Share This Page

GM fires 15 in deadly ignition switch scandal; report finds no cover-up

| Friday, June 6, 2014, 12:01 a.m.

WARREN, Mich. — General Motors said on Thursday that it has forced out 15 employees for their role in the deadly ignition switch scandal and will set up a compensation fund for crash victims, as an internal investigation blamed the debacle on engineering ignorance and bureaucratic dithering — not a deliberate cover-up.

GM took more than a decade to recall 2.6 million vehicles with bad switches that are linked to at least 13 deaths by the automaker's count.

“Group after group and committee after committee within GM that reviewed the issue failed to take action or acted too slowly,” Anton Valukas, the former federal prosecutor hired by the automaker to investigate the reason for the delay, said in a 315-page report. “Although everyone had responsibility to fix the problem, nobody took responsibility.”

GM CEO Mary Barra said more than half of the 15 employees forced out were senior legal and engineering executives who failed to disclose the defect and were part of a “pattern of incompetence.” Five other employees have been disciplined, she said, without identifying any of them.

The automaker said it will establish a compensation program covering those killed or seriously injured in the more than 50 accidents blamed on the switches. GM did not say how much money will be involved, but a Wall Street analyst estimated the payouts will total $1.5 billion.

Barra called the report “brutally tough and deeply troubling.”

The report lays bare a company that operated in “silos,” with employees who did not share information and did not take responsibility for problems or treat them with any urgency.

Valukas portrayed a corporate culture in which there was heavy pressure to keep costs down, a reluctance to report problems up the chain of command, a skittishness about putting safety concerns on paper, and general bureaucratic resistance to change.

He described what was known as the “GM nod,” in which “everyone nods in agreement to a proposed plan of action but then leaves the room and does nothing.”

Valukas exonerated Barra and two other top executives — Mark Reuss, chief of global product development, and general counsel Michael Millikin — saying there is no evidence they knew about the problems any earlier than December.

Since February, GM has recalled 2.6 million older-model Chevrolet Cobalts, Saturn Ions and other small cars because their ignitions can slip out of the “run” position and shut off the engine. That disables the power-assisted steering and brakes, making it difficult to control the car, and deactivates the air bags.

Trial lawyers suing the company put the death toll at more than 60.

“It's somewhat comforting to realize that they do know that some things were done incorrectly and they're aware of that. They made the appropriate measures to make sure it doesn't happen again,” said Ken Rimer, whose 18-year-old stepdaughter, Natasha Weigel, was killed in a Cobalt crash in 2006 in Wisconsin.

Last month, GM paid a record $35 million fine for failing to promptly report the bad ignition switches to federal highway safety regulators.

Federal prosecutors are investigating and could bring criminal charges against the automaker and some of its employees.

Deep within the company, engineers and others believed the ignition switch flaw was a “customer convenience” issue rather than a safety problem, the report stated. Engineers believed the cars could still be adequately steered when the engines shut off, and they did not realize the air bags became disabled — even after police, academic experts and others outside GM had recognized the problem, according to the report.

In 2005, according to documents supplied recently to Congress, GM failed to make a repair of the switch that would have cost just 57 cents.

In his report, Valukas said he found no evidence that any employee made “an explicit trade-off between safety and cost” in dealing with the switch. But he said there was “tremendous cost pressure” at GM at the time, and he left open the possibility that it influenced the automaker's handling of the problem.

The report could hurt GM in legal proceedings and complicate matters for lawyer Kenneth Feinberg, the compensation expert hired by GM to settle some of the many lawsuits, said Carl Tobias, a law professor and product liability specialist at the University of Richmond in Virginia.

Plaintiffs' lawyers know most of what's in the report from depositions in previous cases, and Valukas was “careful not to open too much liability exposure,” Tobias said.

Under a judge's order, GM is shielded from legal claims from before it emerged from bankruptcy in 2009, and company officials declined to say whether they will use that protection against death and injury lawsuits. Lawyers are trying to overturn the shield, alleging GM deceived the judge.

Barra, who took over as CEO in mid-January, did not directly answer a question about whether she should have figured out the switches were a deadly problem. Before she took the top job, she was product development chief for three years, and safety reported to her through GM's chain of command.

“I wish I had known, because the minute we knew, we took action,” Barra said.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.