has some kind of a problem
related to the drinking or drug use, they’re going to
probably stand for a lawsuit for wrongful death. And,
you know, certainly there’s no doctor in his or her right
mind that’s going sit there and write a letter that states
“Yeah, yeah, yeah, the drinking caused some problems,
but who cares, it’s not a big deal. You know, like to go
have a drink.” Because once they get to that point, and

they’re having those kinds of problems, it is just an
amazing risk. And why would anybody want to take it?
And that, frankly, I don’t understand.

Andrew: Well what are the other things that we were
talking about prior to this interview, was risk associated
with interventionists.

Mick: I don’t like the term interventionist, I think it is
reflective of an ego run wild. But I understand that:
I trained in the 70s with Vern Johnson. With Doctor
Johnson, the notion was that the intervention is
caused by a family or a group of caring people that
come together to effectively present somebody’s
value system to them and show them how the drinking
or drug use is causing them to violate their values.
So the term interventionist suggests that the individual
leading the training is doing the work, when in
fact it’s really the family. So that’s my personal bias.
But the bigger problem is this, California law is very,
very specific about who can do any form of therapy
and the vast majority of people doing interventions
are not licensed by the state of California as either an
MFT, LCSW, Ph.D., Psy.D., or an M.D. What people don’t
understand is that they may have a CADC or some
other equivalent certification, but that certification is
not a license. And the bigger problem that they haven’t
faced is if they go in and overstep the bounds of
what their skills really allow in the intervention they
face a number of possibilities, not the least of which
is a lawsuit against them. Because if somebody comes
into my office and does an intervention on me and I’m
not happy about it, by God I can sue for invasion of
privacy. You better have really good insurance at that
point because otherwise you’re going to have a terrible,
terrible problem.

The other possibilities of something going wrong is
I’ve met people who are out doing interventions that
won’t even do an intervention unless the family goes
to therapy with them. And, by California law, if you’re
not a licensed therapist, you can’t do family therapy.
It just can’t be done. It’s illegal. I see people overstepping
the bounds of their training and their skill set all
the time, and it’s very concerning to me because there
are some really good people out there making some
really big differences, but it’s in how they approach it,
if they handle it correctly, and if they do it within the
bounds of the law. I mean they’re always going to face
the possibility of a lawsuit from somebody being mad.
Any time you’re interacting with other people, there’s
always that possibility. But where they really get into
that trouble, or potentially can get into trouble, is by
going way beyond those bounds of what they can do
and should do. And I see that, unfortunately, frequently.

Andrew: Let me just set up a scenario for you and maybe
you can speak to it.

Mick: Okay.

Andrew: We have a treatment center, an agency that is
a residential treatment setting. And at that treatment
center, we have, say, 20 clients in there for treatment
of addiction of, various sorts. And we have counselors
that are certified, but not licensed individuals, conducting
group sessions and individual sessions within
that environment. Are you stating that those individuals,
those counselors that are in there, are out-stepping
the bounds of their certification in the eyes of the
government?

Mick: It depends. If the treatment setting is in fact
licensed or is operated by a licensed provider, a Ph.D.,
LCSW, MFT, then they’re fine, they’re legal. They’re
operating underneath the license of either a facility, or
an individual, and as long as they’re doing that they’re
fine. There’s no legal problem with that. Now, it’s like
anything else, you still have to understand what the
scope of your practice is, how much you can do. I
mean, I wouldn’t expect a CADC2 to come in and be
able to do deep psychotherapy, even though they’re
working in a licensed treatment center, because
they’re not qualified for that. But can they do chemical
dependency counseling? You bet. That’s perfectly
legal.

Andrew: Now, you take that same CADC2 and they
leave that treatment center and they hang a shingle,
and they open up their own facility on an outpatient
basis but they do not get licensed by the state, are
they operating in compliance with the law?

Mick: No. California law is really pretty darn clear on
this issue. The law is very clear in terms of what you

can or cannot do, and in terms of licensing. And the
problems are very real problems for somebody who
does that. I know people that do it, and when I’ve
been asked about it, I point out there’s some significant
legal issues that they have to contend with. And
since there’s no reason not to have a license in the
state of California, all you have to do is do the work for
it. It makes perfect sense to get it. Basically what the
business and professions code 4999.30 law is saying is
that you cannot go beyond the scope of your license.
It basically says that you have to have a license in one
of the categories that I talked about earlier, the MS,
MFT, LCSW whatever. You have to have a license in
order to do any kind of actual therapeutic process.
Therapeutic process includes defining a treatment
plan, and it includes setting up intervention strategies.
All of those are the words of the code, not of Mick
Meagher, but of the code of California. And once you
get into those code issues in California, there’s actually
a penalty. A misdemeanor criminal penalty that could
result in somebody spending six months in jail and
paying a fine if they violate the code. And they get
caught violating it. Now, is that likely to happen? No,
probably not. I would think it’d be very rare to happen.
But could it happen? You bet. And of course, from my
perspective, the bigger risk is always going to be once
you violate those things and you begin to do those
kinds of services, you start offering people all of these
exotic, you know, free treatments and what not. By
way of example, I know an individual here in California
who is advising women when they should divorce
their husbands as a CADC1. Well, gosh I don’t want to
put too fine a point on it, but she’s not qualified. That’s
the kind of thing that the State is trying to prevent. It’s
easy enough to work with somebody who’s a professional,
and who has a license. So, from my perspective,
it’s a great idea. We want to encourage our people that
work in this field to get education. I mean, that’s the
best thing in the world for all of us. That’s why I went
back to school and became a lawyer. That’s why a lot
of people do the things that they do.

