Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota News - Legislative panel demands records from N.D. auditor

Legislative panel demands records from N.D. auditor

Oct 23, 2008 - 07:14:24 CDT

By DALE WETZEL
Associated Press Writer

A legislative committee is demanding more than three years' worth of records from North Dakota's state auditor in a search for information about the prosecution of the former state workers compensation director.

State Auditor Robert R. Peterson said the formal request - which the Legislature's Audit and Fiscal Review Committee endorsed on a 10-3 vote - was unnecessary because the documents the lawmakers want already are public records.

"It was Frank being Frank," Peterson said Wednesday, referring to Rep. Frank Wald, R-Dickinson, a committee member who made the motion to request the records.

Wald has been critical of a state performance audit of Workforce Safety and Insurance that detailed morale problems and questionable hiring and spending practices at the agency.

The audit was first published two years ago. Critics of WSI used the audit's findings to highlight what they believed were violations of state law.

A criminal investigation ensued, and the agency's former chief executive officer, Sandy Blunt, faces trial in December on two felony charges of misusing state money.

Gordy Smith, a state audit manager, presented the Audit and Fiscal Review Committee on Monday with the results of a follow-up audit that detailed whether Workforce Safety had followed the recommendations of the first report.

Wald questioned Smith during his presentation, asking whether some of the audit's inquiries were beyond the auditor's authority and amounted to "witch hunting."

Wald did not respond Wednesday to telephone messages left for comment. Blunt declined comment.

Peterson said Wald was "upset with how events have transpired with respect to Mr. Blunt."

"He has to take it out on someone, and it's going to be me," said Peterson, who like Wald is a Republican. "That's fine. Every so often, when you do your job, you upset legislators, and in this case, I've upset Frank Wald."

The committee's request asks for "all communications between the state auditor's office and the Burleigh County State's Attorney relating to Workforce Safety and Insurance, including all correspondence, e-mails, faxes, subpoenas, summons, complaints, and other information received or sent" from July 1, 2005, until Nov. 15, 2008.

Jason Wahl, a senior auditor in the performance audit division in Peterson's office, said the office's first documented contact with the Burleigh County prosecutor was on April 17, 2007, when Wahl met with prosecutors and investigators from the Bureau of Criminal Investigation and the Highway Patrol.

Wahl said he was interviewed by the BCI and Highway Patrol in December 2006, two months after the original audit was published. He also was subpoenaed for Blunt's August 2007 preliminary hearing, but did not testify, Wahl said.

His work with prosecutors and investigators has consisted of providing background information and data about the performance audit and answering questions about it, Wahl said.

Correspondence between the auditor's office and the Burleigh County prosecutor numbers about 300 pages, Wahl said. However, the paper count includes WSI documents obtained during the performance audit, including the agency's policy manual, he said.

Peterson and Richard Riha, the Burleigh County state's attorney, said the committee's records request was similar to a request made by Steve Cates, the Bismarck publisher of the Dakota Beacon, a conservative newspaper and Web site. Cates has written extensively about the Blunt case and believes Blunt has been treated unfairly.

Peterson said his office complied with Cates' request. Riha said he refused it because the records Cates wanted are part of a pending criminal case.

The legislative committee's demand says its requested documents must be provided to legislative staffers by Dec. 1. Peterson said the deadline would be met. The committee will not be charged for the records, or for the time spent compiling them, Peterson said.

When they fulfill records requests, North Dakota agencies may charge requesters for time spent searching and reviewing records. The first hour is free, but an agency may charge $25 hourly afterward. Copying costs of up to 25 cents a page may also be charged.

