$nbsp;

Becker says he didn't send WSI email

 
LOADING
Sep 04, 2007 - 09:49:55 CDT
While Workforce Safety and Insurance executives made headlines this week, there's also a quiet story of a near-retirement age former WSI employee who sits in the back of every courtroom that's marked for a Sandy Blunt or Romi Leingang hearing.

It's Jerry Becker, the man whose name was thrown around quite a few times during the Aug. 24 prelim for Blunt and Leingang. And whose name is likely to resurface time and time again if the two defendants go all the way to trial.

In case there are a few readers still unaware of the WSI hearings, here's the lowdown:In late 2006, a company-wide e-mail was sent out containing a copy of an Office of Management and Budget report of salary information for the agency. The report is a matter of public record, and it's been nicknamed the "jrunnings"e-mail, because that's the name that appeared in the sender box.

A WSIinvestigation into who sent the e-mail ensued; at some point during the investigation, a list of at least seven names was produced, according to testimony by Highway Patrol Trooper Shannon Henke, who was lead investigator into whether the WSIinvestigation was performed legally.

During the WSI investigation, pictures were allegedly produced of the suspects to create a photo lineup to show to employees of the Mandan Public Library, where the e-mail may have been sent from;some images may have been obtained from Department of Transportation photos, some from the agency's intranet.

This is where the current felony charges stem from:conspiracy to disclose confidential information.

But what does this have to do with Jerry Becker?

After WSI's investigation, Blunt allegedly attended a WSI Special Investigations Unit meeting and identified the sender of the e-mail as Becker. According to testimony, he asked investigators to confront Becker at his home.

No one complied, and Becker says he's not sure what he would've done had someone come knocking on his door.

Because, Becker says, he didn't do it.

"I did not send out the e-mail,"Becker said.

During the preliminary, the fact that Becker denied ever sending it never came up, only that he was identified as the sender by Blunt. Icalled him one afternoon last week, seeking some comment or even hoping to confirm what was in the actual e-mail.

He chuckled when I went through the identification process:"Is this Jerry Becker? Yes?The Jerry Becker who used to work at WSI? Who may have sent out a company-wide e-mail containing salary information? Yes? Well, uh, did you?"

Reporters do not always claim the virtue of grace or tact.

"No, I didn't,"he said, very clearly. He told the Highway Patrol the same thing. He wasn't aware that his name had been implicated, he said, until he was shown the testimony of one of the investigators.

But it may be easy to see how WSI came to that conclusion:Becker said the original OMB report was requested by a newspaper reporter, who then sent the report on to him. Becker did receive the report, and sent an e-mail to another party.

"I did not send it to WSIemployees,"Becker said. "I forwarded it on to another person, yes. Just one."

Becker retired from WSI on Oct. 31, 2005. It was an early retirement, he said, and one that he was not necessarily comfortable with. He'd been in loss prevention for 21 years.

Now Becker tirelessly attends any public board meeting or hearing dealing with WSI. He's an observer in the back, always listening and most decidedly judging.

But no matter how many times his name will be thrown around during any further hearings or trials, he says he'll hold true that he was not the sender of the agency-wide e-mail.

"I will swear on a stack of bibles to the pope himself that I did not send that e-mail. No one can even begin to get close to prove that I did,"he said.

(Reach reporter Crystal R. Reid at 250-8261 or crystal.reid@bismarcktribune.com.)
News > Columnists
   Printer friendly version
Becker says he didn't send WSI email
Comments

Doug D.Riley wrote on Sep 21, 2007 12:00 AM:

" Blunt must be making the board members a lot of money,to be doing the things he is doing an being paid for it an they still back his play--this is'nt what wsi was created for--the poeple of North Dakota need to wake up an see wsi for what it really is--they pay 5000.00 an hour to out of state doctors to over-ride our doctors --head of corvil is related to one of the judges--and you want poeple to move here an go to work !!!! "

Joe wrote on Sep 20, 2007 1:45 PM:

" The online editor has done a good job I would think under extrordinary difficult circumstances, but it appears that both sides want to tear down the other side and take away from the actions of Blunt and Leingang. They created this controversy by their actions in response to the email. It appears they didn't take the time to think things through and just went full bore into something they had no business investigation. Blunts supporters give him praise and blame others, Blunt detractors see what he did as rude, arrogant and a violation of the law. It would appear to me that Blunts reaction to the situation is what caused his charges, its not the fault of the person who sent the email, its not the fault of current' and/or former employees, its not the fault of the media, its not the fault of any other state agency, its Mr. Blunts fault. Further, by Blunt wanting WSI staff to go to the house of someone he suspected (there is no proof offered anywhere) of sending the email and confront him, that should be an indication of the type of person Mr. Blunt is. That shows much about his character and demeanor and is an indication of how he may actually treat people at WSI. As for the questions of a legal fund, it would appear to be a bad idea for them to take money from people who either pay to the fund in premiums or anyone in ND who is an employee as they may need to use the agency in the future. Also why is this private fund an issue that WSI and its staff should have anything to do with? "

IQ wrote on Sep 19, 2007 9:22 PM:

" To "to Online Editor" it's always entertaining to see some pompous individual ready to try to seize the high morale ground. Your whining to the Online Editor sounds an awful like Mark or Mary M' holier than thou attitude. Instead of preaching to those who you feel are not under the spell of Mr. Blunt perhaps you should spend your time looking at yourself in the mirror. Those of us who feel Mr. Blunt is not the cult leader aren't the ones who sit by and ignore and tolerate it when others are mistreated. Did you stick up for the employees who have been driven out of WSI, many of them long term employees or did you just feel better about yourself? Did you try to help the injured workers who are barely able to make it month to month through no fault of their own or did you sit by and let them get raked over the coals? God is going to judge us all one day, and all of us will have to answer for our sins. Worshipping Blunt is not going to be one of mine. You live in some sort of dream world. No matter what happens to Blunt, there is no house of cards built by the state's attorney, BCI, highway patrol and auditors office. There you go again tossing out some conspiracy inference. What motive would all of these republican offices have to get Blunt??? There have been 70 employees who have been forced out. The consultant said 2/3 of the remaining ones want Blunt fired. So how many people there "should have been forced out" by Blunt? Are you saying that 200 of the 225 that were there were dead weight? Arrogance is so ugly and especially on someone playing the religion card. Your type of blind loyalty despite the facts belongs more in the radical islamic camp than the Catholic Church. Online editor, I don't always agree on what you do, but I trust you have an honest legitimate reason for doing so. "

Heritage wrote on Sep 19, 2007 9:16 PM:

" To "You Are Like Talking to My Ex Husband Heritage - If you want to know whether the fund exists or whether it has any assets, send an open records request to Mark Armstrong at WSI. Ask him to provide you with a copy of an e-mail from Sandy Blunt to Tim Wahlin on Friday, May 4, 2007, at 10:47 a.m. in which Blunt started his third paragraph as follows: "As you may know, there has been a defense fund established in my name at _________ Bank." Someone suggested we dare you to request that e-mail and if you will eat a copy of the National Enquirer if the e-mail exists. SCates, you are right you always provide your name, so I will just have to assume its Mark A. "

SCates wrote on Sep 19, 2007 8:02 PM:

" Heritage - I always use this name. Always. But no one knows who you are....... "

Heritage wrote on Sep 19, 2007 5:54 PM:

" The online editor has done an admirable job, however for those like the person who wrote at 7:30 this morning (perpaps Mark A, or SCates) who seem to want to spread lies, innuendos about others they don't let those things get posted, so they lash out at the online editor. Its Mr. Blunt in my opinion who needs to spend a month or more in the confessional booth and think about how he destroyed innocent and good people and now has his minions doing his dirty work it appears "

to online editor wrote on Sep 19, 2007 7:30 AM:

" and you're doing such a fine job, just like crystal reid and the rest of the reporters- lies, lies, hearsay, innuendo and on and on. i can't wait to see the house of cards fall on the highway patrol, state's attorney office, bci and osa. should be fun. and to OH BROTHER - who is "we have Blunt's email" is that a public information request or are you one of the insiders that Blunt should have gotten rid of a long time ago and you're still working it from the inside, trying to destroy an innocent man. you must go to church and pass by the confessional just waiting to be struck down. "

Online Editor wrote on Sep 18, 2007 10:23 PM:

" To LETS BE BLUNT: You are right, some claims need evidence, others can hang on their own merits. Poor management, for example, is subjective, the things you have mentioned are not. There are many examples that haven't merited proof, but your claim is heavy. I'm not trying to stifle opinions or facts, just trying to do my job. "

LETS BE BLUNT wrote on Sep 18, 2007 9:55 PM:

" To Online Editor, so you "prove" every comment made in the blog? I see there are examples of Blunt's poor management style provided, do you have proof of the validity of those? Have you proven all of SCates claims? I'm not trying to be difficult but it seems you are being selective on what you need to prove and what you don't. "

Online Editor wrote on Sep 18, 2007 8:23 PM:

" To LETS BE BLUNT: You provide very interesting information, but I cannot verify it. Feel free to contact me tomorrow and if I can verify your information, then your comment can be posted. Jason Lueder - 701-250-8291 or jason.lueder@bismarcktribune.com "

OH BROTHER wrote on Sep 18, 2007 6:14 PM:

" To Actually it is Miss Dare, really Mark can't you disguise your writing better than this? The fund was NOT public information, it was circulated among known Blunt supporters in both the business world and among certain Republicans. We have Blunt's email to Forward asking for the amount in the fund and when he could draw on it. What is Forward doing handling such a fund when he is a WSI employee? Is he doing this on company time (of course), just like he is on company time when he follows Blunt into court and gives his defense attorney advice (contrary to what he is authorized to do as an asst attorney general). I'm not sure what website you are referring to because I've never been out to it. However if you are crying "foul" for lack of factual information, you better include Scates and the garbage he has put into media (Fargo radio station, blogs, and his website). He wouldn't know a fact if it ran over him. Mark these two are "being routed for political career building"???? Really Mark, whose career? The auditors, the highway patrol investigators, the bureau of criminal investigation people, the state's attorney, the Attorney General or the consultants??? All have said Blunt did something wrong or highlighted the horrible management style that he has that got him into this. I guess once again, they are all wrong and you and the rest of the Blunt zombies are right. Amazing. "

You Are Like Talking to My Ex Husband Heritage wrote on Sep 18, 2007 6:11 PM:

" I think you have read a few too many Nancy Drew novels (or too much conjured conspiracy at the NorthDecoder), but I am sad to say you are not accurate about me and you have still never answered the original question about the current existence of said fund or any fundraising or acceptance of money by Leingang or Blunt. At not time did I ever say there was no fund. All you will present are fabricated assumptions and ramblings with no hard proof (no, the NorthDecoder is not proof as it is ND’s version of the National Enquirer). I have no idea if they have taken any money or if the fund still exists and neither do you. That is my point. So prove what you say and I will say I am wrong, but lacking any proof I had made my point while you have not. Over and out. "

Heritage wrote on Sep 18, 2007 4:47 PM:

" TO Actually it is MISS Dare Ya (if you care) and I am Not a “Blunt Insider, you just answered your own question you put forth earlier in your post on What Fund? wrote on Sep 17, 2007 8:52 AM when you asked someone to prove a fund existed. By your own admission you state a fund existed, however you state that the fund was set up for two innocent people, why then did Mr. Blunt have to ask permission to see if it could be used to pay for Leingang's legal bills as well. If it was set up for these two, Leingang should have access to the fund. Hmmm something is not quite right here. Are you exposing the truth about this fund now or are you a fictional writer as well? "

Actually it is MISS Dare Ya (if you care) and I am Not a “Blunt Insider” wrote on Sep 18, 2007 4:05 PM:

" And what the heck are you talking about. There was no fund to be “exposed by northdecoerd.com.” From what I hear it was no secret , it was a public issue, and it was set up by concerned citizens as a sign of support for two innocent people being routed for political career building. Now you dare to spew an untruth like they are taking money under the table instead. The group of fictional writers here (and at the NorthDecoder) is amusing but quite misinformed and dangerous for a little thing called the truth. "

To Mr. Dare Ya! wrote on Sep 18, 2007 12:26 PM:

" You are obviously a Blunt insider with knowledge that the highly unethical defense fund has been closed. Too bad you wrote your blog at 2:00 a.m. after you obviously had a heavy night of drinking. You are so obvious in your taunts. Maybe no one can prove it because it is confidential information and banks can't disclose account information to anyone but account holders. Duh! Also, since the infamous defense fund was exposed by northdecoder.com, I am sure the funds have been removed and the account closed by the individual with poor judgment would opened it. The funds are probably now just being funneled to Blunt by way of cash in an unmarked envelope. I dare you to prove that isn't happening. Reading your blog, it is clear a village is missing its idiot! Good luck with your criminal justice career. "

Incredulous wrote on Sep 18, 2007 10:14 AM:

" Your silence speaks volumes. "

Heritage wrote on Sep 18, 2007 8:52 AM:

" to Still searching for the fund, I notice you chose your words carefully in saying that Sandy and Romi have not taken one dime from the fund. Perhaps they haven't taken any money YET, but Blunt requested to do so in his May 4 request to WSI's attorneys and WSI attorneys wanted confirmation from the AG's office so they sent a letter on June 15 seeking clarification of their opinion. Just because they haven't acted upon it yet or gotten a legal opinion from the AG's office, doesn't mean the fund doesn't exist. I for one think that perhaps they are waiting for an official opinion from the AG's office is why they haven't taken any money yet. Read the website I suggested earlier and you will find your answer. There probably isn't a formal letter written, because this may be subject to open records, so its probably just word of mouth or phone calls from inside WSI that are making the requests. They were dumb and got caught once, I'll bet they won't be that dumb again. "

Still Searching for the Fund? wrote on Sep 18, 2007 2:02 AM:

" OK so you are all angry and unwittingly judgmental for no known reason, that's cool, but my question has still not been answered by anyone. Based on proof and fact, what fund are you talking about? You have not proven the current existence of any fund and that they have actually taken any payments from it. You puff and beat your chests and make pompous statements, but you have still not proven there is any fund or any (now new) letter that was circulated begging for donations. I know, I know -- facts are not a popular thing here, but go ahead and make an exception today and put your money where your mouth is and prove there is an active account, an active campaign to enlarge said account, and that Romey and Sandy have taken one penny from this account? Dare ya!! Bet you can't! "

JFK wrote on Sep 17, 2007 9:47 PM:

" You can't be serious! There is a fund where people can donate to help pay for Blunts legal bills? The guy makes $14,000 per month plus has an expense account. He moves here, brings a few of his buddies and pays them $100,000 each to work for WSI. Then he starts cleaning house and triples turnover all the while wasting state money on silly things like sending legislators on trips around the country. He commits some crimes, goes to trial and gets paid his salary even though he doesn't have to work to get it. Now the people of ND are supposed to help this clown pay for his legal bills? "

LETS BE BLUNT wrote on Sep 17, 2007 9:41 PM:

" To "to any intelligent poster". The short answer to your question is that neither Blunt nor Romey will have to pay back a penny of their "free" money while on administrative leave. That's right, more unfair waste of public moneys while these two play golf, fish, blog, shop or whatever else they like to do. Blunt is making $14,000 per month, think what a group of injured workers could do with that money. That's 4 free trips for Representatives Wald and Keiser. That's a year's worth of meals, pop, bottled water, gift certificates, massages, hedgehog rentals and other morale building techniques. They've worked so well in the past. "

Mr. What Fund; wrote on Sep 17, 2007 9:27 PM:

" You seem like and insider, one in the know. I'm betting you are a director. Tell me, do you take everything Sandy says for gospel? Honestly, I want to know, a lot of people want to know. Do you ever feel the twangs of a fiduciary responsibility calling you to take a critical look at the evidence and the behavior of Mr. Blunt and really think about whether or not this is the person you want leading WSI? "

