Who Is ACORN?

William Amos has the must see post on ACORN today. This is the same ACORN that was a beneficiary to the largess of AG Lori Swanson and former AG Mike Hatch. He lets (in some cases) them speak solely for themselves. In the rest of the cases he lets the media tell the story. In either case, it shows you exactly who Mike Hatch and Lori Swanson advocate for...and it's not the state of Minnesota...

He Said - He Said

Eric Black and MinnPost have been the source of most of the coverage into the various scandals in the MN Attorney General's office. Black's coverage has been quite fair, factual and devoid of any personal preference toward either side in the story. In todays story, Black can't help letting a little snark in - and honestly I don't blame him.

As a matter of written policy, Mr. Hatch doesn't speak to me and he extended the same courtesy to my esteemed MinnPost colleague G.R. Anderson who covered the Monday meeting at which Legislative Auditor James Nobles presented the results of his recent review of the attorney general's office and some of the alleged improprieties.

As you may recall, former AG Hatch does not deign to talk to mere bloggers - even those with a career as storied as Mr. Black. After all, we all know bloggers have an agenda....unlike former AG Hatch.....

But Mr. Hatch's media relations policies do allow him to publicly impugn the motives of those who question his conduct and possibly to do so without necessarily limiting himself to the facts of the matter.

To be precise: Rep. Simon did ask some questions of Nobles at the Monday meeting about whether everything under Mr. Hatch was always done strictly according to Hoyle.

And Mr. Hatch, in explaining things to MPR's excellent Tim Pugmire, did say that Rep. Simon was motivated by revenge because he "lost his job in the attorney general's office."

I may not agree with Rep. Simon's stands on most issues however I have it on very good authority (from someone who works with him) that this is not Rep. Simon's MO. If anything, he is in a better position as a legislator than a mere assistant AG. That is not to say that this kind of "hit" isn't former AG Hatch's MO. As my dear friend Gary pointed out earlier today, not only is former AG Hatch very adept at playing political hardball - he thrives on it. This was a pre-emptive strike on a legislator who is just trying to do his job....looking out for the citizens of Minnesota. It is something that maybe the current and former AG's should have kept in mind in their day to day office dealings.

It's just a thought.

More Bad News for AG Swanson

The Legislative Audit Commission met yesterday to discuss Legislative Auditor Jim Noble's look into the Attorney Generals office. What started as a look into employer/employee relations has turned into something deeper and potentially more serious for both AG Swanson and former AG Mike Hatch. While the initial reporting on the audit was quick to claim vindication for AG Swanson (which the report really didn't do) because the employer/employee relations weren't in the LA's perview, the report did uncover financial misdealings which ARE under the LA's perview.

Attorney General Lori Swanson and her predecessor, Mike Hatch, have come under question for their role in a court settlement that diverted money to a nonprofit whose political wing endorsed Hatch's bid for governor.

The Minnesota Independent reports on even larger allegations raised.

Workers in the Minnesota Attorney General’s office have alleged under oath that current AG Lori Swanson and her predecessor, Mike Hatch, may have illegally diverted federal monies meant to investigate Medicaid fraud, and that a legal settlement negotiated by Swanson and Hatch financially benefited a nonprofit organization that later endorsed Hatch’s campaign for governor.

Diversion of funds to private political entities by the office that is supposed to protect the state from that...lovely. What is even more lovely is that settlement in question was specifically negotiated to keep the money out of state coffers and routed to an organization that was friendly to then AG Hatch!

The $1 apparently knocked off the Capital One Bank settlement to allow then-Attorney General Mike Hatch to direct the proceeds speaks volumes.

For anyone who missed it, the AG's Office settled a lawsuit against the well-known credit card issuer in 2006 for an oddly precise $749,999. Had the case settled for a dollar more, the money would have gone into the general fund for the Legislature to distribute. Because it fell a hair's breadth beneath the $750,000 threshold, Hatch was able to direct the distribution of two-third of the proceeds to two nonprofits -- $250,000 to the Legal Aid Society (a good cause, but also a politically popular one) and $249,999 to the community action group ACORN (which reportedly later endorsed Hatch in his gubernatorial bid). The other third of the settlement went to the state to cover the costs of investigation.