News > State

Printer friendly version Legislative panel demands records from N.D. auditor

Comments

FOR scates wrote on Oct 28, 2008 5:41 PM:

" You'll never hear from her again Scates, she is hit and run and can't come back with facts. No, scates has supporters, we just let him do his own talking here. We don't feel the need to throw attacks and those who disagree with him, it is a whole different way to think. "

SCates wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:52 PM:

" MamaMia - Excellent. It is always best to find an exit when the facts are at variance to your perceptions. Please tell the readers of this story thread just what Chad Nodland has presented on his little blog that has turned out to be true. If you can find anything that is. This will be very interesting. "

MamaMia wrote on Oct 27, 2008 9:22 PM:

" SCates: This will be my last exchange with you on the Chad Nodland affair (as it came to be known. . .). I am not prevaricating, and neither has Chad. You baited and switched and by doing so perpetrated a fraud. I sincerely doubt that there was any money anywhere in reserve for this bet. He who don't got the money, don't pay up. Very simple. But pathetic and sad,because whatever reputation you may have had as a decent man who pays his debts is up in smoke. "

Slim wrote on Oct 27, 2008 8:01 PM:

" Well SCates, we are all very serious about justice and very much dislike government tyranny ourselves. Now I offered my help. You say you have been doing public relations for this cause for 18 months. I counted one person in this "blog" on your side, and that's Splichals Campaign Manager AKA your prime benefactor. You need help, I count 17 people speaking against you and your side. Again, what can we do to help you fight injustice and tyranny. This is serious.

PS. "to LIving It" you should apologize to "Living it." That was not nice. Where is your compassion? I hope you don't work for WSI. "

SCates wrote on Oct 27, 2008 5:05 PM:

" MamaMia: I first made the challenge by way of an editorial printed in the Fargo Forum on November 4, 2007. I subsequently reprinted the challenge in the November issue of The Dakota Beacon magazine which was printed on November 17, 2007 with the identical challenge language as the earlier Fargo Forum editorial. Then, a Bismarck businessman extremely familiar with the WSI facts offered to match my initial $50,000 challenge so that any radio or television media person could possibly obtain a total of $100,000. KXMB television of Bismarck did a story for the evening broadcast of November 26, 2008 regarding this additional challenge amount. Chad Nodland was on KXMB the next evening (November 27, 2008) claiming, although meeting none of the established criteria to have meet that criteria. Although facts seem immaterial to the WSI/Blunt haters, you are alongh with Mr. Nodland free to continue the prevarication. "

MamaMia wrote on Oct 27, 2008 2:03 PM:

" SCates: The whole town knows you started to put caveats out on the release of the money only when Chad called you out. More finagling and snaking through the grass by you is all that is. My guess is that the reason Chad hasn't filed suit against you is that it's just more fun for all of us to get you all hot under the collar about the many demands that you be a man and pay up your debt -- or he enjoys you stalking him about it. Either way, this whole town knows just what a fraud you perpetrated with that false bet. And, Dude, a bet is a bet whether you choose to put lipstick on it with a $50 word or not. "

SCates wrote on Oct 27, 2008 1:14 PM:

" MamaMia It was not a bet. It was a challenge to established publicly in The Dakota Beacon magazine and the Fargo Forum stated exactly thus, But I offer a challenge to the media. I will meet with or talk live on radio or television with any media person (interviewer). Prior to the meeting, a mutually agreed upon verification entity will be selected to verify or refute assertions of fact. The session will be recorded and made available to the public (at my expense). If I am proven by the verification entity of any willful misstatement or misrepresentation, I will relinquish to the person or organization designated by the interviewer, $50,000 that has been placed by me, in an escrow account prior to the interview. Did Chad Nodland interview me on a radio or television program? NO. Did he attempt to meet any of the publicly stated criteria? NO. His claim is false and misleading. No one would make an offer of this magnitude without specific criteria governing the payment. The political left is so predictably dishonest. Should I publicly assert that Chad Nodland is a liar and you can all watch as he does not take legal action? "

MamaMia wrote on Oct 27, 2008 12:17 PM:

" SCates: You are showing your lack of honesty and integrity in this manner. Man makes a "bet", man loses, man pays up. You are less than a decent man if you do anything else but write Chad a check for $100.000. And the whole town knows it. "

Victor wrote on Oct 27, 2008 12:00 PM:

" SCates, I guess since you won't pay up and won't answer my questions or others questions you really don't want us to take you seriously. I would think that if you were so sure of the NDCC law that required Burleigh Counties participation or what Heritage wrote about either you or Mark lying or what Slim wrote you would let us know. I guess that I was correct on my analysis.