Heritage wrote on Sep 17, 2007 8:51 PM:

" I read on Northdecoder.com about the fund. Go to their webpage and do a search of WSI and you should find the information on the fund. "

Incredulous wrote on Sep 17, 2007 8:48 PM:

" Anyone else find it strange that Barney, a most vocal opponent of WSI, hasn't been posting on the latest WSI snarls? Curious, indeed. "

Well! wrote on Sep 17, 2007 8:30 PM:

" Well heck fire! If Becker says he didn't send the email, then there it is. Case closed. "

MAX FACTS wrote on Sep 17, 2007 7:43 PM:

" To What Fund, well the fund that contains donations to help pay for Blunt's defense. A letter circulated months ago to those who feel the need to help this criminal. In addition, reference is contained in an email from Blunt to a WSI attorney. Blunt is asking how much is in the fund and when he can access the money. Apparently $14,000 per month for doing nothing is not enough. Of course they should pay for their own defense, breaking the law using illegal methods to track down someone for vengeful purposes probably isn't in either one's job description. Don't quote from Judge "appeal me" Wefald because he'll be embarassed enough when his joke ruling is overturned. Shouldn't you be working Mary M or Mark? Shouldn't we all wonder why a WSI attorney is running Blunt's defense fund? Shouldn't we all be wondering how he can be passing notes in court to Blunts defense attorney? Shouldn't we be wondering why he's at all of the hearings when he's forbiddin from serving as Blunt's legal counsel? Why are employers and injured workers picking up the tab for this attorney while he waits on Blunt hand and foot? This sounds like something that the state's attorney should look into. "

What Fund? wrote on Sep 17, 2007 8:52 AM:

" What fund are you talking about? I am not aware of any fund that exists today or any fund raising that has been done by Romi or Sandy. If you can prove the current existence of any fund and that they have actually taken any payments, then I am all in agreement with you. I do not believe there is any active fund. You are right that if these are found to be official acts of their positions (note the judge even stated in the first two charges that he was ”just doing his job”) then they should not have to suffer the large legal bills personally. I am willing to bet that when we hear all the facts we will realize that this was no “harass/threaten/intimidate” venture, but instead a required action of their positions to assure the protection of the fund as they are required to do. "

Heritage wrote on Sep 17, 2007 5:13 AM:

" If this was an official act (hunting down former and current employees to harass/threaten/intimidate them) then one would think that ND's Risk Management would cover the legal bills. I guess from what I am hearing and reading, (i.e. setting up a legal defense fund, having employer premium dollars pay for the cost of the lawyers, etc.) then WSI's board and Blunt must think this WASN'T an official act and this witchunt was outside the scope of their authority. Hmmm, seems like once again WSI supporters want it both ways. "

Doug D.Riley wrote on Sep 16, 2007 8:50 PM:

" I thought that wsi lawyers have always been at the sides of blunt and romi?? If thats the case does that mean that the taxpayers are paying for them too??? "

GYPSY wrote on Sep 16, 2007 3:44 PM:

" Isn't it curious there is a Blunt defense fund? I mean, if i'm an injured worker and I contribute to it, will Sandy later make sure its resolved in my favor. If I'm an employer and I contribute, will I get favorable rates later on if Blunt is found not guilty? If I'm an employee and I contribute, is it a way to get into Blunt's good graces. Can you say conflict of interest? "

TO ANY INTELLIGENT POSTER wrote on Sep 16, 2007 12:28 PM:

" Can anyone find out if blunt's and leingang's temporary leave salaries they are presently being paid - will that money have to be returned to WSI's payroll if they are found guilty? If they're guilty, they shouldn't be able to keep the monies paid them while they awaite trial. However, if they are found not guilty, then they will experience a well paid time off period. And what's this about their defense being paid for? If they would be on the straight and narrow, they wouldn't be in this position - shouldn't they have to pay for their misdeeds? Whether they are guilty or not - they have messed up, and they need to take care of their own problems!!!!!! Take their defense out of their pay - - that should teach them to keep things on the up and up. I wonder how the employers will feel about paying for their defense. "

To to to supporter wrote on Sep 15, 2007 9:35 AM:

" You say no one would be qualifed in the state to be ceo of workers comp. Are you kidding me? We have 11 schools of higher education in the state. Many times this has tried to be reduced, but the legislature won't do it and neither will the people. All of these schools have extremely high paid administration. Are you saying that of these 11 schools, they aren't producing anyone qualified to be a ceo of workers comp? Come on. Pat Traynor was from North Dakota. "

WHAT BOARD? wrote on Sep 14, 2007 10:16 PM:

" Can you imagine that the WSI board is even thinking that if Blunt is found "not guilty" that they will not only reinstate him as if nothing had happened but they also are privately considering paying for his defense costs out of the employer premium pool. What kind of drugs are these people on? Read the two audits and you'll see poor management in so very many places. You'll see an arrogant "outsider" who thinks little of North Dakotans and who thinks he's untouchable. Of course he IS untouchable if the legal system fails to impose justice since the Board (led by the "qualified" snow plow operator) is too cowardly to do it's duty. You can tell their leadership qualifications by the way the choose to ignore all the poor managerial decisions made by Blunt and his crew. How would he ever gain anyone's trust now that he's been exposed for the vengeful self centered egotist that he is? Why would employees buy into anything he says now that they know he could care less about them? Why should injured workers ever consider that he is trying to help them? The only reason employers like him is he puts money in their pockets, at least the big employers. Most legislators know what he is, but of course the political leaders of the Republican party clamped down on the house members and forced votes from their members. Thank goodness the senators stood up for what is right and tossed Frank and George's party fund back into their faces. What do you think would happen if the republicans burned their bridges enough to convince voters to vote for enough democrats to take control of the Senate. Wouldn't that make for an interesting session. They could thank the WSI board's lack of leadership and the disgust from Frank and George's blind support. "

Spencer wrote on Sep 14, 2007 9:00 PM:

" How about this one Mr. Supporter. A supervisor goes into a meeting and one of Sandy's $100,000 friends shows a new organizational chart. The well respected supervisor asks "um, where am I?". The Ohiocrat informs him some changes have been made. Golly gee, I'm no scientist, but I'm pretty sure if you want respect (and be a real leader) you treat people better than that. Hey Ohio, in case you haven't figured it out - call the person into your office and tell them the bad news face to face. It's called human relations 101. Didn't they teach that at Buckeye State? "

Magoo wrote on Sep 14, 2007 12:42 PM:

" To To Supporter i think you mis understood what was being said. What was being said was that the jobs need to be posted. There was nothing stating that it had to be ND only. It just said the jobs/positions needed to be made public for everyone to apply for. HOw do you know that we don't have qualified people for these positions? They were never made public to even give people a chance. So that is very unaffair assumption. Something else to add to the lack of trust with the chronies is the fact they get caught evesdropping on peoples conversations by hiding outside the cubes. They walk the halls several times a day to check to see that people are working and at there desks. Don't get me wrong people are suppose to be working while at work but they don't need to be treated like 2 yr olds. "

MamaMia wrote on Sep 14, 2007 12:38 PM:

" If WSI is operated under the state guidelines (and I don't know if it is), they would have to either post a position internally or externally. I don't think you can just go out and hire 4 or 5 of your best buddies from Timbuktu -- as Blunt seems to have done. But then again, I don't know if they operate under the same rules as other state agencies "

MAX FACTS wrote on Sep 14, 2007 11:28 AM:

" To "to Supporter" no one in ND would be qualified? Give me a break. Now take a deep breath and try to remember who the first CEO was. It was a ND lawyer by the name of Pat Traynor. He wasn't a workers compensation expert but he is by far the best CEO the department ever had. He is the one who reoganzied the agency and brought them forward. To lead this organization you don't need an insurance expert (although I'm sure it would help), Traynor proved that. You need a LEADER who has some ethics and morales and the drive to do what's RIGHT. We have plenty of insurance executives in the state as well as other leaders who could correct the mistakes the bungling Blunt has made. He/she will have to be able to earn the trust of the employees, injured workers, the public, the employers and legislators. Blunt has the trust of very few of those.............. CEO's can do whatever they want? What planet are you from? This is a government agency and the CEO still has to obey state laws, regulations etc. Even in the private sector a CEO can't do whatever he wants, get a clue. "

HOUDINI wrote on Sep 14, 2007 11:22 AM:

" To "facts are so elusive", it's obvious they are elusive for you since your post contains none! In the first place no WSI "normal" employee was arguing about any 7% raise, it was a legally mandated 4% raise. Now some of Blunt's inner group got raises that were significantly hire than 7%. If you read the audit report, Blunt couldn't even come up with an explanation of large portions of those raises. Even HE didn't know why he gave them! Next, the salary information wasn't sent to every agency in the state, are you on crack? The PUBLIC information was sent to WSI employees in the email. Try to at least offer something that is accurate will you? You whine about the type of person who would send such information, yet you admit you'd be happy if the next CEO runs the agency in the ground. Gee what a great person you must be. "

Iluvamystery wrote on Sep 14, 2007 11:19 AM:

" “quote”To ILuvamystery wrote on Sep 10, 2007 7:06 AM: wrote on Sep 11, 2007 9:06 PM: " Your assumption about losing 10% of the WSI workforce may be wrong. Arguably the greatest CEO of all time, Jack Welch of GE fired the bottom 10% of his managers every year. By all measurements GE is far from a sinking ship. In fact, most analysts recommend buying the stock. That is considered good management. There really is not mystery to it. Get rid of the dead weight. They don't want to be there anyway and are a cancer on the ones who do want to be there. Food for thought anyway " “end quote” I agree 100%. However, I think the email must have brought to light that it was the dead weight that was being rewarded at WSI. Otherwise who really would have cared about the salaries? "

To To Supporter wrote on Sep 14, 2007 10:52 AM:

" You are wrong that the state requires that. Who would be qualified within the state????????? Give me some actual names. you can't. CEO's can do whatever they want basically, so I guess we all just have to live with it or get our own companies to run. "

To supporter wrote on Sep 14, 2007 9:03 AM:

" How about the fact that blunt hired 2 people from his ohio cirlce without ever posting the positions. No one, not even finance, knew the one was hired until the day it was announced at one of the all hands meetings. I may be wrong on this but I do think that the state requires that all positions be posted. These weren't. "

Facts are so elusive wrote on Sep 14, 2007 9:02 AM:

" S that is why the jrunnings email was sent? Because the employees only got on average 7% raises and you wanted 12% raises on average. So "you" stick it to your fellow employees by emailing every agency in the state their salaries. What an upstanding person. How about some interesting items: from what i've read, those people that got "large" raises hadn't had raises in 2 or 3 years. Unlike the rest of the crew there. Also, for all of you complaining about turnover, ask any HR professional what standard turnover is and WSI is actually below national turnover rates. Most people are not happy. It's just a fact. So stop lying and whining and move on. I will be laughing when they get some hack who knows absolutely nothing about work comp in there to replace Sandy and he or she runs it into the ground. "

PLEASE wrote on Sep 14, 2007 7:12 AM:

" Why don't you ask for the WSI hired and paid for consultants report and look at the survey results. Employees say they don't trust Blunt and they say they have seen him be vindictive to anyone who has the courage to speak up. They have seen how he and his team have isolated staff and harassed them enough so they left. They say they are afraid to speak out for fear of retribution. All of these comments are similiar to what the auditors survey found and what the WSI picked and paid for second consultant found. How many times do you have to be surveyed until management admits the problem? Also how about when he takes an internal audit position and then turns it into a "morale building" position and doubles the salary and hires a friend from out of state for the position? Is that a good managerial style? Don't advertise the position, don't look around internally to see if there is someone who can fill the position, just hire a buddy! Trust. "

LETS BE BLUNT wrote on Sep 14, 2007 7:07 AM:

" Supporter, read the dang audit report and you'll get some examples. He fought with the auditors and the Attorney General's Office to prevent giving the LEGALLY authorized 4% pay raises. Then after the Attorney Generals Office said he had to give them, he tried to award them on "average" pay and was once again told that it wasn't LEGAL to do it that way. Do you really think his employees thought that was a move that showed his confidence and support of them? Next he and his favorite cult members just decided to purchase stuff in whatever manner they felt was ok. They ignored the purchase guidelines of WSI and the state rules and laws. He might preach about being ethical but when your stuff sees you doing something like that, well action speak louder than words. "

IQ wrote on Sep 14, 2007 7:02 AM:

" There is no way examples of Blunt's lack of leadership can be restricted to one person, EXAMPLE-an employee who had been there for several years and served under all 3 prior CEO's with distinction. The employees personnel file did not have a single negative comment in their evaluation. Blunt and his cronies come in and decide to reorganize the division she was working in (ok, certainly their right to do so). As a result of the reorganization the person is assigned a new function which is a demotion and a cut in pay, This person is NEVER told of the demotion and cut in pay and doesn't know about it until they get their pay check. The person goes to their supervisor (one of Blunt's special group) and asks why their paycheck is less and is then told of the demotion. Nice, really makes you respect your supervisor doesn't it? The person is told that their performance had nothing to do with the demotion. Sound managerial style wouldn't you say? "

To Supporter From Oliver wrote on Sep 13, 2007 11:15 PM:

" Here's 1 for ya. How about Blunt telling the employees of WSI - "sorry my dear peons, there is not enough money in the budget to give you the raises that you superior employees deserve, so you will have to settle for peanuts" Meanwhile, back at the ranch he is handing out 10, 15 20 percent raises left and right to his henchmen. Hence the mystical purpose of the jrunnings email. Is that good enough for your one example or do you need more? "

Supporter wrote on Sep 13, 2007 7:11 PM:

" I'm tired of hearing about Blunt's lack of leadership / managerial skills. Give me just one concrete example (please limit it to one per person). What's got so many so disgruntled? Is there a real reason? "

Joe wrote on Sep 13, 2007 6:02 PM:

" To A question, Blunt may have had the job but when 63% of the staff left stay him and others need to go, do you really think Blunt bears no responsibility? Come on get real. There were far less people complaining about Edison and the board got rid of him, why not this guy? The other CEO's have not drug WSI through the mud like Blunt has done. You ask this quesiton, "Does a conflict of interest or a disagreement in management style constitute such a great big stink", well apparently it does to Mr. Blunt since he was out for vengenance. Does a good manager with nothing to hide act that way? Does a good manager with nothing to hide act so paranoid? "

Get Real wrote on Sep 13, 2007 4:58 PM:

" Scates, have you ever been audited? Has your "business" ever been audited? Were you in the room when the auditor presented the report to the legislators (I was and I took notes). You claim to have read the audit report but perhaps selective memory is your problem. The audit covers PORTIONS of WSI, not all of it. Auditors weren't in every "nook and cranny" like you say. During the audits of our business the auditors ask us for information and we provide it. In this case if the auditors were looking at how investigations were conducted (as it says they did in the audit report) I'm sure they don't "magically" know how many there are and which ones there are. They probably asked a WSI employee and were given the reports on each investigation. Now a someone with "command of the facts" and a little common sense would figure it out---if the report and file have been destroyed the auditors won't know about this "official" investigation (official my butt). The auditors found out about this some other way, if there is no file and no report how could they have come across it? Use your brain here Scates, if this was an official investigation (and Blunt is claiming so) then why wasn't WSI policy followed and a report produced? That is what someone with a command of the facts would ask. Now if someone like you who has only command of his assumptions, you'd prefer to focus the attention on something else and not this Blunt Blunder. "

Heritage wrote on Sep 13, 2007 4:33 PM:

" "To I (State your name) do hereby promise" and all of you pro Blunt/WSI supporters, now its your turn to raise you hand and say "I (state your name) promise to see Blunt for who is really is as a result of his criminal conviction and I promise not to blame others for Blunt's actions and realize that Blunt brought this all on himself (and Leingang too) by his actions." Now doesn't that feel better to you also, when you realize Blunt and only Blunt is responsible for his actions. I don't think the rhetoric on these posts would be the way it is if Blunt and his supporters took responsibility for their actions and realized that Blunt played some part in these charges and the WSI mess. Blunt and his supporters won't and try to blame others. Blunt gets a pass on everything and WSI supporters dont' give others a pass. That is what I see. I for one will abide by the outcome no matter what it is. "

