Pushing Things While I don't agree with what he did, I also don't...
Calendar of Events
Eating Liberally -- April 23, 2009, and the 4th Thursday of each month -- Super Buffet Mongolian Grill, 1000 45th St., Fargo -- 6:00 p.m.
This is a time to get together and eat and talk , just time for our friends. There is no format, dues, agenda etc., We can meet anytime or place we decide, picnic pot luck, local food, anything we want to, even invite speakers. But for now please show up, eat and talk to like minded friends. No need to RSVP just stop by and eat.
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Trana if you like.
You know, after fighting over whether to give all other state employees either a 4% or 5% pay raise, and after deciding the state can't afford to have more children eligible for health insurance, it kind of makes sense that they'd look at increasing their Republican's salary by 46%.
Here's what I really think: I think the Attorney General of North Dakota probably should make more money than he makes. How can we ever expect to some day have someone qualified for the job seek the office if we don't offer a decent salary?
But what bothers me is this: What do you think would be happening if our Attorney General was a Democrat? I'll tell you exactly what would be happening; so-called "fiscal conservatives" would be outraged by the notion that the Attorney General might get a 46% pay increase. You can bet that the "North Dakota Taxpayers Association" and the "North Dakota Policy Council" would be issuing press releases and holding press conferences. They'd be calling for teabagging events in front of every courthouse. They would be OUTRAGED!!!
I get press releases from those tools a couple times a week during the legislative session. They want me to know how outraged they are about lapses in fiscal conservatism at the capitol. So where are they now?
You can tune in to the debate now. Click here. [<- No point clicking on the link now. They're done with the debate, for now. They've killed the bill and are going to hoghouse all of the bill -- minus the huge pay increase -- on to a completely unrelated bill. Procedural game-playing. I wish they'd do this stuff in front of God and everybody, instead of playing these games at the 11th hour.]
Hey. The legislature is in session, even though it's a Saturday. So we'll start our day with a little news from the capitol.
Yesterday, a story about the legislature's effort to push a better oil trust fund bill. From the Bismarck Tribune:
The bill is sponsored by Rep. Dave Weiler, R-Bismarck, who also pushed Measure 1 last year, which failed at the ballot box. Opponents said that measure stored away too much money.
In other news about the legislator pushing things... Here's an excerpt from the police report that ultimately led to the conviction of that legislator for assaulting his spouse. Note that the police redacted (whited-out) any references to his victim and any child witnesses:
Hey. It's a free country. Even an enraged Republican legislator gearing up to lash out at his wife has a right to take his kid along to buy a gun.
Second amendment.
Lighten up.
Geez.
But his victim apparently thought it was worth noting to the cops.
Hmmm.
Keep this in mind: It seems pretty clear the media has had this police report in their grubby little mitts since at least March 31st, yet they've not reported any of the details so his constituents can intelligently decide whether to keep him around. Nor has the media expressed an opinion on whether anything in the police reports would justify a legislative sanctioning of the legislator, his recall or even an unofficial call for his resignation.
The Bismarck Tribune, Fargo Forum, Minot Daily News, Jamestown Sun, Grand Forks Herald, Dickinson Press, Wahpeton Daily News, Williston Herald and Valley City Times are all supporters of and accomplices to domestic violence. All of North Dakota's TV and radio news folks are complicit, too. Not one has taken a real stand against domestic violence.
And don't get started with me about NorthDecoder being at fault too for not making this information public earlier. Keep something in mind, my friends: We're not the news. We're not mainstream media. We're a blog. We've been a fairly patient blog on this issue. In a perfect world, the mainstream media would report the news and we'd just comment about it. But it's not a perfect world. That's why people have stopped getting their news from local newspapers, TV and radio; it's because they've quit doing their job. That's why all those newspaper companies are in trouble.
Keeping in line with the December 2008 story that North Dakota is America's most corrupt state, the Fargo Forum is reporting today that North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem and North Dakota's United States Attorney Drew Wrigley are being sued for their allegedly malicious prosecution of former off-track racing president Susan Bala. Here's a snippet:
North Dakota’s attorney general and U.S. attorney are named as defendants in a lawsuit seeking damages from a woman whose conviction was overturned in the state’s largest gambling prosecution.
