Dr. James Long, a candidate for the North Dakota Senate from District 14, is seeking an Attorney General opinion regarding a possible violation of North Dakota's open meetings law.  Long apparently walked in on a meeting of a North Dakota Workforce Safety and Insurance Audit Committee, or possibly a meeting of a quorum of the full board, at the East 40 restaurant in Bismarck.  Here is a clip from Long's allegations in his request for an opinion:

I received a call at approximately 7:30PM on 5/21/2008 alerting me that select WSI Board members and staff were having an illegal and unannounced public meeting with a consultant hired to train the Board on Policy GoveranceÒ Model as developed by Dr. John Carver. The caller stated that the purpose of this meeting was to determine a manner within Board Governance in which to marginalize the efforts of certain Board members to uncover issues that may be unethical and potentially illegal. I asked the caller where this meeting was to be taking place and I was told the East 40 Restaurant because it is adjacent to the hotel in which the Board members were staying.

Based on this information, I went to the East 40 at approximately 8:30PM. I walked through the restaurant and saw a table in which the illegal and unannounced meeting of WSI Board members and employees was apparently taking place. I personally witnessed Directors Gjovig, Gallagher, and Jackson meeting. I believe this constitutes a quorum of the audit committee. Additionally, WSI CEO Bruce Furness was also attending this illegal and unannounced Board Meeting. I am willing to testify under oath regarding what I witnessed and whom I saw at the restaurant that night.

Request for A.G. Opinion dated 5/22/2008  

The Attorney General's office has notified Long that they have initiated an investigation. 

It's my understanding the Attorney General's office generally has a "one strike" rule.  They'll let a state agency get away with violating North Dakota's open meetings law once.  WSI got its one break back in November-December of 2007 when it held an executive session when it didn't have authority to do so.  WSI was forced to release the recording of that closed meeting in December of 2007.   They've also had problems complying with North Dakota's open records law.  You'd think there would be some consequences if the A.G. finds that WSI has broken the law again.  

But don't hold your breath.

Jim Long's district, District 14, includes most of the city of Lincoln, North Dakota, and extends up to the Harvey and Fessenden area, including the towns of Wing, Tuttle, Regan, Pettibone, Robinson, Steele, and rural Wilton.

Comments (20)

WOW
written by Mr. Ford, June 03, 2008, 04:32 PM

Can't wait to see how they cover this one up!

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +4

Grossbauer and Curl were missing
written by Robin, June 03, 2008, 07:24 PM

Grossbauer and Curl were missing from the meeting. They must be the investigating board members the rest were trying to marginalize. I would like to hear their explanation as to why Grossbauer and Curl weren't invited. Let's hope this investigation doesn't take six months.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +8

one strike
written by doug d.riley, June 03, 2008, 09:30 PM

the ag's office more than likely means a one strike rule once every six months,so that will give wsi their out,that means twice a year every year,unless worded differently which means anytime wsi wants to do this.....

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +3

...
written by Big Jake, June 03, 2008, 09:50 PM

I won't hold my breath. The arrogance is just stunning!!! I hope that Long had someone with him---it strengthens his case and changes the politics of it.

I would refer back to Trib. editor Irby's comment on the lack of public outcry. It has remained so. The Trib. is on the right side but we should not expect them to be the lone Ranger. A paper will only beat a dead horse so long.

Not time for hand ringing----adequate time to give this dog something to hunt in time for the fall election. I think that more shoes are preparing to drop.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +3

Thank you Jim!
written by In the Know, June 03, 2008, 11:17 PM

Thank you for all the work and trouble that you have gone through trying to expose corruption at WSI. Someday it will all pay off. Hopefully, sooner rather than later.
Although I don?t feel sorry for them at all, I wonder what it is like for the WSI perpetrators to have to look over their shoulders all the time. I would hate to live like that. I also wonder why they continue to choose to continually offend. Someday, I would love to see an arrogant WSI executive or board member being removed from WSI in handcuffs.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +6

A.G. Opinions
written by Chet, June 04, 2008, 10:07 AM

It's funny someone -- Robin -- mentions that he/she hopes it doesn't take the A.G.'s office 6 months to issue an open records opinion.

I've honestly forgotten how many requests for review I have pending, it's been so long since I filed them. I probably still have 2 or 3 requests pending. Maybe more. Not sure. I barely remember what they would be about, it's been so long.

Oh yeah. Some of them are about the Safety Grant scandal.

