Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota News - Former WSI director hearing set

Former WSI director hearing set

Aug 08, 2008 - 04:06:47 CDT

North Dakota's former workers compensation director is to be arraigned later this month on charges that he misspent more than $18,000 in agency funds.

Sandy Blunt is accused of two felonies. He is charged with distributing unauthorized bonuses to top executives at Workforce Safety and Insurance, and using agency money to buy meals, gifts and trinkets for employees and state legislators.

Blunt's arraignment is scheduled for 4:30 p.m. Aug. 25 before South Central District Judge Bruce Romanick. Blunt's attorney, Michael Hoffman, has said Blunt will plead not guilty.

Another judge, Robert Wefald, dismissed the charges last year, but the North Dakota Supreme Court reinstated them last June.

Blunt was forced out of his job last December by WSI's board of directors after Gov. John Hoeven brought pressure on the board to get rid of him. A consultant's report afterward was critical of Blunt's management style.

- Associated Press

News > State

Printer friendly version Former WSI director hearing set

Comments

Sandman wrote on Aug 14, 2008 6:11 PM:

" I really think that Blunt's going to be surprised when he looks for help from WSI and they're nowhere to be found. John Halvorson and Bruce Furness would eat their young just to keep in the good graces of the Republican Party. Now that Blunt has spent his $150,000 golden parachute paid for with injured worker blood money, he is going to start getting desperate. If he thinks this is just about trips to Medora and birthday cakes, he has another thing coming. He should not take Cynthia Feland the many former employees who left because of him for "granted" (pun intended). "

VoR wrote on Aug 14, 2008 3:27 PM:

" Hey guys, Please don't let my uninformed observation quell this interesting discussion. My Blunt comments were not an attempt to strongArm anyone into quitting.

After all the cloak of invisibility allowed by posting anonymously will protect you from any whistleblowers who read your opinions. "

VoR wrote on Aug 14, 2008 11:30 AM:

" Golly gee, Reading some of these posts one could draw the conclusion that a couple of lawyers or others with more than just a passing interest in the outcome of this hearing are chiming in here. "

VoR wrote on Aug 14, 2008 11:09 AM:

" Online Editor, Im with Mike R on this one. For those of us who enjoy debating the topics on the Top Comments blog its irritating to say the least when a topic is pulled from the top of list while it is still getting multiple posts every day, while other topics which are generating far less interest remain on. If you guys are just powerless plebes at the mercy of some corporate autocracy in this process I understand, but thats disappointing too. Any efforts to resolve this problem will Im certain be appreciated by many. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 14, 2008 9:53 AM:

" Online editor: Thank you for the explanation. At least it wasn't the same old "comments with the most hits stay on top" routine. "

Online Editor wrote on Aug 14, 2008 8:59 AM:

" To MikeR.: In the last two or three months there have been a number of complaints from Lee webmasters and online editors about the top commented module not working correctly. Most of the time it seems to work, but not always. We are doing research on a method of generating a second list of most viewed stories, something that we could handle in-house. The bottom line, however, is that I can't move a story onto or off of the top commented list. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 14, 2008 8:07 AM:

" Online editor: Many times you have told us that which stories stay on top and which ones go is something that you don't control - that it is all about the number of comments and number of hits on each topic that control it. You cannot even pretend to tell me that this topic had more comments or more hits than the drug bust topic. It wasn't even close. Please don't treat us like we are 5 year olds. What is really going on here? "

Mike R wrote on Aug 13, 2008 9:51 PM:

" Clearing the air: It is not arrogance if it is true, based on fact, and right on the money. I have made the challange many many times for anyone who thinks I am arrogant to prove me wrong with facts. No takers yet. "

Living It wrote on Aug 13, 2008 7:22 PM:

" Folks; what i said earlier was posted on the northdecoder but came from the States Auditors office-just little things like limo rides- paid trips to Medora-theres alot of little things that would by my account be really interesting and it involves alot of people an money-you can believe who an what you want but the truth will come out no matter how you spin it.. "

to Victor wrote on Aug 13, 2008 12:58 PM:

" Do you read anything? Seriously do you read any of the posts and try to understand them before you spout off. I have explained the business allowance, and yes I have no issue with it or its use. Second if you read my post I say that all blogs, including the pro-WSI ones are bias and should not be relied on. By the way the iwofndadvocates has more fabrication than fact. I really like the dictionary or comp terms that are pure opinion and no definition. "

Victor wrote on Aug 13, 2008 12:21 PM:

" Its not $1,000, to my understanding it $1,000 per month for a total of $12,000 per year. All I'm asking is whether or not you feel that is what the business allowance should be used for?

