Bismarck Tribune - Bismarck News - N.D. Attorney General won't give opinion on Blunt payment

N.D. Attorney General won't give opinion on Blunt payment

Nov 16, 2008 - 04:05:23 CST

By DALE WETZEL
Associated Press Writer

Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem has declined to resolve an argument about whether North Dakota's former workers compensation director was entitled to almost $128,000 worth of severance benefits.

State Auditor Robert Peterson had asked Stenehjem whether the payment was legal in light of evidence that Sandy Blunt resigned shortly before the directors of Workforce Safety and Insurance voted on Dec. 6 to dump him.

North Dakota law prohibits severance payments to employees who quit on their own. During followup work on an earlier audit, state auditors discovered an e-mail from Blunt that prompted questions about whether he quit before the board's vote.

"Although you raise the possibility that Mr. Blunt may have resigned prior to the Dec. 6 meeting, the resolution of that question would require a factual determination that is beyond the scope of legal opinions that can be offered by this office," Stenehjem's letter to Peterson says.

In any case, Blunt signed a severance agreement with Workforce Safety on Dec. 21, which superseded any agreement made beforehand, Stenehjem said.

Blunt said the auditor's office did not ask him to clarify the e-mail, which he wrote last August to WSI spokesman Mark Armstrong. Blunt wanted his agency paperwork to reflect that he had resigned as Workforce Safety's chief executive.

"I verbally resigned to Chair Indvik on 12/06/07 with Vice Chair Gjovig as a witness," Blunt wrote in the e-mail. At the time, Robert Indvik of Bottineau was chairman of WSI's board of directors and Mark Gjovig of Williston was its vice chairman. Gjovig is now chairman of the board.

Auditors said the only time Blunt, Indvik and Gjovig met alone that day was before the board's meeting, which spurred Peterson to ask whether Blunt had made himself ineligible for a severance payment by resigning on his own.

"The auditor's office could have saved the state a lot of time and money by just talking to me from the start in order to understand what I meant when I wrote the e-mail," Blunt said Friday in an e-mail to The Associated Press. "It is a shame they did not feel the need to do so."

Peterson also asked the attorney general if the payment met state law's requirement that a severance agreement increase an agency's efficiencies or reduce its expenses.

Stenehjem said it was up to Workforce Safety's board to determine whether it was worth it to pay Blunt to give up potential legal claims against the state.

"Although WSI paid Mr. Blunt a very large amount of money, about which I expressed deep reservations at the time, it is for the WSI board to determine in the exercise of its discretion whether the settlement with Mr. Blunt could reduce legal expenses through the release and waiver of potential claims," Stenehjem's letter says.

In his agreement with WSI, Blunt did keep the option of suing the agency to force it to pay attorneys' fees he has paid defending himself against felony charges alleging he misspent agency funds and conspired to misuse confidential information.

The conspiracy charge was dropped. Blunt is facing a trial next month on two remaining felony charges alleging he misspent agency funds on gifts, meals and trinkets for employees and state legislators, and on illegal bonuses for WSI executives.

The severance agreement required that Blunt be paid his salary and health insurance benefits from Dec. 7, 2007, through Aug. 31, 2008. WSI records show he was paid $122,393 in salary and $5,454 to maintain health coverage, for a total of $127,847.

In addition, Blunt was paid $19,740 to compensate him for unused vacation and $2,646 for his December work time, which brought the package's value to $150,233.

The payments for vacation and work time were not counted as part of the severance payment, because Blunt had earned the money and vacation benefit. He was paid the settlement's proceeds last January, agency documents show.

News > Local

Printer friendly version N.D. Attorney General won't give opinion on Blunt payment

Comments

Curious wrote on Nov 24, 2008 12:05 AM:

" Voice of Reason makes a point. One other thing, Mr. Stenejhem: you state in your letter that WSI's board was the sole determiner of whether or not the large payment (of which you expressed reservations at the time), would save the state legal costs. What legal costs???? Blunt was an at will employee, there was NO CONTRACT. Secondly, how was it that the final agreement left the door open for Blunt to recover his legal costs???? You didn't mention that in your opinion. And thirdly, how can you not find facts on one facet of this issue, yet you are quick to point out the facts of the written agreement (when it was executed, etc.). Is this selective fact finding? Please enlighten us. And one final question: Was your office involved in rendering legal advice to attorneys at WSI who advised the WSI Board? Is that a conflict of interest? "

VoR wrote on Nov 23, 2008 1:55 PM:

" To GOD,
I had never considered that you might be a taxpaying North Dakota citizen. Wow, talk about a revelation.
Since you have the time to involve yourself in state personnel matters I wonder if you could clear-up a couple of other questions too;

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. you clarify? Can I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them?
(Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

I was also wondering if you would explain something about dinosaurs. I am confident you can help. Thank you "

Voice of Reason wrote on Nov 23, 2008 1:24 PM:

" ******* An open letter to North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem *******

Mr. Atty. General,

Quoting you here, "Although you raise the possibility that Mr. Blunt may have resigned prior to the Dec. 6 meeting, the resolution of that question would require a factual determination that is beyond the scope of legal opinions that can be offered by this office,"

Yet in the very same letter you state, "In any case, Blunt signed a severance agreement with Workforce Safety on Dec. 21, which superseded any agreement made beforehand."