Susan Bala, the president of now-defunct Racing Services Inc., which handled off-track betting in North Dakota on horse races, claims she is a victim of malicious prosecution by Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem and U.S. Attorney Drew Wrigley.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Bismarck, seeks unspecified damages for what it contends are violations of Bala’s constitutional rights.
Stenehjem, through a spokeswoman, declined to comment Thursday on the lawsuit. Wrigley was traveling and could not be reached for comment. Neither has yet filed an answer in the case.
The dismissal of the criminal case against Bala, you may recall, was quite dramatic in a number of different ways. It was dramatic partly because the 8th Circuit court ordered that Bala be released immediately. She was out of prison within 2 hours of the court filing its opinion. They did not reverse the case and remand it for resentencing or for any other court action. They basically said "This case is done. You did not prove she committed a crime. You've been holding this woman illegally. Let her go now." The opinion was issued on Tuesday, March 6, 2007, and Bala was out of prison on Wednesday March 8th, 2007, after spending 523 days in prison.
But more importantly, it was dramatic because the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals really did say that the N.D. U.S. Attorney had not proved Bala had committed ANY federal crime! That's a big deal. They hadn't proved ANY federal crime, yet Bala had to sit in a federal prison for 523 days? It's like the Don Siegelman case, only nobody is calling for an investigation into inappropriate conduct by the federal prosecutor... Which raises the question: Why isn't there an investigation into inappropriate conduct of the North Dakota U.S. Attorney's office for pursuing a conviction against someone who apparently had not committed any federal crimes? Was this a political prosecution? I have no idea. I'm just asking the questions it seems like someone should be asking.
Though the claims against Wrigley and Stenehjem are only allegations at this point, this case might be an interesting one to watch.
OK, I'm getting ticked off with House Republicans. I disagree with many in the senate, but at least on some level, they are collegial and respectful. It seems that among the House Republican Borg, this is becoming to be less the case.
The title she's referring to harkens back to the version of the bill that was introduced in the 110th Congres: S. 1105: the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. Rep Foxx's statement is offensive on two levels. First off, it is patently false. As Media Matters lays out plain as day, the facts of the case are pretty cut and dry. We certainly do not "know that this was a hoax" by any stretch of the imagination. Matthew Shepard was murdered because he was gay, and his murderers are serving life sentences for their crimes.
The other level of this that is so wrong, and what makes this statement ten times more offensive, is that not only was this ridiculous nonsense spewed out on the floor of the U.S. House, but while she was doing so, Matthew Shepard's mother, Judy, was sitting in the gallery.
What Rep. Foxx may have been referring to was a 20/20 report questioning the case, based pretty much solely on interviews with the defendants in the case. That's her proof that says that we now know that this was a hoax. Shame on ABC for patently bad journalism, but shame on Rep Foxx for being so callous about a hate crime in front of the victim's mother.
This seems to be a running theme with conservatives though. If the facts don't fit your position, question the facts.
Look, if you're going to argue things, start with the basic facts, and if you're going to question reality, you better have some pretty good evidence that the findings of a court of law were wrong. Virginia Foxx owes Judy Shepherd an apology, preferably from the floor of the House, and none of this "I'm sorry if you were offended" nonsense that politicians of all colors use. A direct, "I said something I shouldn't have said. I did not have my facts straight. I sincerely apoligize to Mrs. Shepard for my statement. I take my job seriously and will do my best in the future to make sure I have the right facts when I debate legislation in front of the American people." Something akin to that would be acceptable.
This is not a Republican sin. God knows Democrats have been just as insensitive from time to time. Remember Hillary/Bill Clinton in the primary? Can you say racial insensitivity? I still don't think I have heard an acceptable apology for some of her comments, I don't expect to at this point.
The larger point here is that this stuff matters to people. The hate crimes bill is an emotional topic for people. Climate change is an important issue for many Americans. Women's rights is a big issue for a lot of people. We the people out here would prefer it if y'all over there in Washington sat down and got your facts straight and treated these issues with the seriousness they deserve, and when you make a mistake, we do ask that you apologize. Sincerely. And don't blame us for being offended at your callousness. This stuff is important to us. We care about it, even if you don't.
