A workers' compensation agency attorney must be present at any employee interviews during a Highway Patrol investigation into the organization, management says.

But that doesn't settle well with a whistleblower who is no longer working at the agency and his attorney.

In an e-mail sent to all Workforce Safety and Insurance employees, interim executive director John Halvorson also told employees that it is an employee's personal choice to exercise a right to silence during a criminal investigation into whether the agency violated two employees' whistleblower status.

"WSIwill not require you to speak with (Highway Patrol investigators), nor will WSIprevent you from doing so,"Halvorson wrote. "If you choose to be interviewed, you are free to have the interview here at WSI. If you do, WSI requires that you inform Anne Green of the WSILegal Department."

Green will coordinate and be present for any onsite interviews; the e-mail goes on to say that Green also will help coordinate and be present for interviews conducted off of WSI property, if the Highway Patrol agrees.

Highway Patrol declined to comment on the e-mail.

Five employees have requested whistleblower status, the term given to a section of the state's Public Employees Relations Act that shields workers from being fired for reporting certain job-related violations. Of the five, one -Todd Flanagan in the special investigations unit -has been fired and another - Jim Long, chief of support services- put on paid administrative leave.

Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem requested the Highway Patrol conduct an investigation into whether whistleblower status was being violated, after Burleigh County State's Attorney Richard Riha recused himself and his office from further WSI investigations and asked Stenehjem to take over.

Stenehjem passed the investigation on to the Highway Patrol.

The agency-wide e-mail telling WSIemployees that they do not have to respond to questioning doesn't sit well with Tom Tuntland, Long's attorney.

"When WSIwanted to talk to Jim Long before he was suspended, they did not inform Mr. Long that he had the right to remain silent,"Tuntland said. "In fact, the implication was, if he exercised this, there would be disciplinary action."

Tuntland was not available for Long's questioning, although he said WSI attorneys told him that were he to come, he would have to sit mute.

Long and Tuntland also believe the fact that a WSIattorney will be present during Highway Patrol questioning is meant to intimidate workers.

"There is a campaign to shut people's mouths. This latest e-mail is just part of that ongoing campaign to intimidate workers,"Tuntland said, adding that two employees -Long and Flanagan-who participated in prior investigations have been booted out of the building.

"Two people were suspended and fired respectively for talking with law enforcement officers,"Long said. "The people who did the suspension or the firing, they were attorneys."

WSI has not detailed why Flanagan and Long were fired and suspended, respectively, although representatives say it was not in retaliation for cooperating with investigations.

Mark Armstrong, communications executive for WSI, said in a follow-up e-mail statement that the agency's decision to send the e-mail and educate employees about their options was a way to keep them informed.

Armstrong noted that during an earlier investigation of WSI, management was not told that Highway Patrol would be in the building and interviewing individuals.

"At that time, some (employees) expressed concerns that they were unsure what they could say, whether they should speak with the officers or whether they should take with or without a member of WSI present,"Armstrong said.

An earlier investigation related to three felony charges filed against former executive director Sandy Blunt and one charge against RomiLeingang, head of the special investigations unit and Flanagan's boss. The charges were later dismissed.

Shannon Henke with the Highway Patrol testified during a preliminary hearing for Blunt and Leingang's felony charges that a WSI attorney interrupted an interview of another WSIemployee during an earlier investigation.

"During the Highway Patrol's investigation at WSI beginning in December of 2006, management was not appraised that investigators were in the building and interviewing individuals,"Armstrong wrote. "This was troubling to some employees, especially since they had no notice that members of the Highway Patrol would be onsite."

Armstrong and Halvorson declined to comment further.

Click here to view a letter to WSI employees outlining the investigation.

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