Its amazing that Pro-WSI think that northdecoder and iwofndadvocates are totally making things up. WOnder if they think the same of the Cates and Port blog? "

to Victor wrote on Aug 13, 2008 11:56 AM:

" I have explained the business allowance to death. You are just choosing not to understand it becuase your tainted. I don't know about the $1,000, but are we really talking about the expensing of $1,000 was my point. I think the employers and he injured workers deserve more than a discussion without relevance. "

Lost wrote on Aug 13, 2008 11:55 AM:

" ND government sure is big business. "

To ok wrote on Aug 13, 2008 11:49 AM:

" So let me get this straight then living it, the north decoder, and iwofndadvocates are all just blowing hot air, and your 100% accurate on your blogging? So what makes you so different then others blogging? You have been one sided here, as in Pro-WSI! We are all wrong but your right? Maybe you could enlighten us on your position at WSI that makes you right, and us full of half truths. I believe many bloggers here are raising legitimate questions, and I enjoy reading the different views. "

Victor wrote on Aug 13, 2008 10:58 AM:

" To OK, with all due respect you didn't answer the question about business allowance and what it should be used for or whether or not the $1,000 should have been coming out of this business allowance (it was someone who indicated a business allowance was to be used for dues/fees to a professional organization). Now you change the subject to look at the $$$ amount against the whole budget of the agency. Does that mean that a piece of bubble gum is not really important in the terms of generating revenue or theft because the price of the piece of gum is not really that important in generating revenue or theft? "

Ok wrote on Aug 13, 2008 8:46 AM:

" To Victor: I dont know the inner workings of the how and whys of expenses at the agency, but remember if you are talking about $1,000 or even $18,000 it is such a small percentage of agencies overall budget. It is like asking where that $20 went that was in my wallet last week.
To Living It: I was wondering when you were going to chime in. Sometimes Chad forgets but the northdecoder is not a media outlet it is filled with half truths, ridiculous claims and political propaganda. There is very little fact on that site and is just a blogger, with a power complex, and his cronies not a reliable source of information. I could try to pass off sayanythingblog as the whole truth but dont because I know that even though these bloggers offer insight to the conversation they are heavily biased and in Chads case will do and say whatever it takes to support their claims. "

Living It wrote on Aug 12, 2008 11:50 PM:

" Come on folks; there's alot of expenses that weren't shown to the public-the northdecoder showed alot of it-there were alot of people that blunt made happy with wsi's surplus money-the board knew about it and you aren't hearing anything come out of their mouths,come to think about it the board even paid indviks cell phone bill-i just hope justice is served and the truth comes out.. "

Victor wrote on Aug 12, 2008 5:15 PM:

" To to Victor, ok I will give you that on business allowances, but why then did WSI pay about $1,000 a month for Blunt to belong to a CEO professional organization shouldn't that have come from the business allowance? "

Just have to say wrote on Aug 12, 2008 3:58 PM:

" I for one do not want to hang everything around Blunts neck. I want to see who else might be lucky enough to share the blame once the trial starts. That is IF Blunt is found guilty. Blunt will be judged by his peers, as it should be. Although I am sure, other names at WSI will come up in the blame game like John Halvorson, Mark Armstrong, Jodi Bjornson, and Mr. Indvik. (I am sure there will be many more names come up too, even the whistleblowers.) This is just a matter of getting everything out on the table, and let the chips fall where they may. Arguing over the issues here is great, but it will not change a thing for the trial, that is the final decision. The other part everyone might want to think about here is depending on what comes out in the trial there could be more WSI employees facing charges. "

To To Victor wrote on Aug 12, 2008 1:52 PM:

" Your argument sounds logical unless you consider this:

1. WSI is a governmental agency. They already had strict budgetary guidelines and theoretically, should not have 'gone over' on spending of that type.
2. The club memberships and other organizations you mention is indeed valid. However, can you explain why WSI then paid another $10 k to $12 k per year for Blunt's Vistage membership? That was questioned in the audit too.
3. I'm with the other bloggers who wonder why there were other business expenses reimbursed over and above the allowance. Yes, your point about travel for work was valid too, except that WSI also had a budget for airline travel and paid those costs directly (reimbursed employee for lodging, meals (per diem), and incidentals). If these are the expenses everyone is complaining about, then I sort of agree it should not be an issue and the $18 k was intended for club memberships and other items the org would not pay for. But the Vistage membership? C'mon. "

to Victor wrote on Aug 12, 2008 1:19 PM:

" Business allowances are for things like memberships in business organizations, professional development, subscriptions to business related magazines (I have a subscription to the Harvard Business Review with mine, he may have had one to an insurance publication), etc. The reason, especially in a board run organization, they have a business allowance is so that a limit is set on the amount to be spent in this area. This is done for both for budgetary purposes as well as an accountability purpose. You could spend tens of thousands of dollars on this kind of stuff. So, oh my gosh, the board did something right. (Of course I say that tongue in cheek as I think the board has done an exceptional job at guiding the organization and this vote we are going to have is an exercise in futility.)
I dealt with Mr. Blunt on a weekly basis and I see things differently than you. I do not think your opinions are invalid, everyone is entitled to their opinion, I just disagree with it.
What I find hilarious, actually it is pretty sad, is the lengths people have gone to hang everything they do not like about the agency around his neck. "

Victor wrote on Aug 12, 2008 9:41 AM:

" I know the $18,000 I am referring to is not the one he is being charged with. Clearly pointing out what I see is a pattern in how Blunt operates. Tell me then what is the business allowance supposed to be used for if he requests reimbursement for business expenses? Why have a business allowance at all?

