Bismarck Tribune - Bismarck News - WSI exec releases contents of personal journal

WSI exec releases contents of personal journal

Feb 05, 2008 - 13:09:21 CST

By CRYSTAL R. REID/Bismarck Tribune

A Workforce, Safety and Insurance executive says there was nothing illegal about activity described in a personal journal taken from his office by investigators on Friday.

He also says a WSI employee may have gone through his desk and removed items from it, then tipped off investigators.

Mark Armstrong, communications executive for WSI, held a news conference at the Bismarck Public Library Wednesday afternoon, saying he would only talk about what was in his journal.

He also provided copies of the journal, which were made while the Bureau of Criminal Investigation investigator was present, Armstrong said. The journal detailed daily events from April 18 to May 8, after Executive Director Sandy Blunt and Special Investigations Director Romi Leingang were charged with felonies.

The felonies were dismissed last week.

BCI and the Burleigh County state's attorney's office would not comment on the investigation regarding Armstrong's journal; Armstrong said he believed someone "tipped them off" about a possible open records violation, adding that investigators seem to know exactly what they were looking for and where to look.

Armstrong's news conference comes after a flurry of WSI activity surfaced over the past week: Blunt and Leingang returned to work Monday after felony conspiracy charges against them were dropped; top counsel Jodi Bjornson said the Burleigh County state's attorney's office defamed her; and three WSI employees, including Bjornson, filed requests for "whistleblower" protection.

The Whistleblower Act, or the Public Employees Relations Act, essentially protects employees of a state agency from retaliation for reporting what they feel is illegal or a misuse of public resources. Reports must be made in writing to the employee's respective agency head, a state's attorney, the attorney general or an employee organization, according to the North Dakota Century Code.

The other two employees who requested protection, Billi Peltz and James Long, cited open records violations in their requests. Hard copies of the requests were delivered to the attorney general's office on Monday.

Long, WSI chief of support services, wrote in his request that he had read an employee log that there was evidence of delayed open records requests to people opposing Blunt but preference in fulfilling requests to people friendly to Blunt.

Armstrong's journal does report on that a large open records requests was received, and that Steve Cates, avid supporter of Blunt and WSI and publisher of the Dakota Beacon, was "blanketing" the town with his own open records requests.

Long's letter also said "I have read an employee log detailing a plan to gather 50 signatures to oust (Burleigh County State's Attorney Richard) Riha."

Armstrong's journal details conversations with Cates about possibly gathering 50 signatures in an attempt to oust Riha, then putting information in front of the Burleigh County Commission; Armstrong is one of five Burleigh County commissioners.

"We have a lot of work to do to salvage Sandy and not a whole lot of time," Armstrong wrote in the journal.

Armstrong said during the news conference they did not have these conversations on agency time, and that the petition would have only initiated an investigation. They also decided later to not follow through with the petition, he added.

"It was a way to get somebody's attention," Armstrong said, noting that he would not like to see Riha out of office.

In the journal, he also details "secret documents" being delivered; according to Armstrong, Blunt crafted an outline of his recollection of spending, to give to the media and Armstrong asked a person who was not associated with WSI to deliver the outline anonymously to the media.

WSI personnel, ArmstrongÂ said, were not to have anything to do with the media, which is why an outside party delivered the documents, he said.

He said the "secret documents" entry was intended to be light-hearted.

Blunt's first two felony charges related to nearly $18,000 worth of questionable spending at WSI; those charges were later dropped by South Central District Court Judge Robert Wefald.

In his journal, Armstrong recorded concern by the board of directors about who paid for cards sent to Blunt and Leingang after the two were put on leave: "The executives then chipped in and paid for them. This is how low (and) bad it has gotten."

Armstrong said he kept the journal so that he could keep track of everything: "I wanted to make sure I knew exactly what was taking place,"Â in case he was ever questioned about it, he said.

Overall, he documented daily emotions and decisions made in relation to the legal proceedings, including contention over whether or not Blunt should stay in his position through the proceedings.

"Sandy thinks he can still run day-to-day (sic) while this plays out in the court if the Board backs him," Armstrong wrote. "But also believes that Board will bow to political pressure and put him on leave."

Long is referenced as not agreeing that Blunt should continue; Armstrong later says Long may have been upset that he didn't get appointed as interim executive director.

"It also is apparent that Jim Long is mad or at least feeling down that he was not selected as acting CEO," Armstrong wrote.

Long could not be reached for comment. The Tribune called him at his home three times and left two voicemail messages for him.

Click here to view the contents of the journal.

(Reach reporter Crystal R. Reid at 250-8261 or at crystal.reid@bismarcktribune.com)

ï¿½Â

News > Local

Printer friendly version WSI exec releases contents of personal journal

Comments

go to work wrote on Nov 5, 2007 2:35 AM:

" Maybe now the employees at WSI can do their job. Maybe a couple of years ago it was so bad at work that it prevented them from dong their job properly. I reported somebody that made a false claim about being hurt at work. She actually had gotten hurt two weeks prior while drinking and partying out of state and fell on her back on the step of her motorhome. She "hurt her back", couldn't work, but could play darts and travel, before and after her back surgery. After a few months she was back at work, but got "hurt again" after a few weeks. She was mad, because the time she had to return to work...she had a trip planned, that would take over twenty hours one way to get there, by driving. Finally I called her employer and reported her. I gave the same information to him that could be verified. It wasn't long and she was back at work and has been working since. No more fake injuries!!!! Even though she should have been charged with something. She waisted a LOT of taxpayers money!!! "

Seen It Before wrote on Nov 2, 2007 8:27 PM:

" 'Trust' you said - 'These three individuals are acting as they are untouchable.' The air at the top must get thin and affect clear thinking. Seems to swell the ego. Even the people at the very top can't do whatever they want to but especially not in a public agency. Not without eventual problems, that is. "

What is there not to get about all this? wrote on Nov 2, 2007 7:49 PM:

" If a duck walks and quacks like a duck...it is, indeed, a duck! WSI as currently staffed and comprised is a total mess! Get rid of all these people and start over! Simplicity itself. "

~deb~ wrote on Nov 2, 2007 4:42 PM:

" I believe that anything that is in my desk, my cube or anywhere else in my workplace could potentially become public. For that reason, II wouldn't keep anything at work I didn't want others to see. I'm disappointed in Mark Armstrong. I know him and always thought him to be a straight-up guy. I'm afraid nothing is further from the truth... "

Trust wrote on Nov 2, 2007 6:59 AM:

" I have never trusted Mark Armstrong. I believe him to be an opportunist as evident by this last stunt. WSI needs to come back under the control of the governor. Then the agency would be far less politicized and run in a more 'down to earth' manner. These three individuals are acting as they are untouchable. I for one say touch them with a helping hand right out the door. "

Heritage wrote on Nov 1, 2007 8:05 PM:

" Frank, based on your rhetoric, heaven forbid that if anyone who has a relative who works at WSI should get hurt. Would you cry conspiracy then too? I guess based on that their claim will get special treatment. Remember you said it here yourself that people can't be impartial if you have a relative working in any organization. You can't have it both ways, maybe we should do a check to see how many WSI employees have/had relatives with a WSI claim and cry conspiracy. "

Magoo wrote on Nov 1, 2007 4:53 PM:

" To Frank..I seriously think you need to get out of the kool aid and out of the back pockets of Blunt and the cronies. What about the 70+ peoples lives he has ruined by forcing them out and all the injured workers he has treated unfairly? What about their lives? Why not take the audit as constructive criticism and admit that you have some short comings and agree to corret them instead of denying it and blaming everyone esle? He did order the use of DOT photos of at least one person that can be proven? That is blatantly against the LAW and against the contract WSI had with DOT. As for you assertion about the auditors office then why didn't Blunt and gang protest it when the SAO challenged them to in front of everyone in the hearing at the capital that day? If you feel that the SAO can't be impartial because of employees either working for, have worked for or have relatives working for the SAO how can they impartially audit any state agency? As for the 200 recommendations if you read the audit report(all of it) you will see WSI disagrees with a majority of what the SAO has to say. WSI sees nothing wrong with what they do. Then to top it off WSI was far from cooperative with the audit. How can that not come off as trying to hide something? If you have nothing to hide why not open up like a book and let people in to look around. Why not take the audit and ohter concerns seriously and address them instead of making a huge joke out of it. "

Back at you wrote on Nov 1, 2007 4:27 PM:

" Pray tell how Sandy B. intends to "rebuild his character"/reputation with the employees and taxpayers of this state EVER. When the charges were suddenly dropped due to a "sudden memory" he should have handed in his resignation and exited graciously. To think that he will EVER command respect or loyalty from the WSI employees after what he has put them through is a joke. It's unfortunate that his family has had to endure this situation - a fresh start somewhere else would be the kindest thing he could for them and everyone else. "

Frank wrote on Nov 1, 2007 3:02 PM:

" Anti Frank...So you believe when you are accused of something you didn't to, you should just admit you were wrong and take the punishment. No one does that, Blunt included. I don't care what anyone thinks, it stinks that a former WSI employee's husband is an auditor. And yes I do believe there was/is some kind of conspiracy going on here. Being from out of state, Blunt couldn't do anything right by the good citizens of ND. What about the 200 recommendations? Did WSI deny them all or were most of them enacted? What about the assasination of Blunt's and Leingang's character? No one seems to care about them. Not guilty of any crime and their reputations are trash. The only thing they can do is stay until they have rebuilt their reputations so they can move on. And for their sake, the sooner the better. "

whatever wrote on Nov 1, 2007 11:39 AM:

" to back at you--My, aren't you in a good mood today? Continue having one! "

To Back at You wrote on Nov 1, 2007 8:08 AM:

" Actually, someone is forcing Sandy to stay. cithia Feland! By keeping going with false charges he has to stay and defend himself. Also, the supposed whistleblowers will keep him here. Any person would have to clear their name before moving on. Just makes sense. Also, the good people of WSI (Romi, etc.) need someone to champion for them - no one else will do it. The Tribune sure won't do it, you won't do it, they won't do it. So maybe if you all back off, you can have WSI all to yourselves once and for all. "

LATEST wrote on Oct 31, 2007 6:38 PM:

" Frank, newsflash for you, no one likes getting audited and certainly no one wants their performance evaluated. Like many management level people at WSI and of course those constant suporters of WSI, you like to focus things on the legal charges made against Blunt. But what about 200 recommendations that the two audits made to WSI? These audits were done on Blunt's watch, the buck is supposed to stop at the top. How about his hiring buddies without going through the appropriate processes?(state auditors report) How about the highly touted injured worker survey being found to be biased because only the injured workers whose claims were settled quickly were surveyed? (out of state audit firm report) How about the fact the auditors pointed to horrible employee morale and of course people like you and Keiser and Wald said it was a few disgruntled workers adn that when a new boss takes over some people will be unhappy. Then WSI wastes $100,000 on a consultant who takes another survey and points out severe negative morale problems at WSI. Are they in on the conspiracy too? One has to wonder what it will take to convince you that the agency has serious problems. "

ANTI FRANK wrote on Oct 31, 2007 6:31 PM:

" Boy Frank you are really a Blunt disciple aren't you? That conflict of interest crap was tried early on after the audit report was released. It was phase I of Blunt's primary management style, kill the messenger. It was quickly disproven and if you were at the meeting, the auditors challenged Blunt and Armstrong to file a complaint with the proper board and of course they immediately declined. They failed to follow through because they knew they didn't have a chance at proving anything. You cult members are something else, first you whine that Blunt was innocent of everything and that his character has been attacked. Then you turn around and try to kill the messenger or assinate the character of anyone who disagrees. Take a look, WSI, the Board and Keiser have tried to attack the auditors office, the highway patrol, the state's attorney and of course BCI. It hasn't worked in any of the cases as the public knows all of these agencies have professional people in them who are doing their jobs. How could any rational person (not drinking the koolaid) think that these 4 independent entities were all conspiring and were all wrong and Blunt was right? These entities employees and their offices all have positive reputations in government, something WSI will never have under Blunt. "

Frank wrote on Oct 31, 2007 10:32 AM:

" I'm wondering how many other agencies have family that used to work at WSI and also have family in the auditor's department? Didn't someone at WSI, who eventually left WSI, also have a husband who is an auditor? I might be defensive too if an ex-employee was having their husbands agency come after me. "

Heritage wrote on Oct 30, 2007 9:53 PM:

" Frank, the state auditors have given other agencies bad reports, but none of them got as defensive and in your face as the WSI board and management did. For instance when it came out about Emergency managment and their problems, you didn't see their managment and/or board call a press conference and question the integrity of the auditors. They said, OK a problem was uncovered, lets see how we can fix it. Its that bunker mentality of WSI that has gotten them into trouble. None of the other audit reports on the state auditors website give the indication that managment was hostile towards the audit process and the auditors like WSI did. None of the other agencies did as much to hinder the audit as WSI did. See a pattern. Bullying, intimidation, "How dare you check me out attitude", wanting no oversight, having it my way or no way. All characteristics portrayed by Blunt and WSI management and their board. "

Frank wrote on Oct 30, 2007 7:37 PM:

" So you believe what is printed in editorials, because we know everything in an editorial is unbiased and true, but you won't take the word of people who actually know what happened at WSI? That's scary. If 70 employees left WSI, it sounds like a good start to a house cleaning to me. Were those employees replaced or were the jobs eliminated? If not replaced then they weren't needed anyway. What have the audit reports said about all the other agencies in ND? Did all of them receive glowing reports? If so it makes this look even more like a witch hunt. "

