Written by Chet
Saturday, 04 October 2014 09:13
Did you see the Fargo Forum's editors' endorsement of radical, right-wing, tea-party candidate Kevin Cramer this week? If not, it's a "must read." You gotta check this out. I'm convinced it's either a joke, or a protest endorsement. Because if it's not one of those things, one can only be left believing the Forum's editor -- Matthew Von Pinnon -- is a complete idiot, and the worst writer in the world.
Before digging into this thing, I should probably tell you what a "protest endorsement" is: it's when an oppressive, unintelligent, threatening newspaper publisher tells the editor of a newspaper which candidate(s) the paper MUST endorse, and the editor is mad about it because the endorsement(s) is(are) absurd. So the editor writes an "endorsement" but fills it with so much unbelievable nonsense that everyone with a brain who reads it knows the editor is giving the endorsement under protest.
So let's walk through the Forum's endorsement of this Cramer nut. I'm going to skip the first paragraph because it's just a set-up for the joke that follows. Here's the second paragraph:
Cramer’s opponent, Democratic state Sen. George Sinner of Fargo, is a credible candidate with good credentials. There is little doubt that he is qualified to serve. But his campaign has not offered sound reasons to replace the congressman.
This is funny because the Forum says Sinner hasn't "offered sound reasons" to fire Cramer. Except Sinner has. How do we know this? We read the reast of the editorial, all of which is overflowing with the "sound reasons" Sinner has given...
Cramer’s first year in the U.S. House has not been stumble-free. He was wrong, for instance, to be in the camp with House members who wanted to sever the food stamp program from the farm bill – a stunt that risked broad-based urban and rural support farm bills have always needed to pass. In the end, the bill included modest changes to food stamps, in addition to streamlined farm supports that, as a comprehensive bill, made for good legislation. Cramer supported it.
This is the first big sign Von Pinnon may be kidding. See, Cramer has been in the House for more than a year. He's been there since January of 2013. He's almost been there two years. Shouldn't we be considering his voting record for the entire time he's been a House member? Or is Von Pinnon cracking a weak joke about how little Cramer has actually worked over the past (nearly) two years?
Oh, and, yeah; Cramer tried to kill the Farm Bill. Never mind that North Dakota has always been and forever will be (until we destroy the environment) a farm state. Cramer's against that. His voting record and public statements make that clear.
Here's the Forum's next joke (or protest?) paragraph:
Cramer also was among the misguided who voted more than 60 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act, knowing full well that it was a quixotic exercise. Making a statement once or even twice is reasonable, but rapping one’s legislative head on the wall more than 60 times is stupid.
See, as Von Pinnon points out, Cramer is on record of making a stupid vote more often than bi-weekly. A smart member of Congress doesn't log a stupid vote that often, but Cramer does. See, when he wasn't busy trying to kill the Farm BIll (which was stupid, supid, stupid), Cramer was busy doing other stupid things. And not just one stupid thing. If the Forum were right (and they're not) that Cramer had only been in the House for a year, that'd mean he'd made this stupid vote more than once a week. Can you imagine arguing for keeping an employee who shows up for work and -- ever week -- does something ridiculously stupid? And that's just the base! He does lots of other idiotic things, as Von Pinnon points out, "but we can bank on him doing this one stupid thing every week." That's what the Forum is saying here.
That being said, the freshman congressman has been part of an increasingly influential House cadre that is trying to build healthy and respectful relationships with members of all political and ideological stripes. The aim, Cramer has said, is to get back to finding compromises for the most contentious issues, and then get things done. He has won praise for his participation from both sides of the political aisle.
This paragraph is LOL funny. It's the paragraph that made me think that, for sure, the Forum's editors are joking. Because, seriously? Cramer is "trying to build healthy and respectful relationships" with people who aren't radical right-wing tea-partiers like him? How about one example of that, Forum editors? What -- pray tell -- has Cramer done to reach across the aisle? Give me one thing? You can't? Right. You can't. And so you didn't. You guys are funny.
And he has done things to work towards "finding compromise for the most contentious issues, and get things done"?!? Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! What is this? Bizarro world? Opposites world? Cite one -- just one -- example of Cramer working to "find compromise" or get things done. Can't? Right. Didn't. And "paise" "from both sides" of the aisle? Heh. Good one.
This Congress makes the "do-nothing" Congress of 1947-48 look like a bunch of over-achievers. And Cramer is a part of the problem; not the solution.
True to his word, Cramer spends as much time in North Dakota as he can. His work schedule in Washington can be exhausting, but as North Dakotans who have visited D.C. know, he will make time for them. He has been refreshingly responsive to all comers, regardless of party proclivity, which is a practice that was institutionalized by one of his predecessors, Democrat Rep. Earl Pomeroy.
I love this paragraph because it's written as if a Cramer P.R. flack wrote every word. "True to his word..."? Cramer's word was that he promised to hold 100 town hall meetings during his two year first-and-only term in the House. How has he been "true to his word," you ask? Well, instead of having a town hall meeting every other week, Cramer makes a radio show appearance once a week. Same thing? The Forum must think so. The rest of us? Not so much. An appearance on a radio show does not a town hall make.
And describing Cramer's work schedule as "exhausting" is almost the stupidest thing I've ever heard, seen or read in my life. Poor Kevin Cramer has to work 113 days a year. Here's his work calendar for 2014, from the House Majority leader's website:
Tough schedule, eh? Think about how wiped out he must have been after the first six months in 2014. He worked eleven whole, grueling days in each January, February and April. He worked 12 stressful days in each March, May and June. Then he worked his toughest month in 2014, July, putting in a jaw-clenching four full 4-day work-weeks. After that grueling schedule, Cramer took all of August and the first week of September off. But then he got back to work, putting a vicious 10 days in September. He worked the first two days of this month.
I don't know about you, but I'm sweating just THINKING about how hard Cramer's worked this year. The good news is that he's done working now until November 11th. He'll work an exhausting seven days in November and eight days in December, before taking a break for the last HALF of December. Rest assured he'll get back to this hectic schedule a week or two into January, next year.
Exhausting schedule, my ass. This really is a joke. Or a protest. Or Von Pinnon is an idiot.
Cramer's schedule is so exhausting, I'm not even going to waste my finger strength responding to the rest of the garbage in Von Pinnon's paragraph about how exhausting it is.
Now, check out the piece of resistance. ("Lego Movie" reference, for those of you with kids.):
Finally, Cramer is in a House majority that likely will get larger after Election Day in November. Therefore, he is well-positioned to secure plumb committee assignments and, in time, possibly a leadership slot. He’s done his first-term homework, and has gotten familiar with the lay of the land. He’s more than ready to further hone his legislative skills to even better represent the people of his state.
Okay, so -- because of shit journalism like the Forum's -- the Tea Party majority might get bigger. Great. Less work. More partisanship. Bigger hand-outs to the richest 1%. Eliminate Social Security as we know it. Privatized prisons and schools. Hooray.
Now check out this gem... Cramer is "well-positioned" to get some "plumb" committee assignments.
Is Von Pinnon joking? He must be. He's supposed to be a professional journalist, and he doesn't know the difference between "plumb" and "plum"?!? This is where I decided Von Pinnon is joking. This endorsement is a parody. He almost had me duped, but this whole "plumb" thing really puts a ribbon on my certainty that it's all just a bad joke.
Matthew Von PInnon, the Fargo Forum's editor, has either brilliantly written the best parody of a candidate endorsement, or the most poorly-written, poorly-thought-out, transparent protest endorsement ever. I've heard Von Pinnon is not a complete idiot, so I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt, and say it's all just a joke.
Well played, Mr. Von Pinnon. Well played.
UPDATE: There are some folks out there sharing this blog post around. Some of the discussion in the comments under those shares suggest that the legitimacy of this blog post is harmed by my "misunderstanding" of how editorial endorsements are written. Trust me; I have a very clear understanding of how they are written. They are written in secret, with no author's name attached to them. (For the record, I kind of assume everyone knows who I am, though I use a nom de plumb (<- get it?). For those who don't know, I'm Chad Nodland, in Bismarck. Not afraid to have my name attached to this or any other post I've written, unlike the author of the Forum's endorsements.)