Emphasis mine. The AG's office - led by then AG Hatch and his chief lieutenant Swanson - used the power of his office to reward political cronies. It confirms what many had suspected about the former AG.

Further investigations into the misuse of federal funds and the Capital One settlement will be part of the next normal annual review of the AG's office, scheduled for early next year. In the meantime, LA Nobles suggested that the legislature provide civil service protection to the AG office employees in lieu of the unionization. This seems like a common sense compromise to a very sticky situation.

It's Out.

The non-partisan Legislative Auditors report into the allegations of wrongdoing in the Attorney General's office is out. The Legislative Auditor's preliminary letter can be found here. The report is a mixed bag. While Mr. Noble's preliminary recommendation is that there is no grounds for further investigation, it does tell what we already knew....that there are real problems in the AG's office.

The individuals we interviewed under oath testified that the events involved in the allegations did occur. The individuals said—as Representative Simon relayed to the commission—that they felt pressured to act inappropriately, and they gave detailed accounts of specific events. However, they also stated that no inappropriate, unethical, or illegal actions resulted from the pressure.
In addition, the individuals we interviewed did not cite direct and specific job-related threats from either former-Attorney General Hatch or Attorney General Swanson in connection to the events in the allegations. Rather, the individuals we interviewed linked the pressure they felt to the fact that attorneys in the Attorney General’s Office work “at the pleasure” of the Attorney General; in other words, they can be dismissed or demoted “at will” rather than “for cause.” In addition, they said it was “well-known” that termination, demotion, or reassignment often fell on an employee who lost favor with the Attorney General. Some of the individuals we interviewed said they thought his or her demotion or reassignment was retaliation for having not followed a directive from either former-Attorney General Hatch or Attorney General Swanson, but acknowledged they could not prove the connection.
The individuals we interviewed also linked the pressure they felt to an office environment that focused on obtaining favorable media attention rather than the methodical legal work required to successfully litigate cases. Several of the individuals we interviewed pointed to cases they thought had merit that were dropped in favor of new cases that would draw media attention.
The individuals we interviewed focused a large share of their criticism and discontent on Mike Hatch, both as Attorney General and during the time he served as a deputy to Attorney General Swanson.2 Indeed, a principal criticism they made of Attorney General Swanson was that she appointed Mr. Hatch to a position in the office after Attorney General Swanson was sworn into office in 2007. This—and Mr. Hatch’s continued influence on the office—was said to be the “tipping point” that caused some current and former employees to voice criticisms and accusations against Attorney General Swanson. Mr. Hatch resigned his position with the office in May 2007.

But wait, you say....if the testimony did show that there was undue pressure put on people to focus not on merit worthy cases but cases that would bring the most positive publicity to the office then why not investigate further? Well....

While the individuals we interviewed provided sworn statements based on first-hand knowledge, their testimony did not establish a basis for further investigation by OLA. OLA has authority to investigate alleged noncompliance with legal requirements related to the use of public funds.

Since there was no mis-use of public funds the OLA can not investigate further. That does not mean that the individuals involved (ie Ms. Lawler) can't do anything...we will have to wait and see what happens there.

Meanwhile the OLA does offer a common sense solution to the whole mess...a solution that I hope the Legislature will take to heart next session.

We understand that legislators do not want to become involved in the recent unionization dispute in the Attorney General’s Office. However, the “at will” status of attorneys in the Attorney General’s Office is a separate issue, and we think it should be considered by the appropriate legislative committees.
The status of employees that work for the state’s elected constitutional officials is mixed. All employees in the Governor’s and Lieutenant Governor’s offices are in the unclassified civil service (in other words, they are “at will” employees). In contrast, most employees (60 of 77) in the Secretary of State’s Office are in the classified civil service, and most employees (86 of 110) in the State Auditor’s Office are in the classified civil service. In the Attorney General’s Office, 87 employees (secretaries and administrative staff) are in the classified civil service, and 267 employees (attorneys, legal assistants, investigators, etc.) are in the unclassified civil service.3
Since a state employee’s status as either a classified or unclassified employee is largely determined by law, we think a legislative review of the current status of attorneys in the Attorney General’s Office would be appropriate. The question for the Legislature to consider is whether the legal services provided by the Attorney General’s Office require that all of the attorneys in the office serve “at the pleasure” of the Attorney General.

