Landfill opponent following paper trail finds... end of trail?
Looks like Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem has put a bit of a crimp on efforts by landfill opponents to find out if the city of Grand Forks did something wrong in hiring the law firm Pearson Christensen.
According to information in an opinion filed by Stenehjem's office, Kyle Braaten, a member of the landfill opposition group Grand Forks County Citizens Coalition, had been trying to get records that prove:
1) Council member Doug Christensen was on the council when his firm Pearson Christensen was selected. The opinion said that state law "requires a unanimous findings be entered into official minutes of a governing body enters when it enters into a contract with an officer of a political subdivision or municipality." (That's in North Dakota Century Code chapters 12.1-13-03 and 40-13-05.)
2) The council ever made a unanimous finding that Pearson Christensen was selected because similar services could not be obtained from other firms at equal cost.
City attorney Howard Swanson said he didn't have any records of that nature.
Braaten then asked for any record of action taken by the council in regards to Pearson Christensen. Swanson referred him to minutes of the Dec. 14, 2005, council meeting where the council members decided to select attorney Ron Fischer to replace deceased attorney Jay Fiedler, both members of Pearson Christensen.
Braaten complained that Swanson didn't provide him with all the information because he limited his search to landfill issues and Fischer's and Fiedler's names.
The AG's office said that's reasonable because Braaten asked specifically for landfill documents and Fischer and Fiedler are the two attorneys involved in the landfill issue.
I'm contacting Braaten to figure out what he's going to do next.
Anyway, as far as Braaten's suspicions, I thought it was settled long ago.
Fiedler was the first Pearson Christensen attorney who worked on the landfill case for the city. Our archives show that the Herald first mentioned him in connection with the landfill on June 3, 2000. Christensen was first elected to the council on June 13, 2000.
So, it seemed like the council would not have needed a unanimous vote to contract with Pearson Christensen. If I recall correctly, the council did vote unanimously Dec. 14 to continue working with the firm via Fischer. I can recall that because it seemed like the obvious next step seeing as how Fiedler had passed away and the council was seeking some continuity.
Update 10:38 p.m.:I got a hold of Kyle Braaten. From what he wrote, it looks like he still feels Swanson should have done more to get some answers for him:
According to information in an opinion filed by Stenehjem's office, Kyle Braaten, a member of the landfill opposition group Grand Forks County Citizens Coalition, had been trying to get records that prove:
1) Council member Doug Christensen was on the council when his firm Pearson Christensen was selected. The opinion said that state law "requires a unanimous findings be entered into official minutes of a governing body enters when it enters into a contract with an officer of a political subdivision or municipality." (That's in North Dakota Century Code chapters 12.1-13-03 and 40-13-05.)
2) The council ever made a unanimous finding that Pearson Christensen was selected because similar services could not be obtained from other firms at equal cost.
City attorney Howard Swanson said he didn't have any records of that nature.
Braaten then asked for any record of action taken by the council in regards to Pearson Christensen. Swanson referred him to minutes of the Dec. 14, 2005, council meeting where the council members decided to select attorney Ron Fischer to replace deceased attorney Jay Fiedler, both members of Pearson Christensen.
Braaten complained that Swanson didn't provide him with all the information because he limited his search to landfill issues and Fischer's and Fiedler's names.
The AG's office said that's reasonable because Braaten asked specifically for landfill documents and Fischer and Fiedler are the two attorneys involved in the landfill issue.
I'm contacting Braaten to figure out what he's going to do next.
Anyway, as far as Braaten's suspicions, I thought it was settled long ago.
Fiedler was the first Pearson Christensen attorney who worked on the landfill case for the city. Our archives show that the Herald first mentioned him in connection with the landfill on June 3, 2000. Christensen was first elected to the council on June 13, 2000.
So, it seemed like the council would not have needed a unanimous vote to contract with Pearson Christensen. If I recall correctly, the council did vote unanimously Dec. 14 to continue working with the firm via Fischer. I can recall that because it seemed like the obvious next step seeing as how Fiedler had passed away and the council was seeking some continuity.