Get Real wrote on Oct 30, 2007 6:52 PM:

" Come on people, we have Scates on here saying Armstrong only wanted the truth to come out. Well so was it honest and appropriate to charge WSI critics for open records requests but to give WSI supporters the open records free of charge. Was that just a coincidence? Armstrong was frustrated that the truth wasn't coming out? Maybe he understands how the bullied current and past WSI employees felt. Why did he just stand by and allow it to happen without protesting? I know Armstrong and maybe he is a decent guy, but his actions and inactions in this case and his voluntary supporting of Blunt's actions (no matter how many people got hurt) is despicable. "

EINSTEIN wrote on Oct 30, 2007 6:45 PM:

" Boy Scates you really know how to shovel it don't you. Trying to portray cult member Armstrong as some savior for two wrongly accused people really tops it. Saying that things aren't always about power and politics. Can't you see how hypocritical you are? Your Republican majority in the legislature practiced power and politics in doing virtually nothing to WSI despite two scathing audit reports from two independent groups. Keiser as the chair of the committee WSI reports to practiced politics and power in how he handled the committee and any bills relating to WSI. Frank Wald and the rest of the republican sheep in the house voted for a $50,000 slush fund for WSI, which was practicing power and politics. You can't have it both ways, being part of a conspiracy to use power and politics to accomplish something and then whine about power and politics when one of your own gets caught doing it. If Armstrong (as a private citizen) was only trying to help the innocent, why has he never stood up to management to help an innocent injured worker? Why hasn't he quit licking Blunt's boots to stand up for one of the 70+ employees that Blunt cold-heartedly forced to leave WSI. Why did this white knight stand up and try to stop some of the things going on at WSI as cited in two audit reports? Sorry Scates but your characterization doesn't withstand scrutiny. A white knight helps everyone and not just his buddies and boss. "

IQ wrote on Oct 30, 2007 6:35 PM:

" To Karen, you have really bought into the Blunt drama queen stuff haven't you? You describe someone who has intimidated and threatened his employees as a "tough boss"? Give me a break, he's an abusive bully. Two of his own inner circle members have asked for whistle-blower protection. If Sandy was this Christian trust worthy guy like you are trying to paint him, why would they feel he'd be vindictive? No one has said it was ok to threaten his life and frankly there is no evidence it ever happened. Someone may have threatened him (who knows) I doubt that it was as bad as he makes it. In any case any threat isn't warranted. But maybe Blunt should follow his sister in laws advice, if you don't like it here, just leave. That's what you are telling the majority of WSI employees. "

Frank wrote on Oct 30, 2007 2:55 PM:

" IQ...are you really saying you don't want people from other states to visit or possibly move to our great state? I'm glad you're not in charge of promoting tourism. "

Deb wrote on Oct 30, 2007 2:11 PM:

" Another great line from the Forum editorial: "As for conservative activist Cates and talk show host Hennen, they dwell so deep in the holier-than-thou realm of the rabid right that they can't imagine their ideological soulmates guilty of anything." "

This Says It All wrote on Oct 30, 2007 1:28 PM:

" Cates involvement (in the WSI situation) is no surprise. He's a mossback idealogue whose credibility among thoughtful North Dakotans is about as sound as O. J. Simpson's. Fargo Forum editorial, 10-30-07 "

MamaMia wrote on Oct 30, 2007 1:03 PM:

" Death threats from a church usher? Is this verifiable? What happened to the usher? Sounds fishy. That's pretty serious. Did anyone see anything about this in the paper? "

Back at you wrote on Oct 30, 2007 12:53 PM:

" To Karen S. - No one is forcing poor Sandy to stay...let's take a vote and see who the WSI employees and taxpayers think should leave and who should stay. They'd be lining up to help him pack...probably even pay for a U-Haul back to Ohio. "

Karen S wrote on Oct 30, 2007 5:33 AM:

" So IQ - what you are saying is that because Sandy is a tough boss, that it's OK to threaten him and his family, make nasty comments about him in front of his very young children and to make horrible public accusations against an innocent man? All you have described here is someone who is a tough boss. This is America - if you don't like your boss then you can leave. Plain and simple. And- you act like turnover is necessarily a bad thing. It actually can be a very good thing for an organization because what you can end up with is a workplace where everyone is working towards a common goal and not spending so much time undermining the place . Sure - change is hard for anyone - but I will say it again - if you don't like it then you can go get another job. "

IQ wrote on Oct 29, 2007 8:49 PM:

" TO Karen, get over yourself. You have NO idea what Blunt is like in the workplace. You see him only as a relative and of course as someone you should stick up for. He wasn't brought into an unfortunate situation, he created it. He accepted a high paying job and he made things worse. How did he doe this? Well it wasn't his Christian ways that got him into trouble. He bullied people and threatened their jobs and many left under horrible circumstances. I have met with ex-employees and many are on medication to help deal with the effects of this "Christian man". You try the same excuse Sandy uses, management change results in people leaving and you tell those people to accept it. Tell me why the previous CEO changes didn't result in tripling of the turnover.j Tell me why previous CEO's management team members didn't have to seek whistleblower protection. It's a poor excuse for arrogance and cruelty. Don't condemn us ND people, if Blunt is representative of the honest people in Ohio, please tell your family and friends to stay there. "

Karen S wrote on Oct 29, 2007 4:31 PM:

" A disclaimer - I am Sandy Blunt's sister-in-law. I am choosing not to be anonymous . Any of you who think that Sandy does not have integrity couldn't be more wrong. Sandy is one of the most honest, forthright, and upstanding persons of integrity that I have ever met - and anyone who knows Sandy personally will agree with me. Sandy and I are even on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to politics, but I have the utmost respect for him. He is a good and decent family man and he was brought into an unfortunate situation and you people are trying like hell to ruin a good man's reputation. He is innocent and you need to let it rest, and let Sandy get back to his job of trying to run the business of WSI effectively. Management changes are never easy for anyone, and sometimes people lose their jobs or their jobs change. That's just the way it is folks. You may think it's cute or funny to impugn a man's reputation and make him sound like some evil person, but you have hurt lots of people in all this unneccessary mess. Sandy and his family had to change churches after receiving a death threat from one of their church's ushers. They have been confronted by people who make disparaging remarks to them right in front of their two beautiful young children. NIce Christian people in North Dakota. Sandy is a true Christian who cares deeply for workers who are truly injured and have a difficult time getting back to work and supporting their families. Let it go, and let Sandy and Romi try to repair their reputations and let their poor families be at peace. You can attack me all you want, but leave Sandy and his family alone. Enough is enough. Let it die and let the people at WSI get on with their jobs. Karen S in Ohio "

Barb wrote on Oct 29, 2007 9:10 AM:

" Response to "Wrong Ego Wrong Match" - talk about having emotional issues. You have no more idea than the rest of us about the guilt or innocence of anyone involved. And, the justice system is just as capable of getting guilty people off, as it is in sentencing innocent people. These blogs are a forum for discussion, whether or not we agree with each other, and whether or not we have a personal relationship with the parties mentioned. And regardless of the outcome of the charges against Sandy & Romi, there are other issues going on with that agency. There are good people dealing with the daily stress of working there, coupled now with the embarrassment of their agency being in the public eye, due to the actions of a few. Try having a little empathy for them, and before you point the finger at others about anger or other issues, deal with your own. "

SCates wrote on Oct 29, 2007 7:32 AM:

" Heritage: You obviously have very little familiarity with the actual facts. Your statements here are nothing more than unsubstantiated extrapolation. But, maybe you do know the facts and like so many others involve in this are simply dishonest. Since you will not publicly make any statements I will have to believe that it is the later case. "

Heritage wrote on Oct 27, 2007 11:15 AM:

" SCates it appears that Mark only want the facts as he thought them to be to get out, he stonewalled releasing information and even charged some while giving you stuff for free. Real upstanding, honorable and following the law in my book. Mark does not have the authority to pick and choose what and to whom he releases information, nor does he have the right to charge some and give his buddy stuff for free. Real ethical on Marks part. Now that his true character has been exposed, you are all crying foul while you and Mark and others tried to tarnish others during this whole incident. "

Wrong Ego Wrong Match wrote on Oct 27, 2007 9:49 AM:

" Well all know that innocent people are charged by America’s overzealous justice system every day. Romi and Sandy are just two of its more recent examples. Please do not confuse politicians like Riha and Feland who have expressed higher political aspirations with justice. They played out their careers on a high profile case in hopes of gathering future votes. The truth prevailed and it backfired on them. If you do not buy this, then check Feland’s background. This is not the first time she has overstepped justice for personal gain and it cost her her job once already. The judge and the BCSA themselves dismissed the cases well before any trial had to be held. Romi and Sandy are innocent and you just need to deal with that fact. They will never get back what they worked for their whole careers and now all you do is continue to sear them for what your own arousal? And to compare Sandy to OJ – that is both a disgrace to you and the memory of the two innocent lives taken in that case. Shame on you. Shame on you. You have very, very real anger issues. Go get a mirror and seriously look at yourself in it and ask why you would be so hateful and slanderous to innocent people. And why would you dishonor the memory of two innocents like this? It is hateful, just hateful. This whole thing has opened my eyes to the fact that the values we supposedly export just do not exist here like I thought it did. The overpowering hateful and lying obsession by bloggers and people like Joel on two decent people is mind boggling. Shame on you all. "

When and where? wrote on Oct 27, 2007 9:45 AM:

" When and where is the next Burleigh County Commissioner meeting? I don't know Riha but I really believe that he shouldn't have to put up with attacks of this sort from Armstrong. I actually voted for Armstrong because I remembered him as a friendly, Christian radio host. What he has done is neither friendly nor Christian. If someone at that commission meeting starts a petition to remove Armstrong I will sign it. I want my vote back and he has proven himself incapable of leading. "

MAX FACTS wrote on Oct 26, 2007 11:03 AM:

" To SCates, there you go again, still on your high horse and barking at the moon about how innocent Blunt is, about how WSI has been persecuted and you include the audit. Have you read the audit? Exactly where does WSI ever produce any evidence that the auditors conclusions were wrong or that their recommendatins were wrong? NONE. The fact is WSI agrees with almost 90% of the recommendations, so exactly how were they being persecuted with the audit? Oh they say some BS like using the photos wasn't illegal and didn't violate the DOT contract. Problem is the legal experts say it was illegal and DOT said it violated the contract and was "inappropriate". So using the audit as the start of the alleged persecution bogus. Next you drone on about how the investigations shouldn't have resulted in charges. I guess the fact that two other independent agecies did the investigations (Highway Patrol and BCI) and they came to the conclusion that WSI was routinely doing things that were against the law. Then another independent entity (state's attorneys office) decided charges should be filed. Regardless of how this all ends, WSI and Blunt are victims only of their own arrogance, they disregard for the law and the fact that they feel they are invinceable. So continue to make a fool of yourself Scates because no one is really convinced by your rants and ravings. OJ got off, was he innocent too? "

County Commission reaction wrote on Oct 26, 2007 10:16 AM:

" How come we haven't heard any reaction or comment from anyone on the County Commission? Armstrong purposely used his power to try to start a movement to remove Rhia. Isn't that a bit of a conflict of interest? If I was Rhia, I'd be asking for his head! As a resident of the county, I was very upset to read the story and think that he sits at that table every month. If we can't trust him, he can't serve us. Or is he really? Is he commissioner to serve his ego...or the people? "

R We Forgetting? wrote on Oct 26, 2007 10:12 AM:

" Everyone has been focusing so much on the journal and it's contents, that we've been talking more about morale issues, than broken laws. Armstrong handled, or mishandled, many open records requests. He tailored them to who was making the request; whether they were friend or foe of Sandy. So he basically, decided what was going to go out the door or released to the requester. That is wrong. That is a misuse of power. That is a misuse of staff resources. That may even be against the law, if he witheld any information that may have been used against Sandy in a story or as part of his case. Probably, 80% of his job is handling public requests. If he tampered with that. He should be asked to leave. That should be investigated and he should be charged if fault is found. I'd be curious to see what everyone else in his department has to say. "

SCates wrote on Oct 26, 2007 9:15 AM:

" Keep in Mind: You obviously have not read Mark's journal. Throughout that record he is frustrated that the TRUTH was not getting out. He NEVER EVER attempted to do anything but get out the facts. Those facts, as inconvenient as they are to people like you, are the reason that there have been two unsuccessful prosecutions and many thousands of taxpayer dollars wasted. "

NDr wrote on Oct 26, 2007 7:19 AM:

" This agency has become a complete FARCE!!!! Instead of spending their time on taking care of the State's working injured, they're having parties, investigating their own people, and wasting my hard earned money on crap like this. Businesses and workers deserve better. MUCH BETTER!!! It's time to open Workers Comp insurance to allow us who do not want to help foster this environment to have another choice. It's quite clear it's time for us business owners in ND to be allowed to find our insurance where ever we want. If we want to stay with these clowns. Fine, but we should have a choice. I don't want to give one more cent to this out of control agency. "

Keep in mind... wrote on Oct 25, 2007 11:16 PM:

" Remember that Mark Armstrong's journal admitted that he signed up for a mock email address to find out who was giving information to the media. Also, the journals explain how Steve Cates and the WSI management wanted to inundate the media with a positive spin. Who says the same thing isn't going on in these posts? Some of these posted comments strike me as another concentrated effort to deflect criticism away from Sandy, Romi and Mark and place it on the employees. For all we know, Sandy himself could be writing on these boards....and come to think of it, I could be Joel Heitkamp or anyone on the other side. With that out of the way, the posts from "Gypsy Girl" and "Get to Work" really seem suspicious. They both try and place all the blame on the lower employees. So unfortunate. One other thing, has no one learned from all the national politicians mistakes - the crime is never as bad as the cover up. Say what you want but Sandy is a very smart man, he knew it would be best not to search for the emailer but he just couldn't get ahold of his ego. That problem has taken down many a man. "

Doug D.Riley wrote on Oct 25, 2007 10:50 PM:

" In my opinion the corruption at wsi started over 5 years ago when they decided to have injured workers be teleamarketers--bringing in outside doctors to override ours so wsi would'nt have to payout benefits--build a bullit proof building and say that they need it because of people making fraudulent claims--and blunt just happened to be the right yes man/ pr mouth piece to fit the job-but just remember it's just my opinion but wsi has been dirty for a long time --when people find out that the elderly are abused at nurseing homes they get pretty upset the same should be for the injured workers!! "

Mr. H. wrote on Oct 25, 2007 10:19 PM:

" It appears those of you supporting Blunt's mafia wouldn't know the truth or tell the truth even if it jumped up and bit you in the butt. "

disabled concern wrote on Oct 25, 2007 8:34 PM:

" This latest adolescent behavior by people who are in charge of helping "the disabled worker" are hurting nobody but the disabled. Being a person who is disabled, I feel these person or persons should be replaced immediately. "

Cliff wrote on Oct 25, 2007 8:04 PM:

" To Outsider looking in: You should know that Sandy did not come to ND alone. It is my understanding that he brought cronies from Ohio. Regarding Mark Armstrong, It is far from all accounts that he has been a well liked member of this community. On the contrary, he has been a partisan, self important and divisive member of this community. Judge this man's professional character by his actions: he spearheaded a conspiracy with well known demagogue Steve Cates and WSI board enabler Georgie Keiser to remove Mr. Rhia, the BCSA, only because Rhia was doing his job. All the while holding a seat on the Burleigh County Commission. His first allegiance ought to be to the peopleof ND. Instead, he chose to protect his "sugar -daddy" Sandy Blunt because he knows no one else is stupid enough to pay that much for a has-been yes man. "

Get to work: wrote on Oct 25, 2007 7:24 PM:

" This whole thing, and I mean this WHOLE thing wouldn't even be happening if people just went to work, did their jobs, kept their noses clean and weren't such busy bodies threatened by everybody else and what they are doing or what they are getting. This whole place seems to be a bunch of complainers and whinners who are taking it down. This description includes the famous emailer who probably felt he was worth a lot more than he is. (or was). These people, these WSI employees are wasting time and dollars every day complaining, and figuring out ways to make others look bad, or even possibly to take their jobs. When do they do their real work? When you have to get some sort of protection because you are a tattle tale, it's time to keep your nose in your own business and do your job, yes, work for your money. This bunch reminds me of the bunch at the Sheriff's Office when things didn't go their way, and when they were expected to work for their pay. Do your job, keep to yourself, and watch how fast the place will shape up. With all this unrest and rumors and rummaging through desks and everything else, most likely done on company time, no wonder the place is a shambles. Climb the ladder the right way, by working hard and showing integrity. "

Owl wrote on Oct 25, 2007 7:06 PM:

" Swollen egos on fire drove this carnage. Pride does go before a fall. Sad, sad, sad. But all too common in the top floor corner offices. Big ego overpowered clear thinking. "

To the "Outsider" wrote on Oct 25, 2007 7:01 PM:

" You are an amazing tool. The published documents are only the tip of the iceberg. There is so much corruption at WSI the Governor had better step in before the back-pocket evidence is brought forward. If you think this week was filled with bombshells, just wait. Nervously. "

Feed Up wrote on Oct 25, 2007 6:55 PM:

" We need to have WSI back under the Governor. All of the upper personal needs to go and big time house cleaning needs to be done. Mark Armstrong needs to resign from the Burleigh County Commision NOW!! If he does not we need to recall him. I am feed up with all this. WSI thinks they are the FBI or CAA of North Dakota. They think they can push any one around and do what they want with political power. People of North Dakota lets stop all of this now! It has gone on way too long. We all read the paper or see the news and think this is bad and don't do any thing about it. LETS DO SOME THING NOW!! WE HAVE A VOICE SO LET IT BE HEARD!! "

To Observer wrote on Oct 25, 2007 5:17 PM:

" I just want to clarify something in your post. You stated that Sandy recruited and hired Mark A. and I wanted to just let you know that Mark was working at WSI before Sandy was hired. But Sandy did promote him to part of the executive management team. I don't see the madness at WSI ending anytime soon which is really sad for all the employees there. It is the actions of upper management that is making WSI look like a 3 ring circus and it is just disgusting. "

Outsider looking in wrote on Oct 25, 2007 5:07 PM:

" Is it possible that Sandy Blunt is not the problem, but the people that work for him? There sure seems to be a lot of conflict at WSI, and most of it is being caused by people that Sandy thought he could trust. I think Mark Armstrong is being portrayed as the "bad guy" here, but the way I see it, he's been not only loyal to Blunt, but WSI. Reading his journal, you could feel his emotion and how he struggled with Sandy being put on leave. He truly believed in his innocence and was trying to do things that would clear Sandy's name. That's the kind of people I want working for me, not ones that go behind my back in a crisis and try to take my job like it appeared Long was doing according to Armstrong's journal. Some of Sandy's people at WSI have been criticized for having "secret" meetings and trying to work out strategies when all of this hit the fan, but isn't that what anyone would do if faced with these kinds of charges? You circle the wagon, hunker down, and get a battle plan. Think about it, I would fight to the end of the earth to clear my name and would also do the same for a boss that I respected and believed to be innocent. By all accounts, Mark Armstrong has been well liked and a respected member of this community, up until this point and I think he's getting a bum rap from people that have an agenda with WSI. Whistleblower protection? Where were these people the past six months? To come out of the woodwork now and make all sorts of claims doesn't put these people in a very good light. "

Heritage wrote on Oct 25, 2007 4:58 PM:

" Observer, Steve Cates is not part of Mark Armstrongs executive team. He doesn't even work at WSI, all he appears to get is free handouts from his buddy Mark. Sandy did not hire Mark, Mark was already there. "

to observer wrote on Oct 25, 2007 4:42 PM:

" Mark Armstrong was given a "hefty" pay raise when Sandy was brought on board. This way Sandy could create an 'inner circle" that would stand by him/cover up for him "no matter what". I would stand by him for $75,000..."no matter what"!! You can check the salary increase of Mark as part of public record...that is if they don't "hide it"!! This is great...the old saying goes..."What goes around, comes around" How does it feel??!!!!!:) "

to observer wrote on Oct 25, 2007 4:38 PM:

" FACT...Mark Armstrong was not hired by Sandy Blunt...he was there during Edison's tenure!! "

Carol wrote on Oct 25, 2007 4:34 PM:

" I think the comments regarding writing the journal on company time are based on Armstrong's comments about company policy regarding going through employees' desks. The point is that there are policies on many things, including using work time for personal business, whether that be running errands or planning to overthrow the States Attorney. Also, doesn't Armstrong have more important duties at his job than journaling how employees feel? And, couldn't Blunt provide his recollection of everything to the investigators - isn't that part of an investigation? As far as Armstrong's concern about two "innocent" people, their innocence remained to be seen, at that time. This is funny. First, there was an attempt to shift attention to someone who sent an email who started all of this. Now, the attempt is to shift it to the person or persons who tipped off the investigators about this journal. I can't wait to see what happens next. This is better than CSI. "

Observer wrote on Oct 25, 2007 4:07 PM:

" Here are my thoughts on the Mark Armstrong involvement. And I am not saying that Blunt, his team, or Mark's involvement were right, but it might help us all to understand some underlying motives. First, I hope no reasonable person expected Sandy Blunt to roll over without a fight. That is the reason for the involvement of his leadership team, Steve Cates, Mark Armstrong and others. Anyone with enough executive experience to land such a job in the first place isn't stupid or weak, and has probably been through his share of workplace political fights . Second, I am sure that Mark Armstrong feels a fair amount of loyalty to Sandy Blunt. Sandy recruited and hired him. It had to be a pretty good career move for him going from radio to the leadership team of WSI. Mark Armstrong wasn't going stand by and do nothing. Unfortunately, I don't think that Sandy Blunt has been good for WSI. I think that the board should find a way to replace Sandy, but since they don't want to appear to be weak, they won't do it. But Sandy needs to be replaced, and sooner rather than later. Replace him with someone who has integrity, and an impeccable background, and let's put this chapter behind. "

Frank wrote on Oct 25, 2007 2:43 PM:

" You're splitting hairs about what happens on company time. These people are there from 8-5 and sometimes you have to get some personal business done during normal business operating hours. It happens everywhere. It's really only a problem when people start surfing the net on company time. "

David wrote on Oct 25, 2007 2:41 PM:

" Hey Diggs, Blunts name never came up in Ohio concerning the BWC scandal. He was talked to but he was never looked at as part of the scandal. "

Tim from Bismarck wrote on Oct 25, 2007 2:40 PM:

" To S cates; I've read the journal and one of the facts you seem to overlook is the FACT Mark ARmstrong and yourself tried tocreate a conspiracy to remove Richard Rhia from office!!!!!! That fact is in the journal and another fact is neither one of you are qualified to be classified as keystone cops. Thats also a FACT!! "

NYxND wrote on Oct 25, 2007 2:14 PM:

" Scates: I hear there is a sale on trench-coats and sun-glasses down at Herbergers. I will meet you at the newly re-opened Galleria parking ramp for any more leaky info you may have. The intrigue!!! It's so Spy vs. Spy! "

to SCates wrote on Oct 25, 2007 1:21 PM:

" If the letter to my mother was written on a notebook & kept in a desk which were both purchased with public monies provided to a publically funded agency - then yes- they are public property & public record and subject to the open records rule. Moreover - seeing as how the journal was written on at the WSI building it can reasonable be assumed that Armstrong used public time to write his personal notes on his public notebook, sitting at his public desk. "

Gov's Duties wrote on Oct 25, 2007 1:16 PM:

" It was the opinion of Ryan Bernstein, lawyer to the governor, that the governor does not have the power to remove Blunt (this was a much contested opinion). The governor also does not have the power to dissolve the board of directors. Only the legislature has that power. "

Hoeven Helpless wrote on Oct 25, 2007 1:15 PM:

" On April 21, 2007 a report by Crystal Reid, titled Hoeven Can't Remove Blunt, states: The governor cannot remove the executive director of the state's worker's comp agency, officials said Friday. "Ryan Bernstein, the governor's legal counsel, began research on the issue on Wednesday ... then conferred with Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem, who also concluded that there is no legal basis for the governor's office to remove the director, Canton said." I am not a lawyer, but NDCC 44-11 says he can remove "any custodian of public moneys, except the state treasurer" and Blunt spent over $20,000 on unauthorized entertaining, so that glove seems to fit. "

Norm wrote on Oct 25, 2007 1:06 PM:

" Hey SCATES: Are you saying that some WSI "deepthroat" took Armstrong's notes from Armstrong's purse? Is that what you're saying? If so, there is a lot more to this sordid tale than meets the eye! Seriously, though. Why did you wait until now to release that information and what more do you have? I'm on a fixed income and cannot afford to bid at E-bay. Also, since you are such an upstanding guy and all, does it bother you at all that Armstrong did much of this clandestine Sandy butt covering on company time? If he has that much time for Sandy, shouldn't he be part time? No time? Doing time? Please favor us with an answer. "

SCates wrote on Oct 25, 2007 12:48 PM:

" Mark Armstrong has legitimate concerns as a citizen of North Dakota about two innocent people being wrongly prosecuted. I have the right as a private citizen to become involved whenever I lawfully attempt to influence what I believe (and many others now know) to be a gross miscarriage of justice. For God’s sake, Mark was only trying to get the truth of this matter to be understood by the public. He never, ever attempted to misrepresent anything in this matter. Read his journal. There is nothing but frustration about the fact that the truth of this injustice was not being provided to educate the public and he exhibits only the desire to get the facts out. By the way all of these facts have turned out to be absolutely true. All of them. "

Online Editor wrote on Oct 25, 2007 12:22 PM:

" To To Online Editor: I don't know the answer to your question, but maybe another reader can offer that. "

To Online Editor wrote on Oct 25, 2007 12:18 PM:

" Is it known whether or not Governor Hoeven has the ability, power, to remove the board at WSI? Doesn't the Governor appoint the board members? And would it be correct that the Governor cannot remove Mr. Blunt, in that only the board has that ability? "

To Leadership? wrote on Oct 25, 2007 11:52 AM:

" I assume it is you who posts every few minutes bringing up the governors name. Are you running against him in the next election or something? If you have any knowledge of this whole issue, you would know that the governor does not appoint the board or the director of WSI. The legislature took that out of the hands of the governor during the Schafer years. Your post makes as much sense as me asking "Where is Al Sharpton?" "

to SCates wrote on Oct 25, 2007 11:48 AM:

" Who put you/asked you/hired you to be in the position to be a mouth piece for the investigation against WSI? What makes you think it is your job to answer questions, such as your call into the Joel Heitcamp show yesterday? You are not hired by the taxpayers of ND - so under whose authority are you operating? Why is Mark Armstrong, as the communication director for WSI, whose job it is to communicate with injured workers and the businesses who pay the premiums - why is he taking the position of damage control - as outlined in his journal? That doesn't seem to be in his job description - but it seems he took that on - and certainly not in his private time, as his journal was found in his desk at work. "

