NorthDecoder.com -- North Dakota's Most Influential Political Blog

Give 'r take a few hours one way or the other, it was 172 days ago, on Tuesday, February 12, 2008, at 10:23 a.m., that I sent an open records (state FOIA) request to North Dakota's Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI), asking for information relating to the millions of dollars in secret safety grant handouts given out by WSI between January 2002 and January 2008.

North Dakota's top law enforcement officer, Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem, tells state agencies they should provide properly requested records "within a reasonable time." Stenehjem defines "reasonable time" as "a couple of hours or a few days, but not several days or weeks." (click here)

Five hours after I made my request I received an e-mail from WSI's records Ayatollah, Mark Armstrong -- at 3:01 p.m. on February 12, 2008 -- that said this:

Not satisfied with that response, I fired off a request to North Dakota's Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem on February 21st. (I also made follow-up, more detailed requests in March.)

On June 16, 2008, I learned that another person had made a request similar to mine, but on October 1, 2007, and was denied her request.

On Wednesday of this week (July 30, 2008 at 2:41 p.m.) the WSI records Ayatollah sent me this e-mail:

When the e-mail came in, I was in the huge internet/cell phone vacuum that is Yellowstone National Park. I knew it had come in. As I read this on my tiny cell phone screen, I knew -- yes, I KNEW -- I was going to receive an Attorney General opinion on Friday/yesterday afternoon. (These people are soooo transparent.)

See, when a politician wants to neutralize the media attention a story gets, they try to minimize the public's attention to the story by releasing it on a Friday afternoon. If they want a story to get maximum attention, they'll break it on a Monday or Tuesday, before noon. That way the talk shows can spend a day or two talking about it. Besides that, people are more likely to forget about Friday's news by Monday, after a weekend at the lakes.

And if WSI and the Attorney General could choreograph this pseudo-pre-release of information from WSI on Wednesday along with the issuing of the A.G. opinion two days later, the opinion could be written to make it appear as though WSI had tried to follow the law. The geniuses at WSI and in the A.G.'s office know that most in the regular media aren't smart enough to ask the A.G.'s office how long ago WSI sent me the records....

Well... guess what I found in my email in-box yesterday (Friday) afternoon (August 1) at 3:44 p.m.???

I laughed as I read that paragraph. "Prior to issuance of this opinion..."?!? How about "Two days prior to the issuance of this opinion..."?!? How about "In a choreographed effort between this office and WSI, two days prior to the issuance of this opinion..."?!?

Doesn't it look choreographed? Nearly six months after WSI broke the law by refusing to give me the records I requested "within a reasonable time" WSI -- out of the goodness of its heart and out of nowhere (ha!) -- provides documents to me that it had given to a Republican legislator and then less than 48 hours later the A.G. has time to work a full paragraph into its 7 page opinion that addresses the (barely true) fact that WSI had given me the records less than 16 business hours "prior to the issuance of [the] opinion?"

I bet the folks at W.S.I. are shivering with fear, scared of the fact that the A.G.'s office has told them they have to follow the law.

But someone in the media should ask the Attorney General this question: Isn't it a crime for a state official to refuse to perform a public function?

Oh, but don't expect anybody at WSI to be held accountable. The A.G. obviously isn't going to prosecute anybody at WSI for anything, ever. We've known that for months and months. And now, with this obviously choreographed "pre-release" of information (to me) and A.G. opinion (not to mention the collaberative retaliation against the WSI whistleblowers), it seems pretty clear those two agencies have joined forces to cover up all the bad stuff.

The folks in the media will tell you everything is "peachy" at WSI. But it's not. Keep in mind that Bruce Furness has been in charge at WSI during much of the time I've been waiting for these documents. He is as responsible for breaking the law as were the people who first made the decision to knowingly withhold these documents from a taxpayer. They knew they illegally withheld this information from me. They did it because they didn't think I would do anything about it.