I also don't recall you putting in the caveat that someone needs to contact you before they dispute you. You sure change the playing field as you go along. "

SCates wrote on Oct 27, 2008 10:40 AM:

" MamaMia: Nodland never contacted me prior to making the claim. He in no manner complied with the specific criteria of the offer. How is that possible since his assertions have never reviewed by any independent verification entity as specifically required? He has NEVER attempted to collect the money other than to spread the lie that it is due him. I left a message at his office the other day telling him to send his claim to a collection agency or file a lawsuit to obtain his money. He has done neither claiming he will depend upon my honor to pay. Now if someone legitimately owed you a large sum of money would you do nothing? His claim is the very height of dishonor. "

MamaMia wrote on Oct 27, 2008 9:46 AM:

" Hey SCates, thanks for the shout out! If I'm included in any list that puts me in opposition to you, my day is made! I sincerely hope you didn't lose all your money in this recent stock market debacle because YOU OWE CHAD NODLAND $100,000! "

SCates wrote on Oct 26, 2008 4:38 PM:

" Slim I am very serious about justice. I very much dislike government tyranny. You will soon find that very, very little that WSI was accused of is true. Sandy Blunt will NOT be convicted of any crime. Auditor Peterson and States Attorney Riha will have lots of explaining to do. Mark my words. "

Slim wrote on Oct 25, 2008 7:48 PM:

" Scates, I am really not obsessed enough with this issue to listen to a recording of a day long meeting. Ill take your word for it. The minutes you provided in your say anything blog did not properly reflect the motion you had Representative Wald make. OMG, the Legislative Council minute takers are in on the conspiracy! Oh man, this makes the JFK conspiracy look like childs play. What can we do to help? "

mj wrote on Oct 25, 2008 5:19 PM:

" I know "living it" personally, and for what you see this person typing it takes about a half hour or more to type that little bit of a comment. So why dont you go meet "living it" for coffee and enjoy a nice little chat with him. "

Living It wrote on Oct 25, 2008 2:22 PM:

" And i didn't lie about it either,i take it thats all you got out of the committee,i think that's what they call tunnel vision so your calling me a liar my name is in the phone book call we'll have coffee.... "

Victor wrote on Oct 25, 2008 1:14 PM:

" Just because the motion may have been stated that way doesn't mean that it is legally binding on the county. We are asking for definitive proof that it is legally binding and if you are so sure it is then I would think that you would already have the section of the NDCC or ND Constitution cited and ready to throw at your critics, because you fail to produce it leads me to believe that the motion does not apply to Burleigh County.

I have pointed out sections of the NDCC where I think its not applicable to Burleigh County and now I am asking to do what you wrote to Slim on Oct 24, 2008 2:31 PM to provide information to prove otherwise. Or using your own words then I am CORRECT "

Heritage wrote on Oct 25, 2008 10:57 AM:

" Slim,

Cates won't admit he is wrong, nor will he point out the section of the law that backs up his claim, because he knows he is mistaken on that rant.

