This is a time to get together and eat and talk , just time for our friends. There is no format, dues, agenda etc., We can meet anytime or place we decide, picnic pot luck, local food, anything we want to, even invite speakers. But for now please show up, eat and talk to like minded friends. No need to RSVP just stop by and eat.
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Trana if you like.
Today, as I sat in the trial of Jim Long v North Dakota, I had what a lot of people call an "A-ha!" moment.
Judge Ronald Goodman has sequestered witnesses in this case, and has been very careful to question each observer in the courtroom as to whether he or she will be a witness. As I watched today, I realized that my very detailed coverage of the case is likely being closely read by - guess who? Witnesses in the case. And the reason, I'm guessing, that Goodman sequestered witnesses in the case is so they do not play off of each others' testimony.
That realization left me with something of an ethical dilemma. It goes back to my post about my personal ground rules for covering this trial: one of my life goals is to raise the level of journalism in this country, and fairly covering trials, informing the public while not interfering with the system of justice, is key.
So I decided that I will continue to sit in the trial every day and take the same detailed notes I have taken all along.
But I am not going to post them - until the case goes to the jury. At that point, there can be no damage done to either party as a result of my coverage, and the public's right to know will be preserved. I have further taken down all testimony I have posted thus far, (although opening statements and a few comments remain,) and I will repost at that time.
For those who are eagerly hanging on every word, I'm sorry for the delay. It has nothing to do with any one witness' testimony, and there has been no pressure put upon me.
But if I'm going to rail about improved standards of journalism in this country, it has to start with me.
NorthDecoder has been crossposting the daily trial coverage; I'm hoping he, too, takes down the coverage I've provided so far, but that's up to him.
Sorry to keep you on the edge of your seats, but trust me, it's worth waiting for!
[Editor: Cross-posted, with permission, from SueWilsonReports.com. NorthDecoder is respecting Sue's request and unpublished the testimony thus far. We'll post the full thing at the end. Hopefully I can talk Sue into posting some daily insights on what's going on, generally. Stay tuned...]
Right now there is a jury trial going on in Bismarck. You wouldn't know it by reading a North Dakota newspaper, listening to the radio or watching the TV news. You only know about it if you read NorthDecoder.com. I think the trial deserves traditional media coverage, too. But it won't likely get mainstream media attention.
A top executive in a huge state government agency -- North Dakota's Workforce Safety & Insurance (WSI) -- observed what he believed to be criminal conduct being perpetrated by his superior(s) in state government and he did something about it. That top executive is former state employee Jim Long. Long is not a lawyer. He tried, as best he could, to navigate his way through the process of reporting the wrongdoing he perceived. He could not go to his boss; that is clear. WSI was -- and, to a certain extent, still is -- a place where all the employees were scared to death of what would happen if they rubbed top management wrong. They had seen other employees retaliated against; some fired; some retaliated against in other ways. Many missed out on promotions they deserved while friends (and family) of top executives were hired and/or promoted. Long did the best he could to get protection under North Dakota's whistleblower protection laws.
There was a lot wrong with WSI at the time. The WSI Board of Directors was accountable to nobody and was made up, primarily, of Republican Party and Chamber of Commerce insiders whose primary objective was to keep work comp premiums low for big companies by denying claims or limiting availability of statutory benefits to claimants. They had been wildly successful at both of these things. Not only were North Dakota's work comp premiums among the lowest in the nation, but statutory benefits were the least and lowest by a wide, wide margin. Not only are premiums in North Dakota low, but legislators had figured out a way for WSI to give money back to big businesses in the form of "rebates" and secretive "safety grants." A lot of that public money was taken from small businesses like mine and given to big businesses like newly-elected Congressman Rick Berg's company, Goldmark Properties, in Fargo. Because of the legislative scheme people like Rep. Berg had devised, it is still impossible -- to this day -- for you or me to find out how much money has been given way, secretly. We know Congressman Berg got safety grant public money for his own company, but we'll never find out how much.