TO KS wrote on Sep 13, 2007 12:49 PM:

" KS: It does matter but it doesn't. It matters because people want questions answered but it doesn't change the outcome, in my opinion, on the image useage. "

KS wrote on Sep 13, 2007 11:11 AM:

" I have a question for anyone. According to this article Mr. Becker stated the original OMB report was requested by a reporter (un-named). This reporter sent it along to him and then he sent an e-mail to another party (un-named). Does anyone know who this un-named party was, or does this even matter? He's admitted to being part of this circle. Can anyone tell me is this related? "

I (state your name) do hereby promise… wrote on Sep 13, 2007 9:14 AM:

" And when the court or a jury of their peers’ rules in Mr. Blunt & Ms. Leingang’s favor will you then all let it go and move on? You did not with Judge Weald’s ruling, so will you do it here? You do not even know the FACTS in this case and/or these people and their families, yet you are so quick to persecute. Know everyone here hold up your right hand and repeat after me: “I (state your name) do hereby promise on my honor to drop this issue and support my community and its leaders when Mr. Blunt & Ms. Leingang are found not guilty.” Wow, doesn’t that make you feel better now and kind of free your spirit. "

bully wrote on Sep 13, 2007 7:41 AM:

" to Scates: "How was sandy going to get his vingence?" Ever seen a school yard bully at work? It's called fear and intimidation Scates! When someone uses there power to make someone fear they could loose a promotion, be fired, or not receive a raise is a very common for of getting vingence. The read sad part is that sex offenders operate the exact same way - that's how they get the victims to not "tell." Both are the same - you make someone scared enough using power and/or authority over them and you are likely to get your demanded result! "

A question: wrote on Sep 13, 2007 2:00 AM:

" So many complain about Blunt's management style. Everyone would run a place different, and I noticed he had the job, not all those that complain about how he did it. Does a conflict of interest or a disagreement in management style constitute such a great big stink? Who thinks they could do better, and why weren't they in that position, then? Who really has a right to judge anyone's management style, unless they are willing to step up and do better, or unless they have been in that position or in those shoes. Otherwise, I would say they know very little about management style. Maybe people don't like the way I answer the phone, should my "phone answering style" be challenged because someone doesn't do it the same? This is just a bunch of vengeful and jealous people on the bottom of the totum pole taking a chance to jab those at the top. "

Heritage wrote on Sep 12, 2007 10:12 PM:

" "To missing one point", That certainly may be the legal opinion Blunt & Leingangs attorneys want to pursue and they are free to, but it doesn't make it so or true. The depo, while may not be as strong as court testimony, nonetheless is a document taken under oath, so it has some strong credibility in my mind. What is interesting is that for many months, SCates and WSI supporters continued to reference information in the depo, now that others have read it and are disputing information put forth as "truth" by WSI supporters the depo is no longer a credible document. Why is that? Several times SCates told people to read the depo and he is basing his withchunt/hatred/vindictiveness and "facts" in his next diatribe on people who have their names mentioned in the depo. Everytime WSI supporters reference something which others dispute, they move onto the next thing and move the goal post. Sure sounds like grasping to straws to me. As far as I'm concerned, its up to the court of law to decide now. "

SCates wrote on Sep 12, 2007 10:12 PM:

" To Get Real: The audit of WSI began a month before the Jrunnings email and investigation. The auditor’s office took physical control of over 31,000 emails. The Auditor’s Office had physical access to almost all of WSI for the entire period of the audit. Take a deep breath. How with auditors, looking into every nook and cranny of the organization, did the Blunt controlled robots pull this off? And how exactly does Blunt have such powerful mind control of so many people? This became an issue at the very end of the audit. What ever file if it ever did exist, would have been found by the auditor’s office long before late September of 2006. You really must have command of the facts before you make your claims. And how, was Sandy Blunt going to get vengeance? What type of retribution was he going to be able to extract? Please, remove your foil hats! Logic and mastery of facts, please! "

My guess. wrote on Sep 12, 2007 9:55 PM:

" " To Skates: Is there no end in sight? " Oh there are many possibilites. I'm guessing the followers will make a last stand at the Branch Bluntians' compound near Wacko OH. Where Charles Koresh will reveal the seventh seal. Since this cult has already merged with Heaven's Cates (often incorrectly called Heaven's Gates) they will all jump on a spaceship waiting behind the Comet Hale-Bopp and lead WSI to the promised land of free workers' compensation for businesses. "

Hometown wrote on Sep 12, 2007 9:19 PM:

" Its sad that its become an us or them situation. Its sad that SCates thinks he needs to bad mouth and bring other people down because Mr. Blunt got caught (alledgely). Its sad what former and current employees have gone and are going through. I say let the court(s) decide the fate of Mr. Blunt and Ms. Leingang from a legal standpoint, but no matter what, its clearly evident that Mr. Blunt is a vindictative, arrogant, spiteful mean-spirited person who is not a very good manager. Reading everything its became abunduntly clear to me that its either his way or none. I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Blunt wanted no oversight from anyone (auditors/law enforcement/board, etc) because of his response to the auditors before and after the report was issued, the hinderance of the official investigation, and the charges. During these situations, he showed a disdain for the rule of law and procedures that needed to be followed and felt they didn't apply to him. Its clear that change needs to be made at WSI and it needs to be made quickly. Lets get this over with quickly so everyone can heal. Lets not throw any more rumors/innuendos on good people by blaming others for Mr. Blunt & Ms. Leingangs mistakes. "

OH BROTHER wrote on Sep 12, 2007 9:19 PM:

" Scates so if you say you have never said there is nothing wrong with Blunt's management style, why don't you share your thoughts on it with us. You seem so willing to "set us straight" along with every other public entity who has investigated this situation. Maybe you will say you haven't studied it, ok why don't you spend some time examining it in your usual "thorough" manner and let us know. Why haven't past CEO's when they started, lost 70 employees like Blunt has? Do you honestly believe that 2/3 of any of the prior CEO's staff would have gone on record with a consultant saying he and his team should be fired? How about all the other things in the two audit reports, does Blunt have no responsibility for any of it? I thought "leaders" took responsibility (you know "the buck stops here"). I have never seen a real leader whine about how it was a staff members fault, or that someone gave him/her bad advice or that its just disgruntled employees. Read the responses in both reports and that's what you hear from Blunt and that weak-kneed Board that is supposed to run the place. Injured workers despise the place, the vast majority of his own workers want him fired, is all of that just a coincidence along with the two audits findings? "

Get Real wrote on Sep 12, 2007 8:22 PM:

" What is up with some of you? WSI and Blunts ilk claim this was an official investigation. Scates boringly continues to be Blunt's mouthpiece and says since it was official and since he's a scientist and can interpret the law better than lawyers, that the use of the photos was ok. Well where is the photo lineup? Disappeared the minute this became an issue, kind of like J Bjornson's memory. Where is the report on this official investigation (called for in WSI policy's). Gone, disappeared, or never written because Blunt and Romey were so proud of this use of state money that they didn't want to leave a trace. Get a clue, these things are absent because this was vengence and retribution for the distribution of public information. They are gone because these cowards were afraid they'd get caught. "

But the real point is... wrote on Sep 12, 2007 8:18 PM:

" Evidence of Blunt's "management style" has become painfully obvious to any impartial observer. The Board and their supporters can't rationalize all of that away. The Tribune's editorial board is absolutely right - "Blunt's ability to lead it was impaired before the charges were filed". Blunt's leadership at WSI has been in a death spiral for years. The Board has been loyal to him. But once the sentence is handed down, guilty or not guilty, Blunt has to be sent on his way. Find someone who can take care of the problems. Blunt, obviously, can not. "

HATE TO INTERRUPT A COVER UP WITH THE TRUTH wrote on Sep 12, 2007 8:06 PM:

" Sorry LYNCHING boy (sounds more like Mary M) but I read an article in the paper shortly after the audit was released and a DOT representative was quoted as saying it was an inappropriate use of the DOT data base. In addition if you read the auditors report it doesn't "infer" anything, its says DOT told them that the WSI use violated their agreement and was inappropriate. Do we believe the auditors office and the Tribune or do we believe your wrong ASSUMPTION? I think those of us not under Blunt's spell will believe the truth and not your whitewash crap. Funny we aren't supposed to believe the auditors inference (as you allege) but we are supposed to believe some convoluted inference you make about the contract being renewed. Hey Columbo, the DOT director works for the Governor, do you really believe they would just out of hand cancel the contract and inhibit the LEGAL use of it to try to identify fraud? Instead the contract has additional language the prior one doesn't. Next wrong ASSUMPTION on your part, the prior agreements did not restrict usage as the new one does. Next you would say the climate at WSI is that most people want him back. Mary M you have to base your ASSUMPTIONS on more than the small (and getting smaller) inner circle in the Blunt cult. Again do we believe your attempt to white wash this or do we believe 3 separate surveys done of employees (2 of which were by out of state firms hand picked by BLUNT) and all 3 cite hugh morale problems and the most recent one says 2/3 of the staff think management needs to be fired. Nice try though........ "

Point exactly wrote on Sep 12, 2007 6:33 PM:

" Heritage - my point exactly, we don't have the facts - a deposition is nothing in my opinion - I will reserve my true opinion when the witnesses hit the stand and both sides can ask questions and get real answers. "

SCates wrote on Sep 12, 2007 6:06 PM:

" nd by exactly what means or through what mechanism of force or intimidation was Sandy Blunt going to scare or harm someone who did not even work at WSI? How can you possibly perpetrate a vendetta when you can exert no power over another person? Please, at least pretend that you have used logic in the construction of your posts! "

Heritage wrote on Sep 12, 2007 4:52 PM:

" To "Missing the point", I would suggest you get a copy of the depo and you will see a different picture than what you portray when you read it. The depo also states from the beginning Romi was told no law was broken but still they pursued it and Romi said its because Blunt wanted it done. The depo states that Romi and Todd indicate in a conversation that they don't think what they are doing is part of their role and legislative intent. Just because Mr. Blunt wants to scare someone one doesn't mean he can use WSI and internal sources for his own personal vendetta. If he does, isn't that an abuse of power? If it was legit, why then did WSI want it to remain hush hush, why didn't they produce a report on their work? Why because they knew that what they did was wrong and tried to cover it up in my opinion. "

missing one point wrote on Sep 12, 2007 1:02 PM:

" People are missing a huge point - a crime doesn't need to be committed for it to be considered a legitimate investigation. As stated earlier we know very few of the cold hard facts. I know many officials and employees from WSI and the majority "think" Sandy wanted to put the fear of god in the sender using his position to do it. Even thought it may not (or may) be illegal to disclose or "SPAM" the information I have been given state that Sandy had the power to request an investigation to determine if the e-mail caused interfearance with the orderly operations at WSI. At that time Romi had the power to determine if the request was a legit internal investigation - and she did. Once it has been determined it's a legit investigation (internal, client, external, fraud, etc.) the SIU (including Romi) has the power to use all resources available to them. So it's my understand (not claiming to be a fact) that as long as any type of investigation is taking place Romi had/has the power to use DOT images for identification purposes. It is also my understanding (not a fact) that the big debate comes about that if the investigation was "legit" why doesn't a paper trail of said investigation exist? - leaving the impression it was a personal witch hunt. Hope that sums it up best I can from people on the indside "

Hate to Interrupt the Lynching with Some Facts wrote on Sep 12, 2007 8:39 AM:

" You are not correct that “DOT stated on the record that the use of the photos in this manner was INAPPROPRIATE AND VIOLATED THE DOT AGREEMENT. The NEW agreement specifically added new stipulations relating to this fact and limiting access to the system (EXCLUDING ROMEY and BLUNT'S positions).” Fact One, no one actually knows what DOT said. All we know is what Jason Wahl of the auditor’s office has inferred for us. Nowhere has there even been a printed quote or actual evidence of DOT’s position in this issue. The only clear evidence we can infer from is the immediate renewal of the contract. The audit came out in November of 2006 and in January of 2007 the contract was extended for another two year term. Additionally, agreement language states “any misuse of the access to the images maintained by NDOT will result in the immediate denial of security access to the NDOT’s driver’s license images program.” I would say we could strongly infer since the contract was renewed immediately that this signals to all of us that DOT did NOT in fact consider WSI’s use in this case unofficial and/or illegal. Fact Two, from what I have heard, the image access at WSI has always been provided to only two people. It appears that they are now saying that it will specifically be the Director of SIU and an administrative person. So you are wrong that is excludes “Romey,” instead it actually names her by position. Additionally, the CEO has never had access to the images file and I would agree never should have access. All we all really know is that we don’t really know that much at all. We should all wait for the trial and all wait for ALL the facts to be placed in public view before we set the lynching post. I know people from WSI too, and I would not characterize the climate and most people never want to see him return. In fact, I hear quite the opposite. Huh, what do ya’ know, the coin really does have two sides after all?! "

Save tax dollars wrote on Sep 12, 2007 7:32 AM:

" Well why not just get rid of the Highway Patrol, DOT, Judges, Lawyers, and all investigators and cut a huge tax burden - it appears all we need is Scates - all the answers in one tiny, neat little basket. That is why we have a justice system - they will determine if a crime was committed by Romi and Sandy! "

Wow: wrote on Sep 12, 2007 2:45 AM:

" I've been reading these comments, and I am thinking most of them are being made by ex-employees or someone who wanted a different judgment in their plea to WSI for money. No one else would care enough to get so angry. If you couldn't take the heat at the job, then by all means quit. It appears in some of these blogs that people are blaming Blunt when employees quit. Now just who makes that decision to quit?? Was it made for spite, to prove a point, to move to a different and more appealing job?? What?? These whinny ex-employees sound just like the boo-hoo bunch at the sheriff's office when Sheriff Berg was head of it. Some don't like changes, some don't like expectations, and both those things happen with new administration. These blogs, in my opinion, are just a form of venting when someone didn't get their way. It's human nature to buck authority, and these blogs prove it. Some of you mi ght still have your job if you were willing to do it. I can overlook a lot to bring home a paycheck and I certainly would not go homeless because of vengence or jealousy. That's what I am reading into these blogs. You'd think this trial was about some big crime spree, I mean something REALLY big. This, in the whole scheme of things and political corruption, is minute and has been carried way too far. Way too far. This state must be a laughing stock. "

JP wrote on Sep 11, 2007 11:18 PM:

" I have made a few comments on here... SCates can't answer simple questions that would reveal his double talking political ramblings and opinions, so he chooses to ignore them and I am quite bored with his attempts of "speaking the truth". The important part in this matter is that WSI and Blunt and the gang have been exposed. Is he guilty of a felony offense... maybe, maybe not but that is actually for a judge to decide. Were his actions criminal... as far as his employment is concerned... I don't care. His ineptness as a manager has been exposed. His spiteful, arrogant, do not cross me attitude has been exposed. He is not a leader as the survey within WSI has proven... he lacks employee support. Is this who we want to represent a government organization? I don't... and I doubt I am alone in my feelings. "

Heritage wrote on Sep 11, 2007 9:38 PM:

" I'm willing to bet the facts that SCates is trying to expose are not criminally related either (but rather shortcoming of some, he is willing to overlook Sandy & Romi's shortcomings but no one elses), so why would he spend so much time publishing them? I think it because he is vindictive. He sees what he thinks is one miscarriage of justice and like the bully on the playground, if he can't get his way, he will try to destroy others. Based on what I have read about Mr. Cates (don't know him personally) he will look at some information, put together some hypothesis or anyalysis and try to make others look bad and shine the light (halo) over angel Sandy, but nothing criminal or a law violation will be forthcoming from SCates. Like someone else posted, if there are criminal facts that Cates knows about he should turn them over to the cops, if not, all he is trying to do is ruin some people. From what I have read here also, it appears to be a play out of Sandy's book. His version of justice is if you cross me, I will destroy you. I'll be the first to go on line to say what Mr. Cates will come up with is nothing but innuendo and gossip in an attempt to make others look bad. No matter what he comes up with, the Blunt & Leingang trials will go on and justice will be served. No matter what he publishes, it still won't mean that Blunt & Leingang are innocent and didn't break the law. "

HOUDINI wrote on Sep 11, 2007 9:27 PM:

" Scates you are hilariously inept. Now you tell us you have never said there is nothing wrong with Blunt's management ability or style? You must have dementia as you have brought out the tired "disgruntled employee" excuse as many times as your buddies Wald and Keiser. In addition you have tossed out (carelessly) accusations that the auditors had family members who were ex-employees and that this influenced the auditors. Yet 70 people have left WSI since Sandy showed up and 2/3 of the rest want him fired. Yeh he's being railroaded alright, by his own selfish, arrogant ways and the fact that his team and the rubber stamp board do his bidding for him. "

SCates wrote on Sep 11, 2007 9:25 PM:

" To Skates: Is there no end in sight? "

POLICE STATE wrote on Sep 11, 2007 9:24 PM:

" Scates your character couldn't even be introduced as a soap opera character or a comedy as that character wouldn't be believable, just as you are not. You state the use of the drivers license photo didn't violate the DOT contract as service wasn't interupted. Nice assumption but wrong conclusion. DOT stated on the record that the use of the photos in this manner was INAPPROPRIATE AND VIOLATED THE DOT AGREEMENT. The NEW agreement specifically added new stipulations relating to this fact and limiting access to the system (EXCLUDING ROMEY and BLUNT'S positions). So much for another one of your smoke screens! Next you say the absence of documents of the investigation doesn't make any difference, what a hypocrite you are! If the auditors were missing a document or missing a photo array or the highway patrol was, you'd have your conspiracy PR network in high gear. But you and WSI call this an official investigation and yet contrary to policy there is no official report. They showed photos around in an attempt to get the names of people so Blunt could wreak havoc and yet they don't keep them for this official investigation. Come on, to a super-sleuth like you does that seem plausible? Of course not, they dumped the file and the photo lineup as soon as it became an issue. Look at the rats on the sinking ship, they don't even agree as to what happened. Jody B suddenly has a memory lapse, Wesson says he knows its against the spamming laws and yet never provides this and we now know he was full of crap. The Chosen One's chief disciple has now put WSI under scrutiny and no one can leave. Does this sound like a cover up and every man/woman for themselves? Well except for the cult members. "

To ILuvamystery wrote on Sep 10, 2007 7:06 AM: wrote on Sep 11, 2007 9:06 PM:

" Your assumption about losing 10% of the WSI workforce may be wrong. Arguably the greatest CEO of all time, Jack Welch of GE fired the bottom 10% of his managers every year. By all measurements GE is far from a sinking ship. In fact, most analysts recommend buying the stock. That is considered good management. There really is not mystery to it. Get rid of the dead weight. They don't want to be there anyway and are a cancer on the ones who do want to be there. Food for thought anyway "

SCates wrote on Sep 11, 2007 8:46 PM:

" I have never dealt with Sandy Blunt's managerial skill or lack there of. This is a far, far over reaching of the concept of criminality. This whole thing is a gross miscarriage of justice. Romi and Sandy may have short comings, but for some reason the WSI board and many others do not seem to think so. This has been a witch hunt from end to end. They are not criminals. They have been persecuted through much, much dishonesty. There is only one way to expose this dishonesty. That is to name names and state facts. If I intentionally defame someone by publishing falsehoods that is against the law and I would expect serious problem. The truth will be my only protection. Always remember that the truth is the strongest argument. "

Mr. Skates: wrote on Sep 11, 2007 8:37 PM:

" You are a true renaissance man. First you out audit the auditors then you out report the reporters, out investigate the Highway Patrol and BCI, out lawyer the State’s Attorney, somewhere along the line you out commission the County Commissioners, now you are out judging the judge? “THERE IS NO CRIME!”? Do you think the Honorable Judge Donald Jorgensen is corrupt or incompetent? "

Hometown wrote on Sep 11, 2007 5:45 PM:

" SCates, I read your posts and am confused. You say you don't like seeing good people having their names run through the mud, but from what I hear you are so quick to put out names of others, aren't you a hypocrit? You stated there will be more to come names, dates, etc, well then won't you be putting others through the mud and what will the point of you next "expose" be? If you have evidence of a crime, then let the authorities handle it, but I suspect you don't and you just want to see other people hurt. Coincedences don't make a crime. You say one thing and several others contradict that, once or twice I can see but numerous times, something is not quite right. A question for you, do you honestly believe that Sandy Blunt did NOTHING WRONG and is a good manager? Are you that naive? Do you think that fact so many people think he is a poor manager (63% of the current employees plus probably many of the former ones) is not accurate? After reading what "WELCOMEtoTheWrongSideOfTheTracks" wrote, it appears that Blunt is no saint and that there really are problems at WSI and Mr. Blunt and his team are a major part of the WSI problem(s) and certainly no longer the solution. I had to read Welcome's post three times because it seemed so unbelieveable and I wanted to grasp the total magnitude of the problems Blunt put those people through. I also know some people who have friends currently working at WSI and they say the vast majority of the people don't want Blunt back. I would have to agree with many of the posters that Blunt overstepped his bounds and did not do this to see if any law was broken, he did it out of spite. "

SCates wrote on Sep 11, 2007 4:52 PM:

" Mr. Magoo: Please read more carefully. I did not ever say that the virus was emailed to WSI alone. Nothing about the lack of information about the investigation makes any difference. All of the people involved were doing so while in the employ of WSI. They were not on their own time, doing this effort external to work duties. The contract with DOT to have access to the driver’s license data stipulated that misuse (non-official use) of the privilege of access would result in ending that access. The access was never interrupted. This was an official investigation. THERE IS NO CRIME! "

Heritage wrote on Sep 11, 2007 4:40 PM:

" So, why then even after Flanagan and Leingang asked Morton County if a crime was committed and were told NO did WSI continue the investigation, why is that? They knew no crime was committed but it didn't stop them. They still went back to the library and post office. If after they knew no crime was committed, why did they continue the investigation if it wasn't for vengence, spite, and arrogance? Why did Romi and Todd (as indicated in the depo) state that they both thought this was out of the scope of their authority? Tell the whole truth, don't just pick and choose things to support your theories. If this was offical business, then where is the report? Now you state, Wesson stated it was an internal security thing, when the depo says Wesson told Blunt that this was against spamming and would forward the law, what/where is that law? Offical investigations of WSI are for fraud against the agency, this is not fraud against the agency. "

This is hard to believe wrote on Sep 11, 2007 4:39 PM:

" To scates. If you were only half as smart as you think you are your IQ would be way off the charts. You should take the time to actually read the statutes that you referred to. There is no way they could be twisted or misconstrued to justify what Blunt did. No one could actually be this ignorant. If your intention is to jerk everybody’s chain with your posts then I apologize for my prior statement. Keep posting I love the laughs you give me. You are hilarious. "

Deb wrote on Sep 11, 2007 4:17 PM:

" Wow SCates! If that whole geoastrology thing doesn't work out for you, you might have a future in the legal field! "

Magoo wrote on Sep 11, 2007 1:02 PM:

" Scates if as you claim this was an OFFICIAL investigation then why is WSI doesn't know whose photos they downloaded from DOT? Why is it WSI no longer can produce the photo lineup that was shown at the Mandan Library and North Brook post office? Since this as you state is OFFICIAL business that means they are subject to the open records and records retention laws. So why can WSI not produce any of this? As for your statement about the virus that was not specifically mailed to WSI that hit the entire state network. I see you’re doing alot of assuming again scates. I think maybe just maybe you should get you facts before you go making assumptions. "

SCates wrote on Sep 11, 2007 11:18 AM:

" Was a computer virus that shut down the agency sent to WSI months before the Jrunnings email? Did an admitted former WSI employee mail the exact content as the Jrunnings email to WSI board members, media people, state cabinet members, and state legislators immediately before the Jrunning email? Does WSI do investigations other than fraud (as referred to in 65-02-23), such as internal security and theft determination, claim compensability, subrogation, judgment collection, and any violations of Title 65 (for example, unlawful retaliation under section (65-05-37)? Did Jim Wesson advise Sandy Blunt and Romi Leingang that the Jrunnings email indicated a breach of WSI security because the content of the emails proved that it came from a N.D. government database not available to the public on the internet? Did Jodi Bjornson concur that an investigation of who sent the Jrunnings email was a valid activity of WSI? Was Todd Flanagan paid by WSI for the time that he spent investigating the Jrunnings email? Was Romi Leingang paid by WSI for the time that she spent investigating the Jrunnings email? Did Leingang and Flanagan ask the Morton County State’s Attorney if a crime was committed in Morton County? The answer to all of these questions, as fully established by all testimony is “YES”. The DOT images are for official use only. This was an OFFICIAL investigation. There has been no disclosure of confidential information outside of an official investigation. There is no crime. "

IQ wrote on Sep 11, 2007 7:42 AM:

" WSI and Scates are now just trying to recreate history and say that Armstrong's email was incorrect. Yet if you read the information, it took Armstrong a long time to respond to the email he received asking for the public information. Delay, deny and kill the messenger are all proven WSI methods of dealing with adversity. Armstrong should know what he's doing, based upon his inflated salary. Besides he's Scates best buddy and we all know Scates says he can do no wrong! The disappearing photo lineup, what a farce. Blunt makes this investigation the top priority and all the efforts by their IT people and the investigators and they don't have a report on it (contrary to WSI policy)?? Give me a break. Nixon erased 18 minutes of tape and everyone knew it and Blunt and his cronies destroyed this evidence and we all know it. Funny how Mr. Conspiracy (Scates) doesn't apply his paranoia and conspiracy theories to WSI when they are caught in this type of unbelievably "convenient" situation isn't it? "

WELCOMEtoTheWrongSideOfTheTracks wrote on Sep 11, 2007 7:28 AM:

" I wonder if health concerns, depression, hopelessness have hit Blunt. Some WSI former and current employees have dealt with these things because of Blunt and his "elite" team's mismanagement. Many good employees have quit their jobs because of some cruel leaders and mismanagement tactics at WSI, gave up careers and took paycuts; it doesn’t seem ethical now that Blunt collects $13,000/month. In his “downtime” I hope he reflects on actions of his "elite" team, actions he chose to stand by and do nothing about as employees’ lives were permanently damaged. It's a no win situation when having an employment history with WSI. Current employees are trapped, they can’t risk being labeled a “troublemaker” so they can’t question questionable practices. If past employees speak up about WSI’s wrongdoings they are labeled disgruntled. Blunt, how does it feel to be on the receiving end of ugliness, accusatory remarks, and the topic of negative talk? That same pain was unfairly inflicted upon many good WSI employees. They were made to feel like outcasts among their own coworkers and no longer wanted by you and the "elite" team. It would seem in a roundabout way YOU are now on the "wrong side of the tracks" where many “formers” once were. Pretty devastating, isn't it? The only difference is that some "formers", because of THEIR ETHICS, could not accept wrongdoings they witnessed, and even though circumstances forced them to give up their WSI careers, I know some would much rather have questioned wrongdoings within WSI and lost their careers than be forced into “WSI employee survivor mode” becoming emotionless in order to survive the sick WSI environment where the false front of “all is well at WSI and leadership is great” is required, when in fact that same leadership is ultimately going to take down the whole ship if someone soon (ah, the Board!) doesn't fess up that they have made some serious errors, correct them, and reach out for and accept a major outside helping hand if they want to see WSI survive. "

Joe wrote on Sep 10, 2007 9:27 PM:

" SCates wrote on Sept 10 and 1:08 pm "Ex rather than Con". Was he talking about the fact Sandy Blunt will hopefully be an EX WSI employee and perhaps a Convict. Too funny!!!! "

Trust us scates wrote on Sep 10, 2007 9:01 PM:

" I think maybe you better look around you. There are very few that beleive what you say. I have a hunch that is why you have to come to this blog to post because no will entertain your rhetoric if you post it on your site. Also, that information that you are trying to cover up for Armstrong about the email he sent out stating they did download and show a DOT of one person. Why now are you trying to cover it up. He knew full well what was going on and if he didn't then why did he say anythign at all? Also, if this email really had nothing to do with the case then why then did blunt of WSI turn it over to blunt's attorney when he asked for information on the case? Could it be they knew it was the dagger theat would sign, seal and deliver the case? So they were trying to keep it covered up? If this is all a witchhunt, then why did blunt and WSI not fully cooperate with the investigation? I think if your source of info is none other that your buddy armstrong I think I'd really check and double check what he is/has sent you. He has been criticized for giving out inaccurate information to a newspaper that requested information. "

Joe wrote on Sep 10, 2007 7:56 PM:

" SCates, I agree with you when you say that you I hate that very good people will go through the financial and family hell, but rest assured, the truth wins in the long term. I hate the way Blunt treats (treated)employees (former/current), I hate the way Blunt appeared to be vindicitative in his pursuit to think he can do no wrong, I hate the way Blunt threw out names of people who had nothing to do with sending the email to ease his paranoia, I hate the fact that these people have had their lives ruined by Blunt and his actions. Rest assured, the truth about Blunt's management style has been exposed. So Cates I do agree that good people were hurt by Mr. Blunt and his actions. The shame brough on Blunt and Leingang are by their own doing and their actions, the have no one to blame but themselves. "

SCates wrote on Sep 10, 2007 6:00 PM:

" To Trust us SCates: I hate to break this to you, but I suspect that you already know that you are in a very small minority. You might want to start hanging with a different crowd? "

Heritage wrote on Sep 10, 2007 5:03 PM:

" Information in the paper referenced this email from Mark at the Aug 24 hearing and from what I have read it was part of the basis for the investigation getting pursued. So if Mark gave out incorrect information (whether intentional or not) and it is what assisted in getting the investigation started, isn't Mark culpable as well (there are some who want to blame everyone but WSI officials)? Also if you got an email saying your photo was downloaded and shown (which are the criminal charges here) wouldn't you want to know if that was legal or not? As it was part of the court proceedings perhaps just perhaps Marks email (incorrect or not, so just who gave Mark the incorrect information is another question that should be pursued. Also the depo by Flanigan indicated he didn't know where two males photos were printed from and he wasn't always in the room) may be a smoking gun in this whole investigation. Wouldn't that be a hoot if the charges got initiated because WSI may have been trying to cover themselves and gave out incorrect (or perhaps correct) information. I haven't read the Aug 24 testimony, just what I have read in the paper and the depo. "

upright wrote on Sep 10, 2007 4:39 PM:

" If I had a PR man for my organization like Armstrong, I would expect him to make darn sure that the facts I was giving out were correct (especially from requests for information and especially in light of an issue such as the DOT picture usage looming about). Don't they communicate at WSI? Why would Armstrong say something at one point and now it's possibly not correct? It doesn't matter if months have gone by - either it did or did not happen. Again, where's the communication? Just what happened to the portfolio of pictures? Quite convenient that it disappears. Also quite convenient that no report was done on the investigation. Anytime that many man hours are spend on something, it's only good business practice to report and summarize the results. They can just keep on darkening the waters, it's just making them look worse. "

Magoo wrote on Sep 10, 2007 3:27 PM:

" Why is there no record of what was downloaded? Was this not official WSI business? Was this not considered by blunt and gang to be considered and official investigation? So there should be a record of this somewhere. "

Trust us Scates wrote on Sep 10, 2007 3:21 PM:

" I can't speak for anyone else but from my point of few and the people I associate with we have never beleived a word you have written here or in your Beacon. As for these 2 statements you have made "I am an idiot. Nothing I have written can be taken seriously! " You absolutely hit the nail on the head with those statements. Remember you said it no one else, glad you finally realize it. "

SCates wrote on Sep 10, 2007 1:08 PM:

" Ex rather than Con. Well, you have me now. You win. I am an idiot. Nothing I have written can be taken seriously! "

This is hard to believe wrote on Sep 10, 2007 11:41 AM:

" Perhaps scates should look up the meaning of big words such as extemporaneous before using them in a sentence. If nothing else he is amusing. "

SCates wrote on Sep 10, 2007 11:01 AM:

" Clarification: the only images shown were males. There is no extemporaneous record anywhere of exactly what was downloaded. "

SCates wrote on Sep 10, 2007 10:00 AM:

" Heritage: You need to read the transcript of the August 24, 2006 hearing. You will find that ALL testimony by all parties indicates that two NDDOT images were down loaded and that Troopere Henke himself state as much. Mark Armstrong's communcation with Becker was passing on information that he was provided with as all known testimony available to date indicate that he had nothing to do with the decisions regarding the investigation, nor involvement immediatly after the investigation. The request for information that Armstrong dealt with was dated Decembere 1, 2006, 10.5 months after the incident. You go back and look at all of the Auditor's findings and working notes and you will find no record (audit started January 18, 2006 through late 2006), no specific proof that any males were downloaded. "

A point wrote on Sep 10, 2007 9:44 AM:

" No one has mentioned one important fact about this. Those salary figures are ABSOLUTELY public record and can be requested by ANYONE and could be posted anywhere, including the Bismarck Tribune. Sandy Blunt had absolutely no business having any reaction to an email posting this information much less an adverse reaction leading to this bizarre "investigation". "

SCates wrote on Sep 10, 2007 8:38 AM:

" “Truth is always the strongest argument.” -- Sophocles "

ILuvamystery wrote on Sep 10, 2007 7:06 AM:

" Successful business 101; surround yourself with exceptional people, and help them excel. In-turn they will carry you and your business to success. It sounds like when Blunt was made president of kindergarten, he knew the alphabet through the letter “s”. He gave all his friends, and anyone that knew the alphabet through the letter R a lollypop, but he felt threatened by anyone that knew the alphabet through z, so they got nothing - in hopes that they would drop-out. 10% turnover? Try to run a business where 10% of your experience is leaving. That would be a sinking ship. If I was a board member, and I had a conscience, I might want to consider the impact on the lives of these employees, and take another look at my golden child. "

Heritage wrote on Sep 10, 2007 6:36 AM:

" Depo info - SCates always refers to only two female photos being known for sure to be downloaded from the DOT database, however in the depo Flanagan says he doesn't know where two males photos were obtained because he was the errand boy who stood by the printer and picked up the pictures and put them in a manila envelope and walked them back to Romi's office (like in a spy movie). Now because the photo binder magically disapperared and no report was ever done (contrary to SIU policies) the possibility exists that males photos were also downloaded from DOT. Also Flanagan says he doesn't know how two males photos were accessed because he was at the printer. Plus WSI confirmed that a males photos were downloaded and shown in an email form the communications director to a male. Cates is only telling one side and interpreting the depo to what benefits him and his cause. "

SCates wrote on Sep 9, 2007 10:03 PM:

" Heritage: Yes that would apply to all parties. Some, because this is in current litigation can not. Few know that they can not better than you. "

In the Know wrote on Sep 9, 2007 10:03 PM:

" Blunt approached Flanagan in the bathroom? The headlines could read: "RIGHT WING REPUBLICAN APPROACHES COP IN BATHROOM!" Blunt's defense: "All the other Republicans were doing it!" "

Doug D.Riley wrote on Sep 9, 2007 9:59 PM:

" To scates,I think that alot of these bloggers can't sign their name because they would be fired tomarrow by your god blunt-does'nt the light that glimes off blunts poster keep you awake at night!!!! "

Heritage wrote on Sep 9, 2007 8:29 PM:

" SCates, does signing your true name and getting answers also apply to your buddy Mark and pro-WSI people of just anti-WSI people? "

ILuvamystery wrote on Sep 9, 2007 7:03 PM:

" Felt there was some threat against WSI? Wow, great spin! It was public information. The email could have said Christmas is on the 25th. This flashing picture thing sounds kind of psychotic, or maybe a little of ego gone weak. Regardless of how it was obtained, if I found out that someone was flashing my picture and asking questions, I would be furious. I have not seen, but is anyone bringing a defamation suit against Blunt? I don’t think I could work for a boss like that. I do feel sorry for the WSI employees. "

SCates wrote on Sep 9, 2007 4:22 PM:

" I am not recommending that bloggers use their real names here. I am simply challenging them to put these same thoughts (?) and assertions into the public arena with their own true names. If you have watched the print media since May of this month none of them have. This seems like cowardice to me. There is a reason that jrunnings will not publicly claim authorship. There is a reason that no investigative authority has examined the source of the jrunnings email to begin with. There is a reason that none of the individuals who’s names, positions, and marital, past employment, sibling relationships were discussed with specificity and at length in print regarding this WSI issue have not made any kind of public denial or refutation of those presented facts. I hate that two very good people will go through the financial and family hell that this public trial has and will result in, but rest assured, the truth wins in the long term. The duplicity of this entire matter are being exposed. Say what you want about my analysis or mental condition, the train has left the station. Romi and Sandy will be vindicated and those that have worked to undermine them through dishonesty will be exposed and they reap what they have sown. What do you think about that Barney, Tim, Maxwell, or what ever your current pseudonym is? Am I harassing you by asking that question? "

Online Editor wrote on Sep 9, 2007 4:00 PM:

" To SCates and readers: We prefer to keep the postings anonymouse because it is difficult to verify the true identity of people posting comments. "

SCates wrote on Sep 9, 2007 2:32 PM:

" I am beginning to think it a huge waste of time to answer the questions of anonymous bloggers or even converse with them for that matter. But, it is fun to tell the truth and freak them out. I am quite sure that any of the mentioned publication will print your questions if you sign your true name. I dare you. "

Online Editor wrote on Sep 9, 2007 12:01 PM:

" To Heritage: Please email me a copy of the deposition, I will talk with the Editor tomorrow about posting it - jason.lueder@bismarcktribune.com "

Heritage wrote on Sep 9, 2007 11:08 AM:

" More on the depo - Flanigan indicated he had a hard copy of the timeline on his computer hard drive which all of a sudden crashed, (now I may be getting into SCates analysis, conspiracy theory, or fantasy world), but could it be that this was done and authorized purposefully by Blunt? Flanigan indicates that all parties (Flanigan, Blunt, Leingang) were told not to talk to anyone or each other about the criminal investigation, but that Blunt approached him in the men's restroom and talked about the incident. Flanigan indicates that WSI wanted this investigation kept hush, hush and because of this did not prepare a report, which is contrary to their normal work. "

In the Know wrote on Sep 9, 2007 10:26 AM:

" To Heritage: I would love to read the Flanagan Deposition. How can the averge joe have access to it? It is public record. Could you post it somewhere? northdecoder.com? "

JP wrote on Sep 9, 2007 8:29 AM:

" My opinions are open for anyone reading this blog to agree or disagree and comment on in any fashion. SCates will thine removeth thy footeth from thou contraption on face containing thy teeth. You can call my questions stupid (tho you never made a direct reference to them , I can only assume since you won't answer them)... that really doesn't bother me because it showed me your true colors. While you call the question stupid, I call it simple... pretty much a yes or no answer (although I would have enjoyed an explanation). However, because of the simplicity and directness of the question you cannot spin or redirect the answer to blame some other person and go off in a tangent on that issue. So you avoid the question all together. You are like the kid on the playground that will agree to anything as long as who they agree with will be their friend... it is old and tiresome... your words have less and less effectiveness in swaying public opinion all the time because of your blind political loyalties. The truth is coming, the truth is coming!!! "

Magoo wrote on Sep 9, 2007 6:02 AM:

" Just wondering.. The pictures were obtained through a legal fashion yes. The issue is this. First of all WSI's contract with DOT doesn't allow them to download these photos for this type of investigation and DOT themselves said WSI violated the contract. Secondly, your DOT is photo is considered confidential information just like you medical records, SSN and your personal finances. So what you are saying is that if I have you medical records, SSN or personal finance information that I have obtained that I legally have access to and didn't use this information for any criminal or malicious intent it is alright for me to have it? I bet you'd be a little upset if I had that information. These photos were shown around town that is the illegal part. Then people have asked so what? Did it hurt anyone. On the front side maybe not, no one was physically harmed. But in the long run what kind of damage is/will this cause to these individuals if they ever want to get another job in this town or something else? What will it have done to this persons reputation. Scates before you go chiming in on this you haev alot of other questions that you have had posted specifically to you that you refuse to answer so answer those first please before spewing anymore of your rhetoric and propaganda out here. "

Just tellin' ya wrote on Sep 9, 2007 2:57 AM:

" the whole point is that they WERE illegally obtained. Your logic would have marijuana being legal if it were just a houseplant on a windowsill. It doesn't fly! "

Heritage wrote on Sep 9, 2007 1:57 AM:

" To Just Wondering, yes if they had gotten them by some other means than what they did, they would have been legal. The means they undertook were illegal under ND law and thus the charges. "

Heritage wrote on Sep 9, 2007 1:55 AM:

" I have read the Flanigan depo Cates refers to and have a few responses. Mr. Wesson, the consultant said that is a law against spamming and would send proof, did he ever? Flanigan said he told Leingang that ND and the Fed gov't has no spamming law and no crime was committed, why then did WSI and Blunt order this to be done? (The Morton County States Attorney affirms this) . Flanigan said Blunt and Leingang were adamant a law was violated when they were told none was broken. Flanigan said male pictures were put in front of the photo array with the females (DOT accessed according to Cates) in the back but only the front ones were shown, however the DOT photos were available for viewing in the same book, thus the conspiracy. Flanigan said that Blunt appeard giddy that he thought he had found out who sent the email and demanded that SIU confront this person. If the Trib wants, I can send them this depo. This goes to prove, in my opinion, that Cates is basing his supisition on his own personal friendship and bias and not on the facts. Cates says more is to come but I wonder whether or not they should be believed. Cates is trying to destroy people who may or may not have a legitimate reason for wondering whether or not a law was broken in the actions authorized by Blunt. Can Cates be believed, I doubt it because he has proven he is not fair and impartial in his analysis in my opinion and I feel he is trying to bring down others who may have had a mere working relationship with WSI and Blunt. Mr. Cates has challenged others to read the depo, well I have and I completely disagree with the anaysis/hypothesis/analysis put forth by Mr. Cates. "

Just wondering: wrote on Sep 8, 2007 11:24 PM:

" Since the pictures weren't really illegally obtained, or they would not have been available, and since they were not used for anything criminal or malicious, such as being put up on internet on naked bodies or anything like that, and were being used for identification, which I don't think is illegal, just what is the problem? Would people be any less upset had they gotten the pictures of the suspects from their best friends? A snapshot of an office party? Would that be OK then? Just what is the problem here? "

Doug D.Riley wrote on Sep 8, 2007 9:53 PM:

" To scates; you are right on a couple of words but need to reword it ,like in my opinion what blunt an romi did WAS a obscene miscarriage of justice an they did'nt think that they would get caught discloseing confidential information!! "

Shakespeare wrote on Sep 8, 2007 8:58 PM:

" The scientist doth protest too much, methinks. Why does Scates find it necessary to defend his intellect, sanity and motives in every other blog? "

SCates wrote on Sep 8, 2007 8:51 PM:

" I have NEVER said that there was nothing wrong with WSI. I have said, and it will be born out, that Romi and Sandy did not conspire to disclose confidential information, and that they are in no manner guilty of any felonies. This is the public assault on two human beings using your tax money and the power of the state. This is an obscene miscarriage of justice. But none of you seem to care about the basic facts. "

Doug D.Riley wrote on Sep 8, 2007 6:54 PM:

" This is to scates, in my opinion you hold blunts hand like he can do no wrong and he can lead you into the light-maybe this is what is blinding you- if the e-mailer came forward they would be on the bread line or worse before dark--your acting like there is nothing wrong with wsi--if wsi is so great why to they work inside a bullit proof building and just deal with poeple threw the mail an over the phone and you call everyone else cowards--take a good look at your friends!!! "

SCates wrote on Sep 8, 2007 4:32 PM:

" Jrunnings would be a hero to the moonbats if he/she was to present themselves publicly. Jrunnings does not. Why is that? Is there criminality involved? Trust me, I will not waste any time or effort chasing down your questions when no answer I give you will be sufficient for you, nor will I be presenting “proof” of my assertions on this venue. Keep your eyes open for a full presentation made very public in the very near future. There will be names, dates, references, and specific proof. You all will then, of course (as facts do not serve your purpose), question my intellect, sanity, and motives. By the way, spinning is a liberal thing, dishonest, unseemly. "

SCates wrote on Sep 8, 2007 3:53 PM:

" Once again, if you think that I am incorrect in my analysis I dare you to prove otherwise. You can, I am sure, have your views published and widely distributed in the “Prairie Independent”, the “River’sEdge”, or the Bismarck Tribune. Submit and sign your name. But none of you ever will. You will simply continue to call names, demand answers to stupid questions, and challenge facts not with fact, but with personal invective. I am taking a very public stand. You blog on in unanimity, either unable or unwilling to have your opinions scrutinized by the public. You challenge my veracity from the cover of darkness. Seems cowardly does it not? I will admit that I find this all though, extremely entertaining as emotion based logical dissonance verges the absurd and thus hilarity. "

This one's for you jrunnings wrote on Sep 8, 2007 3:51 PM:

" First there was D.B. Cooper, then Deep Throat, men of mystery, American folk heroes. Now jrunnings. I hope you will all join me in a beer tonight toasted to our new American folk hero. Live on in unanimity jrunnings. You are our hero. "

I can't hear you wrote on Sep 8, 2007 2:24 PM:

" Amazing how quiet Cates gets when he is asked for proof of his allegations. "

Hometown wrote on Sep 8, 2007 1:06 PM:

" Yes Cates, why not answer any questions put forth? Why not check out everyone? Why write one sided stories? Also is this Jim Wessen the one who WSI checked with who told them it was OK to use the photos? So we are not suppose to believe him when he told WSI something that got them into trouble "

JP wrote on Sep 7, 2007 11:57 PM:

" If I feel a threat to internal security I would opt for a third party investigation as I am not sure who I can trust within my organization. However, like was said earlier, no outside agency would have taken seriously Blunt's witchhunt. Cates- I will give you one last time to dodge the question... why should I blindly believe the board at WSI? Is being successful and influential the basis for people doing the right thing? Am I to gather by your earlier statements that all politicians in an office of influence are then "right"? Good luck spinning whatever answer you try to spew out, but expect the rest of us to react the same way as we do with most of your comments... with a chuckle and a half-mouthed smile. "

ILuvamystery wrote on Sep 7, 2007 11:24 PM:

" I’m thinking the e mailer used the public library because he didn’t stand in the right line for raises at the WSI, and couldn’t afford his own computer. "

Terror Alert wrote on Sep 7, 2007 11:23 PM:

" We are all supposed to believe that because it was a Friday before a three day weekend, that Blunt put the agency into a high alert mode to find out the source of the stupid email. Get real! I'll bet he never even bothered to check with the State ITD. They have master control over WSI's computer system. That would be an easy call. Cates says Blunt immediately talked with Wesson. Wesson was a paid consultant from California. If he really gave advice on the issue, then WSI should have a corresponding billing for the service. I understand he was billing WSI monthly for ongoing services. That should also be easy to check on. Cates goes on and on about Blunt talking to Wesson and Bjornson before taking any action. Funny Blunt never had either of them testify at the probable cause hearing. That's probably cuz it's not true. Cates rants are getting old. "

