Bismarck Tribune - Bismarck News - Blunt pleads not guilty

Blunt pleads not guilty

Aug 26, 2008 - 04:06:39 CDT

By JENNY MICHAEL
Bismarck Tribune

Sandy Blunt could stand trial as soon as December on allegations related to use of public funds for employee incentives and bonuses.

The former Workforce Safety and Insurance executive director pleaded not guilty to Class B and Class C felony charges of misappropriation of entrusted property on Monday at the Burleigh County Courthouse.

South Central District Judge Bruce Romanick tentatively scheduled jury selection in the case for Dec. 11 and 12, with a trial to follow the following week. Prosecutors and Blunt’s defense attorney, Michael Hoffman, have 10 days to give Romanick potential questions for a jury questionnaire.

Blunt was charged April 18, 2007, with the three felonies after a state audit of the agency revealed several questionable practices that were later investigated by Bureau of Criminal Investigations.

One charge of conspiracy to commit disclosure of confidential information was dismissed by prosecutors in October.

The two counts of misapplication of entrusted property, which deal with approximately $18,000 in public funds, were dismissed by South Central District Judge Robert Wefald on Aug. 23, 2007. Prosecutors appealed the ruling to the North Dakota Supreme Court, which overturned the dismissal in a decision issued June 30. The case was sent back to the district court.

The Class B felony charge, punishable by up to 10 years in prison and fines of up to $10,000, relates to the use of more than $10,000 in WSI funds for gift certificates, incentives and pay for travel expenses and lunches for legislators.

The Class C felony charge, punishable by up to five years in prison and fines of up to $5,000, relates to money given to three high-level employees close to Blunt: legal counsel Jodi Bjornson, chief of employer services John Halvorson and communications executive Mark Armstrong. Prosecutors defined the money as more than $7,000 in bonuses, exceeding constitutional limits and not complying with statutory bonus programs, though Blunt called the money retroactive pay to adjust for new salary structures.

The Supreme Court sided with prosecutors in determining that there was probable cause that the lump-sum payments were not legal.

Blunt was dismissed from his position in December 2007 and has been temporarily replaced by former Fargo Mayor Bruce Furness.

Hoffman on Monday requested a jury questionnaire be sent to potential jurors to weed out those people who already have strong opinions on the case, and Burleigh County Assistant State’s Attorney Cynthia Feland said such a process would expedite the selection process and excuse people with “clear bias.”

Hoffman said requesting a change of venue for the trial would not make sense as the case has received statewide media coverage.

“We’ll probably need a larger panel of people,” Hoffman said.

Romanick told the attorneys to get him the questions within 10 days “or sooner,” and to keep the questions focused and to the point.

(Reach reporter Jenny Michael at 250-8225 or jenny.michael@bismarcktribune.com.)

News > Local

Printer friendly version Blunt pleads not guilty

Comments

In the Know wrote on Sep 2, 2008 7:47 PM:

" To: To Beesh,

Blunt is a thug from Ohio. "

to Beesh wrote on Sep 2, 2008 10:02 AM:

" Blunt is from Ohio. "

To LIVING IT wrote on Sep 2, 2008 6:41 AM:

" Good luck on the 17th. You said it better then anybody that WSI can open up a claim anytime they want to. Remember that when they tell you that they were just following the law and your case is closed. They can open the claim back up and change the decision ANYTIME. The law lets them do that. Ask them to follow that law or to give their reasons they don't want to. You opened up your file, now make them open up theirs. "

Beesh wrote on Sep 1, 2008 8:54 PM:

" Blunt is a New Jersey thug. Indict him and put him in prison with the rest of his piers. "

JP wrote on Sep 1, 2008 5:15 PM:

" Remember when it was "wait til the truth comes out... you'll see"... Now they can only hope to sweep all this under the rug. It is still the same old, same old at WSI but now they know how to keep most things out of the media... The political games being played at the expense of injured workers is tragic... makes a sad statement about the residents of ND. With the latest ruling of illegal meetings the leaders of the agency have proven the complete lack of knowledge and morals it takes to run an agency that is there to help people. How many chances does a board, managers and a legal staff get to do things right? "

Keisers Committee wrote on Sep 1, 2008 4:10 PM:

" Keiser jumped on the review of claims because he believes in the agency and apparently, believed in Blunt to the point where he probably thought his offer of review would come across as sincere concern. And, since he believed so staunchly that WSI couldn't possibly be doing anything wrong, it would prove there were no issues with claims. Rumor has it WSI execs may have thought there would be only a couple hundred IW's who would appeal to the committee, and if there were issues, it wouldn't be a large enough sample to prove a problem. And rumor has it they were inundated with far more appeals than they anticipated. Any of you with an issue who have not yet appealed: you don't have much to lose by going through the process. It stinks that you have to open up your entire history for review, however, might be a risk worth taking. "

The Golden Boy. wrote on Sep 1, 2008 2:02 PM:

" Oh how the mighty have fallen. I remember when he was the Golden Boy who could do no wrong. Now the supporters are hoping to paint him as "better than average." Sad. Very Sad. "

Living It wrote on Sep 1, 2008 11:49 AM:

" To JUST AMAZING; the only reason wsi said it would look into denied claims is because of KAY GRIINSTEINNER-after what she said wsi has taken a lot of heat,you have to remember it doesn't have to take the legislative committee to be able to open you claim-wsi can open your denied claim a review it any time they feel like it,as far as telling the legislative committee on which bills that need to be changed is also a joke an false hope because wsi is'nt planning on changing anything,look at the chairman he helped pass most of the bills-folks ask wsi a simple question(how many claims have you reviewed and just how many have you overturned)... "

Just Amazing wrote on Sep 1, 2008 10:24 AM:

" I filled out the same paperwork, and have not heard a thing from anyone. I guess this is just another smokescreen of WSI to make injured workers think they will possible get some help, or at least get their claim looked and, and maybe overturned. Which is not the case. This was just a deal so they can have you agree to open your records so anyone in any committee can look at them. You have just become an open book as an injured worker. The intent to help was not really even considered by these people sending out the paperwork for the injured workers to fill out. "

Living It wrote on Sep 1, 2008 3:47 AM:

" To LEO,you have it right,but it would be really nice to get to talk to these 70 or 80 people an let the folks of north dakota know the truth,it would also go a long way in helping the injured workers,kieser an his legislature committee is a boot shine convention or call it for what it is a photo opp-i'll be going in front of them on the 17th-mine was supposed to be for the review of denied claims but it seems that i filled out the wrong papers an there are only two places to get the files an the legislature committee shows that they did'nt send them and wsi is saying that they don't think it came from them-this doesn't surprise me.... "

leo wrote on Aug 31, 2008 4:03 PM:

" "Seems to me like he did fairly well at culling those who needed to leave for the good of WSI while retaining the best employees".

This statement was obviously made from someone out of state and in Blunt's camp. What was "culled" were the employees with a great deal of experience and expertise that would not swallow the garbage programs spewed by Blunt. Part of the employees that were left were those that needed their jobs to survive and pay the bills. The remainder were the "yes men" - those with no principles and who will work for the highest bidder. Please keep in mind that one newspaper article described WSI management practices as insane. There have been hundreds of articles written describing the degeneration of the ND workers compensation system since the arrival of Blunt.