Additionally, the Board of Directors was run by corrupt, secretive partisan insiders. Former WSI Board of Directors chairman Bob Indvik, for example, was caught by NorthDecoder.com using county government money to fund his state government shenanigans and resigned in shame both from the board and from his job shortly after we called for his resignation, while he was being investigated criminally. Indvik was never charged, criminally, but that does not mean what he was doing was legal. Long's boss, Sandy Blunt -- as you surely know -- was ultimately convicted of a felony for his wrongdoing. Blunt has been able to afford to take his case to the North Dakota Supreme Court three times and to the United States Supreme Court one time, so far, but as of this writing, Blunt is a convicted felon.
The bottom line is that WSI was a horrible, corrupt, rotten, threatening place to work. It might not be quite as bad as it used to be, but that's not saying a lot. And, frankly, Long probably deserves a lot of credit for the fact anything has improved there. From what I'm able to glean from the court records, Long's testimony was an important part of the evidence that led a jury to convicted the guy who deserved a lot of the blame for the horrible working conditions at WSI.
Long had had enough so he tried to navigate his way through North Dakota's "whistleblower protection" laws. After going through the chain of command as best he could under the circumstances, Long and three other frightened, intimidated WSI employees tried to report the wrongdoing they had observed. They all sought protection from the Attorney General's office and elsewhere. As it turned out, what Long did not know -- or may have known and just crossed his fingers and hoped there would be some people of integrity in the office -- is that the people assigned the task of helping WSI retaliate against Long and the other whistleblowers... they work for the Attorney General. They advised WSI how to fire Long and the others, Long and the others were all fired, and now Long is seeking justice in a Burleigh County courtroom right now for what he believes was a wrongful retaliation.
That's a very brief summary of the background of the case.
But why does this trial and its outcome matter?
Right now there are ten frightened government employees who work in the state capitol. (I've heard from some of them.) Each of them is watching Sue Wilson's coverage of the trial very closely, every day. But maybe it's not ten; maybe it's twenty. Maybe it's thirty. Maybe it's only three. However many it is, they have all been watching their bosses steal or mis-use public money for weeks or months or years, and they want to know how North Dakota treats government employees who blow the whistle on their corrupt bosses. They've seen how the Attorney General's office treats state employees who catch their bosses committing crimes. They know Governor Hoeven and his staff will lie to those frightened state employees, telling them the Governor will protect them. They've watched Jim Long and the three other ethical WSI employee whistleblowers have their lives torn apart; their careers uprooted. They want to know what will happen to them if they also do the right thing and try to stop their bosses from stealing or mis-using tax dollars or other public money.
They also want to know whether their bosses have anything to be afraid of. They want to know whether there is any meaningful accountability for the perpetrators of whistleblower retaliation. They want to know whether their jobs and their career (and their mortgages and car payments and their kids' college tuition) are on the line. They want to know whether the two or three years of harassment people like Jim Long (and his family and friends and yours truly) endure during the pre-trial court process -- where smarmy attack-dog lawyers dig through their garbage cans -- can be justified. They want to know whether that's something they want to go through themselves, or to which they want to see their friends and family subjected.
In Long's case, we know he was right; we know his bosses were corrupt slime. One resigned in shame (taking a few of his compatriots out with him) while the other was found by a jury to have committed a felony, and he left (as did a couple of his sketchy pals). But others have walked away unscathed. (They've even gotten huge pay increases and promotions.) But what about the frightened state government employee at the Labor Department, or Commerce Department or Insurance Department or Department of Public Instruction? What about those other state employees who think their bosses are stealing public money? I can tell you some of them just resign, quietly, instead of going through what Long has endured. They decided it's better to just leave and let their boss keep stealing public money. They're like the person watching out the window as a violent assault takes place on the street who decides they don't want to get involved. Our state whistleblower law is supposed to protect them, if their concerns are reasonable. But does it?
The Long vs. State of North Dakota and WSI trial is an important trial. Regardless of the specific facts of the case, the outcome will send a very important message to all government employees. For ethical state government employees who are currently watching this case very closely and who are thinking about blowing the whistle on their corrupt bosses, the critical question that will be answered for them is a very simple question:
Is it worth it?
The rest of us should care, too. It's our tax dollars on the line when state employees can't safely report criminal conduct they perceive in their tax-dollar-funded offices.
This is an important trial, but you wouldn't know it by reading the Bismarck Tribune or Fargo Forum.
