|
 The North Dakota Supreme Court, today, filed a decision, reversing the dismissal of criminal charges against the former director of North Dakota's Workforce Safety and Insurance, Charles "Sandy" Blunt.
In a 12 page, unanimous decision, the Court determined the trial court judge had committed reversible error: The court essentially engrafted an additional element onto the offense of misapplication of entrusted property that is not included in the statute. The language of the statute, the legislative history, and our case law do not support the district court’s conclusion. The focus and purpose of the statute is protection of the owner’s interest in the entrusted property, not whether the defendant received a personal benefit from misuse of the property. In short, “[a] public officer entrusted with public funds has no right to give them away.” 63C Am. Jur. 2d Public Officers and Employees § 265 (1997); see also Teigen v. State, 2008 ND 88, ¶ 35 (Sandstrom, J., concurring specially) (N.D. Const. art. X, § 18, “restrain[s] . . . government actors from gifting public funds or property”). We conclude the district court erred when it based its dismissal of the complaint upon lack of evidence that Blunt personally benefitted from the alleged unauthorized expenditures of public funds. Supreme Court Decision [link fixed here and below]
The court characterized the trial judge's application of law as "an apparent misconception of the purpose and scope of a preliminary hearing." In this case, the district court implicitly found that, as a matter of law, the expenditure of public funds for gift certificates, food, beverages, flowers, balloons, decorations, costume rentals, ornaments, and gifts was authorized because there was a corresponding public benefit in the form of happier, more productive employees. The critical flaw in the district court’s rationale is that it has no limits. If Blunt had used public funds to give every WSI employee a new car, or to take them and their families to Disneyland, presumably the employees would have been happier, and it may have been easier to retain good employees. We doubt, however, that anyone would argue it was an appropriate expenditure of public funds. While most of the expenditures in this case were relatively small on an individual basis, the aggregate alleged amounts to more than $18,000. We do not view that as an insignificant amount of public funds, nor would its misuse be inconsequential. Decision
The Court also found that the retroactive payments for additional salaries to employees who had already been fully compensated amounted to "improper bonuses not authorized under state law." (If proven at trial.) I have to tell you that there is nothing in this decision that surprises me, at all. If it had gone the other way, the North Dakota Supreme Court would have been creating new law. That would have been something worth a much longer blog post. Note: For a short period after today, the Supreme Court's opinion is subject to a petition for rehearing. Petitions for rehearing are rarely granted. Even when they are granted, they almost never result in any change in the outcome of the decision. It looks like Sandy Blunt may still stand trial for a charge of misapplication of entrusted funds. Watch both sides of this case evolve.
| 
It looks like it. I'm shocked.