A former agency head of the state's workers' compensation agency was told he would not receive a severance package because it was against the law, despite his successor receiving a package in excess of $150,000.

Brent Edison, the former executive director of Workforce Safety and Insurance, sought the advice of the attorney general's office after learning that his successor, Sandy Blunt, received a sizable severance package from the agency's board of directors.

According to Blunt's severance contract, obtained by the Tribune, Blunt was paid his salary through Aug. 31, 2008, totaling $125,039.70, plus $19,740.23 paid vacation; in addition, he was given an amount totaling $5,454.54 to cover monthly premiums for COBRA, temporary health insurance, beyond Jan. 31, when his state medical coverage was set to expire.

The package totals $150,234.47.

Edison was terminated from the position in 2003; he said, at the time of his termination, WSI legal counsel Jodi Bjornson told him legal counsel Rob Forward had researched the issue of severance packages and determined that it would be illegal for WSIto pay.

"Iknew that WSI had, in the past, paid severance packages,"Edison said. "The implication of that discussion was that shouldn't have been done, either. Their position was that it would be illegal."

Edison said he made an open records request for Forward's analysis, but it was declined because the analysis was considered attorney work product, which is protected.

E-mails obtained by the Tribune indicate that the work product was sent to Blunt, although it seems the sending was accidental.

"Isent you a copy of that attorney work product memo with this document,"legal counsel Tim Wahlin wrote in an e-mail to Blunt. "Ishould not have sent that to you since it is still at issue in Brent's claim."

He then asked Blunt to destroy it.

When he learned of Blunt's package, Edison asked for explanations from both the attorney general's office and the governor's office, but was referred to WSI. WSIwould not comment, again because the analysis is considered work product.

When asked about Forward's analysis, WSI communications executive Mark Armstrong released this statement:"There is not a memo on this matter authored by Rob Forward. To the extent there exists any written records on this issue, these records are protected communications pursuant to N.D.C.C. 44-04-19.1(4), attorney work product, and will not be disclosed."

Edison said he has no interest in suing WSIor the state of NorthDakota, but expressed hope that the decision is revisited.

"I just think that lawyers saying it's illegal back then, and then the board approving it after everything that has happened with Sandy Blunt, is outrageous,"he said.

In fact, an employee of the attorney general's office said the office has "serious reservations as to the justifications for such a large expenditure."

Tag Anderson with the attorney general's office said in an e-mail to Wahlin that North Dakota law prohibits gratuitous severance pay when an employee is dismissed for "good cause."

"Payments made as part of a personnel settlement need to be supported by sufficient consideration, whereby the costs savings or increased agency efficiencies are reasonably commensurate with the expenditure,"he wrote.

Gov. John Hoeven and David Kemnitz, the president of the North Dakota AFL-CIO, also have said Blunt should not get any severance pay.

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