Andrew: I know at your law firm, you really specialize
in a couple of different things. One of those is First
Amendment Law and Slap Law, and the other is, helping
treatment centers to gain compliance with these
various things that they really don’t have knowledge
of. So let’s focus on the treatment center side.

Mick: Okay.

Andrew: What do you find as the most common issues
that treatment centers simply are not aware of their
noncompliance?

Mick: Well, if you look at just the administrators side,
the business side of it, I frequently encounter programs
that don’t follow the necessary corporate rules
by California, which are very easy standards: having
regular meetings, having a board of directors. For
example, in California, all treatment centers that are
licensed as non-medical facilities, like the Gooden Center,
like all these others, are required by law to have an
advisory board that’s independent. And, you know, the
advisory board is actually a good way to go to keep
current, but most places have never even heard of
that. And I go in and a lot of the treatment centers that
I’ve talked to, have relationships with individuals doing
interventions where they set them up as marketing
people and they pay them a stipend to be marketing
agent, and that’s legal. You can’t pay for referral, but
you can pay for marketer if you want. But you know,
it goes back to some of the other things we were
talking about earlier. If a person is doing the things
that they’re doing and their not properly licensed, how
are they telling themselves they are protected in the
relationships. Do they have a necessary contract, it is
an arm’s length contract. So let’s say you come to me
and say Mick, I want to do interventions for the Gooden
Center. I say fine, you’re a skilled guy, your bright,
you know what you’re doing.

You comply with the law. You approach it rather than,
as a therapeutic process more along the lines of an educational
say CPR-like process. So you’re not running
afoul of the law. I’m happy as a clam about that, and
we work out a deal. I’m going to pay you $X number
of thousands of dollars to go out and do marketing,
and you just happen to do interventions also. And
sometimes you’ll send people to me, sometimes you
won’t. The first question I’m going to ask is, if I’m the
lawyer going in to do the audit, is there a HIPAA compliant
agreement in place? Because as a business that’s
billing insurance like we do, there has to be a HIPAA
compliant agreement. Most places I know don’t have
those with their contractors. And it’s not just with
the direct treatment providers, I should have a HIPAA

compliant contract with my billing company and with
any company that’s doing marketing for me, including
my internet folks. Anybody that’s likely to come across
information about the patients, you better believe that
they’re going to need to be under a HIPAA agreement.
Most people don’t even know what that is, can’t spell
it. That’s a problem.

Andrew: Now you’ve also done some work in the past
and going out and turning around treatment centers
that are really struggling. You have to go in there and
get them back on track, so to speak.

Maybe some of your experience can help some of
those out there right now that are maybe having similar
issues.

Mick: The number one problem that I’ve seen in most
treatment centers is that they become very myopic
and shortsighted about what they’re going to do. I was
brought into another treatment center in Pennsylvania
years ago, to restructure. They had a rate of AMA,
patients leaving against medical advice, at 26.5%. So
when I began my interviewing process with them to
find out what was going on. Why such a terribly high
rate of people leaving against medical advice. Everybody
I talk to said, “Well, this is the way we’ve always
done it.” And what they were doing is they had set up
a perfect conflict storm in my mind. They had county
funded detox, and they ran it in the middle of a treatment
center. And the problem was that they have
alcoholics whose brains are a little addled by the giggle-
juice coming into treatment and saying, wow, this
guy gets to go home after three days, and I don’t. And
he’s much worse than I am. What the heck? You know,
this is all about the money. I’m getting out of here because
they’re making very poor quality decisions. So,
a lot of it is just looking at what you can do differently
to preserve both clinical integrity, which is absolutely
essential, but also to make sense from an economic
standpoint. What did is we moved the county funded
detox to a different unit within the hospital system,
and we changed the way the family program was run,
and what that ended up happening is our AMA rate
dropped from 26.5% down to 6%. Because the way it
was structured was just very bad.

My personal favorite is one that I see a lot of with
treatment centers. We go in to a treatment center, and
most of them claim to have some form of family care
program. I think that’s brilliant. I truly believe the more
family involvement, the better the chance for everybody
in the system to get well, and I like that a lot.