You know, the A.G. makes a big deal about how state agencies have to promptly respond to open records requests. Here's what the A.G. says:

The entity must respond to the request within a reasonable time, either by providing the requested record or by explaining the legal authority for denying all or part of the request. Depending on the amount of records requested, a ?reasonable? time could be a couple of hours or a few days, but not several days or weeks.

A Public Official's Guide to North Dakota Open Records & Open Meetings Laws

But how meaningless is all that chatter if it takes the A.G.'s office 4 to 6 months to issue an opinion that makes a public entity comply with the law?

I just looked back at my notes, and I made one of my requests on February 21st. It's now June 4th. That's 3.5 months. It's 104 days. (see "days between dates" calculator, by clicking here.)

Wow.

Imagine if the information I've requested would be proof of criminal conduct by someone working in the government. Or imagine if it was proof of a huge criminal conspiracy involving a state agency and a number of other public officials. Imagine if my goal was to stop crime. And now it's been 104 days since I tried to stop the crime.

If the A.G. were really serious about enforcing the open records law, he'd issue opinions within a "reasonable" amount of time, too. Four months is not a "reasonable" amount of time. 104 days is not a "reasonable" amount of time.

It just isn't.

It's kinda frustrating.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +6

well Chet
written by Mr. Ford, June 04, 2008, 10:28 AM

Just maybe they need that much time to doctor up documents, or create ones to change the outcome.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +3

Stark County Commission...
written by I have issues, June 04, 2008, 11:16 AM

opinion took: 125 days, or
17 weeks and 6 days

Hope anyone is not holding their breath

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +2

...
written by Truth, June 04, 2008, 08:43 PM

Yes Furness is cleaning things up - YEA Right, he taught Denny Walaker well - there was an illegal meeting between Walaker, NDSU and other city officials - Furness is not the saint he purports himself to be. Furness is a slimy as the rest of the WSI bunch. If Furness was an upstanding guy, he would have put a stop to the meeting - but no he let it continue

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +5

what a joke!!!
written by injured worker, June 04, 2008, 10:22 PM

WSI just continues to do whatever they want, why not, the govenor and AG have proven that they dont care!!! The petition to turn control of WSI back to the govenor is also a joke. The govenor does nothing now to help injured workers OR state employers that comply with police investigations than get fired. As long as Halverson, Armstrong and the rest of the mafia are there nothing will change. I recieve a check from WSI for mileage and as of the begining of June Mr. Halverson's signature is still on it. I wonder where Mr. Furness is at? WHAT A JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +2

Guess the BT missed this part of WSI meetings
written by Mr. Ford, June 09, 2008, 08:35 AM

http://www.bismarcktribune.com...ogcomments

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +3

...
written by Truth, June 09, 2008, 06:14 PM

The tribune doesn't care, they have put their tail between their legs and now will be the mouthpiece for WSI - they are taking over where Steve Cates left off

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +2

Still waiting.
written by MIKE, July 06, 2008, 05:58 PM

Dr. James Long still waiting on A.G. opinion of open meeting law dated 5/22/2008?
Chet did you ever receive release of information on Safety Grants?

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +2

AG opinion
written by Chet, July 07, 2008, 10:24 AM

No. I'm still waiting on an A.G. opinion on the availability of safety grant information. The timer up in the upper right hand corner of this website is counting the minutes since I requested help from the A.G.'s office.

I fully expect that Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem will say that WSI can secretly hand out millions of public dollars to its friends under a shadowy veil of secrecy. I'll be pleasantly surprised if he says otherwise.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +4

It's frustrating...
written by Jim Long, July 07, 2008, 09:32 PM

You're right Mike, I haven't heard a peep since I requested an opinion. I really would like to be a person who has faith in "the system" but I don't think I have the luxury to be that naive. I put a lot of faith in Wayne Stenehjem to provide whistleblower protection to the four of us and look what happened. My only regret throughout this whole ordeal is knowing that Kay, Billi, and Todd may have filed for whistleblower protection based on my belief that if we were ethical and told the truth that we would be protected. I thought that the Wayne Stenehjem's core values would transcend petty party politics. Unfortunately I was wrong. Regarding the illegal meeting, it's so clear that it was a violation...Furness even admitted so much in his email to staff. The only reason that it's taking so long is because I fear Stenehjem is looking for a way to cover up the truth. There are so many things associated with this situation that make me shake my head in disbelief. Keiser and MacIver admitted that they held the meeting in which the Hatch Act was broken but no one has bothered to look into it. By forwarding my issues log to authorities it was the equivalent to making a criminal complaint. For some reason my concerns have fallen on deaf ears. It's apparent that to right the wrongs of this situation that it needs to be more than just a few of us shouting in the wilderness. I fully intend on keeping this issue going but I need each of you to help.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +4

A refresher
written by Chet, July 07, 2008, 09:59 PM

For those of you who don't know why WSI's handling of safety grants is a big deal, click here to read something I wrote about it earlier. I'll tell you, today, that the North Dakota Firefighter's Association (NDFA) is the entity that got the safety grant referenced in Ann Green's memo. I know this because the pdf file sent to me by Mark Armstrong was "redacted" but I could still read the words "North Dakota Firefighter's Association" through the pathetic redact job done by whoever's in charge of radacting at WSI. (Which suggests they broke the law either by redacting the information, or by not redacting it well enough.)