Eventually, all the Ohio group was "culled" from WSI, but not before they had caused a great deal of damage. Unfortunately, some of the management team that supported Blunt still remain in power. John Halvorson still is a pawn of the republican party and is probably in line to be named the head of the agency in the future. Jodi Bjornson still remains in power even after her questionable actions. The effectiveness of WSI will always be in doubt with individuals like these as part of the management team. The Fargo Forum called for these people to be removed to return the agency to normalcy. What is a shame is that almost 80 good people's lives were upended to satisfy "industry averages". This reasoning is and always will be practiced by managers who don't have a clue how to lead. "

News editor wrote on Aug 30, 2008 9:23 PM:

" Leo, I can't say for sure why your comment was rejected, as I wasn't moderating comments yesterday. However, you're welcome to submit another comment that falls within our guidelines of maintaining civil discourse (that means no personal insults and no profanity) and refraining from potential liability to lawsuits (that means no libelous allegations). "

leo wrote on Aug 30, 2008 3:44 PM:

" Editor:

Yesterday I submitted a blog under this article, but it was not printed. Obviously something was found to be unsuitable. Please inform me what needs to be changed or removed. As a former WSI employee, I found it extremely distasteful that "culling" of good people is a good work practice. It angered me to no end, so please let me know. I feel it's important for someone to respond to such a statement. Thank you. "

Living It wrote on Aug 30, 2008 11:38 AM:

" To the PEOPLE of NORTH DAKOTA it's you and only you that can make change in this sewer of corruption at and in wsi-what BLAMEGAME-HERITAGE-HEARSAY and DUNNO are saying are true very very true-since it looks like we can't get inside an remove people like the wsi board members,the chamber of commerce,-berg-walt,kieser,ruby-the higher forms of wsi-then we are going to have to demand a full blown criminal investigation into the working of wsi-a paper trail will lead to these folks-this investigation can't be done by the N.D.Highway patrol it's going to have to be done by the likes of the FBI and the IRS because as it looks now you can't trust our state law to do the job,thanks for reading my post "

Blame Game wrote on Aug 30, 2008 9:12 AM:

" I have been one of the most vocal complainers in regard to Blunt's lack of leadership at WSI. I certainly think he did alot to screw over his employees and I also believe that he broke some laws when he was at WSI. But I DO NOT think Blunt is the root of this problem. Furness was obviously a plant to hold down the fort so everything vested in wouldn't come tumbling down. It was obvious that Furness wasn't hired for his knowledge in the worker's compensation industry. I believe the root of the problem starts with the State Chamber of Commerce who has appointed the likes of John Halvorson and Pat Traynor as its henchmen. Blunt was just a figurehead. "

Heritage wrote on Aug 29, 2008 5:59 PM:

" The main problem all the execs have had is still there doing the wishes bidding of Pat Trayonr. He even served a couple times as interim director, first on a team with the WSI lawyer who gives misinterpation of the law advice and then on his own when Blunt was FIRED. He is waiting in the shadows like a camelon and hopes to be named the next CEO. One constant in the whole WSI debacle is John Halvorson. "

To Blunt Better Than Average wrote on Aug 29, 2008 10:26 AM:

" Furness isn't better than Blunt. He's just different. Another hand-picked appointed Republican to turn the perception of the agency around. Too bad no one is addressing the root problems in that agency. There are weeds that need to be pulled. Furness isn't there to do that. Blunt is still getting the blame and he's not there. But who's still there? Can't blame whistleblowers and can't blame Blunt's friends in exec...they're gone too. "

Blunt Was Better Than Average wrote on Aug 29, 2008 7:41 AM:

" Here is the thing I don't understand, turnover under Furness is higher than it ever was under Blunt and looks to go higher yet. In fact, turnover under the Furness/Halvorson regime is above industry standard per their own quarterly numbers. When the new report comes out let's see if it goes up or down, I am guessing up becaseu people can see through their thin veil and are leaving. But everyone wants to call Blunt's less than normal turnover levels some kind of Stalinist/Hitler era. If WSI had stayed right at industry average for Blunt's whole tenure, then there would have been about 120 people who would have left the agency; and yet it was only 70 as you say. So it appears that Blunt's era was 40 percent better than the industry average. Seems to me like he did fairly well at culling those who needed to leave for the good of WSI while retaining the best employees. It should be interesting to see the new quarterly numbers to know if Furness/Halvorson can get back to the high performing numbers of Blunt or continue to drive people out. Early word is that the number jumps by more than 15 percent to a new high. Looks like Furness told a big fib on the Ed show about how great his leadership and turnover were. So where is everyone on pointing out Furness' fabrications? "