Cates, one thing you wrote was that NONE of the photos downloaded from the DOT database were shown to the library and/or post office, but your buddy Mark Armstrong indicated in an email that indeed one of the downloaded photos were shown, so either you lied or Mark lied, either way I don't care, someone lied and if its Mark (who many believe was the one feeding you information) then how do you know your facts are true as well. "

SCates wrote on Oct 25, 2008 10:07 AM:

" Slim - You need to take the time to go to the Legislative Council Library and listen to the recording of the Legislative Audit and Fiscal Review Committee session when the motion was made by Rep. Wald. I have. I have actually recorded it. By the way -- Jason Wahl of the Auditor's Office is served a subpoena by the Burleigh County State's Attorney. 16 months latter he does not have it nor does he know the date that it was served. Wahl claims that the subpoena was "general" communication and therefore did not have to be kept according to departmental records retention criteria. "General Communications"? Sure. "

to LIving It wrote on Oct 25, 2008 9:48 AM:

" It amazes me that you told a Legislative review committee that you could not be retrained for a different job because "you can't type" but you seem to do pretty well on commenting here. "

Slim wrote on Oct 24, 2008 11:11 PM:

" OK SCates, you can get back some credibility if you admit you were mistaken in saying "This includes that the Burleigh County States Attorneys Office provide ALL records. Not just the Auditors Office must provide records."

Come on now, it takes a big man to admit when he is wrong. All this talk about everything everyone else says or writes has been wrong and everything you say and write is right does not stand up if you don't admit obvious misstatements. Come on now, redeem yourself.

If you can start down the path of redemption maybe they rouge guy can follow you. "

SCates wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:52 PM:

" I assert that nothing many people have publicly said about WSI turns out to be true. There was no rogue agency, the whistleblowers lost their jobs and do not qualify to be whistleblowers, the injured workers were not getting ripped off, Sebald Vetter could not produce any of the facts that he kept testifying about to reporters and legislative committees, Chad Nodland has been wrong about EVERYTHING he as claimed on his website, Merle Bouche claimed WSI is a corrupt organization, and the list goes on and on. And on this page.silence on the facts of my claim. For the last 18 months I wrote and explained how all of the Sandy Blunt haters were wrong and that none of what was claimed was true. And now, you conjecture that I am again mistaken. Rather than provide the facts you dance around and call names, infer nefarious intent, and suggest dishonesty. Pathetic. But if it is all you have, it is all you have. "

Living It wrote on Oct 24, 2008 7:12 PM:

" It is amazing the people that will follow anyone anywhere-like the charles mansons family-the jim jones followers an now the scate worshippers..... "

Victor wrote on Oct 24, 2008 4:41 PM:

" Edward, you are correct anyone can request anything through an open records request as as citizens not in the form of a formal motion from a legislative committee is what I was referring to. Much like WSI is stating that the SAO had not authority for reviewing Blunts severance package, I don't believe (based on my reading of the sections) this committee had that authority in this capacity.

Also in reading NDCC and the ND Constitution nowhere does this motion (whether it was appropriate or not) mandate this action on Burleigh County, therefore I guess Cates was incorrect in his analysis. "

Edward wrote on Oct 24, 2008 4:18 PM:

" Can't anyone as for any governmental record? "

Victor wrote on Oct 24, 2008 3:36 PM:

" I'm not sure that NDCC 54-35-02.1 and NDCC 54-35-02.2 even allows the LAFRC committee to make such a request on their own without permission of the legislative committee. Here is the link for your reading: http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t54c35.pdf "

Victor wrote on Oct 24, 2008 3:29 PM:

" Cates is not sure himself of the section of the law so he is trying to get others to give him the information. For someone who prides himself on doing thorough analysis, he didn't this time otherwise he would be touting his own horn. Lets not bite "

Victor wrote on Oct 24, 2008 3:08 PM:

" According to Cates, being correct is in the mind of the person making the statement. He makes a statement, people ask for proof and he says, I am correct unless you prove me wrong.

Its also safe to say that when someone refuses to answer questions directly and engages in rhetoric, there is a reason, mostly that there is no basis for their original statement.

According to this logic, we are suppose to believe Cates is correct in everything he says and does.