That said, I believe it is perfectly reasonable for me and everybody else to ascribe the editorial endorsements to a human, and I pick the Forum's editor, Matt Von Pinnon. If he wants to deny he writes the Forum's laughable editorial endorsements and tell us who does, he should do that. Until that happens, he's the author, as far as I'm concerned.
Written by Chet
Thursday, 18 September 2014 08:40
In an email exchange through the North Dakota Land Department, North Dakota Trust Lands Commissioner, Lance Gaebe (pictured), suggested that rather than write more stories exposing corruption and questionable ethics in North Dakota government, a reporter from a national news website should "do a story about how oil field service companies hire hot women to help man their trade show booths!" (emphasis added)
As Trust Lands Commissioner, Gaebe is appointed by the Board of University and School Lands (BUSL). The BUSL is made up of Governor Dalrymple, AG Stenehjem, SOS Jaeger, State Treasurer Schmidt and Superintendent of Public Instruction Baesler (Citation) Everything Gaebe does as commissioner is, as a matter of law, subject to the approval and supervision of the BUSL. (Citation) Dalrymple, Stenehjem, Jaeger, Schmidt and Baesler all supervised and approved of the sending of Gaebe's "hot women" email to one of his staff members.
To put the email into context, you'd have to know that a reporter -- Steve Horn -- for DeSmogBlog, a national climate science news reporting service, has done some interesting stories on the cozy relationship between big private equity firms and some of North Dakota's top elected and appointed officials. In one story, Horn wrote for DeSmogBlog about how a Manhattan-based private equity firm had hired disgraced former General David Patreus to come jet-set around North Dakota with North Dakota Treasurer Kelly Schmidt catching free rides on the equity firm's private jet. There are serious questions about whether it's appropriate (and legal) for an elected official to accept a corporation that's working on securing business with a board on which Schmidt serves. Anyway, it's an interesting story as it portrays yet another example of unchecked ethics problems in North Dakota's corrupt government.
Also, note that you haven't read anything about the questionable ethics of Schmidt's corporate jet-setting in any North Dakota newspaper, heard about it on the radio, or seen anything about it on TV.
When North Dakota Trust Lands Investments Director Jeff Engleson saw the story on DeSmogBlog back in May of this year, he forwarded the story to Trust Lands Commissioner Lance Gaebe. Gaebe responded, knowingly, asking if it was a "hard hitting piece on the cozy relationship?!"
Engleson's snark-filled response notes, among other things, that it was "not great for Treasurer [Kelly Schmidt]" and that he was "surprised [Horn] didn't mention that [General Patreaus's] girlfriend [Paula Broadwell] was from Bismarck."
Gaebe joined in the fun, suggesting...
"This 'reporter' should do a story about how oil field service companies hire hot women to help man their trade show booths!"
Keep in mind, this email exchange happened on the evening of May 22nd, the last day of the 2014 Williston Basin Petroeum Conference here in Bismarck. Anybody want to guess whether the North Dakota Land Commissioner or his office had a presence at (or sponsorship of) the Petroleum Conference?
The taxpayers of North Dakota likely paid Gaebe to attend the conference. Assuming that's true, he clearly focused all of his taxpayer-funded attention on important state issues while there.
This is your tax dollars at work. Dalrymple, Stenehjem, Jaeger, Schmidt and Baesler all ought to be proud of their fine approval and supervision of Gaebe. Nice work, team!
Here's the exchange (start at the bottom and work your way up):
Written by Chet
Wednesday, 17 September 2014 08:02
We're going to just share everything we got from the North Dakota Tax Department (NDTD) that relates to revelations relating to North Dakota Tax Commissioner Ryan Rauschenberger's leave of absence. I asked the NDTD for all of their records relating to the revelations. I narrowed my request to ONLY general records, and communications between management level employees, and also limited the request to the date range of September 2nd (the date of the two motor vehicle collisions involving Rauschenberger's SUV) through September 8th (the date of the request). I was told this included records of communication involving roughly 20 or 21 Tax Department employees.
I should note two things, for your consideration:
(a) I specifically asked for work-related communications falling into the above-outlined records description, even if those communications were done on personal email accounts, cell phone text messages, or instant messages. I did receive some records of state/work-related materials from personal communications systems, but have very little confidence that the NDTD management personnel fully disclosed what they legally should have; and
(b) I did not receive any records of work/state-related communications from Ryan Rauschenberger's personal cell phone or personal email accounts. I followed up with the NDTD Deputy Commissioner, asking whether I was going to get such records. I was told that the NDTD has no idea where Rauschenberger is, and no way of contacting him, so I would not be getting that subset of the records I requested. I have requested an A.G. opinion on whether that partial denial of my request is acceptable. I fully expect that (six months from now) Attorney General Stenehjem will issue an opinion saying that when a state official cannot be found to comply with a records request that it's perfectly acceptable for the agency to deny the request. I would note, however, that it's kind of funny to me that Rauschenberger's father -- Ron Rauschenberger -- works in the Governor's office as the Governor's chief-of-staff, and the door to the Governor's office is about 30 feet from the door to the Attorney General's office. If Stenehjem wanted to find out how to contact Ryan Rauschenberger in order to show that there is some common sense in his office -- and he doesn't -- he could simply walk across the hall and ask his buddy, Ron, how to get in contact with his son, North Dakota's estranged Tax Commissioner Ryan Rauschenberger.
So anyway... here's everything that's been given to me by the Tax Department, so far:
North Dakota Tax Department: The Estranged Tax Commissioner, Ryan Rauschenberger
Written by Chet
Monday, 15 September 2014 22:41
You may have seen the story in last Friday's Fargo Forum about how Odney Advertising -- a Bismarck Public Relations firm, funded in large part by tax dollars, creators of the ND Tourism Department's horribly notorious "Legendary" ad campaign, and home to North Dakota's only questionably-funded SuperPAC -- attempted to get state employees in the ND Tax Department and Governor's Office to use public resources for political purposes. Well... there's more to that story. And I'm going to give a little bit of it to you today.
The story, if you didn't see it, is kind of interesting. A couple weeks ago, unelected ND Tax Commissioner Ryan Rauschenberger loaned his SUV to a young, male companion. His male companion then rolled the vehicle on "The Strip" in Mandan. Later it was disclosed Rauschenberger had been cited with a traffic violation earlier that day when he ran into a line of vehicles on Washington Street in Bismarck. The following day, news broke that Rauschenberger had been in alcohol treatment during his short tenure, after his father's boss appointed Rauschenberger to fill out the term of former Tax Commissioner Cory Fong, now the director of North Dakota's only SuperPAC.
As Odney Advertising's SuperPAC administrator and/or political consultant, Cory Fong, sent "talking points" to the personal, non-official email accounts of various employees in the Tax Department and the Governor's Office. Fong wanted to make sure state employees were spewing Rauschenberger's political campaign talking points when they resonded to questions about the leave of absence Rauschenberger is taking to quickly get "the cure" from his alcohol problem, so he can hurry back and get on the campaign trail. (Because it's apparently still 1953 in Fong's brain.) One such state employee -- Rauschenberger's deputy -- immediately recognized the impropriety of the email he received and deleted it.
Odney Advertising's owner, Pat Finken, is quoted in the Fargo Forum news story about this, as follows:
“This is common practice for us, to not only share with the client, but anybody that might have anything to do with the issue that we’re addressing,” he said Friday, adding, “It is the way that all PR firms work.”
I've checked with professionals in two different PR firms, and they've told me Finken is a bloviating windbag on this topic. It seems fairly clear he isn't telling the truth. But if you don't believe me, just ask an expert. This is not "the way that all PR firms work." And if Finken sends "talking points" to state agencies every time a scandal needs to be politically spun, some questions: wouldn't he point an inquisitive reporter to other examples of talking points his firm has sent out? Why haven't we seen these talking points before? Why were they secretly sent to government employees' personal/non-official email accounts? Why would a recipient freak out and delete the email immediately upon receipt? Why were officials in BOTH offices that received these "talking points" so quick to tell me the emails were unsolicited, and not responded to? Don't those ALSO sound like "talking points"? Did those talking points also come from Odney, Finken and/or Fong?