Heritage wrote on Aug 28, 2008 10:19 PM:

" Here is the web address for the letter from Mr. Furness. For some reason when I did a search in the Bismarck Tribune archives it doesn't show. http://bismarcktribune.com/articles/2008/08/18/news/opinion/letters/162541.txt "

former ND resident wrote on Aug 28, 2008 12:32 PM:

" Well - now it time for me to say "I told you so". When this first started, and all Blunt's cronies and supporters were bashing those of us that said he was wrong and should be let go, I stated that he would stand trial for what he did. "Not Guilty" - well what else would you expect an egotist to say? He is hoping his political buddies can pull some more strings and get his rear out of this mess with little or no jail time or fine. That WILL probably happen. BUT he will still be guilty. Still not sure what the answer is for that Department? Maybe we should privitize it? Get some company to take it over, assure them a fixed profit, allow them to collect funds up to a maximum amount (fully funded at say $50 million or whatever), and have the employers payments ajustable every 6 or 12 months. This isn't rocket science but that department and the legislature, to a certain degree, makes it appear that way. "

hearsay wrote on Aug 28, 2008 11:45 AM:

" There are two sides to every story, the BS and the truth. We just have to let he truth come out. Some people here want everyone to believe that as Bruce Furness put it days before the AG made an opinion that WSI executives broke the law, that in Bruces words "WSI is following the law". Now explain to me people how the smokescreen of WSI has been shattered yet we should believe the pro-WSI people that everything is above board, and WSI has never done anything wrong? Come on now the amount of stories in the news about this agency over the past two years is just all hearsay? All the reporters are lying? I think it has come time for the AG making this call to have decided that he no longer is willing to protect WSI all the time.

Bruce you are a high priced PR man for WSI that was hand picked without a real job search by WSI for an ICEO. Had they done a real job search they would have hired one of the more qualified applicants that they did interview. Where is the smokescreen coming from? WSI!!!! "

WSI Turnover wrote on Aug 28, 2008 11:13 AM:

" That level of turnover was unprecedented at WSI until the Blunt administration. Conolly may have been comparing WSI to industry norms, not to other state agencies. With above average salaries and benefits at WSI for state employees, he should have been pressed to provide a more indepth explanation of his 'analysis' and conclusions. "

Living It wrote on Aug 28, 2008 8:47 AM:

" To HEARSAY: when i was at the conolly report-someone asked conolly about the number of employees that had left wsi and conlly stated that it was normal for over 70 employees to have left-i could see if it were KFC or McDonalds but not a state run office-i wish there were more of your kind to step forward,it would go to clearing the air or cess-pool around wsi,and it would be a huge step for the injured workers--thanks.. "

leo wrote on Aug 28, 2008 5:53 AM:

" To Sara, Frank, and Smoke

What difference does it make whether Blunt was fired or not? You people brought it up. It wasn't hard to find an article about Blunt saying he was fired, there have been so many articles written. Blunt knows he was fired, the board of directors know he was fired, the politicians know he was fired, and WSI employees know he was fired. Only you won't accept fact. I don't know what planet you're from when you state he was the best CEO WSI ever had. He had the full backing of the board of directors and the republican party and he still blew it! He didn't quit, he was using ND as a stepping stone for greater things. Quitters never go on to better things. By the way, I'm no bud of any of you. "

Living It wrote on Aug 27, 2008 11:35 PM:

" TO DUNNO: YOU DESERVE A BIG THANK YOU-but i think that wsi wins more like 90% of their cases-if the folks of North Dakota ever really find out the tactics an loopholes that wsi uses against the injured workers it would horrify them-remember your only one injury from becoming a telemarketer..wsi's sure cure to keep from paying benefits.... "

no hearsay just hands-on experience wrote on Aug 27, 2008 11:07 PM:

" Having been an employee at WSI through the Traynor, Kramer, Edison, and then Blunt leadership stints, nothing was as ruthless or damaging as what occurred to the internal structure of WSI during the Blunt leadership. I'm realistic in knowing that things happen under every administration that are questionable or raise eyebrows, but things that occurred under the Blunt adminstration were out of hand and crossed the line. Nothing is more evident of the problems that occurred internally than the turnover rate among employees. When you have a staff of 220 or so and you have roughly 1/3 of the staff leaving their posts in a matter of 4 years or so to find other employment, that speaks volumns of the employees' belief in the organization, their perception of their work environment, and their trust in the leadership staff. Those employees left WSI for a reason. "

I dunno wrote on Aug 27, 2008 9:55 PM:

" How much clearer does it need to get that WSI is in the hands of grossly incompetent people. How many AG opinions have been issued in the last year chiding WSI for violating open records or open meetings laws? Aren't the AG's own staff working at WSI? The same attorney that gave Blunt and Leingang incorrect legal advice that it was ok to access and display confidential DOT information also accepts a bonus in violation of the law. Who is minding the store folks? This same attorney recently told the Industry Business and Labor committee that WSI only wins about 56% of their cases and only has a 33% win rate at the Supreme Court. Mr. AG, are you going to step in here sometime? "

smoke and hearsay wrote on Aug 27, 2008 7:52 PM:

" It seems everyone has the truth about what was said, and if we took everyone into account we would have dozens of versions of the same conversation. It seems that there are so many different versions that everyone of you is just hearsay!

By the way online editor, where is that article "WSI just following the law"? "

Smoke Mirrors Leo Smoke Mirrors wrote on Aug 27, 2008 7:28 PM:

" Ah, Leo, bud, there is not one set of quote marks directly attributing the words from Blunts mouth in the whole article you pasted. That is not Blunt saying that at all but a reporter taking liberties and massaging the conversation to appear different than it was. I doubt you did, but I did hear the original show of Blunt on Hennen and Blunt did not say he was fired. Blunt did not talk to any reporter for the story. The reporter (maybe) listened to the show and paraphrased from the conversation. So go back to the drawing board and check the official agency paperwork. And what does it matter to you anyway that he resigned as Sara already hit it on the head. Why do you care Leo? "

wow wrote on Aug 27, 2008 3:45 PM:

" Frank can be a lawyer with a blog, and someone else can start writting childrens fairytale books. "

Sara wrote on Aug 27, 2008 2:29 PM:

" Doesn't really matter if he was fired or not people. We are missing the best CEO WSI ever had. And in his place we have an ex-IBM salesman who is covering up all the good things that Sandy did. Just look at the numbers people. Things are tanking at WSI. And Leo, you have way too much time on your hands to dig up minutae like that. Maybe you should be a lawyer with a blog. "

leo wrote on Aug 27, 2008 1:33 PM:

" To Frank

Blunt calls his ouster 'a political game'
Dec 18, 2007 - 04:09:44 CST
Associated Press

Sandy Blunt, the ousted chief executive of Workforce Safety and Insurance, has attributed his dismissal to politics.

Blunt said in an interview on Fargo's WDAY Radio that a group of WSI workers had been trying to undermine him since he started as the agency's chief executive in April 2004.

His firing was the result of a political game and the desire by the agency's Democratic opponents to use WSI as a big club against Republicans, Blunt said.