I'm not sick and tired of your support but I do find it hilarous that supporters are so blinded by their image of Blunt (many who probably have never had to work with him or deal with him, if you had some of your opinions would change) that you can't see other people may have valid opinions as well as your own. I sense a pattern of Blunt and frankly don't find him very trustworthy or honest unless it benefits him personally. "

Clearing the Air wrote on Aug 12, 2008 8:22 AM:

" To Mike R: If you want to read arrogant statements you should go back and reread some of your previous posts on other threads.
To Victor: Just so we are clear the $18,000 Mr. Blunt is charged with is not the funds for his housing allowance. Furthermore, if you are trying to say that because he submitted receipts for legitimate business expenses as a way to paint a bad picture of him than you are barking up the wrong tree. I would be concerned if he had lost the receipts and still wanted reimbursement. An allowance is very different from business expenses. Under your logic all of his business related expenses (air travel, mileage, hotel, etc.) should come from his allowance. Not the way things work, my friend. If you are sick and tired of us defending Mr. Blunt I have a suggestion for you, argue the point and not throwing out innuendo and dropping irrelevant information thinking you are scoring cheap points, because no one is buying. "

Victor wrote on Aug 11, 2008 8:50 PM:

" So what is a business allowance if its not to pay for business expenses that Blunt sought separate reimbursement for? You state it was a housing/business allowance by your own words you state it was for business purposes so why then did Blunt submit receipts? Vehicle allowances, some travel expenses for CEO's to use company resources are taxed to the recipient.

Things aren't unraveling for me, its just getting frustruating for the Blunt supporters to continue to find ways to support him when its becoming plain and simple that he appears not to be the honest ethical above the board man many of you believe.

It shows a pattern of just how Blunt operates and in my opinion he never was wrong about anything. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 11, 2008 8:34 PM:

" Can't wait for all the apples: You are terribly misguided on your take on all of this. Yes the supreme court only addressed limited issues. The one FACT that they over-ruled Judge Wefald on was Wefald's entire reasoning for dismissing the case. Therefore Blunt did NOT win in the lower court. The lower court's ruling was based entirely on misinterpretation of the law. How can you call that a win? Next you claim the Supreme court wrongly shifted the burden of proof? That is a very basic legal argument. Are you saying that you alone know more than the combined knowlege of the supreme court when it comes to basic legal rights? Wow. I never thought I would ever read such an arrogant statement. "

Charles wrote on Aug 11, 2008 6:52 PM:

" I think it is amazing how framilar some of you are with Blunt's legal defense strategy. Are you part of his defense team? "

To Now thats just plain reaching wrote on Aug 11, 2008 3:51 PM:

" You're right, however Blunt handles his personal affairs is no one's business. I think the point was in response to your post on how many businesses tax those payments, that in reality probably more than you think. The 'allowance' Blunt was given sounds very similiar to a car allowance, which is always taxable to the recipient. The same should apply with the $18 k. The fact WSI added it to salary later raises the question of how was it treated prior. No innuendo, just pointing out those kind of flat payments can be problematic in terms of their proper use, taxability, how handled on personal return. "

to Plain Reaching wrote on Aug 11, 2008 3:47 PM:

" What do you mean by the actual facts cannot be trumped by those here? "

Now That is Just Plain Reaching wrote on Aug 11, 2008 2:48 PM:

" Why is it folks do not read everything or only read parts or read it all an ignore parts as to make a slanted and sensationalized statement? Ah if the total expense was paid as income in his total salary then yes it would have been taxed by the state and feds before Blunt even received it. So if he took a mortgage write-off then the entire income and offset process would have been reported on his W2 the state filed and then clearly outlined on his tax submission to the IRS. But this issue has noting to do with anything. It is this non-stop innuendofest of lies and deception to create more false assertions and draw away for the fact that the actual facts cannot be trumped by those here. "

Victor Victor Victor wrote on Aug 11, 2008 1:29 PM:

" When are you going to learn that you can only twist things so much before its snaps and unravels on you? "

To Victor you are about for wrote on Aug 11, 2008 1:05 PM:

" Wow again. You may be surprised to learn that yes, business expenses paid as part of a nonaccountable plan are indeed, taxable to the recipient. Here's another little tidbit. I wonder if Blunt used any of the $18,000 to offset his mortgage interest expense, usually an itemizable expense on a tax return? If he did, and he claimed a tax deduction (prior to it being added to salary), then oops. You can't be reimbursed for an expense you claim on your tax return without claiming the reimbursement as income. Not saying that happened, but it is not uncommon for expense accounts to create tax trouble for both the employee and employer if a full accounting (timely) wasn't done. The auditors didn't even question that and maybe should have. "

Victor you are about for wrote on Aug 11, 2008 12:47 PM:

" As usual Victor, you are wrong. Check the records and the notes and you will see that is was in fact a housing/business allowance as committed in writing to Blunt and verbally in front of the public by the Board. It was paid as part of Blunts salary and it was taxed. How many business expense accounts do you know are paid as salary and taxed? After taxes the amount would have only been about $1,000 a month which I am guessing did not cover the mortgage and thus expenses above that were due in payment by WSI. Also, the Board was in discussion to convert the amount well before the audit. I think you should follow the advice of others to not have an opinion when you do not even have the facts. "

Victor wrote on Aug 11, 2008 12:14 PM:

" The $18,000 was brought in to show a pattern about how Blunt operates in my opinion. If someone will knowingly submits receipts for something that should have been part of this allowance then what else will they do?

And the $18,000 was not for a housing allowance, it was a business expense allowance. If Blunt was submitting business expenses, then just what was he using the $18,000 for. And remember this $18,000 was moved into salary only after the auditors questioned whether is was being used properly.

