A LONG ATTORNEY SEARCH IN A VERY LOCAL ENVIRONMENT

        Given the Heenan's,Ockerman's and the E-911 Boards "actions" between December 15, 2006 and October 11, 2007, tthe E-911 Board's ruling that, "there would be no further action by the E-911 Board to grant Mr. Hays' request," was both astonishing and unbelievable.  From those conditions began a trip through the near impossibility of hiring a Dallas County lawyer to take a case involving Dallas County government or the Dallas County E-911 Board. 

I interviewed 20 lawyers during the process and  heard an unexplainably consistent  reason for not taking the case.

The entire search took more than a year from October 11 2007, through November 20 2008 when a Polk County Attorney was hired.

In the hopes that my search might aid your search, following are my notes from the search.

Aid to memory

Re:  Attorney Search , a chronology of October 11, 2007 through November 20, 2008 

           

1.      Randy Hefner.  Randy claims a conflict of interest in representing us in any cause that includes county government.  Randy recommended Frank Steinbach in West Des Moines and offered to contact him with an introduction.  Randy had not, however by the time I contacted Frank.

2.      Frank Steinbach.  Much posturing here.  Said he did not know what a writ is.  Talked about ¾ hour.  Suggested a “notice to sheriff” to stay off my property.  Offered to work but only if I paid him $250 per hour to read the entire 3,000 pages of documents. 

3.      Mark Powell met us January 17 in his office.  Mark claims a conflict of interest because he is a magistrate.  He did suggest Jennie Hughes, Perry; Bob Horak, Perry, Jefferson and WDM; Mark Rassmusen, Jefferson’ and Chip Darling, Winterset ("fierce advocate")

4.      Jennie Hughes, 465-8800, did view a copy of the documentation and claims a conflict of interest because her partner is a magistrate.  She thought it was very interesting and that there really is a case.  She suggested Sam Marks 276-7211 WDM.

5.      Sam Marks 276-7211.  I’m really not qualified or interested in practicing in this area.  Should contact a Dallas County lawyer.  Suggested Brian Jennings.  

6.      Brian Jennings, 993-4254.   Left message January 31, a.m.  He did not return the call.  I called him February 4.  He immediately revealed a conflict of interest due to his representation of the E-911 Board[G1] .  He indicated that Wayne [G2] does represent the County in most cases but not in the interest of some of the “minor” Boards[G3] .  At my request, Brian suggested that I might consider DuWayne Dalen who is with Sackett law firm in Perry.  See Dalen, below.   

7.      Chip Darling, Winterset 462-2440.  Spoke with his administrative assistant at length.  She says that Chip doesn’t do this kind of work but recommended John Casper the Winterset city attorney.

8.      John Casper, 462-4912.  Not interested.  Call Steve Walters, another Winterset attorney.

9.      Steve Walters 462-3731.  You should do this by getting a local attorney to approach the BOS on QT.  This is too expensive to litigate but he will do it if there is no other choice.  He suggested Randy Hefner; Brian Jennings, 993-4253; Mark Lowe 993-4545(with Jim Van warden); Mark Spellman (young member of Spellman firm), firm of Shirley and Finniseth 465-4641.

10.  James Nelson, also with Monte Brown.  Suggested Mark Powell in Perry,  the one I talked to for 30 minutes but he did not make recommendations.  

11.  Chris Gruenhagen 225-5528 cell 971-6709, attorney for Iowa Farm Bureau was not available but referred me to Michelle Meinecke 225-5547 who directed me to the Iowa Bar Association lawyer referral service.

12.  Judy Jordan, ISBA Lawyer referral Service, 280-7429, recommended Aaron Fultz, 618 Douglas Ave. P.O. Box 270 Ames, 515-239-5005. 

13.   Aaron Fultz.  Talked with him in January 30.  Was not sure whether he would be interested or not.  I offered to send documentation.  Promised to talk with his associate and return a call to me.  He did not.

14.  Jonathan Kramer 288-6041 Second recommendation from the Iowa Bar Referral Service.   Kramer was not available on January 31.  Was referred to his Associate who also was not in.  Left a message to return my call.  No return.  