So anyway, last week I made some state FOIA requests to the Tax Department, and some other agencies. In response I received records regarding Ryan Rauschenberger's absence from work, and the revelation that he was going into treatment for alcoholism. One of the records kind of jumped off of the page at me. It is a text message communication between two Tax Department employees, at least one of whom is in a managment position. Here's a screen grab of that record:
I don't know if you can read that, so I'll point out the parts you should be most interested in. This is a text message exchange that involves at least one North Dakota Tax Department management level employee. I don't know either of them, but they are Roxie Gabel (hereinafter "Roxie") and Kathryn Strombeck (hereinafter "Kathryn").
It starts with Roxie asking Kathryn if she's read a certain mysteriously-funded, right-wing partisan political blog. Roxie says, "It explains a lot."
Kathryn responds that she can't get it from the hospital. She asks "What's being said?"
Roxie responds, "Ryan's an alcoholic."
Kathryn types back, "Omg!!!!!!"
Roxie tells Kathryn about Rauschenberger loaning his SUV to Rauschenberger's drunk, young, male companion the previous afternoon. She then says, "When a reporter questioned him he was slurring his words and she called him on it."
Kathryn respons, "Wow!
So you may ask yourself why I am presenting this to you. That's fair.
First, Roxie notes that the blog story about Ryan Rauschenberger being an alcoholic "explains a lot."
What does this mean? What does this revelation about Rauschenberger's alcoholism "explain"? We know it explains "a lot," but what? Does it explain his absenteeism? Does it explain his erratic behavior? Does it explain his forgetfulness? Does it explain his violent outbursts? Does it explain Rauschenberger's mood swings? There are a lot of things alcoholism might explain, but what is Roxie talking about, specifically?!? What does it explain? How, for example, is his condition impacting his work? We're paying his salary; it seems like we ought to know the answer to this.
We could ask her, but you'd have to keep in mind that her continued employment probably depends on her response, so any response would have to be taken with a grain of salt. You'd also have to keep in mind that Odney, Finken and/or Fong have likely already given her "talking points." (Maybe this time they'll be smarter and just give them over the phone.) Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying she'd lie. She's probably a very honest person. I'm just saying that when your house payment depends on your current employment, people tend to bend the facts a bit. This should surprise nobody.
But there's another question that comes out of this exchange, I think. We learn from one of his employees that Rauschenberger was questioned by a female reporter, he was slurring his speech, "and she called him on it." (Those are her words; not mine. See above.)
Assuming what Rauschenberger's staffer wrote is true..Where is the news story about this? Who is the female reporter who busted Rauschenberger slurring his speech? Has anybody seen a story that exposes this? If not, what possible explanation could there be for a reporter and/or a newspaper covering up that story?
Is some reporter or newspaper ALSO involved -- with Finken, Fong and Odney -- in the cover-up? If so, that seems to be kind of important.
Rauschenberger has a lot of explaining to do. The people covering for him while he is out for a month or two have been left in a position where they still have to follow the law, while Rauschenberger makes it impossible for them to do so. (More on this later.) This is no way to run a state agency. Rauschenberger needs to resign the post his father -- the Governor's Chief-of-Staff -- got for him. He needs to do so because it is in his own best interests, but also in the best interests of the people of the great state of North Dakota.
Written by Chet
Thursday, 04 September 2014 13:54
If you take a map of Mandan, North Dakota, and draw a straight line from North Dakota Tax Commissioner Ryan Rauschenberger’s home to the place two miles away where Ryan’s (allegedly) drunk buddy rolled Ryan’s SUV on Tuesday afternoon while he was going on a “smoke run,” you almost go right over the top of the preschool where my five-year-old son was just finishing class on his first day back after his Summer vacation.
According to a former Minot hardware store assistant manager who now runs a radical right-wing political blog, Rauschenberger has admitted that, as he handed his SUV keys to his (allegedly) drunk friend, he thought to himself, “This guy is never coming back.”
At the time, Rauschenberger was supposed to be at his office in the Capitol Building, earning the $9,016 per month we – as his employers – pay him to be Tax Commissioner. Instead, according to reports, he was “relapsing” into the rut of his addiction to alcohol. Reports suggest he has been trying to deal with his addiction for some time, but keeps failing. No reports provide any information about the details of how Rauschenberger has been dealing with this problem.
Perhaps Rauschenberger was “relapsing” earlier the same day -- Tuesday -- on the first day of school for thousands of Bismarck kids, when Ryan rear-ended a car just three blocks from my house in Bismarck, as kids were being dropped off at the two schools nearby.
[J]ust hours before Larson’s crash, Rauschenberger was involved in a three-vehicle accident in Bismarck and cited for reckless driving.
An accident report from the Bismarck Police Department states that Rauschenberger, 31, Mandan, was cited following a car accident Tuesday morning.
According to the report, at 8:21 a.m. Tuesday Rauschenberger was traveling southbound on the 1100 block of North Washington Street in a 2007 Chevy when he collided with a vehicle that was stopped in traffic.
You have to ask yourself whether Rauschenberger was subjected to field sobriety tests, and alcohol tests Tuesday morning at 8:21 a.m., after ramming into the back of someone's car. If not, why not? Was he let go because he’s a part of North Dakota’s Republican mafia? Or wasn’t he drunk yet? Or still?
The above recitation of facts gives you a slight taste of where I start as I think about Rauschenberger’s announcement, today, that he is taking a little time off to take yet another quick run at resolving his problem so he can hurry back to the campaign trail:
“I have decided to take a temporary unpaid leave of absence effective today to seek additional professional help,” Rauschenberger said in his statement. “I expect to be back at work and on the campaign trail in just a few weeks.”
Bismarck Tribune (emphasis added)
But that is not all you would need to know about me to understand where I come from in thinking about Rauschenberger’s problems and his announcement today. You would also have to know that my life, like many others, has been touched by people close to me who have struggled with alcohol problems. I have struggled through “family week” at Heartview, where Rauschenberger has said he’s going to take another run at treatment. I have buried friends who have died as a result of the disease of alcoholism. In past jobs I have worked with people struggling while trying to balance their addiction with their work. In my current profession, I frequently help people with alcohol problems to find the help they need from other professionals. While I will not pretend to be an “expert” on alcoholism and its treatment, I am quite familiar with alcoholism and its treatment, thank you. I do not have time for people who tell me I am not appropriately knowledgeable about or sympathetic to the plight of people suffering from alcoholism. You can try to convince me I’m not sufficiently sympathetic, but you aren’t going to have much luck. Sorry, Charlie.
As is true for me with regard to my thoughts on anybody who has an alcohol problem, I want Ryan Rauschenberger to have a fair opportunity to get the help he needs. I do not know him at all, and I do not wish him any harm. The opposite is true. I hope he can find a path to sobriety that works for him, whether through a 12-step program, a spiritual re-awakening, in-patient care and aftercare, counseling, the Red Road, meditation, exercise, hypnotism or otherwise. I wish him well. I sincerely do.
But, as noted above, I am also a taxpayer, citizen and voter. In that capacity, I am -- as you are -- Ryan's boss. We pay his salary, and he answers to us, because he obviously answers to nobody else. Among the very few things we have learned from the local news stories about Ryan, we know that he’s been missing quite a bit of work during his eight months as Tax Commissioner because of his alcoholism. As Ryan’s employer, we should want to know how much work Ryan has missed. (I’d like a worthwhile local reporter to provide a detailed accounting of the time Ryan has spent out of the office, “relapsing.”) We know he was AWOL and “relapsing” on Tuesday when he negligently entrusted his SUV to his (allegedly) drunk buddy. As his employer, I think I have a right to know how many more days Ryan has been AWOL because I have been paying him $9,000 for a month of work, and I have a right to know how much money he has taken from me without actually working. I might even ask him to reimburse the portion of his salary he has taken from me -- from us -- through alcoholism-induced fraud. If he isn't willing to come clean and make amends, I should feel no remorse upon letting him go.