Lost all credibility wrote on Sep 7, 2007 11:16 PM:

" SCates has lost all credibility and apparently his mind too. His magazine represents his support for our democracy, but looks like he really thinks that should all get thrown out the window upon his say so. SCates, the case is with the court system now. Just let it run its course and justice will be done. Stop trying to have a trial by blog with evidence no one knows if you are making up or what. You keep referring to little snippets of evidence that have not been made public. How do you know these things? I hope you don't have a WSI employee feeding you confidential information that would be in violation of WSI's policy. Through your big mouth, his or her job might be in jeopardy. If you really have such great proof, why don't you actually post the documents on your website and also post a copy of a letter from you to the state's attorney with all your evidence. Otherwise, you just seem to be a bag of hot wind who seems to be going out of his mind for some unexplainable reason. "

LETS BE BLUNT wrote on Sep 7, 2007 11:04 PM:

" To Scates, first of us it isn't us who think Blunt is an all knowing genius, it's Blunt and his cult members like you that believe that! Next it is truly amazing that you can look over a depostion and just come to the ONLY conclusion possible and yet trained investigators from two independent agencies can't. We are so blessed to have you around to make it clear to the professionals. The truth is Blunt was told early and often that there was no threat to security and its obvious that one of the attorneys and the investigators were uncomfortable following his vengence driven directives. Once they knew that there was nothing confidential in the emails, and that no one had to hack into the system to get publicly available email addresses it should have ended. Blunt was told no crime occurred and yet he chose to pursue this. Besides if you read the audit report the "skillful" attorneys at WSI (overpaid one and all) were bested several times by the auditors on what was legal. Remember? Sandy didn't want to give the 4% raises to his staff and the WSI lawyers told him he didn't have to. Oops the auditors were right and the Attorney General agreed with them. Then the Board violated the law with one board member filling two requirements and the Perry Mason-like legal team at WSI said it was legal. Oh my, score another one for the auditors as the Attorney General once again agreed with them. OJ would be in prison now if he had those dolts as his attorneys. It is you Scates who needs to take off his blinders. Knowing what you want to find before your review a few papers and some court documents does not constitute an "investigation". Interpreting and recognizing only evidence that supports your Republican friends only biases your outcome. "

political observer wrote on Sep 7, 2007 10:52 PM:

" Geez Scates get a life will you? Here you are again tossing out allegations with no substantiation. In the beginning you and some of your WSI cohorts tried to discredit the audit by saying someone who had left had a relative in the auditors office. So what? Were you at the legislative hearing when the audit was presented? The relative never worked on the audit so how is that relevant. Let's see we are to believe the people who worked on the audit risked their jobs and their professional reputations just to try to get a fellow employees spouses ex-boss? You couldn't sell that plot to a soap opera! Next, isn't it interesting that you have no problem trying to say that friends or spouses of people who work or used to work at WSI would automatically mean that someone would risk everything to try to get revenge. Yet you claim that being Armstong's best buddy doesn't color your judgment, isn't that a bit arrogant and self serving? Everyone else who has friends or relatives who work or used to work there are tainted and not credible, but John Halvorson can supervise his wife and brother in law and is credible because he's such an outstanding citizen? What a farsical arguement. So according to you the auditors report isn't credible because the spouse of an employee who used to work for WSI works in the auditors office. Ok, what connection is there with the out of state firm who did the second audit? What makes them lack credibility? How about the Attorney Generals office, the Highway Patrol, the state's attorneys office, Bureau of Criminal Investigations and of course the two WSI handpicked consulting firms? They all lack credibility if you believe your crap, so why would they all be wrong and you'd be right? "

SCates wrote on Sep 7, 2007 9:59 PM:

" Again, from the depositions and the August 24, 2006 hearing (and there is no dispute of this) Blunt talked to consultant Jim Wessen and staff attorney Jodi Bjornson (who’s deposition Ms. Feland ignored while throwing up a wall of probable cause) about the threat to internal security within minutes of the Jrunnings emails arriving. The threat to internal security was suspected due to specific characteristics of the Jrunnings email. As WSI has investigative infrastructure and does numerous other types of investigation besides the Title 65 enumerated fraud investigation, and since February 17 was the Friday before a 3 day weekend, it was decided that WSI needed to jump on things before the trail went cold and that WSI was well within its legal authority to do so. You are expecting, no demanding, that Sandy Blunt know everything. That he should not have acquired the council of expert professionals (who’s advice he followed) and that he make a decision against their advice and not investigate, is ludicrous. For your premise to have any validity you must expect that Blunt is an incredible genius who knew more about the laws and agency policy than the retained and staff experts. SNAP OUT OF YOUR ANIMOUS!! Get command of the facts and utilize your God given analytical abilities! "

Doug D.Riley wrote on Sep 7, 2007 9:12 PM:

" I think if blunt had tried to use legel means to find the e-mailer he would have been laughed at-- also if he had found the e-mailer he would'nt had been able to --shall we dare say shake his finger at them--everyones screaming witch hunt -take a look at who was doing the hunting--the e-mailer did nothing wrong and I just hope that a lot more dirt comes out from under the wsi rug!!!! "

JP wrote on Sep 7, 2007 6:02 PM:

" To SCates: As informed as you seem to believe that you are in this matter. Why do you always avoid relevant questions and go back to "who sent the email?" #1 If this emailer was trying to damage WSI's reputation... why didn't Blunt contact the proper authorities? #2- (to me the bigger questions I ask of you)- AM I to blindly believe and follow people of influence who have gained political status? You stated we should trust the board because of that... Why can I not choose to believe BCI, the HP and the AG's office based on the status and reputation of those people and organizations? I believe those organizations also have some successful, influential people. "

Heritage wrote on Sep 7, 2007 5:47 PM:

" Cates, did you bother to check the personnel file of you buddy Mark who is your source? You criticize everyone elses file who you claim has a connection to this issue and try to discredit them, but never once do you question Mark's ethics in regards to WSI. Didn't the audit report indicate he was suppose to pay back a cell phone bill for violation of the policy about misusing state property but didn't pay it back until called on it more than a year later. Didn't he receive a one day leave w/o pay? Since you feel everyone who is involved in this story should be put under a microscope, why then give Mark a pass? Why give Sandy a pass? "

Heritage wrote on Sep 7, 2007 5:36 PM:

" ok cates, so you're saying that everyone is corrupt, unethical, and have an ax to grind, but Blunt is the poster boy for honesty, integrity, ethics, truth, quite a stretch. By not answering questions, people are not taking you serious. You sure like to harass and name call others but not Sandy, why is that? Is what Sandy and Romi did a violation of the law? Should law violators face punishment. Don't go on your diatribe about the legal email either, NO LAW WAS BROKEN THERE. Also since when is sending bulk mail from the post office a crime? "

SCates wrote on Sep 7, 2007 5:15 PM:

" Mr. Magoo: You really should read some of the information concerning Jim Wessen. Obviously you are not familiar with his sworn deposition and the factual assertions regarding the peculiarity of the emails and the sequence of events both before and immediately after the receipt of the Jrunning email. "

Magoo wrote on Sep 7, 2007 4:59 PM:

" So scates your telling us you've only looked at information since may of 2007 well that means you should dig back about 3 years before the Golden boy got here and see what you find. How come you won't answer the question that was posted about if this was a criminal act why didn't blunt contact the HP or BCI to investigate instead of him ordering his staff to do it? Would that not have been the RIGHT thing to do. "

SCates wrote on Sep 7, 2007 4:24 PM:

" Who sent the original email is important if they had reason to extract some type of vengeance on WSI staff and if the State’s Attorney’s Office bases prosecution on the assertions of an individual with a compromised ethical situation related to having worked at WSI. Remember, I have asserted and delineated the facts (since May 2007) that certain people who worked at WSI and were demoted or left are right in the middle of all of this. Some had direct marriage/sibling relationships with the State Auditor’s Office. If you read all of the personnel files of all of the people that Todd Flanagan testified to as being suspects when the Jrunnings email arrived you would have a real understanding of this dynamic. Sandy…..stop it….you are pulling on my strings too hard!! Mark…..I have your portrait in an alcove of my home….with fresh flowers and lit candles. What a joke. Please if I am wrong write a letter to the Tribune. Sign your name. I double dog dare you. "

duff wrote on Sep 7, 2007 1:56 PM:

" For this matter it is completely irrelevent who sent the e-mail. The more the WSI wonks can spin the focus to the e-mail the less attention will be focused on the actual illegal act. "

To Scates wrote on Sep 7, 2007 1:54 PM:

" EDITOR'S NOTE: Please keep your comments to the word limit. Give it up. The email was sent in groups of I think 30 recipients at a time. The email originated from one of the many free email providers, which limit the number of recipients to 30 per email. A little bit more info for you. WSI was forced by the legislature to consolidate some of it's network computer services with ITD and email was one of those services, which was done prior to this incident. That being said, when this went down WSI wasn't running it's own email server, ITD was/is running the email server. So if the email server was breeched as you are trying to make people think then ITD would have been looking into the security issue not WSI. ITD does a very good job at monitoring and keeping up with what is happening with their equipment and regularly sends updates to the agencies if it sees something suspicious going on. If they think it is critical enough they have even cut agencies off from the rest of the network to prevent the issue from spreading state wide. To Gradog and Scates it is irrelevant as to who sent the email because they broke no laws. The one that broke the law is Mr Blunt and his feeble attempt at an investigation. Will someone please answer this question? If this email was viewed as a criminal act why didn't Blunt contact the HP or BCI to have it investigated? Also why was he not in contact with ITD to question if an intrusion actually occurred instead of going out on his own to look into the matter. People say Blunt would be criticized if he had done nothing. That may or may not be the case but the true question is why did he not contact the appropriate people to investigate the matter? I'm sure scates and others will not address the question but will spin out more propaganda to benefit their own agenda. "

GYPSY wrote on Sep 7, 2007 1:42 PM:

" Get ready boys and girls, I just read the cards and they tell me that more and more of the truth is going to come out on WSI and things that Blunt and his followers perpetrated. There may even be another criminal charge that comes out of this. Blunt's disciple John Halvorson may try to lock down WSI (employees have to report to Marthaller before they leave the building), but he and the Board can't keep the truth hidden forever. Oh sure some things will come out at the trial, but the cards tell me that more damning information will come out and the media frenzy will show the real Blunt. Scates can try all he wants to make people believe this is a conspiracy worthy of the CIA, he can try to protect his buddy Armstrong's highly paying job, but it's not going to work. Armstrong will be back looking for radio commercials to do when this is all said and done. Remember you heard it here first. "

POLICE STATE wrote on Sep 7, 2007 1:30 PM:

" To Hulk, put the sender under the same scrutiny that Blunt is under? Why? One sent public information to public employees, the other misused resources to try to hunt down someone for vengence. One person let everyone at WSI know salaries while the other one inappropriately used confidential information trying to be vindictive. This is just another WSI contrived magic trick, put Scates and his fanatic loyalty to Armstrong and turn them loose on the sender to distract attention from the real criminal. Again, kill the messenger and try to keep the light off of the abuses that Blunt has committed. Blunt can sue the guy??? Hahaha, do you know how dumb that is? Blunt is going to be too darn busy defending himself from civil lawsuits to even consider doing anything else. If your picture was illegally downloaded and shown in public with some "lineup" insinuating you were some sort of criminal, you'd have already filed the suit! "

HOUDINI wrote on Sep 7, 2007 1:23 PM:

" To Scates, boy how far from reality are you? The Board is more intimately knowledgeable about what really has been going on than the vast majority of bloggers? Since you don't know who the bloggers are, how in the world can you say that? The Board? Is this the same Board who has had 4 CEO's in the past 8 years? Is this the same Board who has had to fire 2 of those CEO's and the third one is up on felony charges? Yeh that sounds like a real knowledgeable group of people doesn't it? If you read the two audit reports, this is the same Board who didn't even know anything about the governance style they were allegedly following, and that was 10 years after the Board was formed and it adopted the governance style!! It sure sounds like they are knowledgeable about what's going on doesn't it? Could it be that they know the complete failure on their part to hire a good CEO makes them look bad? Maybe they are motivated to back this "savior" because another failed CEO might just finally convince most legislators and the public that either we need new Board members with some accountability built in or we need to move it back under the Governor's control. Or just maybe they are all republican yes-men and they are following Berg, Keiser, Kasper and Wald's lead and just keep hoping this goes away. Get a grip Scates, it doesn't make a difference how smart or successful the Board members are if they are a rubber stamp board. I bet the board and CEO's of Enron and Worldcom were successful and smart too, it didn't prevent them from being arrogant, heartless criminals did it. "

JP wrote on Sep 7, 2007 12:29 PM:

" To SCates: To be highly successful, accomplished and influential does not necessarily make you right. Just one of those observations I have made over the years. You of all people should also see that... or is every political figure right because they have been given a position of influence? "

This is hard to believe wrote on Sep 7, 2007 12:12 PM:

" To Scates. Are you familiar with the whistle blower laws? They were enacted to protect whistle blowers from people who are seeking retaliation like you and Mr. Blunt. Why are you so concerned about someone that did something that brought an alleged crime to light? The information that he or she passed on is available to the public. You are coming across on this blog as a fanatical zealot. Take the blinders off and look at the big picture. The rhetoric that you are spewing on this blog makes it very hard for someone to keep an open mind and believe that Mr. Blunt is innocent. Attacking the messenger is not going to make this go away it will only make people believe the worst about Blunt. "

SCates wrote on Sep 7, 2007 12:06 PM:

" Happy: anyone can say anything here without proof of who they are. How do I know you are not some raging leftist like Chad who is afraid to face people he lies about? Regardless, should Sandy and Romi be charged with felonies? By the way, the WSI board met, very, very recently. They are more intimately knowledgeable about what truly has been going on than the vast majority of commenters on this blog. They are steadfastly behind Sandy Blunt. I guess a group of highly successful, accomplished, influential people are either stupid or "under the spell" of the evil puppet master Sandy. Please, get a grip on reality. "

SCates wrote on Sep 7, 2007 11:44 AM:

" Did Becker made a mass mailing within hours of the Jrunnings email? He will not have a stack of Bibles, but will he be put under oath and asked if he knows who sent the emails? "

Happy ex WSI employee wrote on Sep 7, 2007 10:59 AM:

" Wow, first off, thank you email sender. I don't care who you are. If you choose to work for a state/county/federal agency salary information is public record, big deal. For those in the general public this whole case might seem ridiculous. For those WSI employees that experienced the Traynor/Kramer/Edison years and were either forced out/made sick about/had no choice but to get out to remain healthy when Blunt came along; I believe you are feeling some relief for all of this to happen. Time again, Mr. Blunt went above and beyond his authority to benefit himself or his buddies in the Exec. suite. Even though they say there was no crime committed in the first case, things done sure are and were not right for the Business owners in ND who pay a premium. It definitely is not right to treat the hard working employees at WSI in the manner in which he and his MADOG staff did. I realize it's not drugs or murder, but unethical blue collar doing sure impacts how ND employers and injured workers are being treated in our wonderful state of ND. Unless you've worked for WSI at one point during the Blunt years, you really have no business commenting on this issue in my opinion. If people would put more input into school issues, rather than this maybe it would be energy better spent. Hang in there WSI employees, I'm hoping this blows over soon for you that have survived. "

SCates wrote on Sep 7, 2007 10:49 AM:

" Gardog: You are hot on the trail. Very, very close. Good work. "

SCates wrote on Sep 7, 2007 10:34 AM:

" Very interesting. The way in which the Jrunnings email was sent evidences access to information not available to very many people. Odd that the ND Auditor’s Office, BCI, Highway Patrol, State’s Attorney’s Office seemed not the least bit interested about the fact that based on those emails, WSI initially thought that the organization’s internal security may have been breached. The emailer remains a secret. Why? Is that person somehow involved in the audit, investigation, prosecution? Just wondering. "