Sometimes, when a government official's denial of a record request is egregious, the A.G. makes government officials provide the requester with free copies of records, for example, for a full year. I'm not keeping score, but hasn't the A.G. found that WSI illegally withheld records from me -- one person -- four or five times? Maybe it's three? I don't know. But at some point, shouldn't there be a consequence? Shouldn't I get free records for a year from WSI?

Know why that will never happen? I'll keep uncovering Republican scandals. Our Republican Attorney General will never let that happen. He needs to make it expensive for me to uncover his party's scandals. He's a good Republican Party water carrier.

But this probably sounds like I think this is all about WSI's mistreatment of me. It's not. This isn't about me -- Chet -- at all. I appealed this to the Attorney General because WSI doesn't intimidate me, the A.G.'s office doesn't intimidate me, and I kind of know how to do it. But the unfortunate reality is that most people wouldn't have known they have the right to request a review. If they did, they might have thought it's complicated or expensive. (It's not.) WSI would have illegally withheld the records and they would have thrown up their hands and done nothing. But this is how WSI treats all people; not just me. They even treat the mainstream media this way. But the mainstreamers have been afraid to fight WSI's denials of their requests.

Also, even more importantly than that, keep in mind that what this is really about -- since it's not about me at all, and it's only partly about WSI's mistreatment of people -- is the fact that WSI has a secret program that allows it to hand out millions of dollars in public money to its friends, family, lobbyists, Republican legislators' businesses and businesses owned by WSI board members. You and me -- John Q. Public -- have no way of finding out how much free public money is being handed out, and to whom, or for what. Sure, the A.G.'s opinion yesterday opens the door just a crack, but they're still keeping most of the meaningful information secret. People who care about responsible government should be storming the capitol building with pitchforks and torches, demanding answers.

And let's take this one step further to show how absurd this is: WSI won't even share this information with Democratic legislators who have asked for it. As a constituent, I asked my legislator to look into the millions in secret hand-outs, and he did. They denied his requests, too. So legislators can't even monitor North Dakota's Republican Party insiders' scam. WSI can hand out public money, and no Democratic legislator will ever be allowed to see how they're handing it out, for what, or to whom. The only legislators who know how much money is handed out are the legislators whose businesses get the free money. (It's interesting, too, that leadership at WSI refused to give this information to a Democratic-NPL legislator [Potter] when he asked, but they tripped all over themselves to give it to a Republican legislator [Kasper] when he asked.)

This will not change until the people of North Dakota take away the Republican Party's -- and corporate America's -- stranglehold on North Dakota's government. North Dakota's Republicans are proving the old saying: Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I'm not saying that Democrats should be given absolute power. I'm just saying that absolute power should be taken away from the Republicans.

Deb said:

	*Hallelujah, Holy Sht! Pass the tylenol...** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGxyIhsSAow
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 02, 2008, 02:24 PM
Votes: +0

Chet said:

Follow-up
I should note, too, that the information they gave me on Wednesday does not satisfy my request. I asked for all grants from 2002 to 2007. They only gave me 2007. What they haven't given me is the information for 2002 through 2006. For example, how come they haven't told me, yet, about the other $310,834 awarded to Associated General Contractors from 2002 through July 1, 2007?!?

August 02, 2008, 02:31 PM
Votes: +5

BowmanFarmer said:

	Amazing I think the most incredible part is the fact that WSI conveniently complied (sorta) with your request just a day before the AG opinion was released. Are the two in cahoots? I'm not looking for an answer to that question, it's pretty obvious.
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 02, 2008, 03:11 PM
Votes: +1

Robin said:

Holy SNAFU Batman! This is FUBAR!
If WSI changed their tune and decided it was ok to give out the information, why didn't they deliver it to all requesting parties at the same time and with the same explanation? Whoever requested it back in October should be getting it now too and she shouldn't have to ask for it again. The democratic legislator who asked for it should have gotten it by now too. The very least that Stenejhem should do is impose the one year of free records as a penalty. When is he going to get his special staff over at WSI some remedial training in the basics of state government operations? The incompetence has got to be embarrassing for WSI. Looks like that tarnish remover isn't strong enough to clean out the corruption. More of the same. More obstructionism and deceit with no accountability. They got to stall for 6 months and now get no penalty. smilies/angry.gif

August 02, 2008, 05:42 PM
Votes: +4

Pegasus said:

Trouble Brewing
One thing we've all noticed about WSI...they can't seem to keep the lid on the pot until the water stops boiling. Ya gotta wonder what's cooking below the surface when they try so hard to keep everyone from looking in. Well, maybe not everyone. Certain Republicans apparently know exactly what is going on and continue to receive what appears to be preferential treatment.

What's really sad is the continuing orchestration of events (A.G. opinion on the heels of records turnover). I can't wait until one of the R's in my district comes knockin' on my door. They're getting an earful. And then some.

August 02, 2008, 06:49 PM
Votes: +7

Mr. Ford said:

	Your right It is just more of the same out of this agency. Why should we expect anything less? Laws? What Laws? WSI has only one set of laws, the ones they design for their own use. We have to appreciate the fact that the AG seems to like to side with them too. (ok that was sarcastic there) Did they hold a meeting at the East 40 about when to hand all this over to you Chet.
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 03, 2008, 12:18 AM | url
Votes: +2

Purple Nurple said:

Oops I did it again...
Chet: I guess my question is two-fold. First, do you think Stehenjem (or the cigarette smoking man as he is known by X-file enthusiasts) would be pulling this crap if he was up for election? Second, is there anything that we can do about this? I would like to see some people start writing letters to the editor; however, I think the Tribune has started drinking the Governor's bathwater as well.

I have been also waiting for a response on an AG's opinion for months and I haven't heard a peep. I think that the longer they delay, the more they think I will stop caring. They're wrong..in so many ways.

August 03, 2008, 02:20 PM
Votes: +2

S. Fred Wood said:

Don't Blame "the cooler".
Don't you know Furness has a full time job telling everyone that will listen that everything at WSI is OK?

Hells bells he is working overtime helping rehabilitate Halvy. Halvy hardly ever does that shadow management thing anymore. Of course not much need to hide it when a figure head is in place (who would have thought Hoeven would have appointed an empty suit?). Don't get me started on the other "Hogan's Hero's" characters.

Congratulations Chet! May seem like a hollow victory at this point, but it is a very real victory.

Hope you had a great vacation!

August 03, 2008, 02:31 PM
Votes: +6

C.O.N.S.P.I.R.I.N.G. said:

Tag and Jodi Sitting in a Tree
Hell,
I've seen pages and pages of Jodi's notes from her many conversations with Tag. I'm sure it all went down with phone call from Tag saying the opinion is coming out, it won't be good.

Jodi, who vehemently demands that the AGs office remember it is W.S.I's legal counsel (I've seen it in her own handwriting, folks), is given some friendly "advice" to comply before the opinion is released to mitigate the apparent impact of the opinion. Surprise - Chet gets some, but not all of his documents!

Who'd a thunk it? I believe somebody needs to sue Stenehjem for fiddling while 1600 Century Center burns. God knows nobody will prosecute.

August 03, 2008, 02:44 PM
Votes: +3

Wondering said:

Challenge to Furness
Mr. Furness, if you're reading this blog (or one of your team happens to be), I challenge you to post a comment here explaining the following:

1. How can you tell outsiders everything is great at WSI when the open records games continue?

2. How can you make assurances your 'team' has been acting in the scope of employment on past actions when you weren't even there?

3. How is Keiser's continuing jurisdiction review going? (The truth please, no garbage about IW hardship cases). Word on the street is there have been significant percentages of denials overturned.