The report also quotes your letter as saying, "Although WSI paid Mr. Blunt a very large amount of money, about which I expressed deep reservations at the time, it is for the WSI board to determine in the exercise of its discretion whether the settlement with Mr. Blunt could reduce legal expenses through the release and waiver of potential claims,"

Excuse me Sir, What exactly are the parameters of your "scope of legal opinions " regarding personnel matters involving state employees? Is it your position that legal decisions should be based upon the potential cost of making or enforcing them?

From what I've been reading it appears that your office is practicing a curious form of situational ethics in this case. Some of the opinions that have been expressed on this comment board so far are suggesting issues of cronyism or incompetence. I certainly hope that those assessments would prove to be off base. Unless of course it is an indication of something even more troubling.

You owe it to the people of this state, whom you are sworn to represent, to clarify precisely where your "scope of factual determinations" are exhausted concerning legal opinions in cases of this nature. Particularly where pending felony criminal charges are involved.

I'm sure you would agree. Thanks for your valuable time, VoR "

Barney wrote on Nov 22, 2008 7:49 PM:

" Get real, the horse is still breathing, many of the Pro-WSI, Pro-Blunt want it dead because it reflects badly on WSI/Blunt and their supporters, but until the trial is held and a determination is made one way or another this horse is still breathing. "

4 Get Real wrote on Nov 21, 2008 11:03 AM:

" Get Real: Until the law is upheld "

Get Real wrote on Nov 21, 2008 9:47 AM:

" How many times to we have to beat this dead horse for no productive reason? "

Living It wrote on Nov 17, 2008 1:40 AM:

" It's pretty bad when you have eleven board members that handed out 150,000 dollars to a inadequate out of control ceo that they don't even know if he quit or was fired,you have hoeven taking credit for blunt being fired,the wsi handbook says if you quit or you get fired you have just forfeited your severance package,but we all know that this wasn't a severance package it was hush money-but either way keiser is right the board needs to go-in the past 4 years they have broken one law after another,after blunts trial lets start bringing board members up on charges-lets start cleaning up this state.. "

Mike R wrote on Nov 16, 2008 10:12 PM:

" Facts in dispute: You have it exactly right. Look at the date on the written resignation. Was that date prior to the meeting of the board members where he could have been fired? The answer is Yes. When asked if he was fired, Blunt said No he was not fired, he resigned. When the board was asked if he was fired, they said no, he resigned. How difficult could it be to determine the facts on this one? "

Facts in Dispute wrote on Nov 16, 2008 9:53 PM:

" What is to dispute when there is written documentation via email stating from Blunt himself he resigned? He later says someone should have asked what he meant? Is he saying he wanted WSI to falsify paperwork by saying he resigned when he didn't? Or is this like Bill Clinton's definition of 'is'. "

Not Blunt wrote on Nov 16, 2008 8:49 PM:

" You all are missing or ignoring what the AG said. An opinion from his office is not appropriate because Blunt and WSI dispute whether Blunt resigned or not. The AG would need a resolution of that issue before he can issue an opinion. He is not dodging the decision, he simply cannot issue an opinion when facts are in dispute. "

Golly Bad wrote on Nov 16, 2008 7:06 PM:

" Good golly Good Golly! You would think you would do your homework before spouting off at the hands. The Attorney Generals Office WAS involved in the original contract and DID sign off on it. The truth is if it were under the Governor there would never have been ANY questions by the state auditors. Get a life folks. "

Whatever Frank wrote on Nov 16, 2008 6:58 PM:

" If the AG did not have sufficient info all he had to do is request for supplimental details. To say that the state auditor didn't have enough information is just silly. "

Good Golly wrote on Nov 16, 2008 4:03 PM:

" Had Worker's Comp. still been under the Governor's control at the time, most likely the Governor would have sought an AG opinion prior to even offering a severance package. Just one more good reason to have WSI back under the Governor's control. "

Frank wrote on Nov 16, 2008 3:41 PM:

" To Mike R: It's pretty simple - like was said in the article, the question asked by the State Auditor was beyond a legal opinion. The State Auditor basically asked for an opinion without providing any supporting info. How can the AG give an opinion without having the factual evidence presented? It's pretty clear that the State Auditor failed to do his homework before requesting the opinion. "

same old thing wrote on Nov 16, 2008 12:41 PM:

" What people think the State Attorney is realy going to do something? Come on people they all cover each other on capital hill. The State Attorney will not answer the question becuase he does not want to hurt a good friend that some day he might need help from. "

Everyday Guy wrote on Nov 16, 2008 12:21 PM:

" The ND Attorney General declines a request from the ND State Auditor for an opinion on a matter? I'm no expert on how these things work and know even less about the WSI matter but it strikes me as odd, for starters. I thought the AG's job was to provide legal guidance to the rest of state government? "

GOD wrote on Nov 16, 2008 11:50 AM:

" The Attorney General's office has always skirted the law that they, themselves are sworn to uphold!!!

Sad, but true in the state of ND. What do we pay you for Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem?? "

tony wrote on Nov 16, 2008 11:10 AM:

" He don't deserve any money, wasn't he in non-compliance? What a joke. "

simple wrote on Nov 16, 2008 9:54 AM:

" Is it too simple to think that since Blunt wanted the record to show that he resigned instead of being fired, he should also have to accept the consequences which mean he doesn't get a severance package. You can't have it both ways. Or can you? "

My Opinion wrote on Nov 16, 2008 9:40 AM:

" You got that right Mike R. "

Mike R wrote on Nov 16, 2008 9:18 AM:

" Way to dodge the important decisions Mr Attorney General. "

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.