Dear colleagues:
I have viewed the recorded LEC Authority meetings, from its inception through the September 9 meeting.
Given my tenure, I have a pretty good understanding of those
involved. “On the eve of mediation,” to quote Dan Moore, I notice things starting to unravel.
I have talked to no one about this letter, so these recommendations are my own.
After being a lightning rod for most everything in prior years, this year I’ve chosen to allow this newer board to find their own voice on this issue, and navigate their own path.
Despite that, division is coming to a head. I see a tumultuous road ahead for this mediation process, and I don’t see enough leadership.
Imagining myself in Mark Nelson’s shoes, I
support his principled stance. However, more is at stake than our reputations. The process could be completely ideal, but a great many constituents would still blame the wrong people—that’s a problem we will never fix.
Even today, we are blamed for following state law by accepting the low bid. And just the other day a constituent was telling me we don’t have any federal inmates in the LEC, even though I told them we had about 160 in that moment.
Some people just refuse to believe facts, and more passionate does not equal more valid. Some citizens need to hear it repeated that we aren’t going to directly cause further delays by following their advice.
One company involved has replaced one of their critical positions
several times—I believe FIVE TIMES—and that has delayed the project more, not less.
Firing the Baker Group on the eve of mediation would be the stupidest thing possible for any meaningful resolution. Any taxpayer giving that five seconds of thought would realize
that publicly castigating the owner’s representative going into mediation will diminish THEIR OWN AUTHORITY to claim—through their elected officials—that they are owed damages.
The parties clearly at fault for the errors regarding design and construction have apparently agreed to engage in mediation, which is a positive step—and a credit to our respective legal
counsels, even as they absorb character attacks. Counting up our respective legal counsels, including one assistant for each, and including the county attorney and assistant county attorney, we have six attorneys who have ensured we are as ready as we will ever be for mediation.
Mark has pointed out that Ron’s temperament could “blow up” mediation. With respect, that’s not the only thing that could. The other factor that could blow up mediation is if our
counterparties renege on mediation before it begins.
If Board or Authority members are on record doubting that their representatives will speak effectively for the governing body, that
is only giving the counterparties more reason to roll the dice in court, and force more legal fees on our taxpayers.
I see others moving closer to this line and I don’t see the upside.
Something also reduces the likelihood that Ron would blow up any mediation, and that’s the LEC Authority’s legal counsel. I don’t recall a single time when Ron publicly contradicted the LEC Authority’s legal counsel, and that’s a good thing in this case.
On that note, one citizen has repeatedly criticized Ron Wieck for not speaking up for himself in LEC meetings, while also repeatedly calling into question the appropriateness of Jodie (or her firm) representing the LEC Authority. This is ironic because Jodie is always the one to answer and/or refute the claims from this citizen. So, logically, we can all assume it will be the same dynamic in mediation: Ron will talk less than Jodie, and often defer to her.
So what’s the problem? Jodie has a demonstrated ability to calmy respond to accusatory tones in public meetings, to say the least.
If Jodie was not capable of shouldering the extraordinary burden of this matter, then it would be reasonable to assume that the county would receive legal advice to that effect from either the county’s outside legal counsel, John Templer, Jr., or the ELECTED county attorney, and then one of the supervisors would
act on that legal advice.
However, that has not happened, and common sense tells us why.
On that note, while I agree with Mark’s point—made on September 9—that he is currently the best positioned supervisor to represent at mediation, that is not a case that should be
made to the detriment of Dan Bittinger, myself, or even the two newest board members.
For example, while I have not been as involved recently as Mark, it’s foolish for anyone to assume that I wouldn’t have the gumption to steadfastly advocate for the work our legal counsels have prepared AT OUR DIRECTION. So, unfortunately, if some scenario does arise where I am requested to represent the county at mediation, how can I effectively do so with any legitimacy, when Mark repeatedly referred to me as “Option C” and “the third best option?” I can’t.
Mark does not need to convince me or anyone else that he should be at mediation—he should. But if anyone thinks I am just going to fall on grenades for my colleagues as a lifestyle, you are sorely mistaken.
If respect of the public is required to be the appropriate advocate at mediation, then we need to find a way to lead while wearing
our county supervisor hats.
To that end, the following needs to happen:
• Ron Wieck needs to decide if he will seek reappointment for another 6-year term after Dec. 31, 2025, and make that publicly known. For the good things he has done—volunteering for an essential role that no one else has applied for—he deserves to have that recognition on his own terms, if his intent is to retire.
If his intent is to seek reappointment, then the county and the city need to signal their collective willingness or lack thereof to reappoint him with the required 4/5ths vote.
Members could signal that now, but there’s no sense in members coming out in opposition if there’s no reason for it. This decision should not wait until December 31.
• The county needs to appoint Dave Dietrich to the LEC Authority to replace Mark Nelson. Dave is the only other supervisor that satisfies the requirement of living outside Sioux City limits.
We are a 5-member board, and Mark has shouldered more
than his share. It’s time for the new members to step up. Dave has solid judgmentand most of the work has already been done.
The county then needs to appoint Mark as the county representative for mediation. We cannot change the LEC Authority’s decision as they are a separate legal entity.
This would be the only way to ensure Mark represents the taxpayer at mediation, and would also allow Dan Bittinger to be present for mediation.
While it may seem counterintuitive for Mark to step down from the LEC Authority, that could be short-lived. Following mediation, I would be supportive if the Board wanted to then re-designate Mark as county representative. These are the inconvenient things we must do because of three-member boards, but this remedy is easy—a couple extra votes.
Separately, if Ron does not seek reappointment, then I would ask the city and county to consider the potential value of appointing Mark as the at-large commissioner (requiring 4/5ths vote from both entities). Mark is a rising star and I’m not sure who else we have in mind that could secure 4/5ths vote from both the Board and the city.
If that were to happen, then the county would have two supervisors on the LEC Authority in 2026. That may mean those two could hardly talk, due to open meetings laws, but it would
make county priorities a certainty on the LEC Authority.
The lingering question here is the city council. Will they defer to the county, respecting that the county has funded almost everything, or will they subject the LEC Authority to
potentially lengthy deliberation on the upcoming at-large appointment? As it is, we are going into mediation with two of the three LEC Authority members being an open question.
Dan Moore has offered to continue as the city representative after his term of office, and it would be helpful for the council to answer that sooner than later. We need to communicate
continuity, but we need the city council’s help for that. Because the counterparties need to see that any potential legal action against them will be fully capable.
Meanwhile, I renew the request I made of state legislators at the opening of the LEC. Pretty please this time, and with a cherry on top, revise the law to allow a local preference option
for large construction projects, within a reasonable and limited variance—or simply say you’re OK with this repeating elsewhere in the state. (If it helps, someone more likeable
than me can say the exact same thing.)
Because from what it looks like out there, bigger jails are going to continue to be an essential service.
Sincerely,
Matthew Ung, Woodbury County Supervisor