I am really not a huge fan of unions, however this is one place where unionization is a necessity. These attorney's should not be subject to the whims of partisan elected officials. They really should be above politics and all about what is best for the state. In this case, we can clearly see that if we want what is best for the state, the attorneys, legal assistants and investigators of the AG's office need to have union protection. Come on Ms. Swanson...what are you afraid of? After all, don't you belong to the Democrat, Farmer and LABOR Party?

Fear And Loathing In Minneapolis

Part two of Eric Black's expose into the Minnesota Attorney General's office is out today. After a brief summation of former AG Mike Hatch's career (attorney, chairman of the DFL Party, Minnesota commerce commissioner, a two-term attorney general and a three-time candidate for governor), Black recounts some of the more tawdry events in the AG's political career.

In 1994, when he realized he couldn't get the endorsement, he threw his support to state Sen. John Marty against his chief rival for the endorsement, Mike Freeman. A Star Tribune article at the time said Hatch believed Marty would be easier to beat in a primary than Mike Freeman. It worked, as far as knocking off Freeman, who kept his pledge to drop out if he lost the endorsement, but Hatch lost in the primary anyway.

In 2006, after Hatch's protégé Lori Swanson had entered the race for the DFL attorney general nomination, Hatch encouraged former state Rep. Bill Luther to get into the primary field. Luther, who had a previous reputation as a relentless fundraiser and campaigner, entered the race but didn't raise much money and didn't campaign very hard. He received just 21 percent of the vote in the three-candidate field. Most DFLers to whom I talked about it subscribe to the belief that this was another clever but devious Hatch trick. Swanson, who was clearly Hatch's chosen successor, was able to win a close primary over DFL endorsee state Sen. Steve Kelley. The widely accepted theory is that Hatch believed if Swanson was the only woman against two men, she could win. If so, it worked. Swanson was nominated with a 42 percent plurality.

Black knew that this would have the appearance of being one sided so he went out of his way to find supporters of the former AG to interview.

Hatch certainly has friends, allies and admirers. (How else, in spite of his critics, could he have handily won both the DFL gubernatorial endorsement and primary in 2006?)

His work ethic is legendary. No one, not even Hatch, denies the temper, but his friends see it as an excess of populist zeal. They believe Hatch has accumulated critics and enemies because he is a tough fighter...Because so many of the sources I interviewed for this series have developed a dim view of Hatch's tenure as attorney general, I sought out someone who had a lot of dealings with Hatch and was an admirer. I was referred to Jim Bernstein, a former Minnesota commerce commissioner.

He said Hatch had been an outstanding AG and he maintained "nothing but the highest admiration" for him. (In the interest of full disclosure, Bernstein pointed out that he has a contract with the attorney general's office.)

However, the former AG seems to have more detractors than he has admirers as witnessed by this remark by one of Minnesota's First Families of Politics.

Another source, who worked under Hatch as well as Hatch's predecessor, Hubert H. "Skip" Humphrey III, put it more bluntly: "Mike Hatch is the last person in the world whose shit list I want to be on. Even when he's out of office, just his presence on the planet. He's a very nasty person. I don't have enough interest in the truth being known to risk anything professionally."

Still, is the threat as real as it appears. After all, Black quotes one anonymous former staffer as saying "It's funny how much power we give them (Hatch and Swanson) in our minds,". Could the threat be that real?

During our weekly Blog Talk Radio program, Jazz Shaw and I discussed the developments in this story and remarked about how interesting it was that Attorneys General seem to have this kind of "above the law attitude" (we referenced Jazz's former AG Eliot Spitzer and North Carolina's Mike Nifong as examples) which led me to half jokingly inquire "what is it with this office?" The answer can be found in Black's report.

The office of attorney general carries with it enormous discretion to mete out benefits and pain. On the plus side, for example, the attorney general can appoint private lawyers to represent state interests. This includes not only the lucrative state bond work that was referred to in the first installment, but also appointments to handle big cases for the state...On the other hand, the attorney general has near-total discretionary power to prosecute, sue or investigate people, companies and organizations.