Again, I feel bad for him, but I am not willing to pay him $9,000 per month to work if he is not working. That is not mean and heartless; it's pragmatic and rational.
Now, according to today’s press release, Ryan is going to rush through treatment so he can hurry “back to work” and get back out “on the campaign trail in just a few weeks.” As his boss and as someone who wants Ryan to succeed in his recovery, and as someone who has dealt with alcoholics countless times before, this is patently unrealistic.
If I were Ryan’s real boss, I would be compassionate to Ryan, but there would be consequences. I would tell Ryan, “You can continue to work here, but you are on probation. You will have a cut in pay and be temporarily demoted. Your responsibilities will be reduced so you can focus on recovery. You will no longer have control of the checkbook. You cannot drive any company vehicles, or authorize anybody else to do so. When you have re-established my trust, you can have back your full salary, your title, your rights and responsibilities and the checkbook. Eventually I'll give you the keys again. If you can operate under those conditions, you can stay. If you cannot, I’ll expect to see your resignation letter on my desk by the end of the day.”
People who know about alcoholism and its symptoms know that it is not “fixed” in three weeks. Sure, Ryan should get a chance to first deal with his problem and then redeem himself to his employer, but – as his boss – we should feel completely comfortable holding him accountable, through “tough love,” and making him earn our trust back. It would not be healthy or productive for us to join what may be a long list of Ryan's enablers.
Is that too harsh? Is that not “compassionate” enough? Am I being a meany? Am I being a partisan hack? I really don’t think so. I’d say the same thing if Ryan were my brother or son. I’d say the same thing if Ryan were a Democrat. Ryan says he needs help, and – if he worked for me – I’d think my proposal, above, is a perfectly reasonable way to both help him get help, and to avoid liability for if/when he relapses again.
But there is a problem with my idea: Ryan is the appointed head of a state agency. He sits in a chair normally occupied by someone elected in a statewide race. (His dad’s boss appointed him to the job he started just 8 months ago.) Ryan cannot be put on probation. Nothing in our laws allows for that. He cannot have his salary reduced. (His salary is dictated by state law at $108,202.00 per year by NDCC § 57-01-04; that's $9,016 per month). I don’t even know that he can voluntarily refuse his state-mandated salary. (Perhaps he can donate it back to the State, but the salary is dictated by law.) The Governor cannot fire Rauschenberger. I thought he could, but the law that says he can has been “reinterpreted” (read “twisted”) through the creative use of Attorney General and Supreme Court opinions. But even if the Governor could fire Rauschenberger, does anybody really think the Governor would fire the son of his chief-of-staff?
We need to be realistic.
Let’s talk about some of the “concern trolling” we should all expect to see from this blog post. First, I would say the same thing if Ryan had a brain tumor or cancer and it was causing him to skip work to go self-medicate with friends while he’s supposed to be in the office. As his employer, I can make reasonable accomodations for Ryan, but I do not have to let him skip work to go drinking without any consequences. If he cannot be trusted because of his brain tumor, it would be negligent of me to just ignore it and let him keep doing it. As his employer, I could be sued and held accountable if (because of a brain tumor) the keys he handed over to a drunk buddy were the keys to one of my vehicles. Be compassionate, yes; but do not be an enabler.
Also, I do not think Ryan should get a free pass because he wasn’t the drunk driver, and was – instead – only the person who gave the keys to the (allegedly) drunk driver. An SUV in the hands of a dangerously drunk person is a dangerous weapon. It's like any other dangerous weapon, including a gun. You can tell me an SUV is not a “dangerous weapon” all day and all night, but you’d be wrong. If you think it’s CRAZY TALK for me to say a vehicle can be a dangerous weapon, read the first paragraph of this 2013 North Dakota Supreme Court case and then give me a call.
Handing his SUV keys over to a guy Ryan thought was so drunk “he’d never come back” is like handing a gun to someone you think is going to kill someone, whether it’s himself or someone else. At best it is "negligent entrustment." If his drunk buddy had killed someone, Ryan could have been -- and should have been -- sued, if not prosecuted. I'd be first in line to sue him, if his negligence killed someone I love.
Is that also “over the top” crazy talk? I don’t know. Let’s wait and see if Ryan relapses again and hands his keys over to some other drunk person, and that person kills your family member next time. Then let’s talk about whether it’s “over the top.”
This is serious business. We can get all mushy about Ryan and how it took a lot of courage for him to admit he has a problem, because it did. But it’s not enough to just get mushy about Ryan’s courage. He also needs to be held accountable – to make amends – for his wrongs. He has to make a searching and fearless moral inventory of himself, admitting the exact nature of his wrongs. I remember hearing that "you have to hit the bottom before you can get help." I don't know if I agree with that, but I also don't think it's helpful for there to be no consequences when the probability of and implications for relapse are so serious.
There are really only three options for Ryan Rauschenberger: (1) He can hurry through a quick-fix treatment, as his press release suggests, so he can get back on the campaign trail in a few weeks, and hope that this time – unlike the previous times he’s tried treatment – he is successful; (2) He could be impeached by a legislature run by a supermajority that has never held one of its own accountable, whether for beating a spouse, drunk driving, or any other issue. Hopefully we can all agree that's never going to happen; or (3) Ryan could resign.
Considering all of the above, I think Ryan should resign. I don’t think the voters should have to take a gamble that he’ll be successful in his treatment this time, unlike the others. He should not expect that of us. It would be a sign of his lack of character for him to subject us to that. He is young enough so that he can bounce back. He can make a decision to turn his will and his life over to the care of God, and bounce back. I just don’t see any reason why we -- as his employers -- should take all the risk while he tries to stop failing in his attempts at sobriety. Hopefully he can pull it off this time, but I’d suggest it's not in anybody's best interests for him to be rushing through treatment so he can get back under the microscope of public scrutiny while he runs for an important government office.
Resign and take care of yourself, first. That's really important. Then work on earning our trust back, Ryan. Get the help you need. Follow the 12 steps, if that's the route you need to follow. Come clean about how much you've abused our trust and your office, and then prove to us that you deserve another shot.
Written by Chet
Monday, 25 August 2014 22:47
Okay, so maybe the title is a smidge strong. Given an infinite amount of space for a title I might have called it: If The Government Comes To Euthanize You, Don't Hire Ron Fischer As Your Lawyer; He Can't Think Of Any Existing Law That Outlaws Governmental Euthanization of People.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, Grand Forks lawyer Ron Fischer wrote a letter to the editor that's making the rounds right now. It's an expression of his paid-for opinion about "Measure One," the horribly written initiated measure that will likely take away your right to make "end of life" decisions for yourself and your family members. Here's an excerpt from Fischer's letter to the editor:
I know a thing or two about end-of-life issues. First, I am a constitutional lawyer, born, raised, educated and living right here in North Dakota. Second, I am battling cancer, so end-of-life issues are more than a theoretical concern to me.
Professionally, I have been dealing with issues of constitutional law for the past 34 years. I’ve litigated countless cases concerning constitutional issues, including five years as an attorney in the U.S. Justice Department under President Ronald Reagan, where I received multiple awards for outstanding service.
In 2004, I was honored with a Fellowship in The American College of Trial Lawyers, widely considered to be the premier professional legal organization in America, whose membership is limited to no more than 1 percent of the lawyers in any state.
In addition to my professional qualifications to speak about Measure 1, I have a keen personal interest in making sure North Dakotans retain control over our own end-of-life decisions.
So let's break down Mr. Fischer's letter to the editor into its subparts. I'm going to try to address these in the context of the Logical Fallacies I learned about as an undergrad taking Ted Messenger's "Introduction to Logic" class back in the olden days. Dr. Messenger used the textbook by Irving M. Copi to teach us the basics of crap arguments. I bought a copy of Copi's book (latest edition) a few years ago just because I remembered it being one of the best undergrad textbooks I ever had my hands on. Dr. Messenger taught us about what a bunch of "logical fallacies." You might call them "crap arguments." I don't have Copi's textbook with me now (I'm on vacation out of town) so I don't recall if I'm using Copi's exact words. But you'll get the idea:
(1) Ron's Resume: Ron tells us he used to work for "The Justice Department"!!! Dun Dun Daaaaaah!!! Game over right? A guy who used to work for the Justice Department knows everything, right? But it wasn't just any Justice Department; it was the Justice Department under -- wait for it... -- Ronald Reagan! Hey! Reagan is the Messiah, right? But Fischer even won awards for "outstanding service." Everybody give Ron a round of applause. He worked for the Justice Department under the administration that gave arms to Iran in an illegal exchange. And he got special recognition for his work. Atta boy, Ron.