Update 10:38 p.m.:I got a hold of Kyle Braaten. From what he wrote, it looks like he still feels Swanson should have done more to get some answers for him:
Think about a direct quote from the AG's opinion. After you read it, you try to justify Mr Swanson's limiting my request to Landfill, Fischer and Fiedler. [Ed.: Swanson said he did a search for documents fulfilling those three criteria. Braaten doesn't think that's enough. The AG said it is because Fischer and Fiedler are the only two attorneys involved in the city's landfill case.]
"I am not looking for every document that complies with the code, one or two relating to a proposed new landfill will suffice. If none specifically mention the landfill or waste management, I'd like a copy of one dated around the time that Mr. Christensen joined the Council. I felt I should further clarify and simplify my request to allow you to fill the request in a timely fashion. Again, if no
document exists, please let me know."
Did Mr Swanson specifically tell you that that the council never "made a unanimous finding that Pearson Christensen was selected because similar services could not be obtained from other firms at equal cost."? That is the question that I wanted an answer to. I still do not have that answer, transparent government? I think not.
posted by Tu-Uyen at 7:10 PM
3 Comments:
The Attorney General was SILENT on the legality of the relationship between The City of Grand Forks and Doug Chrstensen's firm. You should make it clear that your statement about a "finding" compliant with North Dakota law being unnecessary is your opinion.
The potential conflict of interest that arises by allowing a councilman's law firm to represent the councilman's city is real. I believe that is precisely the reason there are two separate North Dakota laws that address the issue and require a specific standard to be met. The requirement is a unanimous finding is entered in the official minutes of that body that the contract is necessary because the services or property contracted for are not otherwise obtainable at equal cost.
I don't know if this is required in this case, I just wanted to know if there was ever a "unanimous finding" that the services were "not otherwise available at equal cost."
Whether this relationship should be allowed to continue, should be up to Grand Forks' Citizens or the States Attorney.
Excerpt from December 14, 2005 City Council minutes, "Motion by Kreun , second by Christensen, to authorize legal counsel to file an appeal and to assert any other legal issues applicable,. Aye: All."
Records show that the partnership of Pearson Christensen has billed the City of Grand Forks for handling more than just the landfill issue. I wonder how many different issues Mr Christensen's firm has been handling for the City?
Kyle, if there isn't clarity on whether the work being done by Pearson Christensen is totally kosher, why didn't you ask the AG that?
Given the lack of documentation on Fiedler's contract, is that something you'd pursue next?
And no, I don't think it was my opinion that the council didn't need a unanimous vote to contract with Jay Fiedler back in 2000. That's deductive reasoning.
If a) you need a unanimous vote to contract with a city official's firm, b) contracts with ordinary firms do not require a unanimous vote and c) the vote on Fiedler's contract precedes Christensen's time on the council then it seems to follow that d) the vote on Fiedler's contract didn't need to be unanimous.
Since Fischer's contract came up during Christensen's time on the council, it might be that that vote had to be unanimous, and, on Dec. 14, it evidently was.
However, as you point out, there was no discussion whether the city could get similar services from some other firm at the same cost.
Tu,
You wrote, "However, as you point out, there was no discussion whether the city could get similar services from some other firm at the same cost." FINALLY, you got the point! Hopefully it doesn't get you in trouble.
Fischer had been working for the City looooong before December 14, 2005. In your position, you were probably aware of that.
Regarding the kosherness of the contracts, the AG will only answer that question if asked by a member of government. Any suggestions?
Mr Christensen could ask for an opinion himself if believes that the relationship is kosher. Being an attorney, I'm sure he could frame the question in a favorable light.
I did ask the AG about the situation in vague terms,(a councilman who's partnership represents the councilman's municipality without a specific finding that the services are not otherwise available at equal cost.) The assistant AG called me and said, "Nice try!"
One person at the AG's office suggested I ask the City Attorney to investigate, yaaah right.
Post a Comment
<< Home