Many of those who have left the AG's office express a clear concern that Hatch and Swanson (most of these sources believe that Hatch still has enormous influence over Swanson) will sue or investigate their company or organization, even retaliate against the clients of their law firm, in order to punish them.

In fairness to the AG's, Black asked for names of people who had been "ruined" by the AG's office retaliating for some supposed slight.

They speak as if Hatch (and Swanson) is the kind of junkyard brawler who will do whatever is necessary to make them pay. They speak as if the circles of their acquaintance are littered with the ruined lives of those who crossed Mike Hatch.

So I've been pushing them: Tell me the names of those whose lives or careers were destroyed so I can confirm the details...But the actual damage done to the targets of Hatch's wrath seems minor compared to the level of the fear. Many who left the AG's office unhappy and bitter have gone on to bigger and better jobs and lives. In the most famous cases in which threats of retaliation were made, the threats were not fulfilled. There is a serious disconnect between the facts and the fear.

Emphasis mine. Even though there is a "disconnect" between the facts and the fear, the fear is enough to make people, including non-partisan Legislative Auditor Jim Nobles, think twice about putting name to accusation.

One of my sources, who also testified to Legislative Auditor James Nobles about his experiences in the office, said that even Nobles encouraged him to think hard about whether he wanted his identity to be disclosed in the auditor's report that will soon be published.

One person willing to go on the record is Amy Brendmoen. While not an AAG, Brendmoen was an 11 year employee of the AG's office and she did see some things that puzzled her.

He never yelled at her, although she did witness one of Hatch's screaming, cursing, table-pounding tantrums, and was mostly puzzled by it. "The banging and red-faced crap was all pretty unnecessary," she said. "We were all on the same side" on the matter under discussion and everyone was doing the best work they could. She didn't believe that such displays were the best way to motivate the troops.

She was often puzzled by the Hatch team's insistence on the "lazy staff" explanation for the problems of the office. The people who worked in the office were "hardworking, bright, committed and they were treated as if they were just the opposite," Brendmoen said.

Her career in the AG office ended in what appears to be typical Hatch fashion.

After Swanson's election, Hatch informed Brendmoen that she wouldn't be kept on either as spokeswoman or be offered her old investigator's job back. He offered her a demotion with a 25 percent pay cut. She assumes she was supposed to quit over that, but when she indicated she would think about it (because the mother of three couldn't afford to be unemployed), Hatch told her she really needed to leave.

Brendmoen suspects that her termination may have been caused by her friendship to AG office employees who were pro-union. What leads her to that suspicion? A couple of very strange phone calls to her new place of employment...

The first call was to her, at work, from a young man claiming to work for Lois Quam, wife of Hatch's political foe, Matt Entenza. The caller asked Brendmoen to write a post for "the family" on a blog that the union organizers have created. Brendmoen took that call to be an effort to trick her into confirming Hatch's and Swanson's theory that Entenza is behind the union movement. (As far as Brendmoen knows, Entenza and Quam have nothing to do with it, and the answers she gave to the caller would not have confirmed the suspicion.)

The next call was a message left for her new boss. The message, claiming to be "on behalf of Matt and Lois," thanked her boss for allowing Brendmoen to spend company time helping her former colleagues with their union drive. This one, she assumes, was designed to undermine her in her new job. She can't say for sure that Hatch and Swanson were behind the calls, but she found them "threatening and unsettling, but also immature and unbecoming."

If there is anything good to come out of this expose, it is that more and more former AAG's are coming forward - some even willing to put their careers on the line in order to give credence to the anonymous sources.

On Wednesday, after the first installment of this series had been published, I got a call from another former official of the office who was willing to speak for attribution.

Bob Stanich of Minneapolis was an assistant attorney general for 19 years, spanning the Humphrey and early Hatch years...The two big differences between the two administrations was the "climate of fear" that Hatch brought to the office and the increased level of politicization...
Hatch was the kind of boss who wanted things done a certain way, but didn't want to tell you what it was, Stanich said. "You were supposed to guess," he said, and if you guessed wrong, it could easily blow up in your face. That management style makes everyone jumpy.

There are many more stories like this, but Black closes with one that, if true, could add even more fuel to the anti-AG fire.....