And I have to disagree, Blunts is not in my opinion an honest honorable man. "

To Cant Wait for ALL the Apples wrote on Aug 11, 2008 11:17 AM:

" Wow. You can infer the Supreme Court created a miscarriage of justice? No lawyer here, but didn't the Court state that Wefald's reliance on Blunt not personally gaining from the expenditures was a fact that should NOT have been considered in his ruling? I don't think the Supremes erred on the side of Blunt having to prove innocence. They only ruled that enough evidence of a crime (low threshold, yes) had been provided.

I think the point being made about the $18 k allowance is that Blunt allegedly submitted expenses and was reimbursed for items in addition to receiving the allowance. The auditors questioned why he should receive an allowance AND reimbursements too. Sounds like a valid question. But you're right, not relevant to the case unless Feland brings in other evidence to prove there was double-dipping. Don't think that's going to happen. "

Cant Wait for ALL the Apples wrote on Aug 11, 2008 1:31 AM:

" Little legal 101 primer. When the supreme court stated your quote it was based on only one side of evidence. The defense is limited to only responding to the evidence put forward by the prosecution and Blunt STILL WON at the lower court. Judge Wefald heard hours of testimony and had both sides present written briefs. From this the Judge soundly and definitively found no probable cause. The appeal to the high court had only limited arguments of procedural law not fact. The high court neither heard all that the lower court Judge heard nor reviewed all the information that was available to the lower court. This whole argument was only on the prosecutions evidence and only on arguments of law and not fact. The defense then and now has not yet had a chance to independently put their evidence and argument forward. Now that it is on to trial the defense can put forward a complete argument and not just fight the prosecutions slant with both hands tied behind its back. So look for the rest of the story coming soon to a courtroom near you where apples can be compared to apples and not cow pies. I bet Lady Justice will love them apples.

As for the $18k, you have NO IDEA what you are talking about and it has no bearing on this case. It was a housing allowance/business and was officially folded into Blunts full salary by the Board. Nothing but class envy and jealousy by auditors.

As a side note, it is the prosecutions duty to prove Blunt is guilty. So for the high court to state neither Blunt nor the district court has drawn our attention to any constitutional, statutory, or other legal authority allowing an agency head to award retroactive pay increases it was a serious and inappropriate shifting of burden. It subsequently became Blunt and the Lower Courts obligation to prove innocence as apposed to the prosecutions duty to prove guilt. This was yet one more sordid detail and miscarriage of justice in this whole incredible mess. "

To Victor and Others wrote on Aug 10, 2008 9:06 PM:

" Ok....just my $0.02 worth, which I hope is not audited by the good ole' boy's club at the State Auditor's Office (it hurts to say that..kinda ashamed of them).
It was clear to me that the "bonuses" were in fact adjustment to salaries, with a "catch-up" payment as the people deserved. See, you haven't read and probably didn't witness what was going on. If someone is overdue for a salary review due to management changes, those reviews, when completed, should be retroactive. How did you expect they would get the money? Gift cards are obviously not the answer!! So yes, they received a check for retroactive pay. And don't lie, you would expect the same and probably more for pain and suffering for the months they waited to get the review. And the same thing is probably going on since they have had a huge management turnover since Blunt resigned.
As for the gift cards and employee morale boosters....you would expect the same, it was for a good purpose, people deserved it, and those that continue good service should demand it. For the crap they put up with by people on this blog and others, they should get more than bottled water, gift cards and trinkets.
Blunt is an honest good man. For Victor to think managers should know every detail of expenditures, that is called Management by Hitler!! Should Blunt have known the number of toilet paper that was to be purchased? "

to FACTs all wrote on Aug 10, 2008 6:28 PM:

" Your legal opinion cred isn't much better. When the Supreme Court made a decision on this case it was that the district court judge errored in making a decision of dismissal at that stage of the trial. The preliminary hearing is a procedural step that is has a very low standard of proof. Basically the state's attorney says "hey I have some evidence that related to this case and the judge usually says ok then lets go to trial. It is a step that is put in place to remove the truly nonsense cases. I think, and this is just my opinion, that this case has no legal merit in front of a jury, but that is just my opinion. I would think that Judge Wefald saw this as well and wanted to end it and the Supreme Court disagreed. This is the process, but know that the Supreme Courts decision has nothing to do with or makes that claim of guilt of Mr. Blunt. The Supremes don't work like that, they work on procedure.
As for your expense account statement, first off that isn't even in the trial and has no bearing on the case. Expense accounts are common place for executives, but for the most cases not in state government, but if you want examples of where else in state government it happens you may want to look into the Dept. of Commerce and the Bank of North Dakota.
As much as you don't want to believe it, the activies at WSI are not as out of line with the rest of state government as people think. Nor are illegal just because it doesn't pass their personal smell test. "

Victor wrote on Aug 10, 2008 4:11 PM:

" Judge Wefald Republican crony (my words) saw it as salary but the entire Supreme Court saw it as something else.

Connolly didn't check facts about the possible liability issue the Auditor indicated in the letter to the SAO and the Board but sure raked the auditor over the coals and did not seek out the truth, however you were critical of them for not seeking the truth about Blunt as you put it but think its ok for Connolly not to seek the truth about what the auditor said, sounds like a double standard to me.