But that's not all. Ron also says he is "a constitutional lawyer." Do you know what that means? If not, let me translate it for you: Ron is a lawyer. Not just any lawyer, mind you, but a lawyer who took a constitutional law class in law school, and who has to refer to the constitution from time to time in his law practice. In other words... Ron is a lawyer. It's not that he's an "expert" on constitutional law. I bet none of Ron's Yellow Pages ads say, "Ron is an expert in constitutional law." That's because when someone tells you they are a "constitutional lawyer" they are trying to inflate their resume' to try to get you to trust their judgment regarding their personal interpretation of the constitution.
Ron's listing on "www.martindale.com" doesn't say anything about him being a "constitutional lawyer." It says his practice areas are: "Insurance; Business/Commercial; Employment; Personal Injury; Appellate Practice." Does any of that sound like the kind of work a "constitutional lawyer" does? Well, sure. Because every lawyer is a "constitutional lawyer."
Listen, I'm a lawyer too. I studied the same cases from the same books as Ron. All law students take "Con Law" class; probably two semesters. That means we've both taken the minimum required post-graduate study of constitutional law classes.
But... wait a minute: I also took two semesters of undergraduate constitutional law classes. And I use the constitution in my practice pretty regularly, too. Just like lots and lots of lawyers and judges in America who think Ron has no idea what he's talking about in his letter to the editor. Does that make me more of a "constitutional lawyer" than Ron? Yeah, not really. I'm just a lawyer lawyer, like Ron.
Copi might have called this an "appeal to accomplishment," a subset of the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. It doesn't matter how many acronyms you have after your name. It doesn't matter where you worked or what awards you've received. If your argument is crap, it's crap.
(2) Ron's Illness: I'm sorry Ron has cancer. Cancer can be a horrible disease with tragic ends. I'm glad he has found science-based healing professionals at the Mayo Clinic who are having some success in treating his condition. An alternative might have been for him to turn to a faith-based evaluation and faith-based healing through prayer, but that likely would have had a tragic outcome. I'm glad his doctors don't have their hands tied by church leaders who reject logic, reason and science. See, sometimes some people need to rely on their faith, and other times they need to rely on logic and reason (and maybe a little faith, too). If I'm standing on a fire escape on the tenth floor of a building and want to get down to the ground, I can rely on my faith and jump, or I can take the stairs (having faith they won't collapse). The person who relies only on his/her faith isn't necessarily taking the right approach to a problem or situation. I'm glad Ron chose to rely on science, logic and reason (and probably some faith) when dealing with his cancer. I just wish he would do the same in the debate about Measure One.
The fact someone -- Ron, here -- has a potentially fatal condition does not give them special authority to discuss a legal issue. Listen; we all have a fatal condition; it's called "life." (Look it up. It's terminal. Everyone dies.) Just because Ron -- like all of us -- is facing life-and-death decisions does not make his opinion special. Some might say he should be ashamed of himself for trying to use his unfortunate medical condition to bolster his crap argument.
Copi would have called Fischer's abuse of his illness an example of the "appeal to pity" fallacy, or argumentum ad miserecordiam. Copi might say, "Sure, feel pity for Ron; but don't accept his crap argument because you feel pity for him."
And I have the flu right now and feel like I'm going to die. So my opinion is somehow more meaningful, right? Of course not. Pity me, but don't agree with me because you pity me.
(3) Ron's Shameful Hypocrisy and Scare Tactics: See how Ron accuses folks like the Constitutional Law professor of "playing on your fears"? Yeah, Ron, take a look in that mirror of yours. See, Ron thinks opponents of measure one are fighting for "unlimited right to abortion in North Dakota." An abortion clinic in every kettle. He wants you to be scared because everybody will be rushing off to their nonexistent corner abortion clinic tomorrow if Measure One doesn't pass. He supports Measure One, he says, because he supports "life." Well, Ron, we all support life. Even pro-choice people. They just also believe in the right of certain people to make private medical decisions without your church or our government getting involved. Yours is a "straw man" argument if I've ever seen one, too, by the way. Nobody's asking for "unlimited right to abortion in North Dakota," and he knows it. That's just the bogie man he wants dumb people to fear.
Measure One's biggest impact will be on people's right to make end-of-life decisions. That is just fact. Read Professor Morrison's writings on the topic if you don't believe me.
(4) Ron's Appeal To Authority: Ron's opinion is supported by "a prestigious group of 16 legal, medical and senior-care experts" who wrote up report for the Catholic church funded pro-Measure One organization.
He also cites FDR. FDR might be rolling in his grave.
Upton Sinclair wrote, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Fischer's law firm is defending all the state's crazy, new anti-women's reproductive health laws. So far this fiscal biennium, it looks like Fischer's office has billed the state over $150,000 to defend those crazy laws. Do a "vendor" search on North Dakota's OMB website for "Pearson Christensen" and you'll see what I mean. Does anybody wonder whether Fischer's law firm would get to keep that high-dollar gig if he or anybody in his firm publicly spoke out against Measure One? A Letter to Editor writer with slightly more integrity than Fischer would have disclosed a glaring conflict of interest like that.
And some of the “prestigious” “experts” Ron points to would undoubtedly lose their jobs if they didn’t support all the proponents' lies about Measure One. See, at least one "expert" is actually not an expert at all, but is a lobbyist for North Dakota’s Catholic bishops. The Bishops are the ones who were not-so-secretly behind Measure One. Many others work for Catholic Church institutions. Catholic hospitals. Catholic nursing homes. Catholic colleges. Other Catholic organizations. Do you really think their jobs would still be there for them if they spoke out against Measure One? Is anybody insane enough to think that?
But let’s take Upton Sinclair a step further. What if your invitation to your church depended on you not understanding Measure One? What if your Bishop told you your entry into Heaven was conditioned on you NOT understanding the impact of Measure One? Do you think you’d “understand” Measure One if your church was important – if it was THAT important – to you?
One of Ron's "prestigious" experts is a "professor emeritus." Do you know what "emeritus" means? It means "not one anymore." The guy used to be a professor, but he isn't anymore. Is he a respected authority on constitutional law who's written peer-reviewed journal articles? I don't know. But if he is and has, it was probably a long time ago when he was a professor. And he isn't anymore.
I don't have anything against people of the Catholic faith. Many of my friends are Catholic, and I love 'em. Many of my Catholic friends reject this heavy-handed nonsense from the Bishops and are against Measure One. Their salaries don't depend on getting support from the Bishops. But you should ask yourself how many of the people on Ron's list of "prestigious experts" aren't Catholic people whose salaries depend on them having the support of the Catholic Bishops.
While I am not a constitutional law professor -- and neither is Ron -- I stand pretty comfortably with the hundreds or thousands of prestigious "constitutional lawyers" and law professors and judges who disagree with Ron.
See what I did there? I can appeal to authority, too. Just like Ron.
Here's the thing: you guys who think you know what God wants: you don't. God's Will is not dependent on Measure 1, and in fact God's Will is not Measure 1. And, yet, not only do you think it is, but because you think it is, it is okay to lie -- i.e. to "bear false witness" -- and to scare and to manipulate through any means necessary to carry out what you think is God's Will even though it isn't. The irony - it's downright sad.
Written by Chet
Friday, 08 August 2014 08:42
For North Dakotans who actually practice their Christian religion -- particularly Catholics and Lutherans -- the 8th Commandment is pretty clear. It says "Thou shalt not bear false witness..." Exodus 20:16. Folks familiar with the Bible recognize this as being one of the parts of Christian dogma that says good Christians shouldn't lie; especially about our neighbors.
