Screenshot from Ars Technica, this link.
..............................
The last version of the Ramsey-Landform contract I saw had a 30 day opt out for either side, i.e., for the side on a monthly basis continuously paying out five-figure money (Ramsey), or the side on a monthly basis saying, "Thanks," on their way to the bank (Landform).
Now East Bethel has the same firm being paid East Bethel money.
Newly elected people, making choices.
Darren in response to an email, indicated he preferred my further contact to be with his lawyer. I sent the lawyer an inquiry asking, among other things, whether Sen. Jungbauer still has the same job title in Landform as when I was earlier given the Senator's business card, by the Senator, (back at a Franken staff - community open session at Elk River city hall). So far, the lawyer has declined to respond.
What Darren wrote in an email, in relevant part, is:
My partner Bob Schunicht has been working with the City of East Bethel recently on issues related to their plans for sewer service to the area. Bob is a municipal engineer with over 30 years of experience in helping city’s plan and manage infrastructure, and as such his role on projects is dramatically different that that of a Development Manager, the role I have with the City of Ramsey.
I have included Bob in this reply so he can choose whether to respond to your request on that matter. I would encourage him not to respond, [...] I can find no conflict of interest in this issue, perceived or otherwise. As is the case with many engineers in town, Bob has consulted for almost every community in the metro area and has never had an issue with competing interests.
Please direct any further questions of Landform on this matter to our counsel – Vincent King [...]
My earlier email that Lazan was addressing had raised what to me was an obvious conflict of interest question, not really at all answered except that Lazan's opinion was that things were fine with him as is. I had asked, especially in light of SF 2500 in the last legislative session, whether ABC Newspapers would as part of its East Bethel coverage report on Landform being hired for water project related consulting:
[...] I noted the most recent Hagen coverage for East Bethel
http://abcnewspapers.com/2011/01/25/east-bethel-council- approves-salarybenefits-for- acting-administrator/#comment- 3568
omitted to mention anything about Landform, while focusing on other matters. My understanding is the East Bethel council split 3-2 on whether the Landform firm was to be hired to advise and assist the city; the three vote majority favoring it. My understanding is the split was along the lines previously reported by Hagen.
I think the question deserves coverage, of Mike Jungbauer going to the Minnesota Senate with business ties reaching to two cities in his Senate District (via each hiring the firm he depends upon for all or part of his livelihood); and the state cash pie being only so big while having to be sliced with any money Ramsey gets being thereby unavailable to East Bethel and vice versa.
I believe the press should seek statements from the Landform principals about whether they see or do not see any conflict of interest problem, and if not, how they would explain it to ABC readers such as me.
I cc the two Landform key insiders for notice purposes. My understanding is that Landform was contracted with by East Bethel to advise and assist on water issues.
I am aware that re water issues, in the last legislature Jungbauer sponsored a bill, SF 2500, seeking for water project money for Ramsey, while Landform was retained by Ramsey, but nothing was sought for East Bethel water-related matters in the same bill.
How Jungbauer now intends to handle legislative proposals with Landform now contracted as serving two masters each with conflicting hopes to get as much state cash as possible for its fiscal aid, IS newsworthy, in my view. I think it merits coverage.
Shake a lawyer at somebody, expect a follow-up, it seems to be the next logical step, so I emailed the lawyer:
Mr King-
Per your client's request in the forwarded email; I am emailing you.
Please let me know, is it correct or incorrect to presume Mike Jungbauer's current title with the Landform firm is identical to that on the business card he gave me about a year to fifteen months ago? See attached. It is unclear whether or not he remains as head or water related projects, with your client's email suggesting it is not entirely so any more. Could you please clarify.
What confuses me is Matt Look being quoted in minutes saying Ramsey hiring the Landform firm had a benefit that Senator Jungbauer knew of grant money; with the Senator then sponsoring a bill; SF 2500, after Landform was retained.
It seems as if the Senator was represented as key in Ramsey being initially solicited, per a brochure, and per Mr. Look's expressed statement of record, and that a bill draft followed. Correct me if anything in this paragraph is incorrect.
[...] Also, am I incorrect in the belief that Landform billed three hours of Sen. Jungbauer's time in the past regarding preparation of paper items and such related to some of the Jungbauer senate colleagues then scheduled upcoming visit to Ramsey - regarding a water related project? I reviewed City records per a public data law request, and that is my recollection from items I had xeroxed. Is that billing now contended as somehow in error?
Your client contends I am or have been incorrect about key facts, so please help me.
Zippo, in response. Papers could be served, litigation started, that could happen anytime, but so far I have not heard of a single factual assertion I have made, apart from opinion or parody, contended to be false by Landform and with Landform expressing what it's belief of correct fact would be. Nor have I received a single request-demand for a retraction or clarification of anything. I stand by the entire truthfulness of what I have written, and await anyone pointing out factual inaccuracy within the gist of what I have published.
As already published, there are the Landform business cards given me, this image:
The Darren Lazan email (from Jan. 25), made no response related in any way to this water project thing from last legislative session, (where no money was allocated so that it was mooted, for then). But my understanding is that had the amount of over two million dollars been appropriated, Landform had never recused itself from seeking to participate in proceeds; i.e., the Senator as a senior water project advisory person in the firm was proposing scarce State money to be earmarked for a water project in Ramsey; without disavowal of later cash flow to the firm employing him, and possibly indirectly to him, from such money if appropriated.
If Landform would simply go on record to ABC Newspapers or such, saying any State money gotten in the Legislature for water projects in Ramsey, I guess now in East Bethel too, per the Senator's sponsorship or key effort, would not be sought by it in future Landform contracting with Ramsey or East Bethel - but would scrupulously be off limits to the firm with other competent consultants clearly available - that would go a long, long way toward my being less upset with the firm and its people.
And while Darren Lazan's opinion is of record that he sees no conflict of interest problems in his firm's dealing, my contrary opinion is of record too, that the potential for abuse exists unless and until that firm publicly commits that the Senator's legislative conduct and any cash flowing therefrom to Landform's client municipalities shall be honored as separate, and funds he secures legislatively for client municipalities will be a pie from which the firm and all of its insiders would not ever seek a slice.
So now, what's the firm doing in East Bethel? Would any reader with knowledge send an email?
As yet this session I have not seen any Jungbauer sponsored legislation aimed at earmarking very scarce State money, (in these times of Republican talk about deficite concerns being paramount), specifically for the benefit of East Bethel and/or Ramsey. That is a fact. So far.
Jungbauer's 87th Sess., SF 65, bill remains unclear to me, in many ways; and I have not seen it explained despite requesting explanatory help, as a constituent, in email to the Jungbauer Senate office.
Any reader wishing to contact the Senator's office about SF 65, State money for a Northstar stop in Ramsey, or any other matter, contact info is online at his Senate webpage:
http://www.leg.state.mn.us/legdb/fulldetail.asp?ID=10796