SCates wrote on Oct 25, 2007 11:29 AM:

" If you are writing a letter to your mother about your job and it is in your purse of briefcase, is that a public record? If it is in your desk is it a public record? If you are writing a letter to yourself about your job and it is in your desk or briefcase or purse should a co-worker be allowed to examine that letter without your permission or permission of some authority? It seems like the privacy advocates are very selective in their outrage. Is that some type of sickness? "

for scates wrote on Oct 25, 2007 11:21 AM:

" Are you that twisted that you think spinning is only a liberal thing? It is a human thing practiced by all political and non-political persuasions. When someone sterotypes like you do I find it sad and pathetic. You are obviously warped into one sided thinking. Good public servants of all parties look at issues from all sides in order to solve the problem. They do not waste time "spinning." Spinning works to the detrimate of the public as a whole because you waste time NOT solving the problem but trying to get your way through tilting the truth in your favor. If you think this is a liberal party characteristic then you have issues in your own beliefs that needs examining. I hope you take some time for self reflection. "

Leadership? wrote on Oct 25, 2007 11:06 AM:

" Where the heck is Governor Hoeven? Is this another case of 'where in the world is John Hoeven.' Corruption in government is a big deal. Our governor must not think so. "

Norm wrote on Oct 25, 2007 10:25 AM:

" To SCATES: C'mon, Scates. Your response to me was total spin. It is admirable to help the falsely accused, to be sure. But if one was just and right, why do so anonimously? Your words are designed to obfuscate the real issue. By chastizing those who blog anonimously and wondering about power and politics, you are only hoping to deflect attention from the issue at hand. So, why did you wait until now to release this information? Since you did not answer I can only assume that you and your ilk at WSI have something to hide. What other documents and activities are you not sharing with us, Mr. Truth and Justice? "

Callie wrote on Oct 25, 2007 10:21 AM:

" I'm confused - is something actually missing from Armstrong's desk, or did someone just go through it and tip off investigators. Why would anyone keep a journal like that at work, and by keeping it at work, isn't it part of public record? Particularly in light of what it was about/who was involved? And, was this journaling being done on company time (since the journal was at work)? Also, he seems to be concerned about the actions of the person(s) who went through his desk. Seems like he's got a lot more to be concerned about now, as do we all. I think it's time to clean house at WSI, and also remove Armstrong from the Commission. Seems like the original charges against Blunt & Leingang were merely a thread. Having pulled it, look at what is unraveling! What a tangled web we weave. "

SCates wrote on Oct 25, 2007 9:51 AM:

" Norm: Spinning is a liberal thing. For that reason (and many other reasons) I abhor the practice. When you are dealing with fact you are by definition dealing with truth. Mark Armstrong was trying to help two wrongly accused people. Is that not how things are done in America? Do we not try to protect the innocent? Is it all just about power and politics? You who participate on this blog in anonymity and have never written a letter to the editor or say what you will say here publicly, and spread vile false accusation and provably wrong innuendo are the spinners, and cowardly spinners at that (not that you, Norm is a cowardly spinner), but if the shoe fits…... "

Callie wrote on Oct 25, 2007 9:49 AM:

" How do we know that these conversions didn't happen on company time? Also, was the journal written on company time? Seems odd that he'd keep something like that at work, if he wasn't journaling on company time. "

NYxND wrote on Oct 25, 2007 9:17 AM:

" Wow-Scates. I can hear your excited heavy breathing all the way out here!! You are vindicated!!! Now are you sure, since you seem to have been a player in this drama (as stated in this article), that your prior comments here in relation to this were appropiate? The intrigue!! SECRET DOCUMENTS!! It's so exciting. It's like the pentagon papers, but not. What most certainly has been no secret (at least to an outside observer) throughout this WSI spectacle is your smug narcissism. Are you suggesting that after the publication of the secret documents (those secret documents!!) that you are going to try to auction off your originals on e-bay like Rush? I would love to see that. To what charity would the proceeds go? Is there a charity for injurered ND workers who have had to deal with what appears to be a thoroughly dysfunctional agency? Oh wait-you said that you would keep all the money for yourself.... "

EVB wrote on Oct 25, 2007 8:57 AM:

" Let's start working together to meet the needs of the agency. The process has given a direction to all, not let go and work together. "

karma police wrote on Oct 25, 2007 8:51 AM:

" To Steve Cates, So who are the whining crybabies now? Honestly, you couldn't get Hollywood to write a script more full of comedy, tragedy and irony. If these bozos werent so dangerous to good people they should be filmed daily as a reality show. This is completely out of control, the board needs to be dismantled and upper management cleansed before they lose every employee under them. "

diggs wrote on Oct 25, 2007 8:42 AM:

" Why hasn't our beloved Governor actually stepped in. He could clean this mess up in one action, hmmm is an election closing in. This is an embarrassment to ND. Shouldn't be surprising, we hired the man (Blunt) from Ohio, even though charges of corruption were looming there. To Witch Hunt - get a clue. You have a County Commissioner, WSI Exec. Director, and probably worst of all, a state representative in charge of ageny oversight planning a campaign to oppose any negative publicity. A former republican Attorney's General, now judge dismissed the first charges and was put in charge of the second case. To top it all off the last charges were dropped because of "legal ignorance"/bad legal advice. Talk about corruption! "

Norm wrote on Oct 25, 2007 8:21 AM:

" To SCATES: So you don't believe in offering information in anonimity but you believe that spinning one's side of a story through the use of "Secret Documents" is perfectly OK? Ironic or moronic. You choose. By the way, why wait until now to release those documents? Did you not think that they were relevent prior to this point? Are they scrubbed of any pertinent information or, worse yet, re-written? Pardon my cynicism but if you are anything like the company you keep, a good bit of skepticism is in order. This whole episode is so Nixonian. "

Allen wrote on Oct 25, 2007 8:07 AM:

" The only thing I do know is that to the layperson, WSI is supposed to be there to help them when they get injured on the job. Somehow, somewhere, this has gotten lost in the WSI policy handbook. Instead it has been replaced with a "if we don't have to pay injured workers, then we can send the money back to the business". Oddly enough, some of the WSI board members received substantial checks from this repayment plan. And we wonder why this place is so dysfunctional. Seems to me we have the weasels running the chicken coop. "

Owl wrote on Oct 25, 2007 7:36 AM:

" A whole agency is going up in flames because egos at the top couldn't overlook what were really minor events in job relationships. A lot to think about here. "

Is it just me wrote on Oct 25, 2007 7:20 AM:

" Is it just me or do others feel that the response from "SCates" had a little bite in it at the end. His line of "continue to squander my 401K in anticipation of an eventual EBAY auction and the day that I will be wild beyond my richest dreams.", seems to me like he is making light of all of this which we are taking seriously. It would seem his tone is that of a mocking nature and gives me the impression that he feels this is a just foolishness. Maybe that is how staunch Blunt supporters see all of this. And maybe, just maybe, that is the problem here. A total lack of respect for the taxpayer. "

ND Politician wrote on Oct 25, 2007 7:14 AM:

" Remember the first rule of politics in the Northern Plains... In all things, defer unless it can be exploited for personal benefit or can be used to meet "family obligations." Use multiple public offices if necessary, to meet personal objectives. April 23-24th, Pages 11 & 12. "

AT wrote on Oct 25, 2007 7:01 AM:

" Is it me, or was it very difficult to get anything out of this strangely-written article? Personally, I couldn't care less about this so-called "transgression." It seems like North Dakotans always need something to whine about when things get too uneventful. "

PR 101 wrote on Oct 24, 2007 10:39 PM:

" You would think that a person who makes $78,965.40 per year to defend an agency's public image would actually know the first rule of public relations - never put anything in writing that you wouldn't want to see in the newspaper. (The salary info is a matter of public record, so please don't try to find my identity... I'd hate to see this whole thing start all over again). Between the "no comments" - also a PR no-no and now this, I'm glad to see WSI is getting its money's worth. PS - you work for a state agency - what you write is a matter of public record regardless of how the information gets out. Also - this is a re-post and has been toned down - I guess you can't compare someone keeping a diary to a 13-year-old girl? "

Nuts in Govt wrote on Oct 24, 2007 10:12 PM:

" This is total corruption- but that's politics! I feel like I am reading about the Mob in NY. This is way too big time for little ND. Secret documents, secret meetings, journals. It goes to show what you can do when you hold the power - anything you darn well please. Hope you all can sleep at night - don't let the guilt getcha! "

wow wrote on Oct 24, 2007 10:10 PM:

" lies, lies, and more lies. Armstrong feels violated! What about the taxpayer and voters. "

SCates wrote on Oct 24, 2007 9:53 PM:

" Yes. SCates is me, Steve Cates. I have always used that name on all Bismarck Tribune article discussions. I do not believe in presenting information or opinion in anonymity. Sandy Blunt was home on administrative leave when he constructed a four pages referred to by Mark Armstrong as the "Secret Documents". These pages discussed of the facts of the charges against him and why any legal action should cease. As has been and (after appeal) will be proven, there were no grounds for wasting many, many taxpayer dollars on the specious persecution (witch hunt) that has been going on since January of 2005 (beginning of the WSI audit). Mark Armstrong, knowing that the charges were without basis believed that for ethical reasons that he should defend innocent people. Because he was acting as a private citizen he wanted some separation so that giving these "Secret Documents" to the members of the ND media would not be misconstrued as being done in his official capacity as a WSI employee. He put the documents in manila envelopes and had a good friend take them and drop them off over the noon hour at various media offices. I have a set of the Secret Documents". They will be scanned this evening and put on The Dakota Beacon website. Also, copies of all 4 pages of the SECRET DOCUMENTS will be delivered tomorrow to law enforcement officials and media office so that everyone will have their own set of the SECRET DOCUMENTS! I will of course, keep my original documents and continue to squander my 401K in anticipation of an eventual EBAY auction and the day that I will be wild beyond my richest dreams. "

Heritage wrote on Oct 24, 2007 9:49 PM:

" People need to show up at the next county commission meeting, ramble on about nothing (I think this happened on May 30) or better yet, just get 50 signatures together to give to the governor to have Armstrong ousted from the commission (thank Mark for detailing how we can get rid of you). Oh what a tangled web we weave (Armstrong, Cates, Blunt and Keiser). But the overall question, is does Frankie Wald feel betrayed because he wasn't consulted (like Blunt felt when Indvik didn't call him personally???). "

bill wrote on Oct 24, 2007 9:36 PM:

" County Commissioner Armstrong should resign his position on the Commission. It is an abuse of his office to be attempting to oust or influence a States Attorney elected by the residents of Burleigh County. The States Attorney was doing the job we elected him to do. For Mr. Armstrong to attempt to influence a felony prosecution is malfeasance. He needs to resign from the Commission and apologize to the residents of the county. "

have a nice day wrote on Oct 24, 2007 8:39 PM:

" I just read Mark Armstrong'S Journal. Mr. Armstrong abused his position with WSI, he abused hisposition as an elected official. Mark Armstrong you need to now write 2 more journals called letters of resignation!!!! There is no place in a public agency or public office for people like you! "

Joe wrote on Oct 24, 2007 8:34 PM:

" The secret documents noted in the April 24th entry by Mark (Got the secret documents out.). This appears to have been envelopes containing records and an anonymous letter on reporters' desks in the Capitol's press room. What records were these? Were they distibuted properly according to internal policy or did Mark think he had free reign to distribute whatever he felt like? These are questions that need to be answered and if he violated policy, he should be shown the door. Who elses was in on this? "

unbelievable wrote on Oct 24, 2007 8:29 PM:

" Just elected county commissioner and power is already going to Mark Armstrong's head. "

Next? wrote on Oct 24, 2007 8:28 PM:

" The kingdoms are starting to be torn down. I wonder who will be next? I doubt WSI is the only place these things are happening. "

Circusfreak wrote on Oct 24, 2007 8:04 PM:

" Been reading the articles the tribune has been posting and it does sound like a circus over there. Sounds like the in fighting and bickering you get from High School students. "

Heritage wrote on Oct 24, 2007 7:48 PM:

" Isnt it ironic that a WSI official would use a library to get information out to the public, but last time it happened it created a fiasco (Maybe Blunt should investigate the legality of this - oh wait this is legal, just like the email was). The irony of it all, I don't know of any playwright who could write a better script than Winkin Blinkin and Nod are putting on. Too funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

witch hunt wrote on Oct 24, 2007 7:45 PM:

" Maybe lets give back Mark Armstrongs power of the radio. He was always very fair and seemed totally middle of the road for years. If you want to debate WSI, then do it. If WSI tapes you water skiing, hunting, pushing your boat up river on the River while you claim you can't work! I'll be on WSI side. If you have a justified claim, I'm on your side. I'm as grunt of worker as you can find and I don't have to be. I think WSI has done a good job. This is from a worker. "

Wondering wrote on Oct 24, 2007 7:40 PM:

" I have been keeping up with all the posts for this circus the WSI has created. Can anyone tell me if the person posting with the name SCates is actually Steve Cates who has been a staunch (avid) supporter of the Blunt Fiasco? It mentions his name in this column. Coincidental or maybe knows more than we all know what really went on..just wondering. "

Heritage wrote on Oct 24, 2007 7:00 PM:

" When will the board realize they are not doing ND a service by keeping things they way they are. Its time for a good housecleaning. "

Post Your Own Comment

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.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.