Then along comes the Church-backed group "ND Choose Life." According to the website for the "North Dakota Catholic Conference," "ND Choose Life is a coalition of" anti-choice "organizations. Supporters include the North Dakota Catholic Conference..." (Source) ND Choose Life has released a propaganda piece that does not quite live up to the express language in the Eighth Commandment. Take a peek:
So let's break this video down into the two main "facts" about Measure One, according to the Catholic Conference-backed group:
(1) The first message of the video is that Pro-choice groups sought out "a judge sympathetic to their cause" who struck down some of North Dakota's unconstitutional anti-choice laws. This is patently false. It is a lie. North Dakota is unique in that it has a law -- NDCC § 29-15-21 -- that says both sides in every lawsuit get one shot at demanding a change of judge. They don't have to give an explanation for why they want or need a different judge; either or both sides simply ask, and -- abracadabra -- they get a different judge. This makes it impossible to shop for a "judge sympathetic to their cause." The oppressie anti-choice side in the lawsuit had the exact same right to demand a diffent judge in every case where the anti-choice laws were challenged. This "change of judge" law makes it impossible to "seek out a judge sympathetic to their cause," because -- if either side thinks the judge isn't unbiased -- they can simply get a different judge; no questions asked.
And this statement about the other side seeking out a judge sympathetic to their cause isn't just false "false;" it's false in that it it is a falsehood -- i.e. a lie -- stated about the neighbors of the people who back ND Choose Life. And that includes the ND Catholic Conference. So let's be clear about this: The ND Catholic Conference is propping up an organization that is dishonoring knowing and intentional lying. And that's sad. you would think a Church organization would hold itself to a higher standard. You'd think a Church organization would immediately disavow any involvement with an organization that bears false witness against its neighbors. Instead, the ND Catholic Conference gushes about its support of the dishonest ND Choose Life organization on its website. That's troubling.
(2) The uninformed and misguided actress in the video reads from a script which claims Measure 1 was put on the ballot "to protect the laws we already have." This is false. An amendment to the state constitution that is unconstitutional under the federal constitution, is still unconstitutional. These laws -- or some of them -- were declared unconstitutional because they violate the federal constitution. The idea that a state can adopt a state constitutional amendment in order to shield its federally unconstituional laws from being stricken... is false. And it's not just normal false false. This assertion made by ND Choose Life is also a lie about our neighbors in North Dakota. It is a lie that pretends to explain why Measure 1 was put on the ballot. It was not put on the ballot "to protect the laws we already have" because, as a matter of fact and of law, it could not possibly "protect the laws we already have" if those laws violate the federal constitution (which they do).
So that's two Eighth Commandment demerits for ND Choose Life and it's church backers. And it's too bad those aren't the only two examples of ND Choose Life bearing false witness. There are plenty more. (See today's Fargo Forum, for example)
Here's where I come down on this dishonest pro-Measure-One propaganda from church-backed organizations: I don't have a problem with the church leaders taking a position on Measure One. I don't have a problem with a church-backed organization taking a position. But when a church-backed organization starts to lie about a ballot measure, the reasons for the measure, and the impacts of the measure, that is a sign that the church-backed organization is also supportive of lying. And lying is supposed to be a big "no-no" for Christian people, and particularly for leaders of these churches. So if you are a member of one of these churches, and it becomes this obvious that the church is supporting of lying, and lying is one of God's big "no-nos," don't you have to start wondering what else your church is lying about?
If you support Measure One because of your religious dogma, just say so. Whatever your reasons for supporting measure one, just be honest. If you're not a constitutional scholar and don't understand how laws and constitutions interact, don't pretend to know how they interact. Don't pretend to be an expert. Leave that to the unbiased law professors and other true experts who aren't handcuffed by a paycheck from the Bishops or by their religious dogma.
Written by Chet
Wednesday, 23 July 2014 08:25
There's been a glut of news coming out lately about North Dakota, nationally. We don't see a lot of it locally, but it's important stuff we all should know about. I've had about fifteen web browser windows open on my computer for a little while. I've been meaning to try to write blog posts about each of them. But they keep piling up on me, as does my work, family commitments and other stuff. There have also been a couple local news stories and an editorial many of you may have missed, and so I'll lump those in here too. So today I'm just going to dump all of them on you, with a recommendation that you read as many of these as you have time to read. So, in no particular order, here goes:
(1) "Race for North Dakota's Agriculture Commissioner is All About Oil" (Reuters) July 22, 2014
[Doug] Goehring, armed with donations from executives and political action committees at Continental Resources Inc, Whiting Petroleum Corp, Marathon Oil Corp and other companies active in the state's Bakken shale oil formation, is in the fight of his political life.
His opponent in the November election, Ryan Taylor, is a rancher and former Democratic state senator who threatens to impose stiffer regulations on an industry used to operating with little intervention in what is typically a conservative state.
"We want the oil, but we also want productive land when it's all done," Taylor said in an interview on his 2,900-acre ranch, dotted with scores of quietly grazing cows. He went on to say that if elected, "I'll probably be looking at things in a more critical eye."
The Ag Commissioner race in North Dakota in 2014 will answer a variety of questions, the most important of which is this: "Are North Dakota voters going to continue to let oil companies put oil company prostitutes in statewide elected offices in North Dakota?" We soon shall see.
More on this from Ed Schultz last night, too.
(2) "In North Dakota's Oil Bonanza, Natural Gas Goes Up In Flames" (LA Times) July 16, 2014
Republican Gov. Jack Dalrymple, saying he is "embarrassed" by a gas flaring record that he says has "been easy on companies," has vowed that the state will strictly enforce new rules aimed at cutting the waste. State officials say the regulations, which took effect in June, will curb the proportion of total natural gas production flared from 28% in May to 10% in 2020.
"We will reduce flaring — it's just that simple," Dalrymple said.
The pledge hasn't soothed the Leppells, whose 30-acre homestead has become surrounded by three well pads since they purchased it in 2009 — one of them directly on the 1,200-acre pasture they lease. Because they only rent the pasture, they earn no royalties, unlike many North Dakota farmers and ranchers who have become wealthy from oil earnings. They say the state should have required infrastructure for capturing and marketing the gas before allowing more oil wells, which now gush $2.5 billion a month worth of crude.
"All of the details should have been worked out long ago," Wanda Leppell said. "Instead, I'm sitting here as a guinea pig because, you know, money talks."
Jack Dalrymple is "embarrassed" about something?!? Doubt it. He's at his apartment in Paris, again, sipping Chardonay and making fun of the hicks in North Dakota which is not, by the way, where he is from. (He was born and raised in Minnesota. Look it up.)
(3) "Bright Future: North Dakota Officials Project Bakken Production Through 2010" (Dickinson Press) July 17, 2014
The North Dakota Industrial Commission projects that oil development in the Bakken will last at least five generations — with production lasting through 2100 and beyond.
Lynn Helms, director of the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources, spoke about the state’s biggest industry at the sixth annual Bakken Rocks CookFest here on Thursday afternoon.
“Your grandchildren’s children will be sitting in these chairs,” Helms said at the informational session.
Helms' comment presumes North Dakota will still be habitable when our grandchildren's children are around, and not a massive SuperFund site. And -- the way things are going right now -- that requires a lot of optimistic speculation.
(4) "North Dakota's Oil Bonanza Is Unsustainable" (FiveThirtyEight.com) July 21, 2014
There’s a practical limit to how long those gains can continue, however. Drilling efficiency — how many wells a rig can drill in a given period — has been essentially flat over the past year.2 The wells themselves, meanwhile, are getting better at least in part because companies are drilling longer “laterals,” the sections of wells that run horizontally through the shale rock. In 2007, the average well in North Dakota was about 17,000 feet long (including both the vertical and horizontal portions); in 2013, the average well was nearly 20,000 feet long. But that rate of growth, too, is slowing as companies reach the technical and economic limit of how far they can drill.
Eventually, productivity growth won’t just slow but reverse. Companies prioritize drilling in the best parts of an oil field, then gradually shift their drilling to less productive areas. But because the Bakken is so new, no one really knows how those second-tier areas will perform. If they prove successful, Bakken production could enter a long plateau before a gradual decline. If they aren’t, production could decline precipitously. The boom, in other words, is bound to end eventually. Whether it will be followed by a bust remains uncertain.