I have seen the long pattern of purchases and indicate that Blunt knew nothing of the purchases. I beg to differ. It's my understanding that Blunt did see/approve some (if not all) of the purchases. Supporters focus on the cake, there are more purchases than the cake, I say throw the cake cost out and focus on the others. I am convinced that Blunt knew of and approved of the purchases. Any good manager would (or should) have asked what these purchases were for when preparing/approving annual budgets, if he didn't then he failed in his fiducary responsibility by not fully understanding the costs being spent by the agency, this in my opinion is another management failure of Blunt. Another thing that leads me to think Blunt is unethical and dishonest is him not using his annual $18,000 expenditure properly, instead he submitted receipts for things that should have been part of the $18,000 (this was pointed out in the 2006 audit and the board changed the reimbursement by adding this to his salary). This I believe shows a pattern and is a factor that leads me to my conclusions.

You can call it a salary, I see it as a bonus which is illegal for the dollar amount under ND law.

If I am suppose to keep my opinions to myself, does the same go for you? "

FACTs all wrote on Aug 10, 2008 4:09 PM:

" You say "Just because the auditors office and the auditors office alone calls it a bonus does not in fact make it a bonus." An interesting fact is the Supreme Courts decision says they agree with the auditors. When you say "alone" don't the Justices of the ND Supreme Court count? Weird. Last I checked their legal opinion is worth a bit more than yours.

Do you like apples? How do you like them apples?

http://www.ndcourts.com/_court/opinions/20070247.htm

[31] We agree with the State that there is probable cause establishing lump sum payments constituting improper bonuses not authorized under state law. We further note, however, that even if the lump sum payments are characterized as retroactive pay increases, neither Blunt nor the district court has drawn our attention to any constitutional, statutory, or other legal authority allowing an agency head to award retroactive pay increases. "

Come ON Victor wrote on Aug 10, 2008 3:50 PM:

" Victor,

Connolly interviewed the Audit Manager, as referenced in the report--Do you know whether they ever talked to Blunt? If you don't facts, why make something up? An indictment for eating a birthday cake is surely a new high for North Dakota criminal law. There clearly is a unique set of values in whoever is behind it, or they do not have enough to do, when they can charge somebody criminally for conduct that was assumed to be legal for many years. Whatever Blunt's faults, it looks like the State auditor had it in for him beyond reason, and now public assets really are going to be wasted far in excess of the cost of the cake. "

Lets use FACTS all wrote on Aug 10, 2008 2:25 PM:

" Victor, a bonus and a salary adjustment are very different things. Just because the auditors office and the auditors office alone calls it a bonus does not in fact make it a bonus. Judge Wefald clearly saw it was salary. WSI is clear in the audit it was salary. Documents the auditor received show how the payroll projection reports had notes showing salary increase adjustments to cover for the eventual promised back payments to Dec 04 were added by VP of Finance well before the payments were made. Further yet, title 54 (the bonus law) says a bonus cannot be calculated into future salary increases; the amounts in question have had multiple salary increases for each person since it was issued. WSI has never paid bonuses since it was formed under the new law. Back payments for the same thing were made to other VPs to Dec 04 yet they are mystically not called bonuses. Blunt never sought or was given advice on bonuses as they never even contemplated the bonus provision because they were salary increases. And the proof goes on-and-on-and-on. Please pull facts not fiction in your argument.

PS Connolly spent a lot of time with the internal auditor. Check the report and it will show he talked with her directly. Again, I plead with you to please pull facts not fiction in your argument. "

Come On Editor This is Clean wrote on Aug 10, 2008 1:07 PM:

" Victor, Victor, Victor you obviously have not seen enough of the audit details and clearly have not looked at the long pattern of these purchasing practices. They had years of similar purchases; and for the record I dont think what they did was wrong either.

To the independent-minded readers, are we really criminally charging a man and his family for a cake bought for him (not by him BUT FOR HIM) for his first day? He was not even at the agency yet when the cake was approved and ordered. Next we have bottled drinking water for the WSI employees. Then we have $10 gift cards for staff and carnations and a balloon to celebrate the employees years of service at the agency. ALL PRACTICES AND PURCHASE PATTERNS ACTIVE AND LEGAL BEFORE BLUNT ARRIVED!!!! Now we lynch him for listening to the legal and financial advice given to him by these same employees? I am willing to bet that Blunt did not personally sign off on most of the purchases in question and was not even aware of when or how they were bought. If this is so, isnt the wrong person being charged? Until we have all the facts Victor/Victoria, I say we should all keep our hands and opinions to ourselves because that is all they are just opinions.

PS, If you really want to see what it looks like to buy a lot of food (and hypocrisy) do a public records request for the food and beverage purchases by the Supreme Court annually for government employees. Now that number will really blow you away. "

Victor wrote on Aug 10, 2008 12:29 PM:

" Connolly also never spoke to the Internal Audit Manager but there are many who take his written words as gospel when it comes to that person. So if Connolly was wrong on Blunt by not speaking to him, isn't he also wrong about the Internal Audit Manager. He probably only spoke with those who were aggrieved by the Audit Manager as well.