I've heard all kinds of speculation as to who it will be, but the most frequently heard name I've heard is Commerce Department Director Shane Goettle. I hadn't even thought of Goettle and assumed it would probably be someone like Drew Wrigley or Jim Poolman. I was hoping it would be Poolman. But now with Goettle's name coming up so frequently, I don't know what to say.
What I think is interesting is how quickly this announcement is being made. I believe Dalrymple is doing this now, quickly, to ward off the vultures. I'd bet lots of Republicans think they deserve to be Lt. Governor. I bet Dalrymple can't get any work done (ha!) because he's getting so many calls from Republicans who think they're important. I'd bet Bob Stenehjem wants the job. I'd bet Jim Kasper wants the job. I'll bet Adam Hamm and Rick Clayburgh think they should be Lt. Governor. I'd bet there are some prominent businesspeople who think they deserve the title.
But I'd bet Dalrymple's doing this because he's sick of his phone ringing 24/7 and needs to do something to get the vultures to stop circling so he can focus on important stuff like covering his tracks at the State Investment Board and redecorating the governor's mansion.
Upon returning from lunch, Judge Ronald Goodman said there had been a request to take this Friday off, as it is opening day of hunting season. He said he knew this would be a long trial, but if any jurors felt they really wanted Friday off, he would grant it. None did.
For those reading this blog outside of North Dakota, this will bring a grin. But make no mistake, for North Dakotans, first day of hunting season is a really big deal.
Today's election is truly a lesson in what it takes to win an election in North Dakota. The people who made it happen today really deserve a round of applause.
Congratulations to the people who won their races today. Congratulations to Bismarck Tribune's Publisher, Brian Kroshus, and editor John Irby. You won your races handily. Congratulations to the the publisher of the Fargo Forum Communications monopoly, Bill Marcil, and Editors Jack Zaleski and Matt Von Pinnon. You very effectively made sure your opponents did not have a chance. Congratulations to the folks who run all our local radio stations and TV stations. You also deserve a lot of credit.
You all delivered electoral victories for today's winners. And you did so in a fairly impressive way. You have made it very difficult for Democrats to compete with your political party in North Dakota. If that is an honorable thing, you deserve praise.
It's only day two, but one juror has already been excused from the whistleblower trial against the state of North Dakota. Judge Ronald Goodman told the jury to take their vitamins and stay healthy. "We need you, we need you," he said.
James Long took the stand this morning. 41 and greying, but still boyish, Long is a portrait of a self made man who worked his way through high school, college, and two master degrees, all in the state of North Dakota. He obtained a PhD from Capell College, and has been married more than twenty years.
Attorney Tom Tuntland focused more heavily on Long's record as a United States Marine. Long was deployed during Desert Storm/ Desert Shield, but for security reasons could not say where. There was a big emphasis on the importanace of chain of command. Long said it was not only the right way to do things, but it would keep you alive, and said he learned supervisors are there to help you and do the right thing.
Tuntland established that Long's military discharge papers were part of Long's Workforce Safety and Insurance personnel file.
He then took us through Long's employment record, a few years at Midwest Business Systems, one at Contract America, and then back to Midwest Business Systems. He then interviewed at WSI with Blunt, Sonja Nallie, and Amy Klein. Long says that Blunt asked him directly in the interview what Long would do were he aware of any illegal or unethical activity at WSI, what would he do? Long says he remembers word for word his answer (but I am paraphrasing:) This position pays a lot of money. Part of that compensation is to stick your neck out and do the right thing. It would have to be reported, and I would go through the chain of command. I would go to you, if you didn't act it would fall on me, and I would have to take it up as far as it would take. Long's position paid $80,000 per year plus benefits.
(Note: There are no tape recorders or laptops allowed in this courtroom, so I am taking notes by hand and later writing the events of the day. When I write something in quotes, it will be the exact language used in court. But I am not a transcriber, I am just relaying what was said in the best way I can... but it's not word for word.)
Tuntland established that WSI had its own personnel system independent of ND civil Services, and that Long was an "at will employee." That means the employer or the employee could terminate employment for any reason that was nondiscriminatory (like race or religion) or illegal. One could be fired because they don't like you, and one could quit without a two week notice.
Long then detailed his duties in managing Support and Administrative functions and functions and the many departments he oversaw: HR, IT, Quality, Finance, Training, Facilities Management. He said his management style was "transformational," and he would work wherever there was the most need.