Hulk wrote on Sep 7, 2007 9:36 AM:

" Let's find the person who sent the e-mail and put him under the same scrutiny as Blunt. It was a malicious act to send that e-mail and maybe when it's all said and done Blunt can sue the guy in civil court for damages. And, then when he's done with that, he can sue Feland for malicious prosecution. "

Gardog wrote on Sep 7, 2007 8:47 AM:

" Just a fact question. Does the evidence presented so far show that the email was sent individually to each of the 210 addresses, or was it sent to a single distribution list address? If the latter, then it would be the receiving email server which would have resolved the distribution list name into the 210 individual addresses. That would also explain why there might be discrepencies between the actual addresses on the individual emails and the addresses on the state's website. I would think that would be relevant to demostrating the source of the email, since a department distribution list name would not be that hard to figure out. "

SCates wrote on Sep 7, 2007 7:23 AM:

" Odd. Ms. Reid did not ask Becker who he gave the salary data Excel spreadsheet obtained from the Forum reporter to, nor was he asked if he is the person identified as having bulk mailed from the Northbrook Post Office the hardcopy of the spreadsheet to legislators, politicians, media, etc., the same day that the Jrunnings email was sent to WSI employees. "

Heritage wrote on Sep 6, 2007 10:30 PM:

" To "Well", I hope your sympathy goes to the people who were wrongly accused by Blunt when he gave names and the other people who had their pictures put into a photo array to possibly show around. Weren't they hurt by the actions of Mr. Blunt? To quote you, "but look at the permanent damage, real damage, being done to those now being drug through this political power struggle. " Mr. Blunt played a part in this political power struggle when he chose to get vengeful so where is the criticism of him? Where is the criticism of him in wrongfully accussing and labeling people who did not send this email? Had Blunt done (authorized) it legally we wouldn't be having this conversation for month and months and months. You want the sender to take responsiblity for their actions, well where is your call for Mr. Blunt to take responsibility for his actions? Or do you think Blunt should get a pass? "

Well... wrote on Sep 6, 2007 10:10 PM:

" My final take: this has gone way too far. This much fuss isn't made over more severe crimes when they involve little people. It's all a political attention getter and power struggle. Rapists and sex offenders and drug dealers don't get much time or coverage, and are allowed to walk over and over. And these people got some photo's in an attempt to find out who was trying to cause a ruccus within the dept and it goes on and on for months. Sorry, but looking at the big picture of law and order, this, to me, is just not worth all the hubbub, except to the political sides involved. Really, what happened there doesn't change my life at all, and probably didn't change the lives of too many others, (unless they are camera shy), but look at the permanent damage, real damage, being done to those now being drug through this political power struggle. "

Dudley wrote on Sep 6, 2007 9:40 PM:

" I think someone should just go to court and take pictures with their phone while everyone files into the room. You'd get Becker, Vetter, Christiansen, a slew of reporters, etc. Then post them all over the web, YouTube, etc. for the entire world to see. Point is, anyone can get a photo of you. Who cares???????????? Also, salary info. isn't confidential. Well, if they had that info., what other info. might they have had????? Employer info., injured worker info. Didn't someone need to investigate that?! "

Heritage wrote on Sep 6, 2007 9:28 PM:

" To "To Well", Blunt could have used LEGAL means to find out, but it appears he wanted to know right away and didn't care what means he used. For instance, if he thinks he doesn't have to follow procurement laws, bonus pay laws (REMEMBER HE WASN'T FOUND NOT GUILTY OR INNOCENT, that is another argument) why is it such a stretch to think he would follow this or any ND law? You also say the sender should be uncovered and investigated, for WHAT? As for people who say its only a picture, yes it is, but its a picture that legislators have chosen to make confidential, so its the law as of now and we have to deal with the laws as they are and if and when someone breaks (alledgely) a law they have to face the consequences. "

Oliver wrote on Sep 6, 2007 8:54 PM:

" Ok people. Say the sender of the email did fess up, then what? "

power trip wrote on Sep 6, 2007 8:44 PM:

" The question keeps coming up all the time "Why was Blunt so upset over public information being shared." I don't know Blunt but I know Romi. I'm very much sure Blunt was "upset" "

Well... wrote on Sep 6, 2007 8:35 PM:

" I see what Magoo is saying, however, I don't think it would go quite that far as to release confidential information. He felt he needed to find out who sent the email and for what reason. What would have been next? All those employees are privvy to some confidential information. I guess I just feel that obtaining pictures is not all that invasive, since we don't wear face scarves in this country. And I do think this whole thing has just gone way too far, making ND look rather silly with all the money, time, and hoopla about this. It's really gotten out of hand. And the real kicker is that all the money and time and investagative efforts can't turn up the sender of the email, or maybe they don't want to know who sent it, imagine how that would have to be dealt with now. I doubt they guy (or gal) would be any type of hero, after all this. If my salary was on that list, and I knew someone was using it, and all the others, to be malicious and vengeful, I would be quite upset. Did the email sender even ask if everyone wanted their salaries studied by those who would probably never even give those numbers a second glance if not in their inbox? He used hundreds of people to make a point. But what point? That's what I am wondering. And how many other disturbances were probably caused by his email between people who could have cared less before? We'll never know. "

JP wrote on Sep 6, 2007 7:22 PM:

" To: to well- If you would be upset about your salry being known by others... do not work for a government agency. Most people, that I know, that do not want others to know their salary is because they are grossly overpaid for the work they perform. That is OK if you are in private industry, it does not fly for gov't work. I would guess a worker did send the email... I would also remain anonymous after seeing how Blunt handled this situation. One other thing, I don't see how Becker is really that vindictive. He is retired... what else is he going to do... sit in the yard. I think court would be more entertaining. Also, he sits quietly... does his presence really scare Blunt and his posse that much?!?! "

Magoo wrote on Sep 6, 2007 6:44 PM:

" To well..The salary information is public information available to anyone who requests it. ND DOT photos on the other had are considered confidential information just like your SSN, medical records and personal financial information. That is what the uproar is about. The release of confidential information. Think of this for a minute. If Blunt would conspire to show confidential information about people who work for him, whose to say he wouldn't be inclined to show injured worker or employer information that someone has entrusted him with to perform officail business with. That information is under his watch where as the DOT photos he had to get from another source. Just something to ponder. "

To Well wrote on Sep 6, 2007 6:40 PM:

" Thank you for writing what I was thinking. If it was no big deal, then the sender of the e-mail should come forth instead of sneaking around. He obviously knew it was unethical, otherwise he wouldn't have went to a public place to send it. He was trying to stir the pot and maybe get some sort of revenge. As far as I'm concerned, it was a cowardly action. I think the send should fess up and take responsibility for all of the time and money spent on this fiasco. People say it's not illegal and public record, but what this person did was sneaky and underhanded with the intent to cause problems at wsi. If I was in Blunt's position, I would have wanted to know who was trying to create problems at my company too. If he hadn't of done anything about it, then he would have been criticized for that too. If I worked there and my salary was published for everyone to see, I would be angry. The person who sent the e-mail should be uncovered and investigated. "

Answer to Well... wrote on Sep 6, 2007 6:25 PM:

" If the showing of pictures around was no big deal, then why do you think a chart with public employees salaries listed is such a big deal. There is a reason they have whistleblower laws. Employees can easily be intimidated and feel they have no way to tell when unethical or illegal things are going on at their place of work. You don't need the e-mailer to explain his or her reasons for sending the e-mail. Just go to the state auditor's web site and read his report on WSI. The reason Blunt was so furious about the disclosure of his improper pay scales is laid out very clearly. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know the reason the chart was sent out. Next time the Tribune or the Forum lists other public employees' salaries in the paper, as they do from time to time, I hope there is as much uproar as to their motivations. Government is for the people and should not be able to hide any of their actions. If they are hiding something, we should all be very concerned. WSI is not a private business, remember that! "

ILuvamystery wrote on Sep 6, 2007 6:16 PM:

" What did this e-mail expose that would cause Blunt to “allegedly” do something illegal in an effort to find out who sent it? When it comes to employers in ND, it is a small “Good Old Boy” network. The sender, IMHO, is a WSI employee that fears retribution. After the audit, you saw a partisan pardon. Bottom line, rates are cheep, so nothing else matters. Workers be damned. I wouldn’t want to be labeled as a whistle blower/trouble maker in this state. If I sent it, I would let it take its course, and be quiet. I thought maybe a dissenting board member, or leftwing member seeking change, but no one could have predicted the outcome. Which brings me back to my original question, what did the email expose? Misappropriation? Who is minding the bank? Why was it sent? I think another good question would be does the sender know anything else? "

Well... wrote on Sep 6, 2007 5:53 PM:

" I think the email was reciprocal, probably because the sender thought some injustice was done to him. So he retaliated with something he knew would draw some attention. Just my opinion. At any rate, I ask again, where is the sender of that email? It would be good if he would fess up, state his reasoning, where he got all the addresses, why he emailed from a public computer, why he didn't have his name on the email, and just what end result he was looking for. Because we are all paying for his act of revenge. (all this, of course, is just my opinion). You would react, too, if that kind of information was deliberately sent out to hundreds of people about you. If not illegal, it was certainly unethical, and started quite a riot. Tell me, in this day and age, don't we, and the courts, and government officials and politicians, and everyone else, have more to be concerned with than a few pictures being flashed? This is so a witchhunt. Bottom line: why is the sender of the email hiding if what he did was an OK thing? "

Heritage wrote on Sep 6, 2007 4:56 PM:

" to "Well", maybe they assumed (rightly as it appears) that Blunt would blow a gasket and do something similar to what he requested others to do (he said he authorized it). So now we are finding out how he operates and it appears to be through fear, intimidation, threats, harassment, etc. One activity was legal but questionable, the other is illegal. Just because someone does something to you, doesn't mean you have to reciprocrate. Show how arrogant Blunt is. "

Well: wrote on Sep 6, 2007 3:04 PM:

" Well... if sending the email was appropriate and not illegal in any way, why did the sender feel it had to be sent from a public computer, and why didn't the sender put his name on it? And, if sending the email was no big deal and an acceptable action, why is the sender still in hiding - why doesn't the sender just come out and say "Yes, I sent it" and save some money and time here, since that sender started this fire in the first place. Where is that person? It is obvious that the sender didn't want anyone to know where or who it came from, and was smart enough to use a public computer. I, too, would want to know who it was and what the intent was, and what else may happen to follow that email. I would think the sender had some vengeful reasons. It is the sender that started this ball rolling and who ultimately is responsible for all this waste of state time and money because a few pictures were flashed. Big deal. If he would have fessed up or had the courage to put his name on it in the first place, (unless he thought it was wrong) this wouldn't have gotten this far. And, someone stated the Becker fella is at all the hearings etc. because he has been accused of sending the email. When was he made aware he was accused? Way back when or relatively recently? Knowing that would make a difference in why it is suspected he attends all the goings-on. "

Beesh wrote on Sep 6, 2007 1:50 PM:

" Unless the initial email with the From: address is found, then it is all conjecture. If WSI's information department is on the ball, they should be able to restore any and all emails for that day and locate the true sender. I bet the answer is very blunt. "

LETS BE BLUNT wrote on Sep 6, 2007 9:25 AM:

" Scates there you go again. You can't address Magoo's challenge to put up or shut up so you go back to general put downs rather than admit you have nothing that constitutes solid evidence. As usual you just toss out questions insinuating something has happened, when it is nothing more than a figment of your perverted thought process. Remember the whole conspiracy theory you've tossed about? The auditors office had ulterior motives, the highway patrol investigation was botched, the states attorney is just trying to make a name for himself, well none of your ramblings on that ever convinced anyone it was even plausible let alone probable. The FACT is that different agencies with trained investigators (as opposed to a scientist with too much time on his hands and a blind loyalty to Armstrong) looked into the real evidence and all independently came to the same conclusion and that was Blunt was wrong and may be criminally wrong for doing what he did. Your ilk even argues that there isn't a morale problem at WSI when the FACT is that even two WSI hired and paid for out of state consultants agreed with the auditors report that morale is in the tank! "

gov. worker wrote on Sep 6, 2007 9:22 AM:

" I work for the gov. Every year when this same report comes out for my agency a few people get it. They need it for their job descriptions. They show the rest of us this information so we don't have to go looking for it. It is public record and the rest of you can get the same information. It is not and was not illegal for the sender to send the email. It is and was illegal what Blunt and Leingang did. The sad thing is they should have known that. "

Callie wrote on Sep 6, 2007 9:21 AM:

" If this is public information, what is the big deal? If it's available to the public, it is not confidential - it doesn't even make sense. And they show pictures for a photo lineup? This is unbelievably crazy. To me, it looks like someone is trying to divert attention from the real problems/issues. "

IQ wrote on Sep 6, 2007 9:18 AM:

" To CW,L why in the world is the intent of the sender relevant? How are Blunt and his followers going to determine intent? Disrupting a public agency with public information is a crime? I guess the entire Legislature is going to jail! They disrupt agencies every session. I guess a citizen who asks an agency for a bunch of information is disrupting them since its causing them additional work. A newspaper reporter who has a public information request and then publishes the results in a story is disrupting an agency. Talk about some weak logic and rationale. You obviously have the same vindicative nature that Blunt had when he used public resources to try to track down who sent this so he could get revenge. "

CW wrote on Sep 6, 2007 1:02 AM:

" Why would someone send an email out to everybody wtih this kind of infrormation unless this person intended on trying to create an uproar at WSI. I agree the infromation sent is public info, but what was the person's "intent" when he sent it? If I were the attorneys for the defense, I would argue the investigation was done to find out the sender's intent. After all, trying to disrupt a public agency with or without public infromation would be something work investigating and if I were the CEO of WSI, I sure would want to know who and why. If anything, the CEO has an obligation to find these things out. That would be in the public's best interest. "

Oliver wrote on Sep 5, 2007 10:40 PM:

" Online Editor you are correct. The Ban on Deceptive Unsolicited Bulk Electronic Mail Act of 2003 was introduced by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) in May 2003. It would prohibit the inclusion of false information in message headers in unsolicited bulk commercial e-mail. It also would require senders of unsolicited bulk commercial e-mail to include opt-out instructions and honor opt-out requests, and would prohibit them from harvesting e-mail addresses of potential recipients from web pages and other sources. Violations of the law could be prosecuted under RICO. "

Oliver wrote on Sep 5, 2007 10:37 PM:

" Scates, Scates, Scates. You still have not answered the question. What is this "glorious" evidence that you claim to have that proves the email addresses did not come from the state web site? Seems to me, you haven't got a clue. Get over you little cloak and dagger routine. Either cough it up or shut up. Also, I just can't understand why a person would have to make an open records request for information that is made publically available on a state web site. That just makes no sense. "

SCates wrote on Sep 5, 2007 9:47 PM:

" Mr. Magoo: Spinning is a liberal thing. "

To Scates wrote on Sep 5, 2007 9:37 PM:

" Where do you think the email addresses on the ND State web page come from? They are maintained and updated by ITD, they are not just pulled from thin air. "

Online Editor wrote on Sep 5, 2007 8:56 PM:

" To Helloooooo: Just to add a clarification, I believe those laws apply to commercial emails, solicitation of purchase, email address harvesting, etc. "

Magoo wrote on Sep 5, 2007 8:23 PM:

" Scates you totally amaze me, not by your intelligence but by the way you try to spin facts like the WSI propaganda machine does. Let’s look at some things here for a minute. You claim” I did not say that it is criminal to send salary information”. Ok fine you didn’t then why did you pose this question in your Sep 5, 2007 11:24 AM blog posting. “Did that person commit a crime when sending those emails?” you are insinuating that a crime was committed. You also said in your Sep 5, 2007 11:24 AM blog posting “one of the two images (BOTH MALES) shown to personnel at the Bismarck Northbrook Post Office was positively identified as having sent a large mailing on the day of the JRunnings email to WSI”. Now by that statement were you not assuming and trying to lead readers into thinking the person who sent the large mailing would have also more than likely sent the email? Another little bit of information for you. Just because the salary information matched what was request by Mr. Springer does not mean that someone else could not have obtained the same information in an open records request also now does it? As for your remark about sowing discord amongst WSI employees WSI management has done that all in themselves that is why there has been 70 plus people leave the agency and 67% of the current employees think management should be removed. You can spew as you wish but many people know what you are trying to do and who has put you up to it. So I hope you enjoy your little innuendo and have fun spinning facts that you are being spoon fed. Hey, I have a question for you to answer. If this email was viewed as such a crime why were not the PROPER authorities called into investigate it instead of putting the internal fraud unit on the case? Would that not have been more reasonable? "

Helloooooo wrote on Sep 5, 2007 8:03 PM:

" Ever heard of the Federal Spam Act or the Ban on Deceptive Unsolicited Bulk Electronic Mail act. Everyone keeps saying the salaries were public. Yeah, no kidding. But who truly would bother to ask for them. Secondly, that's not the point of this whole exercise. It's called spamming people. it's against the law and whoever sent this mass email may have broken a law or TWO. That's the real issue, but everyone seems to be forgetting that point. So Jerry Becker can deny all he wants....and he should if HE wants to stay out of jail. "

SCates wrote on Sep 5, 2007 7:36 PM:

" JRunnings did not get the approximately 210 email address from the publicly available source in the manner that either “just waiting” and “Lets Be Blunt” assert. There is a very significant difference. Either the emails with the addresses used in the mass mailing came from inside WSI or from ITD. If these addresses came from either a WSI or ITD database without being the result of an “Open Records Request”, there is a problem and possibly an illegality. Had you fully researched all of the records of the Auditor’s Office, WSI, and the AG’s Office you would know the answer to this mystery. You need to do your homework. Eventually I will explain the difference (likely not here as it is highly constricted) but I thought I would give you lots of opportunity to call me a Blunt lackey, moron, and madman first. If you want to continue to believe that my motivation in being involved in this issue is some kind of blind devotion, please, continue. But do not continue publicly. Wait, your not doing that now! Sorry. "

Heritage wrote on Sep 5, 2007 7:15 PM:

" SCates, please enlighten us to your information as you state in your post at 3:05 PM, " You do not know what you are talking about relative to the specifics of the emails sent by JRunnings. Just where did those email addresses come from? There is evidence that proves that they did not come from the state’s website. Do you know what that evidence is? Time for a little research maybe? But you probably will not, as that activity may evidence another crime here to fore unrecognized. By the emailer? Maybe overlooked/ignored by the State’s Attorney’s Office? " First I would think that is something like you suggest is true, it would have come out in the hearings by Blunt's and Leingang's attorney's (if they are aware of this and haven't turned over any possible criminal violations of the law to law enforcement aren't they breaking their oath as an officer of the court?). Secondly, if something is illegal, nothing is stopping you from contacting law enforcement with your "proof"and asking them to investigate it. But you won't - you would rather label people, throw out conspiracy theories instead of gathering the facts, all of the facts, not just the things that back up your statements. I for one would like to know what you are talking about, so perhaps either myself or others can check the legitimacy of it and get to the truth once and for all. Others have told you how easy it is to get email addresses, but you won't believe its that easy. "

LETS BE BLUNT wrote on Sep 5, 2007 6:41 PM:

" To Scates, why don't you give up your worship of Blunt and his cronies? You act like you're such a great investigative reporter when most of what you have is based on conjecture and assumptions. You look at some public information requests and some working papers that you have no idea on how to interpret and you come up with some contorted conspiracy by several people in several agencies and you carelessly tossed out names in your rag paper. You asked on here if a crime had been committed by the person sending out the emails. No is the simplest answer. Public information sent by email to public employees email accounts is no stinking crime. Who cares where the sender got the addresses, they are available on the state website. I doubt whoever Jrunnings is, that he/she is feeling threatened as they didn't do anything illegal. I can walk up to WSI tomorrow and file an open records request for the same information. I can then go to a computer and call up the WSI employees names and send that information to them without doing anything wrong. Once again you have the tried and true WSI tactic, attack the messager. Who is the lunatic who ordered this person tracked down and then tried to send his investigators to confront him/her? Who is the vindictive arrogant man who used WSI resources to track down someone who sent public information? It's Blunt and it's Blunt who is feeling the heat! You should spent your limited and inaccurate investigative "talents" figuring out how to contribute more money to the Blunt defense fund. The person with the biggest motive to distort the truth is you, your friendship with Armstrong (another Blunt worshipper) and your insane blind dedication to believing nothing at WSI is wrong. "

just waiting wrote on Sep 5, 2007 5:55 PM:

" If you wish to reach a state employee per email it is very simple to look them up on the North Dakota State page under State Government. Basic email formula is set up with name and @ with the same ending prefix. Not to hard to email any state employee if you know their first and last name. No crime in emailing when address is public record. "

Who cares? wrote on Sep 5, 2007 5:51 PM:

" Who really cares what the real reason was behind the sending of the email? It was NOT illegal to send out public information. The reason for the overblown response from Blunt was that roaches really hate it when someone turns the light on. Tough. WSI is a public agency and should be transparent. If someone doesn't like the fact that favoritism was obvious because of raises and salaries shown on the email, too bad. They must be one of those who were favored. The state auditor's report questioned why some employees were given raises over and above what the Hayes group recommended. There was never any good reason, just that those people deserved it and had worked hard. Blunt is going to have to answer for his road rage. He may have been provoked, but he will still have to answer for his criminal act of attempted retaliation. "

SCates wrote on Sep 5, 2007 3:05 PM:

" Magoo: I did not say that it is criminal to send salary information. I said that Jerry Becker obtained a digital data file that was the same as the one sent in the emails. I said that the person who has been identified at the P.O. sent a whole lot of mail the same day as the emails. This, from apparently your view was some type of coincidence. Perhaps. This then would raise the intriguing possibility that more than one person was involved in trying to sow discord among WSI employees by sending out emails and hard copies of salaries. I will conjecture that the person who sent the emails knows or is the person who mailed the letters. You do not know what you are talking about relative to the specifics of the emails sent by JRunnings. Just where did those email addresses come from? There is evidence that proves that they did not come from the state’s website. Do you know what that evidence is? Time for a little research maybe? But you probably will not, as that activity may evidence another crime here to fore unrecognized. By the emailer? Maybe overlooked/ignored by the State’s Attorney’s Office? Wouldn’t that be interesting? Sounds like a job for BCI or the Highway Patrol. Hold your breath while the Auditor’s office gets to the bottom of this. "

GreyWolfDown wrote on Sep 5, 2007 2:10 PM:

" Many WSI employees (maybe some even secretly) are not too crazy about how mgmt. has performed (salaries, favortism, harassment, employees being put on a "watch" list, double-talk, etc.). This lack of performance came out in the Auditor's survey and even the $100K survey and it angered mgmt. Mgmt. has a burr under it's saddle in regard to employees wanting change at WSI, so employees have to look happy. Audit report brought no change at WSI. Legislative session came and went. No change. Gov. took no stand. No change at WSI. Exec. staff cocky after session. Untouchable. Sad then, as WSI worker bee then losing hope for a fair mgmt. structure to ever be put in place. How ironic is it, then, that a simple email could be the one thing that could (possibly) force the hand of change at WSI. It could be the only lifeline left for employees. WSI employees are not disgruntled or unhappy State gov. workers. And I hate it when people comment that if WSI employees don't like their jobs they should just get out. They like their job just fine. Some mgmt. needs to leave. It's the environment that WSI mgmt. has created that they don't like. If it took an email to bring some kind of badly needed change to WSI after all the failed attempts, well, so be it. But the problems are deeper than Blunt alone. Clean-up of exec. staff needs to be done. Why did the email cause such a stir anyway? Didn't Blunt and others like the unfair salaries unveiled for all staff to see? After all, salaries have always been highly shrouded in secrecy at WSI. But because of the email, now we know why. "

Magoo wrote on Sep 5, 2007 11:52 AM:

" To Scates..Just because one of the individuals ID'd had a large mailing go out doesn't mean that that individual is the sender of the email. Now does it? Your assuming it is one in the same person and you know what happens when you assume. To answer your question NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED by sending the salary information. It is PUBLIC information. It's not a secret unless someone has something to hide and I think Blunt is trying to cover up alot. Why else would he take such drastic measures in attempting to find the sender? And answer to your last question "where did the emailer get all of the WSI email addresses" thats an easy one. They are all listed out on the state of ND website. You can search the list for a particular agency or person. So coming up with the addresses isn't hard to do. "

its public info wrote on Sep 5, 2007 11:50 AM:

" The point that keeps getting lost in all of this is that the information is PUBLIC. Anyone can request a copy of it. It's a state agency. There is not one legal basis to go after an employee who sends out this information. If any of you want to know the salaries of state agency employees, request the information. "

SCates wrote on Sep 5, 2007 11:24 AM:

" Do not forget that under oath, Trooper Henke stated that one of the two images (BOTH MALES) shown to personnel at the Bismarck Northbrook Post Office was positively identified as having sent a large mailing on the day of the JRunnings email to WSI. Does the person identified by post office personnel know who sent the JRunnings emails to all WSI employees? Someone from the P.O. will, in court, likely be asked to identify who’s image they were shown. It is only a matter of time before the true identity of the WSI emailer will be revealed. Did that person commit a crime when sending those emails? Although the list of WSI names and salaries was provided in the form of a data file to Jerry Becker by reporter Patrick Springer, and that it was the exact list emailed to WSI employees (admittedly so by Forum Editor Von Pinnon), and is public record when requested through an open records request, where did the emailer get all of the WSI email addresses? Eh, JRunnings? Is the water getting warmer JRunnings? I will submit to you that yes, it is! "

magoo wrote on Sep 5, 2007 9:53 AM:

" To fair is fair..my last post should have been addressed to "and I'm the Pope" not you sorry for the confusion. "

Magoo wrote on Sep 5, 2007 9:45 AM:

" To "fair is fair" did you ever think that Mr. Becker may have an interest in these proceedings because he is one of the people that the golden boy felt necessary to investigate? Could it be that Mr. Becker has interest in this because he is WRONGLY being accused of sending out the salary information? Which by the way is PUBLIC information! Or do those points slip your one sided mind? I bet if you were falsely accused of doing something you DIDN'T do you'd be interested in what is going on with your name being tossed around? Also I would be willing to bet if the others involved were retired and didn't have to work that they'd be at these proceedings as well. Now for those of you who think someone is out to get Sandy "Golden Boy" Blunt, what was he doing by ordering this investigation? He was going after someone for NOT breaking any laws. Now that is vindictive and bullying if you ask me. The only one to blame for the mess he has put himself in is none other than Sandy himself no one else. "

Fair is Fair wrote on Sep 5, 2007 8:22 AM:

" Sorry folks, but your lack of being non-prejudicial is shining through like a 10 million candlepower beacon on a pitch black night. I can retire, or even be forced to retire and not be "comfortable" with it without becoming vindictive. Can't you? Why is it, when a person shows higher than normal interest in their past employer's happenings, by attending all hearings and public board meetings, you automatically assume he is vindictive? Could it be that it is because you all would be? Barney? You have been VERY active on your posts in reference to anything doing with WSI. Are you a vindictive person? To state that "Normal everyday people do not have time or an interest in this sort of thing unless they somehow feel like they've been wronged"; is so totally wrong. You're wrong because Mr. Becker is not your average "normal everyday people". He is a past employee of WSI, who had a recent retirement that he was not comfortable with. That makes him a very interested person in respect to WSI happenings. So it is wrong of you to say that Mr. Becker does not "have the time or an interest in this sort of thing". Additionally, you are way off base and wrong to accuse Mr. Becker by saying "he obviously has an interest in seeing Blunt go to trial". You have absolutely no idea what Mr. Becker feels towards Mr. Blunt. In fact, you are assuming Mr. Blunt had some hand in Mr. Becker's retirement. You cannot make such a statement without having any knowledge of the incident. For all we know, Mr. Becker's retirement was totally voluntary but something about the process or dealings left him with him being uncomfortable with it. Furthermore, even assuming the retirement itself was the issue, you don't know that Mr. Blunt had anything to do with it; instead possibly being Mr. Becker's supervisor or someone else who had a hand in it. "

Barney wrote on Sep 4, 2007 9:58 PM:

" To "To Fair is Fair" - maybe he went to see justice done. After all, it appears that he was incorrectly labeled by Mr. Blunt (and instead of confronting someone he thought did something wrong - he wanted others (from the depo it appears he demanded someone go to Beckers house) to do the work - some leader). Think about it for a minute - if you were wrongly accused of something and there is a potential that a law was broken would you just sit back and say, "Oh well". And normal people don't order others to harass/threaten/intimidate/investigate someone when NO LAW WAS BROKEN. "

To Fair is fair wrote on Sep 4, 2007 9:13 PM:

" Oh PULLLLLEEEEAAAASE! When he says he is "not necessarily comfortable with his retirement", one can reasonably assume that he is disgruntled. And for someone to "tirelessly" attend public board meeting and hearings does in my opinion seem as though he wants to see some sort of revenge. Normal everyday people do not have time or an interest in this sort of thing unless they somehow feel like they've been wronged. Maybe Becker did not send the e-mail, but he obviously has an interest in seeing Blunt go to trial. Why else would he show up at all these events? Certainly not to support Blunt and cheer him on. "

Tired of this... wrote on Sep 4, 2007 8:37 PM:

" Disgruntled or not. Past employee or present. Disgruntled injured person or someone that just has too much time on their hands. Someone is sure out to get Sandy Blunt and WSI as a whole. Its getting rather tiresome and old. Why don't you all just concentrate on your own lives and let the good folks of WSI do what they know how to do in helping the hundreds of people you never hear from. Ever been told to "get a life?" "

Barney wrote on Sep 4, 2007 7:39 PM:

" Its really funny that Blunt wrongly accused Becker and others and to this day, they still don't know who sent the email - I'll bet its eating away at them. Their own paranoia is what brought them down. Too FUNNY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

Fair is Fair wrote on Sep 4, 2007 5:35 PM:

" To "And I'm the pope": Oh, come on! Fair is fair. You have made an awful lot of assumptions. You are assuming that Becker is a disgruntled past employee. YOu could be wrong and it is wrong of you to assume such just because he "was uncomfortable with his retirement". You also are wrong for assuming he is making "it his life's mission to have Sandy Blunt removed from WSI". Just because he was not "necessarily comfortable with his retirement" and "tirelessly attends any public board meeting or hearing dealing with WSI"; it does NOT mean he is on a mission to have Blunt removed. YOu may be a vindictive person, but it is grossly wrong of you to assume that Mr. Becker is the same. You truly owe Mr. Becker an apology!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

And I'm the pope wrote on Sep 4, 2007 4:26 PM:

" I don't buy it. I think he did send them, but it will probably never be proven. As a former disgrunted wsi employee, it seems he has an axe to grind and has made it his life's mission to have Sandy Blunt removed from WSI. Now that his name is out, he is denying it because it makes him look petty and vindictive. I'd deny it too. "

Chuckling observer wrote on Sep 4, 2007 11:13 AM:

" What seems funny to me is after all the hullabaloo, after all the testimony, after all the investigating, after all the attorneys fees, and the possibility of a conviction; they don't know who did it!!!!!!! Now THAT'S funny!!!! "

Post Your Own Comment
(optional)
   
All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
Today's Headlines:

Bismarck News

North Dakota News

World News

Recent Headlines:
LOADING

Copyright © 2009 Bismarck Tribune, a division of Lee Enterprises.  -PRIVACY POLICY