Nevertheless whether it was a oral agreement or not, the dollar value exceeded the allowable limit per state law on the bonuses. Spin it how you want, that is what the audit finding says, that is what the criminal complaint says. No matter what it appears to have violated laws. Perhaps Blunt did check with Bjornson and she gave him still more bad advice, but nonetheless it was Blunt who authorized the "bonuses", so he is responsible. These are the facts, not fiction. "

Check the Official Record wrote on Aug 10, 2008 11:33 AM:

" Food for thought. George Keiser called for the State Auditor to look into the exact same issues over a year ago in a public hearing. Keiser gave real examples of similar acts and told Gordy Smith, Ed Nagle, Bob Person, Jason Wahl, and Ron Tolstad to do audit the other agencies for the exact same things. Check the record and the testimony from the House IB&L hearing of the Audit in March of 2007. The SAO, of course, ignored the whole request because it would only prove that WSI did the same thing as everyone else. And please drop the Republicans are powerful so the data is fraudulent crap too. That is getting so old. How about facts over fantasy in your debate. "

Give It A Rest Will Ya wrote on Aug 10, 2008 11:26 AM:

" To your points: no one forced him to give illegal bonuses. No one forced him to request the photo download from DOT. Read the Connolly and Marsh reports on Blunts management style."

One, they were not bonuses they were back pay to an oral and written promise. Watch for the proof during the trial. Two, it has already been proven by deposition that Blunt neither directed nor authorized the DOT download. It was the head attorney Jodi Bjornson who gave the OK to both download and use the photos. Blunt had no idea she had done such until the case was dropped because Bjornson KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY HID her actions for almost a year. Three, the Connolly report regarding Blunt talked to only those who felt aggrieved. Connolly never spoke to Blunt or attempted to find the truth of the issue. Additionally Connolly stated it was one of the best-run systems in the US; FYI this was done under Blunts management. So if he is bad because of the points then he is also responsible for the first class system results too. "

leo wrote on Aug 10, 2008 10:33 AM:

" to To Lvy Leaguer

Yes "

To To Victor wrote on Aug 10, 2008 9:45 AM:

" Be careful in your accusations that former employees 'made things up'. You may be proven wrong. Further, who has the axe to grind? The people who keep blaming others rather than take responsibility? "

To Lvy Leaguer wrote on Aug 10, 2008 9:33 AM:

" I don't need to be seriously injured to understand the system, but thanks for the well wishes. The two year limit is only for TPD and then if the condition has not improved then you can go onto other classifications for up to a total of 7 years. For those who can never go back to work then get PTD. But the goal is to get a person back to work, not to live off the system. Which is, I guess, one of your beefs, just remember workers comp is not a retirement system or welfare.
Read the entire thread before you comment, I was asked by another to provide a list of agencies that spent like WSI, so I did. Others asked me to provide more information about it more than a list, which I cannot do as it is a 7 page document that has six columns. The Tribune website is not set up to allow for me to upload it, so I told everyone were they could get a copy. Just call Legislative Council.

To leo: Did you work for WSI? "

To Ivy League Grammar wrote on Aug 9, 2008 10:11 PM:

" The concern is not just the two-year limit, but how it is used. Maybe you should study up a little on how it is used, and abused. Then again, I might be asking too much of you on that one. My suggestion is maybe go through some serious injuries, research the time line for recovery. Then ask yourself how long this injured worker sat with this injury before there was treatment done that did send them on the road to recovery. There are cases out there where it was from six months, to fifteen months before the injured worker received the right medical treatment. From that point the healing starts. Now subtract the middle of that time say eight months of that two years for lets say a spinal injury. That leaves you with sixteen months recovery time. Just for the record, some spinal injuries can take two years or more for recovery from the date of surgery. Some never recover to where they can do work. Therefore, the two-year limit really has no bearing then.

As for your list, I was wondering where you were going with it, and why. You seem to have a list with no more information at that time as to why you posted it. I mean if you have proof of those other government agencies doing the same, as WSI please feel free to bring it out in the open. Although at this point it seems WSI is the issue, as they seem to keep getting in the headlines. Oh and thanks, for the grammar update I will put that in my notes and refer to it later. "

leo wrote on Aug 9, 2008 9:20 PM:

" to To Victor

When did Blunt ever prove he was a manager? The employees of WSI most certainly were not exposed to any leadership abilities by him. I do have to disagree with your broad statement about North Dakotan's work ethic though. Leadership is a rare quality. Very few people have the gift or the ability to lead others. North Dakotans will work very capably if they are convinced what they are doing is the right thing to do. We are not robots that readily accept the direction of someone who calls themselves or are appointed managers. They will not follow anyone who talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. Do as I say and not as I do won't work here in North Dakota. Openly having double standards where executives receive special treatment and the people who do the actual work are treated as peons won't work here either. The work ethic may not be what it used to be, but people here won't be fooled into blind obedience. We have a passion for work but it's just not there to make non-leaders look good or to get them promoted. Any company can compete in the market if it has competent leadership, trains their employees well and treats them with respect. "

to Victor wrote on Aug 9, 2008 5:05 PM:

" The list was provided by OMB (Office of Management and Budgets) I love how all of you think your information is clean and ours is tainted. It is a seven page document and there is no way to post it to this site, which is why I posted were to get it, but I would guess you are not interested in the truth, just your view. I would guess that you are a former employee with an axe to grind, JIm, Jerry, Kay, Billie or one of those who decided that making things up to cover the real reasons for their terminations. Its too bad you are more interested in advancing your personal venum without regard for advancing injured workers causes. How you sleep well at night. Again I ask what are your exact concerns with the current system? "

To Victor wrote on Aug 9, 2008 1:26 PM:

" Victor, Blunt doesn't need man agement classes. He has proven himself over and over again as a manager. The people who need classes are the employeess of ND. No one wants to work with them because of their poor work ethic and sense of entitlement. Ask the former manager of Home Depot. He went back to a state where people know how to work and know what is expected of them - so unlike north dakotans. I know this will tick off a ton of people, but it is so true. Wake up to reality classes are needed here. ND will never be a competitor in any business. "

Victor wrote on Aug 9, 2008 12:39 PM:

" To TO Victor Mahroni, I disagree with you.