You see, Mr. Furness, no matter how hard you all try to keep us in the dark, the truth has a way of getting out. Wouldn't it be much better for everyone if WSI just took responsibility for their actions (specific individuals), wipe the slate clean and start over? You can't do that until a real leader holds the right people accountable. That would theoretically be you.

August 03, 2008, 05:29 PM
Votes: +5

Seaside said:

Ashamed
1. If there was communication where WSI was given the heads up on this issue before released for public consumption that's just plain wrong.
2. Word on the street (again) is that WSI doesn't know what to do with old Mark Armstrong. They still let him have email but they don't let him deal with the public requests for information or supervise staff or have contact with the media or legislators and I highly doubt he will be representing WSI at the legislature in 09. So what is he still doing at WSI? What is his latest job description? Taxpayers, employers, the public, and everyone out to be having a fit that a man is on staff for $75,000 a year working for an agency that doesn't have a useful place for him anymore (not that they ever did). That must be rough. In his glory days he followed Blunt around like a lost dog with staff knowing full well what he was up to. The majority of the staff didn't respect him them. Now with him being on staff with no clear purpose and still earning a hugh salary after the demotion episode, the journal, open records requests handled improperly, I would think that staff must have bumped it up a notch to resentment. Word on the street also is that he's the newest outcast. What gives? Why don't they kick him off the island? Does he know something? Pretty pathetic.
3. If this is the way our state government is run in N.D. there is certainly no reason to encourage our young people to stick around. This whole thing with WSI smells as bad now as it always did. Our top execs in this mess and those who should have the guts to do something about this have been a hugh disappointment. They ought to be ashamed of themselves as they are not serving ethically or in the best interest of the people of our state.

August 03, 2008, 11:49 PM
Votes: +4

Wondering said:

To Seaside
Do you believe Armstrong was acting under orders for most of his (alleged) shenanigans? There are how many lawyers on staff to give advice regarding what is an open record and what is not? Albeit he may have used creativity where some of the personnel records handling complaints were concerned especially in regard to his pal Cates. As Cates has posted on more than one blog 'it's honorable to do everything possible for a friend'. Everything???? Armstrong and Cates must believe loyalty reigns supreme even if others get hurt. Given the numerous complaints on record handling, if WSI were a legitimate entity under ethical leadership, why hasn't that been addressed? Armstrong is still there because he can point fingers at others involved (in my opinion).

You're right Seaside. There should be utter outrage at the use of state time and state dime to launch attacks against state auditors, law enforcement, former WSI employees, and current employees who cooperated in the DOT investigation. A demotion? Yeah, that seems fair. If WSI ?doesn?t know what to do with him?, it?s probably because his usefulness has diminished. How sad for Armstrong. If he was following orders, he should be outraged too.

Chet, you should contact WSI and request the Northdecoder get equal time. Armstrong routed links to the Dakota Beacon with rants against everyone who allegedly conspired against Sandy Blunt and WSI. Is use of state resources to promote a political newsletter appropriate? Cates told the IB&L Committee his good friend Mark Armstrong provided information. On second thought, forget it. You?re having a hard enough time getting open records.

And don't even get me started on the use of public resources assisting someone who has criminal charges, which according to Risk Management takes you outside the scope of employment, so technically, all activities related should be outside the scope too.

There are so many reasons to be outraged.

August 04, 2008, 09:13 AM
Votes: +2

Mr. Ford said:

NEWS??
I have looked for this to even make back page news at a newspaper in this state, and nothing. Am I surprised? Not at all! It seems the AG can make fast decisions on thing that have nothing to do with an agency he has been protecive over.

Yes we should all be outraged over this, and all the bloggers here have very good points about this issue.

Thanks again Chet, and everyone that has not given up!

August 04, 2008, 09:58 AM | url
Votes: +4

iwofndadvocates.com/blog/ said:

...
If it were not for Chets Blogging site we would probably hardly hear a thing about WSI. The news papers have all backed off of stories about WSI. Sure you see opinions ever so often, but no real stories about possible illegal acts done by WSI.