So the first thing that I do is I look at the way it’s run.
Most programs offer some variation of the old meet
and need. Where the family sits down with the chemically
dependent person, and they go back and forth
exchanging a number of different pre-scripted ideas.
I was at a treatment center where we were averaging
30 family members each week coming through every
week. And that meant we had ten patients in family
week, every week, and they averaged three family
members. Well, statistically, what we know, is out of
ten, out of 30 people, three are going to be addicted. I
mean, that’s just a given statistic. It’s not absolute, but
it’s one that’s fairly accurate within reason. You take
that number, and the first question you have to ask
yourself is how many admissions do you have coming
into your treatment program from your family care
program? Yeah, and that’s something that has to be
looked at because otherwise, what’s going on is you’re
having family members who are clearly chemically
dependent people coming into treatment, ostensibly,
as co-dependents and it’s not being discussed. It’s not
being confronted. That’s the no-talk rule personified.
That’s the sickness personified. So I always look at
treatment centers and say, “Let’s examine how you’re
doing your family program and see if we can change
that last step in the family confrontation or whatever
the heck you want to call it. The family knee to knee
whatever you call it. To look at whether or not that
chemically dependent person can look at their loved
one and say. You know, mom, dad, brother, sister, what
I’m asking you to do today is when I check out. I want
you to take my bed. Because I’m worried about your
drinking and drug use too.”

When I worked at Scripps Hospital, back in the 70s and
early 80s, we were averaging two and a half admissions
on a family program every week. Now, from a
clinical standpoint, that is the perfectly appropriate
thing to do because we’re breaking the no talk rule.
We’re addressing something that has historically been
avoided, like the plague. So it’s clinically very sound.
From the business side of it, it’s brilliant. Two and a half
admissions a week back then. That was 25 thousand
dollars of revenue. Back in the 70s and 80s it was a lot

of money, and we didn’t spend a dime marketing it.
You can’t go wrong. I mean that’s just the ideal way
to do things. You’ve got the family getting well and
you’ve got a revenue stream that you don’t have to
spend additional money to market for. I can’t think of a
better plan than that.

And I have talked to people that are therapists who
run family programs for highly regarded treatment
companies in our country. And when I’ve asked them
about that, the first thing they say is, “I’m not here to
treat them, I’m here because I’m doing family therapy.”
It’s like really? You’re supporting the no-talk rule. How
is that therapeutic? And then they tell me to go to hell,
and I’m okay with that because I want people to think.
I’m not saying I’m always right but by God there’s a lot
of things that we need to think about and do better.
Because we’re trying to help people and in my mind
it is a sacred charge. That we have chosen to take to
ourselves, we’re going to help people get better, and
the only way to do that is by a critical self-examination.
You know, we ask our patients to do a pretty intense
fourth step, well I think treatment centers need to do
their own four step.

Andrew: Where do you see the future of behavioral
healthcare going?

Mick: My biggest fear, and what I see happening today,
is reminiscent of what happened in the 80’s, which is
greed begins to supersede quality. And, my biggest
fear, is that we will go through another round of disaster,
for people being able to get access to good quality
care, because the greed will have caused so many
organizations to over step bounds that nobody’s going
to trust treatment, and it’s going to hurt again. In
the 70s and 80s we saw the greed when a lot of companies
figured out ways to get a lot of money from
insurances, and the result was the insurance company
just quit paying. You know, it’s been a long hard road
to get back to that level of care that we can get people
into treatment and I looked at that, and I found, back
then, there were some truly brilliant people, and I wish
I had been one of them, that had the insight and the
wherewithal to stay in the fight and go set up these
little private agencies. Little private treatment centers
in homes, and get licensed to do services that way. I
love that, I thought that was an incredibly ingenious
way to go. But now I see these places too often are
allowing the greed factor to creep into that model of
care, and that troubles me. Because I would think that
there are a lot of people that are going to be problems.
I see treatment centers that are taking in patients
that have an acuity level so high that they should not
admit them in the treatment and they do. The reason:
money. There’s a lot of money being made and it’s my
fear is that we’re going to see another round of severe
cutbacks in any form of reimbursement or in any form
of availability of treatment because of the greed that
is going to cause people to revolt. Provider, payers,
government, everything. That would be my biggest
fear. And I believe that the people that work in addiction
are pretty darn creative, they’ll find a way out of it.
Hopefully, before it becomes too bad.

Andrew: Mick Meagher thank you so much for taking
the time to speak with us today. I really appreciate the
work that you’re doing within the industry, the perspective
that you have on the industry, and the way
you help us keep our feet on the ground in this industry.

Mick: Well those are very kind words. Thank you, I
appreciate it. I am looking forward to the Evolution of
Addiction Conference. I think that’s important work
that you guys are doing, that you’re part of. And, making
it so that professionals can examine themselves
and grow personally and professionally. I don’t believe
you can ever say how important that’s going to be
and that is just an essential ingredient for our field. So,
thank you.

Andrew: Thanks very much.

find more interviews at Serene Scene Magazine

Advertisement