This is a direct quote from the person you say "resigned". Do I have to capitalize it for you? "

TimTim wrote on Aug 27, 2008 12:42 PM:

" Frank, sorry but BLUNT WAS FIRED (hopefully the caps will help you understand it as well). I don't fully believe newspapers, many times I do my own research and while you brought it up, why should we believe you that you are accurate as it appears you have your own agenda as well??? "

Frank wrote on Aug 27, 2008 11:28 AM:

" Tim Tim and Leo: You can say it all you want. The fact is Blunt resigned. Would you like me to capitalize it for you? Maybe then you'll believe it. Not everything you read in the papers is accurate. Some of them have their own agenda. "

TimTim wrote on Aug 27, 2008 11:06 AM:

" Blunt was FIRED when he was told he could no longer lead the agency, thus he was fired, merely giving him a severance package when his days were numbered and he was no longer functional does not mean he wouldn't be fired. Who knows, if Blunt hadn't agreed to being fired, maybe the board would have talked about it at the meeting. Lets be consistent on the severance package/firing thing when it comes to state employees, lets not hypothesize and do some scientific analysis to call it one thing when its a buddy and another thing when it involves others. "

Mike R wrote on Aug 27, 2008 10:17 AM:

" I find it interesting that the Governor's actions were juvenile. the actions of the prosecutors were juvenile. Everyone against Blunt is juvenile. Blunt must be the only big boy left in your world of juveniles? Could we have our head any farther in the sand? "

Mike R wrote on Aug 27, 2008 8:37 AM:

" Who Cares: Glad to see someone with some common sense finally posted a comment here. You are right. Prosecutors don't get paid by the hour so all the thousands of hours don't cost an extra penny, and I think a lot of those making the claim of "how much is this costing the taxpayers", know it. It is just an angle to gain support for the cause of getting Blunt off - nothing more. Besides that, since when did we start deciding which cases we were going to prosecute based on the cost? Where would that get us? We would prosecute one guy for an assault but let the next guy off on a murder charge because it might cost to much to prosecute the murder case? Cost can never be the deciding factor. That would be the first step toward anarchy. "

That Would be a NoNo on the Firing TimTim wrote on Aug 27, 2008 8:36 AM:

" Blunt was neither fired nor asked to resign; Blunt on his own accord resigned. The Board had its own authority and supported Blunt and was under no obligation to act on the Governor's juvenile demand of self preservation/promotion. Blunt was fed up with the circus and the Governor's game playing was the apparently the last straw and he resigned. Check the Board meeting records. The Board did not fire Blunt or force a resignation at the meeting; Blunt had already resigned before the meeting started. The Board simply took up a discussion and a motion to offer a severance package. Also, a state employee can not get a severance if they have been fired and we all know Blunt got a severance package. Just because it is printed in the media does not make it true. Remember, the job of the media is to sell papers or attract viewers and a sexy story does that much better than the truth. "

Barb wrote on Aug 26, 2008 11:44 PM:

" to: whomever said"" I hope I get on that jury. He would be walking out of that courthouse a free man. " Thank goodness you are not a juror on any case! To have your mind made up already-- Hmmm- "

Who cares wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:44 PM:

" I'm so sick about hearing people ask how much this is costing the state for prosecution. Prosecutors and investigators aren't like defense attorneys or private investigators. They don't get paid by the case. They get the same salary whether they work 1,000 cases per year or 10 cases per year. This trial is costing the state the same amount it does for any other jury trial. If you really want to know what cases are a waste of taxpayer money, it's DUI - a minor offense and it goes to jury trial. But again, who cares, it's a small price to pay to live in a society of law and order. "

leo wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:55 PM:

" To Frank

The newspapers said he was dismissed/fired. No matter - as long as he's gone. "

Frank wrote on Aug 26, 2008 7:49 PM:

" Tim TIm: Strictly speaking, Blunt was asked to resign and he did. I know all the Blunt haters keep saying he was fired, but that just isn't the fact. "

Barney wrote on Aug 26, 2008 7:18 PM:

" Someone to blame fo this dragging on is Judge Wefald. If he hadn't put his own personal agenda into the law this could have been settled about a year ago. His bidding for the Republicans and thinking as judge he could make this go away is why we are still dealing with this. "