We have many goals here at NorthDecoder. One of the goals here is to serve as a guidepost for people who want to become more engaged in government and/or politics. There are many ways you can get involved in government and politics. You can start attending your preferred political party's district organization meetings. (We have links to some of the districts' websites in the right-hand column, down low). You can become engaged by attending events we post in the calendar of events (in the left hand column) from time to time.
Today we present another opportunity for you to get involved. North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan has the featured video on the U.S. Senate's YouTube page this week. In the video, Dorgan asks Americans (and that still includes North Dakotans [for now]) to offer up their ideas.
Check out the video:
Then CLICK HERE to offer up your ideas for the next energy bill.
Oh, and I have a tip for you: Don't propose secret closed-door meetings between failing energy giants and the Vice President. America has already been there and done that.
I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.
Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.
When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.
Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.
I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.
I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.
I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.
I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania’s economy.
I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.
While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.
My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.
Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy’s statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.
I am just as shocked as everyone else is. The Club for Growth, whose former chair, Rep. Pat Toomey had been mounting a primary challenge against him, is speechless.
I don't agree with Specter on everything, but I am glad to have him on my side. He is a senator that stands up for what he believes in, regardless of the party. I wish he would come around on EFCA, but we'll have to wait and see on that one.
Right now though, I'm happy to have another Democrat under the Obama tent...
I tire of the treatment I've endured when making many of the requests I've made for public records. I feel sorry for other people that are subjected to some of the same treatment I've gotten from agencies like North Dakota's Workforce Safety and Insurance, and an assortment of other state and local government entities. In theory, getting public records should be really easy. Anybody should be able to do it with little or no hassle. These folks, after all, work for us.
I feel obliged, today, to tell of a positive experience in dealing with a local government office to get public records. But first, some context...
The open records rules for public officials are pretty easy. They've even been set out very, very clearly for public officials in a memo from the Attorney General's Office:
Citizens have a right to open records, regardless of the reason. However, a request must reasonably identify existing records. A request for public records can be made in any manner - in person, by mail, e-mail, fax, or by phone. The entity must respond to the request within a reasonable time, either by providing the requested record or by explaining the legal authority for denying all or part of the request. Depending on the amount of records requested, a “reasonable” time could be a couple of hours or a few days, but not several days or weeks. If the entity cannot fulfill the request immediately, it should give the requester an estimate of when the record will be available.
A public entity can only deny access to information for which there is a specific statute closing that information. The remaining information must be open to the public. The entity can supervise access to an original record to prevent its alteration or destruction. If a request for records is denied, the entity must explain what specific federal or state law makes the requested record confidential or closed to the public. If asked, the entity must put the reason for the denial in writing.
• A public entity cannot ask why the records are requested, ask for identification, require a request be made in writing (or in person). The entity does not have to respond to questions about the record. It does not have to create or compile a record that does not exist.
Access to records is generally free. An entity may charge up to 25¢ per page for copies on 8½ x 11” or 8 ½ x 14” paper...
If you've read these indented paragraphs, you know just about everything you need to know about seeking public records from any city, county, state or other governmental entity in North Dakota. Despite these clear and simple rules, some government offices break these rules fairly regularly. In the past few weeks I've been asked on a few occasions to identify myself when making public records -- or some people call them "state FOIA" -- requests. A clerk in one county office said to me, in a very snippy tone, "You expect me to help you, but you're not even willing to tell me your name?" I said, "I'm really sorry, but the Attorney General says you can't ask me to identify myself." I ended up having to communicate with her boss. I sent him a link to the A.G.'s memo and asked if he'd give a copy of the memo to the clerk with whom I'd spoken. I've been asked to explain why I want the records I've requested. Also, in the past couple weeks, when I got some records from a city court, I learned that the Bismarck Municipal Court charges $1.00 per page for copies of public records. One dollar per page might be more than the 25 cents the A.G.'s office says they can charge. It's disappointing.