Why waste time on him? "

Slim wrote on Oct 24, 2008 3:03 PM:

" The blog you put out on say anything shows the motion does not require the BCSA to do anything. Now I'm sure you had instructed Representative Wald make the BCSA turn over records, but that's not what the motion said. And even if it did...

Ah, the best laid plans of mice and boys.

Take off your blinders and read it again. "

SCates wrote on Oct 24, 2008 2:31 PM:

" Slim - I am correct. You need to provide information to prove otherwise. "

Slim wrote on Oct 24, 2008 2:06 PM:

" If SCates is incorrect about the BCSA records request by Legislative Council, what else is he wrong about? If he can't admit to a mistake here, how can we believe anything he says? "

Victor wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:28 AM:

" SCates, back at you, you wrote on this blog that the actions of the Legislative Council forces Burleigh County to release documents, you are wrong on that one. Your words: "This includes that the Burleigh County States Attorneys Office provide ALL records. Not just the Auditors Office must provide records. "

You have also been asked twice to provide the section of the law that requires that and haven't, why is that? "

SCates wrote on Oct 24, 2008 9:12 AM:

" Perhaps, in their oversight of Audit and Fiscal review the COMMITTEE felt (after a day of listening to Auditor Gordy Smith) that some of the activities of the North Dakota State Auditors Office needs official public scrutiny of that offices activities. Since the media of North Dakota, Joel Heitkamp, Ed Schultz, Merle Bouche, Ed Christenson, Steve Zeiser, Jasper Schneider, Sebald Vetter, Chad Nodland, Big Jake, Jim Long, Deb, Dante, MamaMia, Jack Zaleski (this list could fill several pages) have been proven, PROVEN, absolutely wrong about nearly every public utterance they have made concerning WSI. On the other hand, please list a single proven (not inferred by lawyer/blogger who has made no legal effort to collect any money claimed owed to him) fact that I have written about WSI that has been incorrect. Just one. "

Lake wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:30 AM:

" scates posted - "Is it possible that Representative Wald and the other legislators know things that some of you who are so dismissive of him do not know? Yes. That is the case. I promise you."

Wow! Are they like big secrets or something? A club that meets underground? I thought government was supposed to be transparent.

More national embarrassment for North Dakota. "

Edward wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:03 AM:

" To SCates: Frank may "know things that some of you who are so dismissive of him do not know." But one thing is certain, he doesn't know as much about insurance as he thinks he does. Not even close. "

Victor wrote on Oct 24, 2008 7:53 AM:

" Cates, who used the term "witchhunt", wasn't it Frank Wald? Now can you understand the focus on Wald. Wald is trying to lay blame on others than Blunt and trying to create controversy so that Blunt's attorney can argue Blunt can't get a fair trial in Bismarck. Wald, in my opinion, is in the tank for WSI and Blunt. Also you didn't answer the comment put forth to you earlier. Why do you think that Burleigh County has to turn over documents, you said its so, all I asked for was the section of the law that required it, but you failed to provide it. "

Law wrote on Oct 24, 2008 7:36 AM:

" All the documents they are requesting are public documents, there was no need for the grandstanding. Go and get the papers and look them over Frank. It shouldn't require a committee meeting. What a waste of time and money. "

SCates wrote on Oct 23, 2008 11:25 PM:

" It is quite possible that the ND State Auditors Office was far more involved in Mr. Blunts criminal prosecution than the law allows. Why is it that everyone here is focused on Representative Frank Wald? 77 percent of the Legislative Audit and Fiscal Review Committee supported Walds motion. There were very few words in opposition during the very short debate prior to the vote. Nine of those voting for the motion are Republicans. The vote happened at the very end of the day after these people listened to staff of Auditor Petersons office discuss their various activities. Auditor Peterson is running for re-election as a Republican. You have to wonder about the depth of respect and consideration for the operation of his (Petersons) office by those elected officials of his own party likely to be most intimately familiar with the work of the Auditors Office. Earlier in the day the term Witch Hunt was used in questioning Auditor Gordy Smith about his continued focus on Mr. Blunt. The ten legislators that voted to obtain all the records of communication all heard that term. Is it possible that Representative Wald and the other legislators know things that some of you who are so dismissive of him do not know? Yes. That is the case. I promise you. "