I had to plug this one in here to contrast the gush-fest published by the Dickinson Press (see #3, above). FiveThirtyEight -- for those of you who don't know -- is the blog run by Nate Silver, who used to work for the New York Times and who correctly predicted all but one federal race in 2012. The one he got wrong was North Dakota's race between Heidi Heitkamp and that slumlord guy from Fargo; ol' whatshisname. More about that here.
(5) "North Dakota's Oil And Gas Boom Has Prosperity, But Critics Wonder About The Costs" (Huffington Post) July 21, 2014
“I don’t think most people know how pervasive the influence of the oil industry is in the Capitol,” said Jim Fuglie, a former state tourism director and former head of the state Democratic-Nonpartisan League Party. “Nothing this big has happened since homestead days. This is a game changer for North Dakota.”
Put another way, the state’s modern history has been rewritten by the energy industry in just four short years. And while few want to argue with the prosperity — the cascading cash, the budget surplus, the new hospital wing, the abundant jobs — the clout and swagger of the oil companies, arguably the most powerful force in modern politics, has unsettled the traditionally amicable and moderate politics of this state of just 725,000 people. Whether through campaign cash, charitable donations or larger contributions to the economy, the industry has gained a level of influence that’s hard to overstate. Each significant attempt to tighten regulatory oversight or restrict some of the industry’s more wasteful practices in the last legislative session either failed or passed only after being stripped of its core. Any talk about clamping down on the pace of drilling has been quickly snuffed out.
The results have been making headlines for a couple of years now: oil field spills by the thousands, billowing clouds of dust kicked up by an endless stream of trucks pounding on deteriorating roads, radioactive waste left to degrade in vacant buildings, skyrocketing crime rates and housing costs and methamphetamine abuse and prostitutes in a land where few outsiders wished to venture just a few years back. Many landowners and local officials in the state’s western oil fields — political conservatives for the most part — see an industry allowed to operate where and when it pleases, at any given speed, and to pollute with virtual impunity. Drillers wastefully burn off nearly a third of the natural gas that’s produced with the oil without paying royalties or taxes because they haven’t installed the pipelines and processing plants to capture it. As recently as 2009, there were just 451 oil field spills statewide, but last year there were at least 1,782. Just a fraction result in punishment: authorities issued 15 fines for spills in 2013, mostly for incidents from previous years.
Wait! Someone is telling the truth about problems with North Dakota's oil boom?!? BLASPHEMY!!!
(6) "North Dakota Fire At Oil Supply Business Continues To Burn" (LA Times) July 22, 2014
North Dakota firefighters continued to battle a huge blaze at an oil industry supply business in the town of Williston that spewed 500-foot-tall flames, officials said Tuesday.
Explosions and flames began shortly after midnight Monday at Red River Supply, the Williams County Emergency Services told the Los Angeles Times. A state highway near the fire was closed.
A half-mile radius around the fire has been evacuated, but no injuries had been reported. Emergency officials said in a Tuesday afternoon statement that they did not think they would have to increase the evacuation area.
The cause of the blaze was under investigation.
Another boom in the boom. Look for a lame investigation and the subsequent cover-up.
(7) "Tribune Names Editor, Other Staff Changes" (Bismarck Tribune) July 13, 2014
Steve Wallick, whose 40-year career at the Bismarck Tribune includes stints as a reporter, copy editor and supervisor, has been named the editor of the newspaper.
Wallick has been in charge of the Tribune newsroom as the city editor since 2002.
A native of Lincoln, Neb., he started at the newspaper as a reporter and copy editor in 1974, covered a legislative session and serving as the copy desk supervisor from 1975 to 2002.
I've often heard that the best way to make a shitty newspaper better is to promote people who are part of the problem, and retire people who aren't.
Nearly two years ago, the Tribune's previous editor -- John Irby -- announced he was retiring effective September 9, 2011. In the column he wrote to announce his retirement, Irby said he was tired of being picked on by bloggers, and very specifically by me; that's why he was leaving. (Read more about that here.) Last year (in 2013) Irby acknowledged through a Facebook comment that he'd been "censored" by some unnamed power above him in the food chain at the Bismarck Tribune, causing him to not publish the hard shories he (allegedly) really wanted to publish. (More about that here.) It was clearly an allegation that Tribune publisher Brian Kroshus was censoring the hard journalism Irby (allegedly) wanted to publish about the way oil develepment was happening, etc. But, of course, he didn't name Kroshus by name. He didn't have the stones.
So now, 10 days ago, the Tribune has hired a "replacement" for Irby. I'd like to say I'm glad the Tribune has finally hired an editor after not having one since 2011, but from everything I've heard about Wallick, he's more of the same, or worse. So we've got that going for us, which is nice.
(8) "Forum Editorial: Oil Boom Sex Trade An Epidemic" (Fargo Forum) July 21, 2014
North Dakota’s attorney general again warned that sex trafficking in oil country is, by state historical standards, approaching epidemic levels. Wayne Stenehjem was on the airwaves last week reporting how easily it’s been for law enforcement agents to set up stings and nab men who were seeking to buy sex involving girls as young as 12 and 13. Every successful sting reveals the pervasiveness of the sex trade.
All the pretty spin on the obvious benefits of oil and gas development in North Dakota’s Bakken cannot put a happy face on sex trafficking. All the explanations (“well, duh, it happens everywhere”) cannot hide the awful reality that it has never happened before with the intensity and organization seen in 2014 in oil country. All the excuses (“well, duh, we need more law enforcement”) cannot hide the irrefutable evidence of an escalating sex trade that is growing only because it is following the money generated by the oil boom.
Stenehjem and others, in particular federal law enforcement officials, are not soft-pedaling a problem that goes to the heart of protecting vulnerable children – girls and boys. They are instead speaking out candidly, even as some politicians and industry leaders would rather not talk about a downside of energy development that is as down as it gets. Anyone heard anything substantial, anything credible, from North Dakota legislators, some of whom have sold their souls to the oil industry?
Okay, the Fargo Forum gets a couple things right in this editorial, but that's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about the enourmous courage it takes for the Forum's editors to "name names." See where they say "some politicials and industry leaders would rather not talk about a downside of energy development..."?!? And "North Dakota legislators, some of whom have sold their souls to the oil industry?"?!? Who is the Forum talking about? Are they talking about Jack Dalrymple? Wayne Stenehjem? Doug Goehring? Who are these "some politicians" and anonymous legislators?!? Frickin cowards might as well burn their Journalism Diplomas. If they can't name names, they should start sending applications to WalMart; they have no business working in journalism, let alone being the Forum's editorial board.
I've got a few more things I wanted to write about, but I'm out of time...
Written by Jim Fuglie
Thursday, 17 July 2014 08:40
(Cross-posted, with permission, from The Prairie Blog.)
I’m working on an article for a magazine I write for about the North Dakota Industrial Commission’s new policy for siting oil wells, and I thought I might share some of what I have learned here, because it’s pretty interesting and I can often say things here that my editor at the magazine (although he is fairly generous with me) won’t let me say in print. Things like bad words, really bad words, of which I have a few on my mind today. Let’s see if I can get through this without using too many of them.
The article zooms in on the Industrial Commission’s Policy “NDIC-PP 2.01,” more commonly known as Wayne Stenehjem’s “Special Places,” “Extraordinary Places,” or “Areas of Interest” policy. That’s the policy that identifies 18 of these “Areas of Interest” in the Bakken oil field which have some intrinsic value beyond the minerals under them, generally scenic values, critical wildlife habitat or historical significance. Stenehjem’s idea, proposed to his two fellow Industrial Commission members Jack Dalrymple and Doug Goehring last winter, was to run a routine check on drilling permit applications, and if the request is for mineral development in or near these special areas, that they are subjected to some scrutiny, both by the public and by knowledgeable state and federal officials, to make sure that if a well is sited, the company developing it goes a bit out of its way to make sure it is placed in a spot where it will do the least amount of damage to those intrinsic values. Like tucking the well behind a butte, or keeping it out of woody draws that mule deer like for procreating, sleeping and eating, or out of sight and sound of an eagle’s nest. I published a list of those areas a week or so ago.
