November 10, 2010
Tuntland
calls Billie Peltz.
When
Billie Peltz, former Director of Human Resources at WSI, took the stand, it was
clear she was not happy about being there.
She said throughout the course of her testimony that she was not the one
who sued the State of North Dakota
and she was there because she was required to be.
Tuntland
asked the most pertinent questions first.
Tuntland: Were you and Jim Long having an affair?
Peltz: No.
Tuntland: Were you having a romantic relationship?
Peltz: No.
Tuntland: Did you tease each other?
Peltz: Yes.
Tuntland: Did you have a teasing relationship with other
people?
Peltz: Yes.
Tuntland: Did you consider any of this improper?
Peltz: No.
Peltz
said at one point she was brought into Halvorson's office and he told her to be
more professional in the workplace. She
tried to be cognizant of that, but still joked with people.
She said
she had frequent meetings with Jim Long as it was important to get advice from
her direct supervisor. At times, they
would have closed door meetings to protect the confidentiality of sensitive
employee issues.
She said
Halvorson did tell her there was a complaint about the perception of an
inappropriate relationship and she did not know who complained, but that Blunt
or no one else had ever talked with her regarding her relationship with Jim.
She said
she requested whistleblower protection because she was afraid of retaliation
for providing information to BCI. She
was contacted by BCI and was not happy about that because BCI didn't know who
she was until Jodi Bjornson gave them her name.
She said BCI gave her two options, she could go in voluntarily to talk
with them or they would subpoena her.
She said
she filed for whistleblower protection after it was announced that Sandy Blunt
was coming back to work. She feared
retaliation from Blunt and the executive staff and noted there was an
atmosphere of retaliation at the agency.
She said when she began at WSI in HR she worked to raise morale and
tried to redo their performance reviews so employees could have input regarding
their pay increases.
Peltz
stated she was not present when the Armstrong journal was found and had told no
one she was. She didn't recall whether
Jim had given her a copy or whether she had seen it in the press. Peltz stated she was fired on 3-13-08. She remembered that because it was her
birthday. She thought Hutchings and
Grinsteinner were fired the same day but wasn't sure.
Tuntland
asked whether she'd attended a Halloween party at WSI. She had.
He asked about issues with Jim with her kids. She said Jim was great with her kids and she
didn't do anything with Jim that she would not disclose to her spouse. Regarding going for pedicures with Long, she
said Bjornson was supposed to go but she asked her to go in her place.
Defense
attorney Randy Bakke then began questioning.
Peltz' answers went from aloof to combative.
Bakke
asked whether she and Long were close friends.
She said friends, but not close friends.
Regarding
an issue raised by Long of nepotism, Bakke said she and Long disagreed with the
WSI determination that said nepotism in this case was ok. Peltz disagreed and said no, they brought the
issue forward to the general counsel Bjornson and accepted management's
decision. She said she brought it to
board chair Indvik because that was what she was told to do.
Bakke: Wasn't your established chain of command, if
you had a concern you would take it to Long?
Peltz: Yes.
Bakke: Then Long would take it to the CEO.
Peltz: There wasn't a CEO.
Bakke: Do you agree that by going to Indvik you
bypassed the chain of command?
Peltz: No. I
was told by the general counsel to go to Indvik.
Bakke: Did Long want that post as the interim CEO?
Peltz: Yes.
Bakke: Did he think he was more qualified then
Halvorson?
Peltz: I don't recall.
Bakke: Jim was upset that Halvorson got the
position?
Peltz: True.
Bakke: Long told you he thought he was being
mistreated by Halvorson?
Peltz: He may have.
Bakke
then turned to Peltz' deposition on the matter stating that she knew he
complained of mistreatment but didn't have all the details.
Bakke: Did you say that?
Peltz: That's what's documented.
Peltz
confirmed that she went with Jim for drinks but not alone, with a group, and
did not remember anything amorous.
She also
said Halvorson did not discuss anything regarding Long's work performance with
her and she got the information second hand from Long. She had no knowledge why Long was put on
leave nor why he was fired. She said
knew Long and Halvorson had problems.
Bakke: But you were upset that you were not involved
in the decision to put Long on administrative leave?
Peltz: No. I
was upset that I was being bypassed in decisions.
Bakke
then turned to her deposition which said, "I was upset I was not involved
in decisions after Halvorson was made CEO."
Peltz: That's just what I told you.
Bakke: You never liked Halvorson?
Peltz: True.
Bakke: Not because you thought he was involved in
violations of law?
Peltz: I would not say that.
Bakke: In your deposition you said Halvorson was
involved in too many areas, not that he was involved in illegalities.
Peltz: Yes, but that was not part of my deposition.
Bakke: Was illegal conduct or suspected violation of
law reported to you by employees, including Long, before Long filed his
whistleblower complaint?
Peltz: No one complained to me prior to the
whistleblower complaint.
Bakke: Long told you he thought it was improper for
Halvorson to be meeting with legislators?
Peltz: Yes.
Bakke: You understand WSI employees meet with the
governor and legislators?
Peltz: Yes.
Bakke: Did Long frequently complain?
Peltz: Not frequently.
Bakke: You heard Long make inappropriate comments
regarding Halvorson?
Peltz: True.
Bakke: There was an audio tape of that?
Peltz: I heard that at the deposition but I haven't
heard it since.