It was Blunt who ruined his own career, he alone is responsible for his actions, he is the one who did the things he did, no one forced him to give illegal bonuses. No one forced him to request the photo download from DOT. Read the Connolly and Marsh reports on Blunts management style, no one but Blunt is responsible for that. He needs to take managment classes, he needs to learn that respect is earned, not merely deserved because of who he is, he needs to be open and not always do things behind closed doors, he needs to realize that laws apply to him and his actions. "

Victor wrote on Aug 9, 2008 12:35 PM:

" To To Victor, you may be right those lists may have been submitted. I do wonder with the Republicans running the state and in WSI's back pocket (i.e. the Majority leaders company getting a safety grant and him voting on the legislation that allowed the grant program (possible conflict of interest)) if there was some legitimacy to this list why haven't we heard anything about it, why haven't they demanded a review of these agencies spending? Why havent legislators like Frank Wald, George Keiser, RIck Berg, Nick Hacker and Judy Lee pursued this information??? I'm guessing its because the list is bogus and was planted by a Blunt supporter (possibly after some kind of scientific analysis) to deflect from the issue. If I am mistaken I will admit it but merely posting a list of agencies w/o specifics proves nothing. These agencies are public agencies, why hasn't someone done an open records request and supplied details on these agencies expenditures? We all know that there are people who want to be legitimate journalists or bloggers or whatever that have requested information from other state agencies, why aren't they pursuing this angle if there is legitimacy to this. These people idolize Blunt and one would think that they would do all they can to prove his innocence, but we hear nothing, why is that?

What Blunt did was wrong, and I'm guessing he knows it (but doesn't seem to want to admit it), the public knows it, and many legislators know it as well (some were even part of the illegal spending but they won't admit it) so the saga continues.

You provided the list of agencies but no information on what the expenditures were unlike for WSI where the expenditures were outlined. "

to What wrote on Aug 9, 2008 11:39 AM:

" I am not sure what your point is about my list. I was asked to provide a list of agencies who spent funds in the way WSI did. My list is a sampling from a list provided by OMB to two legislative committees. Therefore I am sure my research is solid. Your grammer needs a little work, but I think you were trying to say I made the list up, which is untrue, contact legislative counsel and ask them for the list and they will provide it for you. The part that gets me with you injured workers is you didn't like the outcome of your WSI claim so you start throwing crap at the wall to see what stick, regardless of if it is relevent to your concerns. Lets drop all the unrelated crap and talk about the issues. I have asked before and never got an answer so I will ask again, what is your concern in detail and then we can have an intelligent discussion. Is it they they pay 66% if SAWW, too bad that this the standard nationally as well as with unemployment insurance. Is it that the TPD is capped at two years, it is because it is TEMPORARY so there has to be a time limit somewhere. What is your concern? "

What wrote on Aug 8, 2008 10:00 PM:

" DOT
Parks & Recreation
Game & Fish
Higher Education
State Auditor
Human Services
Supreme Court
Health
Historical
Bank of North Dakota
etc., etc., etc.

And posting a list makes up believe that you know all these agencies are doing the same as WSI? Maybe you could explain your list, rather then just post it. You seem to have fallen behind on your research as to why you posted all of the names above.

As for injured workers, and being one I do not care if Blunt is convicted or not on the charges. Myself I just want to see what might come out of the whole trial mess, maybe some finger pointing at others that have treated injured workers unfairly. If you have never been injured, dont tell us how we are being treated. Because some of what some of us state about issues, we might just have tape recordings to back it up. Since I have found resorces at iwofndadvocates.com/blog/ I use the tools I can. "

To Victor Mahonri wrote on Aug 8, 2008 8:35 PM:

" Why should Blunt care about WSI anymore? They fired him from his job, working there ruined his career, and people treated him as an outsider from day one. I'm sure he would like nothing more than to get this out of the media. I'm ashamed of the way we the people of ND, have treated this man and his family. Some of you actually think he should be sitting in jail right now? All I can say is STUPIDITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

to Victor wrote on Aug 8, 2008 3:46 PM:

" DOT
Parks & Recreation
Game & Fish
Higher Education
State Auditor
Human Services
Supreme Court
Health
Historical
Bank of North Dakota
etc., etc., etc.

Maybe you should get out from behind your computer and thinking that the newspaper is the only source of information. An entire list was presented to two legislative committees and the amounts they spent. So where is your proof? "

Victor wrote on Aug 8, 2008 2:11 PM:

" To To Victor, many Blunt supporters have indicated that other state agencies do the same but none have come forward with the names of other state agencies nor to my knowledge has anyone contacted law enforcement about those agencies. So what gives, who is making up stories to support their case? If you can't name the agencies and give proof, aren't you doing just what you accused me and others of doing. I know others have asked before of the names of the agencies but I haven't heard or seen any, so in case I missed them please tell us which ones you are referring to.