That policy took effect May 1. It generally says that when an application for a drilling permit arrives at the Oil and Gas Division, someone on the staff will check it against a list, and if it is on public land, and near one of these places, a process is triggered to enforce the policy. As far as I am concerned, that person—whoever it is—now has the most important job in North Dakota: Starting a process which will help protect the most important places in western North Dakota.
I don’t know who that person is, or if there are more than one of them. Alison Ritter, spokesperson for the Oil and Gas Division, outlined the process for me. To make it happen as efficiently as possible, the Division has compiled a pretty sophisticated GIS tool (you can actually look at the map by going here), and the application is checked against it both when it arrives and again during the evaluation process. If it scores a hit with the areas of interest list, a process begins which includes a review, public comment, agency comment and, hopefully, mitigation. Here’s the process outlined in the policy:
NDIC-PP 2.02. The director shall, within five calendar days after receiving an application to drill a well on public land within an area of interest identified under NDIC-PP 2.01:
A. Post on the daily activity reports (emphasis added) section of the Department of Mineral Resources website a notice including all non-confidential permit application information. The posted notice shall include all supporting information or records provided by the applicant which are not confidential. Public comments about public lands within the areas of interest regarding such issues as access road and well location, reclamation plans and timing, noise, traffic, and visual impact mitigation, will be accepted by the Industrial Commission executive director’s designee for 10 calendar days after the notice is posted.
B. Forward the portions of the application that are not confidential to the Director of North Dakota Game and Fish Department, the State Historical Preservation Officer, the Director of North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department, the Director of North Dakota Department of Transportation, the Commissioner of North Dakota Department of Trust Lands, the State Engineer of the North Dakota Water Commission, the State Director of the Bureau of Land Management, the Park Superintendent of Theodore Roosevelt National Park, the Supervisor of Dakota Prairie Grasslands, the Field Supervisor of United States Fish and Wildlife Service North Dakota Field Office and the county auditor of the affected county. Any comments regarding the permit application may be accepted by the Industrial Commission executive director’s designee (Note: I wrote about this designee last week) within 10 calendar days after the information is sent.
NDIC-PP 2.03. All comments shall be reviewed by the Industrial Commission executive director’s designee who shall summarize any comments received for the director of the Division of Mineral Resources. However, the Mineral Resources director is not bound to act upon any comments. (emphasis added)
NDIC-PP 2.04. The director may consider the comment summaries for the purposes of attaching conditions to any permit pursuant to NDAC 43-02-02, 43-02-02.2, 43-02-02.3, 43-02-02.4, 43-02-03 and 43-02-05 to mitigate potential impacts to the sites listed in NDIC-PP 2.01.
So, as you can see, the process can be used to write and attach special provisions to a drilling permit, designed to help protect these “Special Places.” The Division Director, Lynn Helms, can do that if he wants to, but he doesn’t have to.
It was a good idea Wayne Stenehjem had, and even though it was gutted to remove drilling on private land from consideration—only lands owned by the state, federal or local governments will get this scrutiny—it creates an awareness that we should be considering things other than maximization of wealth to drillers and mineral owners when we site an oil well—at least on public lands.
The problem with the policy is that there is a loophole in it big enough to drive an oil well fracking truck through. Or a thousand trucks, or, possibly fifty thousand or a hundred thousand trucks (I’ve been told it takes a thousand trucks full of water and fracking material to complete a well). Here’s the loophole which is the problem:
The policy only applies to drilling permit applications received by the Oil and Gas Division after May 1, 2014. Applications. Paperwork that comes into the Division office asking for permission to drill a new well. Paperwork that is coming into the Oil and Gas Division now, since the policy took effect May 1.
It does not apply to applications received before May 1. That’s the loophole. You see, one rainy day a couple of weeks ago I was looking at those “Daily Activity Reports” mentioned above (you can see them here), and I spotted approval of a drilling permit for a well to be drilled on state-owned land about half a mile from the boundary of Theodore Roosevelt National Park’s South Unit. Wait a minute, I said. That’s within the “Areas of Interest” boundaries. How come the new policy doesn’t apply?
Well, it doesn’t apply because the application came in before the policy took effect. So even though it is now the policy of the state of North Dakota to carefully examine all oil well sites for their impact on the neighborhood and those who live in it, it doesn’t apply if you beat the deadline.
Well, that’s a bummer. We’ve got a policy in place, but it doesn’t apply right now. We’re going to go ahead and allow wells inside these “Special Places,” as long as they beat the deadline, defeating the purpose of the very policy we put in place to prevent that.
I just happened to look at the legal section of the Bismarck Tribune the very next day, and there was a legal notice posted by the U.S. Forest Service that they were signing off on a well about a mile and a half from the North Unit of the Park, again inside the two-mile boundary zone of the Park that the state wants to protect. Same story. The application came in before the deadline.
I began to wonder just how many of these applications were now on file with the Oil and Gas Division, awaiting approval. See, the Industrial Commission had been discussing this since back in December, so oil companies had four or five months to get their applications in before the policy took effect on May 1. So if they knew they were going to want to drill next to the national park, or beside a wildlife refuge, or snugged up against the shoreline of Lake Sakakawea, they just hurried up and got their applications in before May 1.
So I sent an e-mail to Alison Ritter, a very helpful spokesperson for the Oil and Gas Division, asking how many permit applications were on file when the policy took effect May 1.
You read that right. On May 1, the day the new policy took effect, there were more than a thousand pending applications to drill for oil sitting on somebody’s desk at the Oil and Gas Division, and none of them were subject to the new policy, because they were submitted before the deadline. I don’t have any way to determine how many of them are inside the boundaries of the “areas of interest,” and I have a bit too much fishing and gardening and golfing to do to spend my time looking at a thousand applications to see how many are inside those “Areas of Interest” boundaries, but I do know there are at least two—the ones I just mentioned—and that there are probably more. Maybe a lot more.
Well, shit, that’s discouraging. The oil industry has plenty of time to screw up the “Special Places” before they have to start following the new rules. And there’s nothing we can do about it. Legally, at least.
Last Spring, when the Industrial Commission was putting the finishing touches on the policy, the Attorney General told me he’d like to have coffee and visit about this. So last week I took him up on that offer. I took him copies of the map that showed the locations of these two wells that are going to be drilled inside the two-mile boundary around Theodore Roosevelt National Park, and asked him if there was anything we could do about them, and the other 1,062 pending applications. He was interested in finding out. He said that he’d check to see what could be done with those 1,062 pending applications. We agreed that, legally, the oil companies can plunge ahead. But Wayne thought he might see if we could get some agreement about informally checking those permit applications to see if any of them would have the new policy applied to them if they had come in after May 1. And then, maybe, in good faith, the Oil and Gas Division director could ask the companies to work with him on siting those wells and the roads to them. I expect Wayne’s working on that right now. But I won’t hold my breath waiting for a positive outcome. I know those folks over at the Oil and Gas Division.
So, right now, the old rules still apply. If you’re an oil company and you got your application to drill a well on a school section next door to the National Park filed before May 1, you can just go right ahead. I don’t know how old those applications are, but Ms. Ritter told me it takes an average of 27 days from the time an application arrives until it is approved by the Oil and Gas Division. As I write this, May 1 was about 75 days ago, so all of those should have been approved and issued by now.
I don’t know how many of those 1,062 might have been inside the boundaries of the “Areas of Interest,” but my cursory look showed me there were two, so it’s likely there are more if you carefully scrutinize the daily activity reports. I’m not doing that. I’m going fishing.
I hope Wayne will ask three questions of his staff over at the Oil and Gas Division:
- How many of those 1,062 applications have yet to be acted on?
- Would you please check and see if any of those not yet acted on are inside the “Areas of Interest” boundaries?
- Would you see if you can get your experts, like wildlife or historic preservation staff , to take a look at them and see if there are any problems, and if there are, talk to the oil companies about rectifying them?
That would be a nice thing to have happen, and it would reassure all of us that the state is serious about this business of looking out for “Extraordinary Places.”