Any time an elected official pleads guilty to a crime, the Bismarck Tribune editor in me wonders if some vast conspiracy might develop, and all public records relating to the charge and conviction might magically "disappear." With a possible recall effort in the works and possible future Weiler campaigns in mind, over the past couple weeks I've been gathering most or all the records relating Rep. Weiler's conviction for domestic violence. I've got the police notes regarding interview of the victim and a child witness, handwritten statement from Weiler, mug shots, photos of the victim's injuries and just about everything else.
(The thought that's going through your mind right now is very accurate: Yuck.)
Last week I made a request for any public records in the possession of the 9-1-1 dispatch folks as they related to Rep. Weiler's assault incident. The 9-1-1 dispatch office promptly -- very promptly -- responded, giving me a scanned copy of the log sheet they keep while they're on the phone with Weiler's victim. (Examples of excerpts from log sheet: "children crying" at 0:34:13 and "he [Rep. Weiler] is attempting to break in door" at 0:34:51).
Unfortunately, they initially denied my request for a copy of the audio recording of the 9-1-1 call. Their response was that the don't have the technology to redact the information they're required/allowed to redact by law.
Being familiar with an '07 Attorney General's Opinion that said, essentially, that a response of "Sorry, but we don't have the technology to comply with the law" is not a proper response to an open records request, I responded by asking the dispatch office to reconsider. I provided them with the link to the A.G. opinion and another link to a free, open-source computer program -- "Audacity" for you tech nerds out there -- that would help them to quickly and easily redact the audio recording. I also provided -- in one short paragraph -- the instructions they needed to do all the redacting. (It's really easy.)
They were very professional and very cordial and late last week I received a redacted copy of the audio recording of Weiler's victim's 9-1-1 phone call.
I haven't had many opportunities to write about positive experiences with agencies responding to my open records requests. My requests for public records from the State Auditor's Office have always been handled promptly and professionally. This one, as it turned out, was also a very positive experience, even though there was a minor bump along the way. I appreciated the promptness and professionalism with which the 9-1-1 dispatch people responded to my request.
Now I just wish Weiler had done the right thing so I wouldn't have needed to get -- and listen to -- the 9-1-1 call recording.
I'm guessing we'll have to have more on the 9-1-1 recording later. Check back often.
Footnote: * I'm going to try to remember to call Republicans "Fascist Republicans" for so long as they refer to Dems as the "socialist Democratic party" I've thought about calling them "torture-loving, children-hating, pothole-neglecting, fascist Republicans," but that just seems like too many words.
A week after pleading guilty to willfully causing injury to his wife, Dave Weiler continues to act as if nothing happened. He has offered no public statements (to my knowledge) regarding his guilty plea, his intent to resign (or not resign). On top of all of that, he continues to vote on legislation as if his admission to domestic violence is no big deal. It is truly offensive. Rep. Weiler is showing his constituents complete contempt in his unresponsiveness.
I'm going to continue to be a gadfly about this issue. The silence of everyone on this issue is shockingly deafening. The Forum editorial board mentioned Weiler in this editorial related to the MRCC relocation, questioning his motives on pushing the legislation, but conveniently seeming to forget to mention that he plead guilty to domestic abuse. Not that it really matters...
The Bismarck Tribune hasn't mentioned him since he pleaded guilty, but on the 17th, when he pleaded, wrote about him in this article, regarding the oil tax trust fund, but the AP reporter again failed to mention that he was facing domestic abuse charges. Convenient...
Am I the only one that cares about this? The Republican leadership has made it clear that spousal abuse isn't a real issue for them, nor is it an issue for the traditional media in the state...
Maybe I shouldn't care. Maybe I should just look the other way like everyone else is.
Something tells me I shouldn't, and that I should be disgusted with those that want to sweep this problem under the rug.
[Chet's follow-up note: This is the last song Conway Twitty ever recorded. The song, written in 1962, was made popular by R&B singer Brook Benton in 1970. More here.]
The Bismarck Tribune will never cease to amaze me. Today's travesty of journalism comes from Tribune reporter Brian Duggan. The way he'd have you believe it, the Republicans saved the day with their "massive transportation bill."