Yes laws can be gray, but that doesn't mean that everyone is doing what Blunt is alleged to have done. You may have received retro active pay but was it over $1,000 as the state law allows (or whatever the limit was at the time you received yours). You make it seem like retroactive pay is illegal, no bonuses are illegal if they exceed a certain $$$ amount (but you forget to put that in your post). When laws are gray you should err on the side of caution, with Blunt it appears he did what he wanted even if he didn't know for sure if it was legal or not.

As for the injured worker selling produce I (and I suspect you do too) know full well that one is true as it was played out in the news a couple years ago, so I stand by that one, I know nothing about the IME issue you refer to.

Can't it be said that both sides twist stories/lies to benefit their story. That is why once a trial is held I will abide by the decision of the jury/judge. "

haze wrote on Aug 8, 2008 1:50 PM:

" To Wondering - the charges were dropped earlier - nobody was tried. He's not being tried twice. "

to wondering wrote on Aug 8, 2008 1:40 PM:

" Mr. Blunt's trail is because the supreme court reversed the decision of the district court, therefore it is still the same trial. Jury trial vs. judge trail makes no difference. "

to Victor wrote on Aug 8, 2008 1:38 PM:

" The question was why Mr. Blunt wasn't in jail waiting for trial and my response was that incarcerating someone for no reason is a waste of money. Furthermore as to your question on were the line should be is not a black and white answer and you ask it knowing I am going to give this answer so you can trap me. Although its against my better judgment I am going to give you an answer. Everyone with a clear mind knows that the charges Mr. Blunt is standing for are crap. EVERY state agency spends some money in this way, the laws and policies of OMB are so gray that no one can make out up or down in regards to them. The only reason injured workers are grabbing on to it is for vengeance, they want him to feel what they perceive they have felt, which is a scary motivation, it makes people put emotion before rational thought. My answer to your question is that in the case where a personal illegal action HURTS an individual or society at large than spend the money to prosecute. Mr. Blunt spending money on employee awards, water and training didnt hurt anyone. Retroactive pay increased for duties performed happen in state government on a regular basis, in fact when I worked in state government I received one, so slap the cuffs on me. You may feel his other actions may have had some impact on the way injured workers were treated, but I can assure you that there were no injured workers were denied their legislatively mandated benefits to pay for a gift card.
As for your farmers market story, give me a break. I love these stories, because that is all they are, stories, legend, fairytale. Anything y'all can come up with, true or false, that can support your case. Im sure you are one of the ones who had an IME doctor who smelt like whiskey, which is my personal favorite of the stories out there. "

wondering wrote on Aug 8, 2008 12:32 PM:

" I may be wrong, but I thought you couldn't be tried for the same crime twice? Does it have to be a jury trial for that to apply? "

Victor wrote on Aug 8, 2008 11:33 AM:

" To to Mahonri, the reason given by the online editor is the same for all stories that is added to the news update section during the day and I have observed it many many times.

I for one don't think tax dollars are being wasted on possible criminal charges and if Blunt is found innocent I won't cry about the waste of tax dollars, I will say the legal system ran its course, I won't be like the WSI and Blunt supporters who use the same lines over and over and over, that the cost is not worth the time.

It would be helpful if you can tell those of us who believe in the rule of law, what the dollar limit should be on determining whether or not an alleged crime is worth prosecuting. That way people will know the dollar amount they can misappropriate, use for their benefit, give to their friends/cronies to support their unethical ways, etc. to avoid prosecution. This will be helpful for those who are alleged to have committed crimes in the future, but the question will be whether or not the WSI and Blunt supporters will be consistent. Do you think that an injured worker alleged to have sold vegetables at a farmers market should have the dollars spent on investigating that WSI did on that person, was that not public money that was wasted? Where was your outrage on that? "

Online Editor wrote on Aug 8, 2008 10:20 AM:

" To to Mahonri: You are right, the same story ran yesterday. Your reasoning, however, is incorrect. The story moved early enough to be placed online as a news update. After the print edition is finished each night the content that will appear in it is moved online. Because of this process there is sometimes duplication. On a side note, if you think I want to generate more comments on any story you are wrong. "

to Mahonri wrote on Aug 8, 2008 10:15 AM:

" No they wouldn't. Its called a bond hearing. Dont comment on the legal process unless you know the legal process. Furthermore, enough tax dollars have been wasted on this frivolous exercise we dont need to use more to incarcerate someone.
The other thing I love about this is that this exact story ran in the local section of the Tribune yesterday and there wasnt a single comment. Apparently, since the Tribune has positioned themselves so heavily on this issue that if they don't get the reaction they are looking for they will run it until they do. Talk about bias in the media. "

Mahonri wrote on Aug 8, 2008 8:25 AM:

" Why isn't he in custody while waiting trial? Most anyone else would be. "

VIctor wrote on Aug 8, 2008 7:56 AM:

" If Blunt really cared about the agency (as he alluded to when he was there (or could that merely have been more lip talk)), he would work out some sort of a plea deal and get this out of the media. Its not about the cost of the trial with me (alleged crimes should be prosecuted no matter the dollar amount), its about taking responsibility for your actions, which it appears Blunt has not done all during his tenure at WSI (Point in case is that he blamed the 2004 audit on his predecessor (rightfully so) but said he would be responsible for anything from that time forward, but when the 2006 audit came out him and his supporters are still blaming others). Well its time to see if Blunt will live up to your words, as there were his words, no one elses, so lets see if he truly believes what he says. "

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.