Just keep all of what has been going on in your mind come voting time. It is time for change, and that will obviously have to come from the top down.

August 04, 2008, 10:07 AM | url
Votes: +3

doug d.riley said:

I Do
I do believe that if hoven doesn't win this upcoming election than the ag is going to be in serious trouble,the ag can kiss his political career goodbye,this has gone on for far to long an the injured workers are still being kicked to the curb,oh you have berg running around at injured workers meetings but haven't seen him lately because the cameras aren't rolling,and you have kieser,chairman over the denial of claims,just how do these people with their voting record against the injured workers get appointed to these positions,you have kieser saying how they have overturned some denied claims and saying well if we can overturn one or five or fifteen that really helps-if you overturning one or fifteen in just a few months why were these claims denied in the first place,the review board has called me and said that they are going to review my denied claims,i don't have much hope for a turn-over being it's the same oir that denied them in the first place-oh they talked a good line but they did that three years ago also-sorry for ranting just pissed--WSI (Worlds Sorriest Illusion)

August 04, 2008, 11:05 AM
Votes: +3

Chet said:

Follow-up II
I should have noted, too, that Stenehjem appears to have affirmatively endorsed WSI's illegal withholding of grant data for January 2002 through July 2007. He does not order them to provide those records. WSI sent me a list of the HELP grant recipients today -- it's a long list with lots of NDGOP operatives' on it, by the way -- but nothing on the pre July 2007 safety grants.

I've sent an inquiry to the Attorney General to ask whether he is endorsing WSI's illegal withholding of the older safety grant records.

Place your bets.

[corrected by Chet: they weren't called Step grants at some point before July of 2007]

August 04, 2008, 02:46 PM
Votes: +4

nimrod said:

	Chet, Chet, Chet . . . Gee Whiz, Chet. Do you expect Veep-in-Waiting Hoeven to have had time to oversee these good old boys when he was busy single-handedly raising crop commodity prices in North Dakota?
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 04, 2008, 03:40 PM
Votes: +4

http://iwofndadvocates.com/blog/ said:

	Chet I have a question. Is the AG related to this , Bob Stenehjem that they are questioning about the hours worked in the BT on this article. http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2008/08/13/news/local/162163.txt
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 13, 2008, 10:08 AM | url
Votes: +0

Ab2kgj said:

	They're brothers. I'll be posting commentary on my dailykos diary later today.
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 13, 2008, 11:12 AM | url
Votes: +0

http://iwofndadvocates.com/blog/ said:

	... Thank you Adam! You just cleared up every idea I had about the issue. We now know what will be done about this if it was "Double Dipping".
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 13, 2008, 11:16 AM | url
Votes: +0

http://iwofndadvocates.com/blog/ said:

WSI surveys, and open meetings laws.
It seems WSI from what I see did not do so well on their survey they sent out, very few responded, and WSI does not look like it is favored to well by a few in the survey.

The other thing is that WSI Board is going to have training on how to do open meetings laws? Not for me to ask really. But doesn't WSI have a bunch of attorneys on staff to give them advice on this kind of stuff? I doubt they need training, they just need to follow the laws. It is that simple!!!

August 20, 2008, 08:17 AM | url
Votes: +1

Wondering said:

Kudos to the Dr. who signed his name
Those survey responses are interesting, to say the least. They should be published. Especially during an election year. How was this survey information obtained? Were these surveys done by WSI as part of their governance planning? If so, man, they have a lot of work to do. I like how they claim IW's and medical providers are owners, just like they employers are owners. Two of those groups are pissed off owners. Yet according to Furnace et al, WSI is just peachy. Wonder how the board's various ownership committees (maybe there's only one) are going to appease their owners? I have a suggestion. FIRE YOUR MANAGEMENT TEAM. Then resign.

August 20, 2008, 10:59 AM
Votes: +1