« FRANKEN EVASIVE TO QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS FAILURE TO PROVIDE DISABILITY INSURANCE | Home | STAR TRIBUNE: “AUDITOR TO EXAMINE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE” »
MUST READ FROM THE STAR TRIBUNE: “PROBE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE MAY BE NEXT”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | March 28, 2008
"The Legislative Audit Commission will consider today whether to review allegations of possible improper conduct within the Minnesota attorney general's office.
The office, headed by Attorney General Lori Swanson, has been roiled by discontent for more than a year, with high turnover of lawyers amid complaints of low morale and an atmosphere of intimidation.
Sen. Ann Rest, DFL-New Hope, a member of the audit commission, said Thursday that complaints that Swanson interfered with union organizing efforts and pressured subordinates into compromising situations prompted the panel to consider an inquiry.
Rest said the union grievances are better resolved by a court order or legislation, but that the ethical complaints might be eligible for evaluation by Legislative Auditor Jim Nobles." Source: Star Tribune, March 27, 2008
Click here for the complete story.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 17 Comments »
17 Responses to “MUST READ FROM THE STAR TRIBUNE: “PROBE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE MAY BE NEXT””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 28th, 2008 at 11:09 AM
That isn’t the only trouble Lori Swanson finds herself in. Read about the other troubles here.
March 28th, 2008 at 12:35 PM
It is not possible….IT’S HAPPENING!
http://www.looktruenorth.com/component/content/article/103-Attorney%20General/2402-swanson-gate-to-be-investigated.html
LL
March 28th, 2008 at 2:57 PM
At long last the light of day shines on the Attorney General’s Office and a myriad of employee complaints and allegations.
Who does the AG’s office answer to? That’s a question I’ve heard often since the union-busting and employment issue allegations came up.
What is the threshold of precedent proof required for the AG’s office to file suit on behalf of the citizens of Minnesota against companies doing business with Minnesotans? Or is the office without formal oversight and allowed to sue whomever and whenever whimsy directs?
If you believe that all of the elected folks in Saint Paul are there to serve the best interests of the people of Minnesota, the acrimony at AG HQ begs the question of accountability, rules, procedures, standards of ethical behavior. The inquiry is reasonable and should be pursued vigorously.
The fact that these allegations are the same in March 2008 as they were in April and June of 2007 makes reasonable folks wonder what the delay has been. What took so long to reach the public radar? The image comes to mind of Majority Leader Tony Sertich losing his grip on a greased piglet that has, over the ensuing months, grown into a full-sized pig.
Is this media coverage a harbinger of a serious effort to solve a perplexing riddle (I hope so), or simply the predictable choreography of institutional cover-up?
How would the left handle this issue if the same allegations were made against a republican?
March 28th, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Shoot, Drew – when the GOPer controlled senate “investigated” Gonzales, at first, they didn’t even bother to swear him in.
And Boy Blunder has claimed over and Over and OVER that members of his misAdministration don’t have to testify under oath; sometimes, he claims they don’t have to testify at all.
What I want to know, is what would the GOPers do, if Swanson used tried ‘n true GOP – GreedOverPrinciples – practices as a defense?
What if Swanson said: “Hey – the republiCons set the standard at the federal level; if it’s good enough for Bush The Lesser, it’s good enough for me!!!”
Would the rightwingnut blogosphere go into melt-down mode?
Personally, I doubt it – GOPers are consistently inconsistent, and would see nothing wrong with holding Swanson accountable for something they refuse to hold themselves accountable for…..
March 28th, 2008 at 5:16 PM
OneNuttTommy: GOP – GreedOverPrinciples
Yeah, sure:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1992320/posts
March 28th, 2008 at 7:55 PM
This Nobles guy is dynamite! Everyone and everything he investigates is crap! It’s the AG’s turn now…
March 28th, 2008 at 7:58 PM
The interesting thing about all of this is Swanson’s claim that Minnesota law prohibits the unionization of the attorneys in the AG’s office. Now I haven’t researched the law and make no claim one way or another. But it seems to me that, if Swanson is correct, she holds all the cards in this game.
