November 12, 2010
Indvik
was WSI's board chair from January 2004 to December 2007. He said that his relationship with Jim Long
started out pretty fair, but as time progressed Jim had problems with the team
concept. He always spoke in terms of I
not we.
Regarding
the board thinking that Sandy Blunt's charges were political, Indvik thought
that it was convenient that one of WSI's most ardent critics was at the news
conference which announced Blunt's charges.
Joel Heitkamp is a democrat and no republicans were there.
He noted
that the charges against Blunt were regarding promotional items, that many CEOs
did exactly the same think, and OMB gave us their blessing.
He said
the board chose Halvorson as interim CEO because he had the best rapport with
the staff and a long association with workers comp. Halvorson was not controversial. Indvik said Long's name was not even
mentioned for consideration for CEO, that WSI would have lost 90% of its staff
if it had appointed Long.
Regarding
the alleged inappropriate relationship with Billie Peltz, Indvik stated that
Sandy Blunt had told him he had to do something and that Blunt said Long told
him Billie wanted an affair with him.
With
regard to the issue of nepotism, the board understood they'd have to address the
fact that Halvorson's wife and brother-in-law worked at WSI and so he met with
Tim Wahlin, Jodi Bjornson, and ran it by the AG's office. Wahlin said that Halvorson's wife and
brother-in-law would report to Long and not Halvorson. Bakke presented minutes of a board meeting
where it stated nepotism could be waived in cases of emergency and on a
temporary basis.
Indvik
said he was aware of a power struggle between Long and Halvorson and he had
daily conversations with Halvorson who said Long was trying to go around
him.
Regarding
the ITTP issue, board member Evan Mandigo emailed Long and cc'd Indvik that the
board did not wish to intervene.
Staffing of the ITTP project was not a board issue. Indvik said that Halvorson was of the opinion
he was pushed out of the loop by Long.
He thought Justin Data's email meant that when Blunt was there, there
was a clearer chain of command.
At this
point Bakke asked whether Long was trying to notify the board of violations of
law or illegal conduct. Indvik said
no. He asked whether Long ever
complained about injured workers not getting a fair deal or whether Long
complained about the Chamber of Commerce meeting. Indvik said he had not, nor had he complained
to him about anything manifesto.
Indvik
said Long did not have authority to search Mark Armstrong's desk and that
Grinsteinner did not advise him that she wanted to search that office. He said the audit charter finds no authority
for Grinsteinner to do that search.
Indvik said he was never shown ethical standards for internal auditors
and he was aware of none. He said the
Connolly report recommended terminating Grinsteinner and he would have voted
for termination.
Regarding
Long's October 22, 2007 whistleblower complaint, Indvik said all whistleblower
complaints are investigated.
He
criticized Grinsteinner for sending an email to the state auditor's office
about concerns at WSI from her home computer.
He said that it was a violation of the chain of command. She should have gone to Mandigo. Regarding Grinsteinner's concerns of WSI
improperly denying claims, he said she had nothing to do with claims, but he
figured the press would love it. As a
result of Grinsteinner's complaint, they had to have the governor and state
auditor's office do an independent review which cost $500,000. He said that it was important to have the
governor's office involved as they needed transparency and if people doubted
WSI and the governor, then ok.
Plaintiff
attorney Tom Tuntland then did his cross examination of defendant Indvik. He asked if an employee believed a CEO was
engaged in illegal activity with the consent of the board, who would that
employee bring the issue to? Is there
anything in the handbook that says they can go to law enforcement? Indvik said there was nothing that said they
could not.
Tuntland
asked whether Indvik had ever seen the internal audit ethical standards. He had not.
Tuntland then read from the internal audit charter which stated internal
auditors would have full and unrestricted access to records, property, and
personnel and also stated that the document referred to a code of ethics. He questioned whether Indvik had ever asked
Grinsteinner for her ethical standards.
Indvik had not.
Tuntland
asked if Grinsteinner found evidence of wrongdoing by the board, who would she
go to? Indvik said he didn't know if
that were in the charter but in his opinion, go to the CEO. What if the board and the CEO work together? You'd go to legal. Not police?
Indvik said that they could not prevent that. Tuntland established that the board expressed
a belief that Sandy Blunt was innocent.
Regarding
democrat Joel Heitkamp being at the news conference, Heitkamp also hosts a
radio show and the fact that WSI CEO was charged with a crime was news.
He asked
Indvik whether he'd ever read Mark Armstrong's journal. Indvik said no. Tuntland read an excerpt that said,
"Chair Indvik wants to be aggressive against media. Figure out a way to battle against Riha
(Burleigh County States Attorney)."
Indvik said they wanted to get the story out. Why pick on Sandy out of all the CEOs for buying a
birthday cake. Tuntland asked if the
States Attorney brought charges, approved by a judge, you thought it
appropriate to go after the States Attorney.
Indvik said they could look at that.
Tuntland: You're asking Mark Armstrong to short circuit
a criminal proceeding?
Indvik: No, I'm just questioning why Sandy was charged for something every CEO had
done.
Tuntland
asked whether he was aware that Blunt had committed WSI to issue a $150,000
safety grant before the safety grant program had been approved. Not that I'm aware of, Indvik replied.
Tuntland
then turned to the ITTP software project.
He looked at excerpts of an email Justin Data had sent Jim Long stating
that he had witnessed an erosion of the management structure that had proved
successful over 14 months, "especially in executive committee decisions
you are making to support the project are being reversed or changed at the 9th
hour by your superior". Tuntland
asked whether there was anyone else who the superior could be besides
Halvorson. Indvik stated that Justin
Data didn't know who Long's superior was.
Tuntland told Indvik that since Jim had received an alarming email from
Data indicating the 14 million dollar project was in jeopardy, did Jim do
anything wrong in bringing that to the board of directors? Indvik said without going through Halvorson
first, yes and that he thought Data's letter fit in with what he had been
hearing from Halvorson. That Halvorson
was being shut out of the loop.
Defense
attorney Randy Bakke then began has redirect of Indvik. He established that since Grinsteinner's job
was on the line, he would have expected her to produce her code of ethics to
save her job. He also noted that if Long
had been the one to do the search, he could not have relied on the internal
audit charter.
Regarding
the news conference, Bakke noted that Heitkamp was standing directly behind
Riha and asked whether the press normally stands. Indvik said no it was just other democrats
and that it was more then just dumb luck.
Regarding
the ITTP software project, Indvik felt that as Halvorson was not kept in the
loop, the project was doomed to failure.
He also noted that Halvorson was the project executive sponsor after
Blunt left and was the final arbiter for significant decisions. Indvik said Data referred to how well it went
when Sandy Blunt was there.
Bakke
asked whether any of this was a violation of the law or an indication of
illegality. Indvik said no.
No comments:
Post a Comment