Bakke
then places an exhibit on the overhead projector saying Shitty Leader in large
letters. Tuntland objects to that. The Judge sustains his objection.
Bakke: That was insubordinate conduct?
Peltz: Yes.
Bakke: Calling him a fat fuck was insubordinate
conduct?
Peltz: Yes.
Bakke: Can you understand why he would be terminated
for that?
Peltz: Yes.
Bakke: Long was at will?
Peltz: Yes.
Bakke: Long was frequently disagreeing with
Halvorson?
Peltz: I know he disagrees.
Bakke: If a boss has a person disagreeing with him,
he can fire them?
Peltz: It depends on what the CEO's vision is. If he's trying to promote stability and not
doing illegal activities, then he can do that.
Bakke: Before Long filed for whistleblower
protection he never said Halvorson was going to terminate him because he knew
of something illegal in the company?
Peltz: No.
Bakke: You said on the audio tape, start playing
dirty.
Peltz: It sounded like it could be me. I can't be sure it's my voice. It doesn't refresh my memory.
Bakke
then turned to her deposition. Do you
believe that's you? She answered, sure.
Bakke: Are those the answers you gave at that time?
Peltz: It looks like it. I wouldn't say I was giving advice. I don't remember the conversation.
Bakke: Well your conversation was about Long being
reprimanded for the tape recording, recall that?
Peltz: Yes.
Bakke
noted that Peltz had told Jim to start applying external pressure.
Bakke: Would telling him to go to the media be
applying external pressure?
Peltz: I don't recall the conversation.
Bakke: External pressure would be filing a
whistleblower complaint?
Peltz: I never encouraged him to file a whistleblower
complaint. When I filed a whistleblower
complaint it was not to apply external pressure.
Bakke: Are you aware Long was talking to Chad
Nodland of northdecoder.com?
Peltz: Yes.
Bakke: That would be a way of applying external
pressure to WSI and Halvorson?
Peltz: That would be a method.
Bakke: Do you agree on the recording that Long was
upset?
Peltz: Yes.
Bakke: Was that typical of how Long was regarding
Halvorson?
Peltz: No. At
times, but not typical.
Bakke: Is the reason why you told him not to go to
the board to apply external pressure?
Peltz: No. I
said don't go to the board because it won't do any good.
Bakke
talked about the definitions of sexual harassment and fraternization and did
she not run afoul of those definitions.
Peltz: It was not sexual harassment and it was not
fraternization. Everything is a case by
case basis when you look at sexual harassment.
Bakke: You'd say you would do your conduct in front
of your husband?
Peltz: Yes.
Bakke: Slapping or grabbing your buttocks?
Peltz: Jim never did that.
Bakke: If you're touching Mr. Long's leg, would that
upset your husband?
Peltz: What are you asking? What are you asking me?
Bakke: Were you told of complaints about Mr. Long
and you?
Peltz: Yes.
That was addressed by John Halvorson.
Bakke: Halvorson said the perception was that you
and Long were acting in an inappropriate manner.
Peltz: Generally, yes.
Bakke: What did Halvorson tell you?
Peltz: It was very brief. Something like, had Jim patted me on the butt. I said no.
He said be more careful.
Bakke: Did Long tell you that Nallie said in an
executive meeting that you two were having an affair?
Peltz: He was upset that she would make a comment
like that.
Bakke
then handed her notes of Tim Wahlin's.
Peltz: Yes.
He said there were notes that Sandy
prepared after he came back, but he didn't put alot of merit in them. He told me that.
The notes
said Jim expressed that Billie came to him and wanted a private sexual
relationship. Billie said he's a f-ing
liar.
Bakke: Do you recall? Are you denying this is accurate?
Peltz: Yes.
Bakke: You never suggested a private sexual
relationship with Long?
Peltz: Yes.
Bakke: So Jim was untruthful?
Peltz: That presumes the notes are accurate. They were dropped on Wahlin after the
whistleblower complaint and they were not contemporanous.
Bakke: Is there anything else in this interview that
Long said that was untruthful, presuming he said those things?
Peltz: The context isn't true. Jim never touched me inappropriately, never
slapped me on the butt, I don't think any of this is accurate because Blunt, a
convicted felon, recreated this from his memory. I wouldn't put any weight in this.
Bakke: Are you aware of rumors at WSI?
Peltz: There were always rumors at WSI.
Bakke: Regarding you and Long having an
inappropriate relationship?
Peltz: That was a topic of discussion with
Halvorson.
Bakke: Can you see how that causes problems with HR?
Peltz: No.
Bakke: Essentially the HR manager must be squeaky
clean regarding sexual conduct?
Peltz: You make it sound like every employee there
had this notion.
Bakke: Would you bring him coffee with spill
protectors with kissy lips?
Peltz: I don't remember what kind of spill
protectors I would give him!
Bakke: Did you tell your husband about the
pedicures?
Peltz: Yeah.
Bakke: Are you critical of Halvorson having to talk
with you?
Peltz: No. If
Halvorson got a complaint, he had to investigate.
Bakke: After you learned Long supposedly said to
Blunt that you wanted a sexual relationship, Long denied that and said it was a
bunch of bull.
Peltz: Yes.
Bakke: You said it wouldn't surprise you if he had.
Peltz: No.
Where's that coming from?
Bakke: Perhaps a better way to put it is that you
don't know who to believe anymore.
Peltz: Absolutely.
No comments:
Post a Comment