Now That You've Caught Him,

Now That You've Caught Him, Time To Let Him Go - The Strib turns a blind moral eye to the Hatch/Pawlenty "feud".

Of course, like all reportage in Minnesota during Fair Season, it's got to start with a big plate of lutefisk and Pronto Pup references:

It's said that the State Fair is a reflection of Minnesota. This year, the politics being practiced at the fair is a reflection of the relationship between GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty and DFL Attorney General Mike Hatch. Step right up to the DFL and GOP booths, and see hostility and mistrust on display.

At the Republican booth, "DFL lies on a stick" have been catalogued in a handy take-away format that leads off with disbelief of claims by both Hatch and DFL state chair Mike Erlandson that Hatch did not participate in the party's coordinated campaign in 2002.

The stick being jabbed at Pawlenty by the DFLers is of the figurative type, but is still sharp. It's a postcard and e-mail campaign, appealing to the governor to release his tax returns to prove that he paid taxes on 2001-02 telecommunications consulting income that he only this summer disclosed. At the DFL corner, the word "recall" is being bandied about in a way that, for a fan of orderly democracy, is scarier than the fair's haunted house.

The editorial then gets down to business:

That's edgy partisanship, by State Fair standards. But it's tame compared with what's been going on at the Capitol. There, the Pawlenty-Hatch feud threatens to interfere with good government.

That is the impression created by a report from the Office of the Legislative Auditor, released last week. It details the steps that led to a settlement earlier this year with United American Insurance Co., accused of defrauding senior citizens in the sale of Medicare supplemental insurance policies. The report found fault with the settlement's confidentiality provision and its characterization of the required $103,000 payment as a "fee reimbursement" rather than a penalty or fine.

So far, so good. This would seem, according to the Legislative Auditor's report [warning - large PDF file], to violate state rules:

We think this characterization of the company’s payment is misleading since all companies having a market conduct examination are required to reimburse the examination revolving fund established in Minn. Stat. Section 60A.03, even in the absence of a consent order. The company was assessed and paid costs for the examination, pursuant to this section. However, the $100,000 payment from United American did not have anything to do with the cost reimbursement provisions of Section 60A.03, Subd. 5. When the department received the $100,000 payment, it deposited the moneys in the General Fund, as it would other fines and penalties, rather than in the revolving fund. We think the $100,000 payment would more accurately be described as a penalty, fine, or investigative fee. Department officials told us they were willing to characterize the payment as something other than a civil penalty or fine in order to achieve a settlement agreement.

Now, the Strib has long been accused of backing Attorney-General Hatch when the chips are down, at least in terms of editorial policy (as opposed to the work of the reporters covering the various stories). Is that what we're seeing here?

The Strib continues:

It described how "significant conflict" between the state Commerce Department and the attorney general's office contributed to the flawed settlement. Pawlenty administration officials told the auditor that Hatch's attorneys appeared to support the settlement in the early going, then backed away later. But the department staff refused to waive attorney-client privilege to provide documentation of their complaint.

The Strib's editorial phrases this to sound as if the Auditor thought the Department of Commerce was being evasive.

Here's what the Auditor's report actually said:

after the settlement had been signed, Assistant Attorneys General Aafedt and Goings sent a memorandum to four officials at the Department of Commerce highlighting several terms from the settlement agreement and consent order. Mr. LaVasseur said that the memo was the subject of a great deal of controversy at a subsequent meeting. In their statement to us, Mr. Aafedt and Mr. Goings said they drafted the memorandum to provide their interpretation of the unique settlement provisions. They also stated: “This Memorandum should not in any way be construed as our approval of the confidentiality provisions.” However, department staff told us that no one from the Attorney General’s Office had ever expressed any reservations or concerns about the no-comment provisions in the proposed and final settlement agreements. Because the Department of Commerce classified the memorandum from Mr. Aafedt. and Mr. Goings as protected by attorney/client privilege, we cannot quote its specific advice. The department also claimed attorney/client privilege for subsequent e-mails between the two agencies discussing the settlement and whether the department was allowed to post provisions of he settlement on its web site.

Commissioner Wilson, in his statement to our office, said he received limited advice prior to signing the consent order, and that he received no direct advice or counsel from the Attorney General’s Office.

So - the Department of Commerce claims it didn't get good advice, and the "Attorney-Client Privilege" seems to have been related less to evasion than to obeying existing rules about the release of information.

To the Strib, the answer is obvious:

"The conflict continues," the audit report states, leaving one to wonder where next in state government the public interest will suffer because Hatch's attorneys and Pawlenty's administrators don't get along.

Let's tally it up here:

1. Hatch tries to turn the American Bankers' settlement into a scandal, until his fingerprints in the controversy are revealed.
2. Hatch tries to turn a cut in the Gang Strike Force budget - for a group whose activities, vital as they are, can be considered redundant to what local police are supposed to be doing - into an anti-Pawlenty scandal - unsuccessfully.
3. Hatch tries to turn out-of-context talk about options for dealing with incarcerated sex offenders into an anti-Pawlenty scandal - and fails.
4. Hatch tries to turn the NewTel flap into a major anti-Pawlenty scandal, even though there's really very little "there" there (barring a possible issue with the Lawyer's Board for Professional Responsibility regarding Pawlenty's billing practices, which are a minuscule political issue compared to the charges of influence-peddling that Hatch and the major editorial boards tried to pin on the Governor
5. Mike Hatch's name seems to be writ large on the state's settlement with Qwest
6. Now, this - yet another controversy with Hatch's fingerprints every bit as prominent in the story as those he accuses.

The Strib's conclusion?

Naturally:

Partisanship is as much a part of the State Fair as cheese curds. But it ought not be an ingredient in the enforcement of Minnesota's consumer protection laws, or in countless other routine government actions. Hatch and Pawlenty are putting more than their own political futures at risk with their feud. A truce is overdue.

No. An accounting of the Attorney General's politicization of his office is overdue.

A truce that doesn't follow a reckoning for misdeeds is a Versailles peace - one that just leaves the principals, principles and motivations in place for a larger, uglier war later.

Posted by Mitch at August 27, 2003 01:37 AM