If Swanson was as smart as she claims she is, she should be telling the union organizers to keep at it. “Hey, union thugs, and I say this with all respect, use my office. I’m off to lunch, and won’t be back until 1:30,” she should be saying to them. That because, if Swanson is correct, nothing that the organizers would do will change the equation. At the end of the day, the AG’s office will remain a non-union sweatshop (absent a change in the law, which I understand Swanson is fighting with tongs at the legislature).
So, despite this, Swanson is following in the not so proud tradition of her old boss Mike Hatch. Hatch believed in operating the AG’s office through terrorism, firing attorneys left and right for any reason. Swanson is following suit. Both Hatch and Swanson believe that a culture of fear is the best way to get a productive work force in the AG’s office.
It would appear, then, that Swanson’s quest for “off with their heads” power over the attorneys in the AG’s office outweighs any notion that, when it comes to union organizing, Swanson herself holds all the cards.
March 29th, 2008 at 2:31 AM
Oh, yes. Alberto Gonzales (AG) was USA Attorney General (AG), so AG was the AG.
When asked if “his” grandparents were legal citizens of the United States he replied that it wasn’t “clear” or isn’t “clear.”
In the English/Spanish bi-lingual world in Texas, that kinds of phraseology is a code so secret that only Walt Disney’s Zorro would know what it means.
March 29th, 2008 at 6:12 AM
• Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
Chet – thank you for proving, once again, that while numbers don’t lie, liars use numbers.
Say there’s 9 guys in the bar. In walks Bill Gates. The average income of those now 10 guys is much higher than the average income when it was just the 9.
A coupla years ago, Grace Church in Eden Prairie bragged on their website that they spent a quarter million on their Easter Decorations.
This is a church that gives nothing to the local food bank, etc etc etc.
But, they can spend a quarter million on DECORATIONS??!?
Why? Because they got “charitable” parishoners.
So, you go ahead and feel smug, Chet – it’s something you republiCons do well.
March 29th, 2008 at 8:59 AM
Tell me puddles do you have some sort of evidence that the Grace Church gives nothing to the local food bank, etc etc etc? Most Christians do not call press conferences when they do something charitable – that is a liberal thing as it really is news when a liberal gives their own money and not someone elses… Do they provide food, etc etc etc themselves without going through the organizations that you would prefer them to use? Is that because some of those organizations use what is given them for things not approved by church doctrine? Just asking Puddles, if you are going to throw mud at a church I would expect some proof. Do I agree that they should spend $250,000 on decorations? Of course not, I don’t believe they should spend even $10 on decorations. Just thought I would move that off the plate so that you couldn’t try to twist my response to say I supported that waste of money…
March 29th, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Pete: “. . . as it really is news when a liberal gives their own money, and not someone elses. . . ”
el presidente: Perhaps Pete should think about the JobZ Program, Tax increment financing, help for Northwest Airlines and some expected reciprocity for their end of the bargain, and think about asking if there is an emergency at Grace Church, if people ask first if Grace Church is tax exempt.
Pete has trapped himself with his charitable attitudes.
March 30th, 2008 at 8:49 AM
“Just asking Puddles, if you are going to throw mud at a church I would expect some proof.”
No problemo, rePete. I’ll go get it.
In the mean time, you go stand in a corner, hold your breath, and wait.
March 30th, 2008 at 9:04 AM
Twopud: BRILLIANT!
March 30th, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Puddles, ya, right. Your just so BRILLIANT! Didn’t think you would have proof…
March 30th, 2008 at 4:04 PM
EP, WTF are you talking about?!? You really do need to lay off the weed man… Do all liberals hate Christians so much or just you two?
March 30th, 2008 at 5:42 PM
I do not think that all liberals hate all Christians so much. I don’t hate all Christians. TwoPuttTommy can answer for himself.
Jesus called some of the church leaders “vipers.” I don’t think that you’d appreciate being called a somewhat toned down version – a snake who crawls in the weed(s).
March 31st, 2008 at 6:14 PM
Drew Emmer was featured on either on MN Blue or MN Publius today.