Anyway, I think WSI illegally gifted $79,000 to the NDFA. Click here to see why I think it was $79,000. I think that $79,000 is just one little example of one little gift given away by WSI, illegally, under Sandy Blunt's direction.

If the Burleigh County State's Attorney's office isn't going to include this $79,000 gift in it's criminal case against Sandy Blunt in which they're accusing him of misapplication of entrusted funds, we probably need a new State's Attorney. It should be a home run criminal case. The Ann Green memo, and the acknowledgment (in an e-mail response to an open records request form me) that WSI didn't comply with the law, should be enough to get a conviction. All they'd need would be for some WSI employee -- or someone from the NDFA -- to confirm Blunt was directly involved in it.

I'd bet it wouldn't be very hard to find a witness who could confirm that.

And... are John Hoeven, Wayne Stenehjem and Bruce Furness trying to cover this up?... or does it just look like they are?

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +3

Not very difficult at all
written by standing tall, July 08, 2008, 07:49 AM

Yes, it has been unofficially confirmed for the State's Attorney's office. I now think it's a matter of a wait for the phone to ring process; one ringy dingy, two ringy dingy...to make an official confirmation. Has anyone even talked to NDFA to get their take on this? I'm sure they are very nervous how this will play out. Very good cause, just too bad they got mixed up with Blunt and his go above authority way of thinking. Can't wait to hear what's next.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +3

Ann Green Memo
written by Chet, July 08, 2008, 08:45 AM

In case I hadn't ever posted the Ann Green memo, here's the original pdf file that was sent to me by Mark Armstrong. (Click here.) Again, as noted above, you'll see that someone tried to redact the words "North Dakota Firefighter's Association," but if you zoom in a little bit, you can see right through the redaction. (So, again, they either broke the open records law by trying to hide the name [and by failing to tell me why they tried to redact it], or they broke the law relating to keeping employer information confidential by not hiding the name well enough. Either way, it almost seems criminal, doesn't it?)

And, as noted by Standing Tall... I'll agree the NDFA is a good cause. I'd even concede that using some of WSI's surplus for safety grants might -- under the right circumstances -- be a wonderful way of avoiding workplace injuries. And, if I were in NDFA's shoes, I can't imagine getting a call from Sandy Blunt and having him say, "Hey. You want $79,000 for free? You don't even have to apply for it!" and then turning him down. But, if it's a crime for a state agency head to give away public money without complying with the law, then I can't imagine how the $79,000 (if that's the right number) wouldn't be included in Burleigh County's case against Blunt if Blunt was involved in giving it away without complying with the law.

I don't blame NDFA. It's unfortunate someone at NDFA might have to serve as a witness and/or be otherwise involved.

It's almost enough to make you wonder how many others were offered free money from WSI, without WSI following the law.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +4

maybe the request
written by MIKE, July 08, 2008, 09:00 AM

has been lost. That would explain all.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

Drama
written by Pegasus, July 08, 2008, 12:13 PM

The story of how the alleged gift came about will probably be very entertaining, if the public ever gets the real story. How many opportunities for real investigative journalism and HUGE stories have gone down the drain, except for Chet's work?

In the end, WSI will probably have dozens of excuses/rationale for what happened. They'll probably say something like the $79 k wasn't a gift, it went through all the proper procedures, has the proper paperwork, etc. And that might be sort of true, they expend lots of time and energy into fixing things after the fact. The ones who may have engaged in those activities (coverup???) will use the excuse it was all Blunt's fault and now that he's gone, these snafus won't happen. The problem with excuses like that is when the people involved should have known better and maybe should've gone to the board. And if that happened, then is the board responsible? They sure as heck won't look good (not that it seems to matter). And what about the potential for coverup? Are coverups crimes? Seems like it should be, although that doesn't seem to matter either.

If Chet's right about this, Feland should have a hey day. She has at least one witness according to Green's memo.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +3

Name

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment