Hennepin County Commissioner Peter McLaughlin has repeatedly voted for multimillion-dollar trash-disposal agreements tied to the law firm where his wife works — and never disclosed the connection.
The contracts are with Great River Energy, which owns the Elk River processing plant where Hennepin County sends garbage to be converted into electricity. The company retained McLaughlin's wife, Nancy Hylden, and her law-firm colleague Richard Forschler, as lobbyists in the fall of 2009 as Great River made a desperate pitch to keep the county's business.
Hylden said that while she initially provided some "strategic counsel" on energy issues, she's never lobbied her husband — and hasn't worked for Great River in years, although she continues to register herself as a lobbyist with the company in the interest of disclosure. Forschler, who works with her at Faegre Baker Daniels, took the lead in setting up meetings between Great River and county commissioners, including McLaughlin.
McLaughlin defended his votes on the contracts, noting that he even fought to push down Great River's rates.
As for disclosure, he said: "I don't need to reveal that — she hasn't ever tried to influence me on these things, so there's nothing that would require a declaration, or worse yet, denying my residents my participation on these matters that affect how much they pay for garbage."
A new five-year agreement with Great River is on Tuesday's agenda of the county's Public Works, Energy and Environment Committee, which McLaughlin chairs. The contract is worth $27 million, but Great River could receive less because the county pays only per ton shipped.
While McLaughlin's actions appear to be legal, the dealings shine a light on Minnesota's vague requirements on conflicts of interest and lobbying disclosures.
The law says that officials taking action on a matter that would "substantially affect the official's financial interests or those of an associated business" must submit a written statement describing the nature of the potential conflict of interest to a superior. But the regulations don't offer many specifics, and omit detailed guidance in the case of a spouse's relationship.