This parting anecdote comes from a former department head in the AG's office who was involuntarily transferred out of his supervisory position in late 2006. He was told it was because he wasn't working his staff hard enough. But the woman who took his place told him that she had been sent in to "manage [a particular employee] out of the office." The woman said she was chosen because she had some experience at getting people to leave whom Hatch and Swanson couldn't easily threaten with dismissal.

This particular employee fit that category because he is a former policeman who lost one of his legs, at the knee, in the line of duty. Because of his disability, he has special protection from arbitrary dismissal.

The former cop's injury had been acting up and he had missed a lot of work, although his absences had been approved under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. The leaves were unpaid. When the ex-cop was able to work, the quality of his work was excellent. My source concluded that the bosses were concerned that the absences could create an embarrassment for the office.

He was outraged. Scheming to get rid of a disabled person violates civil rights law, he said, "and bear in mind, this office is responsible for enforcing civil rights laws."

Emphasis mine. The employee in question did find out about the plot and when he confronted the manager, he got a raise instead of being fired. However, he ended up quitting the job (for some strange reason) and instead filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint which is still pending. If there is any merit to this complaint, the either AG could be in a world of hurt.

As I said before, these are serious charges - no matter who the AG is. There are serious allegations of wrong doing that need to be thoroughly investigated and where necessary prosecuted. The Attorney General's office is supposed to be a place where the rule of law is sacrosanct. However, when your "top cop" feels that he (or she) is above the law that s/he was elected to enforce, then corrective measures need to be taken as quickly as possible in order to regain the publics trust in the system. Let us hope that Legislative Auditor Nobles gets to the facts of the situation sooner rather than later so that we can all move forward and then maybe the AG's office can do what they are supposed to do....look out for the citizens of Minnesota and not just the AG's political career.

A "Small Cabal"

As I stated in my previous post, Former AG Mike Hatch did send a written response to Eric Black's request for an interview. MinnPost has it posted here, I wanted to pull a couple of exertps out for your review.

I had misinterpreted my secretary's message, and thought that you were with the Rochester Post. I checked around about you and your blog last night. While I am sure that your blog will not publish the report of Dean Mengler, his report raises significant issues not only about Ms. Lawler but also, based on my review of your blog last evening, your own objectivity. At any rate, it is my policy not to interview with bloggers. While I should stop right here, I feel chagrined in having agreed to a telephone interview with the Rochester Post, finding out that in fact you represent a blog called the Minnesota Post, and having raised your expectations of an interview.

So we shouldn't expect to see Mike Hatch granting interviews to Minnesota Monitor anytime soon? It should also be noted that the Former AG's initial accusation (that MinnPost won't publish the Mengler report) was incorrect - they not only published it, they tied it to the string of articles on the subject so that both sides of the story COULD be told! Well, you know what they say about assumptions, don't you...

It was not after I left office, when a small cabal of attorneys attempted to organize a union in the Attorney General office, was any issue raised about my management style. As Attorney General I faced budgetary pressures which resulted in the reduction of the office from 250 attorneys to approximately 160 attorneys. I recognize that, having laid off over 75 attorneys, there are people very bitter with me. This is inevitable. Your cabal of union attorneys, however, does not speak for the Attorney Generals staff. Indeed, over the years I found that the vast majority of attorneys I served with are talented, hardworking, and mission-driven. Most importantly, we got the job done for the people of Minnesota.

The union organizing committee, however, is so weak that it has to resort to anonymity in an effort to give CPR to their comatose effort. Instead of putting their names by their accusations, they hide in the cloak of anonymity looking for any scribner to serve as their hand maiden.

Emphasis mine. Can you really imagine if Joe Business Owner had tried to use this defense if he had been accused of union busting? This is a rhetorical question as I do know the answer....they get taken to court by organizations like the Attorney General's office or the NLRB! Also as much as it pains me (as a card-carrying member of the "vast right wing conspiracy") to do this but I simply must come to the defense of Mr. Black (not that he needs it mind you). Eric Black is not just "any scribner". Black is a 30 year veteran of reporting (mostly politics) for the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

This letter is a look at the hubris that lies at the root of the matter. It all comes back to this quote from the main story...

A long-serving attorney, still in the office, said that, under both Hatch and Swanson, "it's a cult-like atmosphere. They demand blind obedience. Nobody's criticism is tolerated."