Living It wrote on Oct 23, 2008 10:01 PM:

" Nobody else sees anything wrong with this picture,wald an a few of his friends are circling around blunt hoping to get him off the charges that he's on-i do believe that they fear that if he goes down that he's going to take them with him by letting out some very nasty wsi secrets.wald and keiser both have taken trips on wsi's dime an tried to pass them off as business trips then tried to pass a 50.000 dollar slush fund like wsi needs that,now they want to make this kind of stuff legal another thing this state doesn't need,no if anything the people need to circle around an remove wald-keiser-berg-ruby an a few others,help stop the corruption in this state... "

mh wrote on Oct 23, 2008 8:06 PM:

" Frank Wald has made a fool of himself time and time again. He has discredited himself time and again. So who really cares how anyone addresses him? With all he has tried to pull he should be unelected. "

RLM wrote on Oct 23, 2008 8:00 PM:

" Susan
The last time I looked, the State Auditor was elected in a state wide election.
"Representative" Wald was only elected in his district.

Mister Peterson should be able to call Frank what ever he likes.

I think he was just being nice. He could have said what he really thinks. Frank
is in the tank for WSI. Wait, I like that...lets call him "Frank the Tank" "

Secretary wrote on Oct 23, 2008 7:50 PM:

" Maybe for the Honorable Secretary State Alvin Jaeger, but not the State Auditor. I think for the State Auditor you could say Honorable Peterson, or Auditor Peterson. I think his friends call him Aud Bob. "

Oracle CEO wrote on Oct 23, 2008 4:15 PM:

" Susan, since when is the proper way to refer to an elected official as Mister. I thought you were to refer to them as Secretary. I know it sounds funny, but I'm pretty sure that is correct. "

SPLICHAL FOR STATE AUDITOR wrote on Oct 23, 2008 2:23 PM:

" I gotta give you that one on the rouge. In fact, that was really a pretty funny response. Who knows though, it could be that the person is a Rouge Rogue? "

Hey Splichals Campaign manager. wrote on Oct 23, 2008 1:26 PM:

" "the rouge in the auditors office"? There are quite a few female auditors, but I'm not sure any of them wear rouge or any makeup for that matter. Is that a lipstick on a pit bull joke? "

mikesouth wrote on Oct 23, 2008 1:14 PM:

" Let's face it! The past management of WSI was a mess. The faster the control of WSI gets back under the supervision and responsability of the governor the better the public will be served "

Victor wrote on Oct 23, 2008 12:24 PM:

" Cates, how can a legislative body demand that of Burleigh County? You are grasping again and its wishful thinking. What is your basis for fact. This committee can't force the county, they don't have that control over county departments. Besides with an on-going investigation and upcoming trial Burleigh County will not and does not have to provide anything as required by law. "

SCates wrote on Oct 23, 2008 11:44 AM:

" The Legislative Audit and Fiscal Review Committee voted (all 8 Republicans and 1 Democrat) to demand the records of ALL communications between the ND State Auditors Office and the Burleigh County States Attorneys Office. This includes that the Burleigh County States Attorneys Office provide ALL records. Not just the Auditors Office must provide records. "

hmmm wrote on Oct 23, 2008 11:39 AM:

" To: SPLICHAL FOR STATE AUDITOR. Is that you Frank? "

Mary wrote on Oct 23, 2008 11:15 AM:

" Susan, this is a good example of what we've been seeing all along with this WSI mess. Who cares how he referenced "Representative" Wald? Is that the real issue here? Every time something comes out regarding the corruption with WSI, someone tries to divert attention - either by blaming a party like the auditor's office, or bringing up a non-issue. And, "Splichal. . .," I think we can see what's going on with your comment. "