He said he admired Sandy Blunt, he really wanted to work for him. He described the Executive team.
There was a discussion about promotional expenses , that Blunt would question what was or was not promotional expenses.
Long described the difference between internal and external audits and quality assessments: Internal audits are conducted by internal staff inside WSI, they look for fraud and both fiscal and performance irregularities. External audits supplement those audits by looking at problems from the outside, as there could be bias with an employee auditing their own employer, and Quality Assessment recommends changes to implement based on the spirit of the audit.
Long said they had to widen their search for a new Human Resources director, and eventually hired Bille Peltz.
He said the Internal Audit job description says they must go by the highest professional ethical standards and a code of ethics is included in the WSI Internal Audit charter. He also said a group called IIAC governs ethical standards for auditors. Kay Grinsteinn was eventually hired as Internal Auditor.
Long testified he had a good deal of Information Technology experience (IT) and that at Blunt's direction, he headed up a more than $8 million dollar project to overhaul WSI's software, and detailed his IT knowledge and the many offices and vendors he had to coordinate to bring the project in on time and on budget, and how he also had to report to an outside agency, the state's Information Techology Department.
Tuntland then brought up the 2005 legislation which gave all state employees a 4% pay increase. Long initially thought WSI was exempt as they had their own pay for performance system. But the State Auditor's office told WSI management they must give out the 4% pay raises. Blunt challenged the conclusion, and the WSI Director of Finance Dave Sandy told Long they had to get it right or they would be in trouble.
Long testified he talked with Jodi Bjornson first about it (said he always talked with Jodi first,) and she said bring it to Blunt. He says Blunt told him this was not how private business is done, and they can "stick it." Long says he advised Blunt the agency was in the middle of an audit, and they should get ir right. He says Blunt told him to call the Attorney General; AG's Tog Anderson advised Long that WSI would have to give the pay raises.
Long says that when he reported this to Blunt, Blunt said he didn't care what the AG said, he was going to go with Halvorson's plan, which was to prorate the pay raises in order to save money.
An audit was going on at the time. Eventually Attorney General Stenehjem called a meeting and "called us on the carpet." Halvorson, Bjornson, Blunt were present. He said Stenejhem said it couldn't be clearer WSI had to go by the statute, and was not happy.
to be continued......
Note: I'll do the best I can to post each day, but it is too much for me to do without a laptop. So I promise I will post everything, but it is going to take several days to get it all down. I hope to catch up over the weekend.
On Monday of this week, Melissa Merrick found a sign posted at or near the Fort Totten polling place that said there is only one place to vote in Benson County, North Dakota. That one place, the sign said, is Minnewauken. She threw the flyer in the garbage, but then found two more just like it.
It's been rumored to me, though I cannot confirm this, that these flyers in Benson County were paid for by Rob Port, a right-wing crack-pot blogger and former Minot hardware store assistant manager and/or the North Dakota Republicon Party.
It's my understanding law enforcement is investigating the alleged criminal conduct.
[Editor's update for comically challenged right-wingers: Yesterday, Rob Port posted a ridiculous, unsubstantiated allegation that the Democratic-NPL Party had paid for some kind of advertising somewhere. He wrote "It has been rumored to me, though I cannot confirm this..." that the ads were paid for by the Democratic-NPL Party. It's an absurd, ridiculous allegation, and he knows it, but he published the ridiculous rumor anyway because facts and truth mean nothing to him.]
A whistleblower is suing the state of North Dakota, and the newspaper in the state Capitol, the Bismarck Tribune, is not covering the story.
Today's paper is covering three other trials: Chandra Levy's, Tom Delay's, and Elizabeth Smart's. But a trial that impacts local communities throughout the entire state? (Not to mention the fact the whistleblower and offending agency are right in Bismarck, reporters can walk to this trial...)
It's a sad day for journalism.
Glad I am fighting the good fight. More on the trial ... later today.
Right now there is a jury trial going on in Bismarck. You wouldn't know it by reading a North Dakota newspaper, listening to the radio or watching the TV news. You only know about it if you read NorthDecoder.com. I think the trial deserves traditional media coverage, too. But it won't likely get mainstream media attention. 