Nobody's criticism.....not even a 30 year veteran of Minnesota political reporting...is to be tolerated...

Root Causes

MinnPost, more than any other media outlet in the Twin Cities, has come out with yet another bombshell report on the continuing scandal in the Minnesota AG's office.

The recent agonies of the Minnesota attorney general's office under Lori Swanson (an alarming turnover rate in the office, a futile unionization effort blocked by Swanson, a series of allegations that lawyers in the office felt pressured to do things they considered unethical and a preliminary investigation by the legislative auditor, which may be released any day now) are really the latest symptoms of trauma that goes back nine years and starts with two words:

Mike Hatch.

One former assistant attorney general said that when people ask him what he thinks about the turmoil of Swanson's first year, he replies: "Are you kidding me? None of this is new. All of this has been happening since Hatch took over."

Hatch, who is Swanson's mentor, ran for governor three times and was elected attorney general twice as a hard-charging populist. He made his name by his willingness to take on corporations that he felt were victimizing Minnesota consumers. Although his temper was legendary — and may have cost him the governorship in 2006 — his admirers see it as a symptom of his crusading zeal.

But as attorney general from 1999 to 2007, Hatch traumatized the AG's office. His bare-knuckled style tested the boundaries of acceptable conduct, stretching across matters of law, politics and especially the norms of Minnesota niceness. Attorneys and other subordinates describe working for Hatch and Swanson as hellish, featuring verbal abuse and pressure to do things they believed were unethical, and to put Hatch's political needs foremost.

Author Eric Black (formerly of the Minneapolis Star Tribune) interviewed current and former employees of the AG office who were more than willing to "spill" office secrets.

As attorney general, they told me, Hatch was a foul-mouthed screamer and a bully. Some of the former employees described scenes of Hatch yelling, cursing, turning red, calling his subordinates names, pounding his fist on a desk. They said that any reluctance to unquestioningly implement an order could lead to a sudden loss of status with the management, an unwanted transfer, or being called into a meeting and offered a choice between resignation or dismissal.

The sources describe Hatch as quick to suspect political motives behind any disagreement. He also seemed to assume that any small setback, a small mistake made by someone in the office, might spell his political demise. Said one source, who worked with Hatch for years and has now moved on: "Several times I heard him say, 'You may have just ended my career.'" He believed that any mistake could turn into negative publicity from which he could never recover politically."

He also attempted to interview both Hatch and Swanson.

MinnPost had requested interviews with Hatch and Swanson a week and a half ago. Swanson never offered an interview. Hatch, after much delay, agreed to an interview that was to occur this morning. Publication of this article was delayed to meet his schedule, but then Hatch canceled the interview this morning.

Former AG Hatch did, to his credit, send Black a written statement which was posted in it's entirety (which I will comment on in a later post). However the stories of forced resignations and bully tactics are a tale of a pair addicted to power and who feel that they are somehow "owed" the power that they have and crave.

A former deputy attorney general under Hatch recalls getting summoned to the Capitol for a meeting with the boss... As the deputy walked up the big marble stairs (to the Capital Building), he saw Hatch...Hatch was in a rage (my source didn't know why at the time) and started screaming.

"Hatch berated me like I haven't been talked to since my drunk old man did when I was a kid," the former deputy said. "He's poking my chest with his finger. I almost hit him, I almost popped him."

Hatch used the f-word and the mother-f'er variation. He called the deputy and his entire division the "biggest bunch of [f'ing] losers" he'd ever seen. He accused the subordinate of some unspecified betrayal. My source knew not what it was.

He later learned from one of Hatch's top deputies what set off the tirade. Hatch was in the midst of one of several significant purges of the staff. The former deputy had picked up word that one of his subordinates was in danger of getting axed. He confidentially warned the woman to watch her step..the woman confronted Hatch...Hatch...considered the warning to the woman to be a personal betrayal...

...A long-serving attorney, still in the office, said that, under both Hatch and Swanson, "it's a cult-like atmosphere. They demand blind obedience. Nobody's criticism is tolerated."

Black, in his piece, likens the former AG employees who still gather to compare stories to victims of physical abuse. You really need to go read the whole thing. It is eye-opening to say the least.