Edward wrote on Oct 23, 2008 10:34 AM:

" To Susan: So Mr. Peterson should have said; it was Representative Wald being Representative Wald, which really meant it was Representative Wald being honest and straightforward in speech or attitude? "

Susan wrote on Oct 23, 2008 10:04 AM:

" To Edward - No, becuase he later also refers to him as Frank Wald. Like I said, quite aside from the issue, it is Representative Wald. Just like one shouldn't refer to Governor Hoeven as John. It shows disrespect and is inappropriate, especially for a state employee, to refer to a legislator by his first name. "

Edward wrote on Oct 23, 2008 9:38 AM:

" When Mr. Peterson sys; "it was Frank being Frank" did he mean it was Frank being honest and straightforward in speech or attitude? "

SPLICHAL FOR STATE AUDITOR wrote on Oct 23, 2008 9:23 AM:

" It does not disturb anyone here that the auditors went so far as to actively participate in the criminal prosecution of an innocent man?

"Jason Wahl, a senior auditor in the performance audit division in Peterson's office, said the office's first documented contact with the Burleigh County prosecutor was on April 17, 2007, when Wahl met with prosecutors and investigators from the Bureau of Criminal Investigation and the Highway Patrol."

The same Wahl then pours through Blunts records and wildly declares he believes Blunts severance is illegal. The same Wahl who found and concocted formula to make promised salary payment bonuses? The same Wahl who had his staff call reporters (not official legal bodies but reports) to see if they had dirt on Blunt from Ohio as part of his audit. The same Wahl who and the list goes on.

The auditors behavior is disturbing and they are not God as they think they are. I smell a day of reckoning for the real agency that has been rouge and out of control for years. Hopefully others will find the guts to step up too and talk about the auditors improprieties.

And by the by, Wald only made motion. Check out how almost the entire committee voted in favor of the motion. There is more there than we know. Thankfully Wald has the guts to stand up against the rouge in the auditors office. "

Susan wrote on Oct 23, 2008 9:21 AM:

" So, the auditor, Mr. Peterson, thinks it's appropriate to refer to a legislator as "Frank" in a quote to the media? Completely aside from the issue at hand, that is so inappropriate. "

Deb wrote on Oct 23, 2008 9:11 AM:

" Wow - this is the funniest article about the WSI mess that I've ever read! Thanks for your candor, Mr. Peterson - it's much appreciated!! "

Nodaker wrote on Oct 23, 2008 8:51 AM:

" Talk about shooting the messenger...yeah, let's get the people that exposed the corruption Mr. Wald, so they can do you more favors in the future....not. "

Just Frank being Frank. wrote on Oct 23, 2008 8:02 AM:

" After the $50,000 party fund blew up in the House Republicans' faces, is amazes me that they will listen to old Frankie.

Great judgment boys and girls. "

Victor wrote on Oct 23, 2008 7:53 AM:

" Wald is just trying to save face in his last legislative session. What do they plan on having the legislative staffers do, waste their time on this issue before the upcoming legislative session or do they want to compare what they got with what Steve Cates got and see if anything is missing during another round of secret meetings toasting Blunt.

Wald is PO'd that his golden boy got caught and that the voters of ND are smart enough to see through all the rhetoric, hate, vindictiveness, harassment that Blunt and WSI have put people through and that voters WILL demand a governance change on November 4. So Frank, cry one last time, your failings as a legislator ruined the agency. "

Food for Thought wrote on Oct 23, 2008 6:39 AM:

" WSI is the republicans little baby, especially Frank Wald. He no longer gets his vacations paid for by WSI, so he is out to get anyone who says WSI is doing something wrong. Asking for the correspondence is fine, but to insinuate the auditor's office forced the states attorney to prosecute Blunt is ridiculous. I have lost all respect for Frank Wald. Hopefully this is his last term. "

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.