To Bismarcker wrote on Aug 26, 2008 3:49 PM:

" I think I agree. The real obsessed are those with something to gain or a vendetta to settle. The rest of us just sit back and shake our heads at the whole thing. "

Bismarcker wrote on Aug 26, 2008 2:51 PM:

" Actually, this case isn't as big as everyone thinks. There is a large portion of the population that could care less and would be very impartial jurors. "

leo wrote on Aug 26, 2008 12:49 PM:

" It will be a difficult task to find a jury for this trial. I would recommend the jury consist of former WSI employees - an internal auditor should definitely be a member. I'm sure they would be as fair as he was when he occupied the CEO's chair. There's 80 or so to pick from - pick any 12. "

TimTim wrote on Aug 26, 2008 11:59 AM:

" Wasn't Sandy Blunt also FIRED from WSI "

To Frank wrote on Aug 26, 2008 11:17 AM:

" I hope I get on that jury. He would be walking out of that courthouse a free man. "

Just have to say wrote on Aug 26, 2008 11:02 AM:

" Yes this is an agency that has followed the law to the T, and has done nothing wrong. Bruce Furness stated that in an opinion that was published here at the BT, and a week later the AG comes out with a ruling that the governing board of WSI broke the law. Have we not heard this before about illegal meetings with Sandy Blunt involved? Yes I am sure he is innocent of holding illegal meetings too.

Blunt has proven that he has no intention of following the laws with all the questions about his actions when he was the CEO of WSI, so what makes this charge of the 18k any different? let justice take its course, and lets see what happens. I for one will be watching, and be interested in what else might come out of this trial. It will be interesting to see. "

Frank wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:34 AM:

" It's about time!! I really wonder if an impartial jury can even be seated. I mean as much publicity that this thing has gotten; not to mention all of WSI in general. It could be interesting what all comes out at trial. Blunt might be the one on trial but I'll bet others at WSI are just hoping this goes away. Now that Barney is requiring concrete proof for anything we say in this blog, hopefully he'll take his own advice instead of just spouting his anger for being fired from WSI. "

Linda wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:32 AM:

" I agree with you, Paul. This has been drug out far too long. I too feel that Blunt will, in the end, walk away from this mess and from North Dakota. Can't blame him. I wouldn't want to stay in this city or state one day longer than necessary after this fiasco is finished. "

U too wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:08 AM:

" I liked the sun glasses. "

Paul wrote on Aug 26, 2008 7:56 AM:

" Well finally this case is moving along. Sandy and his family have been in limbo for so long and it's good to see that Judge Romanick wants to get this done as quickly as possible. In the end he will be found not guilty and this will all have been an enormous waste of time and money. "

s wrote on Aug 26, 2008 7:53 AM:

" And how much is this whole prosecution thing costing the state? Are the investigators, jurors, and all else involved volunteering or is the state spending hundreds of thousands to do this? How many phone calls - copies - miles logged - possible overtime hours - man hours involved? Can anyone answer that? Seriously, I hope the guy walks. If he is found non-guilty on all charges, could he have his job back? Could he turn around and sue the state? What end result are the prosecurots hoping for? That he will be fired? Didn't that already happen? Can he possibly waste another $18.000 of the state's money? How? I don't think Blunt is the immediate threat to state funds. "

U wrote on Aug 26, 2008 6:35 AM:

" Nice suit Sandy!! That's all that needs to be said. "

Barney wrote on Aug 26, 2008 6:23 AM:

" Blunts own arrogance is the cause of these problems. Now the Blunt supporters will start the rhetoric about this has always been done this way, well "alleged" illegal bonuses have not been done. And before anyone states all other agencies do this as well, name them and give proof and dollar amounts don't just refer to something that Georgie Keiser says or requests. If you want your case to be taken serious please provide concrete proof. "

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.