House lawmakers unanimously passed a $1.4 billion transportation funding bill today, representing a massive increase in funding for road construction and repair in light of record flooding and snow damage in North Dakota.
"This is a good piece of legislation that covers a lot of infrastructure needs that are out there now because of weather-related things that nobody anticipated," said Rep. Jeff Delzer, R-Underwood, who helped draft the new budget proposal.
The amended version of the bill was introduced to the House Appropriations Committee Thursday evening, which was the first time House Democrats, some Republicans and Department of Transportation officials had seen the changes to the bill, SB2012.
A potential consensus over transportation funding has taken until the last leg of the legislative session to get to a point where lawmakers could find some common ground.
Allow me to bring you up to speed on this, Mr. Duggan. See, we had some flooding and record snowfall this past winter. Counties have spent millions and millions of dollars on flood preparation, snow removal and road repairs, and they haven't even started spending money on clean-up and most of the road repairs. Though counties usually have reserves available for contingencies like this, no county expected this much snow or flooding. No county expected the kind of expenditures they're going to have to pay this spring to make roads and highways driveable. Most counties have used up every nickel of their reserves and -- again -- they haven't even started with the bulk of the road repairs they'll need to do.
The Republicans -- led by Jeff Delzer (R-Underwood) -- were playing "My conservatism is bigger than yours" with the transportation funding bill. They were essentially offering none of the $1.2 billion surplus to the counties to help with road work. Almost no money for flood and snow recovery. It was bizarre.
Your paper, Brian, even (perhaps unwittingly) had a couple stories about the problems Democrats were addressing and Republicans were exacerbating. Lauren Donovan wrote the story about the problems in McLean County, one of many counties about to be whacked by Republican malfeasance. They were looking at being forced to engage in a MASSIVE property tax increase, benefits cuts for employees, lay-offs and buy-outs, etc., just to pay for all the snow removal and road repairs because of record snow and flooding this winter. Delzer's response was "awww, shucks. The counties will get a bunch of federal road money and do just fine." And then you guys ran a story about Ward County applying for federal road money and being rejected. You apparently didn't see the connection.
Democrats had a "minority report." They proposed $120 million of the $1.2 billion surplus could go to the counties to help them recover from the record floods and snow. It wouldn't have covered all their expenses (by a long shot), but it would help. Republicans scoffed at the "tax and spend" liberals.
That was true until it became abundantly clear the Republican proposal was absurdly unacceptable. It was so obvious even the mindless, conservative Republicans could see the Democratic "minority report" plan was the only viable option. Without a huge injection of state money for highways and roads, the state -- with its $1.2 BILLION in the bank -- Delzer and Company were going to force counties to increase property taxes! Democrats were fighting for responsible spending and lower property taxes. The Republicans' "Eureka!" moment must have been some time on Thursday. They figured out the Democrats were kicking their asses with better policy. So those silly Republicans decided to steal the Democrats' principled approach.
But, of course, North Dakota Republicans can never let the media write a story about how the Democrats were right and the Republicans were ridiculously wrong, so they came up with their own amendments -- the ones they duped Duggan into writing about -- and Republicans, in Duggan's story (and mind, apparently) rode in like the cavalry to rescue the counties from... well... the Republicans, I guess. Meanwhile, the Democrats get no credit for either (a) being right all along, or (b) taking one for the team, so counties would get what they so desperately needed.
The bill unanimously passed in the House. The Democrats got everything they had been fighting for. For his story, Duggan -- as is fairly typical for Tribune writers -- didn't even ask a Democrat for a comment. Not one. You know why he didn't ask? Because in his mind, a funding bill that gives more than $120 million to the counties for winter storm recovery is somehow "common ground" between the Democrats $120 million proposal and Jeff Delzer's and the Republicans' nearly zero dollar proposal.
C'mon Brian. There's a story in there somewhere. You just completely missed it.
Hey. The legislature is in session, even though it's a Saturday. So we'll start our day with a little news from the capitol. 
I'm not letting up on this. 
The Bismarck Tribune will never cease to amaze me. Today's travesty of journalism comes from Tribune reporter Brian Duggan. The way he'd have you believe it, the Republicans saved the day with their "massive transportation bill."
