By T.W. Budig
ECM capitol reporter

Gov. Pawlenty expressed concerns Thursday (June 2) that possible ìdivided loyaltiesî in Attorney General Mike Hatch could constitute a conflict of interest, disqualifying him from handling potential government shutdown legal actions.

Hatch argued that Pawlentyís concerns were baseless ñ the administrationís approach to potential court action misguided.

ìIím not representing him (Pawlenty),î said Hatch, a potential 2006 gubernatorial candidate. ìI represent the State of Minnesota ñ we donít have a king,î he said.

But Pawlenty said going to court would be challenging enough without an ìextra layer of complexity.î

At the center of the dispute is a possible, partial state government shutdown on June 30 brought by state lawmakers, now in special session, failing to pass additional finance bills.

Although the Legislature has funded some areas of state government, not all.

In a hand delivered letter to Hatch, Pawlenty states he plans to petition state courts for orders to clarify steps the administration can take in the event of a government shutdown.

In the letter, Pawlenty questions the appropriateness of Hatch handling the petition.

ìGiven your political activities, and the resulting competing loyalties, I question whether you or your office can, or should, represent my Administration with respect to the scope of executive powers and decision-making in the event of a government shutdown,î Pawlenty wrote.

Pawlenty requested that Hatch provide an assessment on whether there was a conflict that could impaired his ability to be a ìdedicated and zealous advocateî for the administration.

The governor wants an answer by noon on Tuesday (June 7).

ìThis is not a big confrontation,î insisted Pawlenty. The administration is just looking for help, he explained.

Hatch said he was ìbemusedî by Pawlentyís letter.

ìItís not the role of the governor to file that petition ñ itís the role of the state,î said Hatch. And thatís the providence of the Attorney Generalís Office, Hatch explained.

His office had notified the Pawlenty Administration more than a week ago that it was preparing a petition to file with the courts, Hatch explained.

His office had requested the administration specify what the core functions of state government were.

ìThis is business as usual,î said Hatch.

Back in 2001 during the Ventura Administration, Hatch petitioned the Ramsey County District Court for its authority to continue the funding of the core functions of state government beyond June 30.

The petition was filed with the support of Gov. Ventura.

Hatch said he would send a letter back to Pawlenty informing him that no conflict of interest existed.

Theoretically, it could be possible for the administration to use it own attorney but he couldnít imagine the Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice approving such a request, Hatch explained.

Top of Page

©ECM Post Review

6448 Main Street
North Branch, MN 55056
Telephone: 651-674-7025
Fax: 651-674-7026
E-mail: editor.postreview@ecm-inc.com