15.  DuWayne Dalen, 465-5331, 1212 2nd St, P.O. Box 310, Perry 50220.  Lives on the west side of Cross Country Estates.  This is the same firm, same office as Ned Willis.  Said he would take a look at the documents.  He took both my phone numbers.  Mailed documentation with cover letter to him to him February 4, 2008.

16.  I Had not heard from Dalen by February 29, 25 days into it.  I telephoned him February 29 and he replied, ”I’ve been too busy with taxes to look at the notes but tax pressure is slackened and I will look at it next week for sure and get back to you.  Then we can get together at the site and look at it.”

17.  March 17 I still have not heard from Dalen, another 16 days into it, a total of 42 days into it.   

18.  The fifteenth lawyer whom I interviewed in my search,  De Wayne Dalen from Perry, did eventually respond after being prompted by my telephone call several weeks after I had sent him the E-911 documentation.  He agreed to work on it and I hired him for the job at $150.00 per hour, beginning by making inquiries to Wayne Reisetter, Bob Ockerman and Keith Heenan.  Daley reported that his inquiry to Reisetter, who indicated that he was not opposed to the installation of the sign, made Daley more optimistic about a resolution without litigation. 

After several weeks and another prompting telephone call Daley reported that he had contacted Heenan and Ockerman.  By way of explaining why a private attorney is giving counsel to the E-911 Board, Daley revealed that Keith Heenan’s wife is Brian Jennings’ secretary.  [G4] Ockerman apparently told Daley that, “it was up to the E-911 Board.”  But, Daley said, Heenan was adamantly, nay passionately, opposed to placing the sign.[G5]  

Because of that, Daley concluded that there was no way that we would get the sign without litigation.  Then came the sticker.  Daley announced that he, “just didn’t have the staff to pursue a lawsuit.”  So once more I have lost two months time and whatever damage is done to my interests by having an attorney contact opponents on my behalf and then bow out!

Further I have lost the evidence of the results generated by those initial contacts.  Specifically, Heenan claims now that he is opposed to the sign because 402 260^th St., “isn’t a legitimate entrance.”  If there is an emergency there, he has another think a’ coming.  Even if that were so, why did Heenan install a sign there for the next parcel in the first place!

18.1.        Dalen was gentleman enough to return my documents to me with a cover letter, dated April 8, 2008, bowing out with a cursory account of his appearance.  I determined that since I had risked having him appear on my behalf I am entitled to complete documentation of what he learned and what he revealed.  To that end I wrote him a letter, dated April 10, 2008, asking for details of his findings.  Dalen telephoned upon receipt of my letter and suggested that we get together to discuss exactly what I wanted.  I composed some draft ideas for him to suggest that he simply augment his April 8 letter.  KM and I visited with Dalen in his office on Thursday, April 17.  He seemed quite ready to satisfy my request of April 10 in writing.

19.  In considering Harvey Harrison.  I spoke with Gary Steelman co-owner and partner in the Consignment Barn just west of Adel.  Gary sued Dallas County several years ago over a zoning issue.  Harvey Harrison had successfully defended them and I wanted any information Gary could give me regarding that experience.  Gary was very enthusiastic about Harvey.  It cost them $30,000 but it saved the business.  Gary agreed for me to use his name as a reference for the call if I decide to contact Harvey. 

20.  Despairing of being able to hire an attorney, any attorney, I, again, hat in hand, telephoned Randy Hefner.  Randy, again, was generous enough to suggest two more possible attorneys.  The first is Michael Tungsvik from Boone (515-432-6618).  Michael is in with Dorothy Dakins.  Randy specifically suggested avoiding Dorothy as not a good fit for me but was enthusiastic about Michael.  The second is Amy J. Hughbanks with the firm of Jungman and Hughbanks, Greenfield, Iowa. JUNGMANN & Hughbanks, P.C. (main office - Adair County)
113 W. Iowa St.
P.O. Box 329
Greenfield, Iowa 50849
Tel: (888) 366-5107
Fax: (641) 743-8977
Contact

JUNGMANN & Hughbanks, P.C. (branch office - Dallas County)
800 Main Street
P.O. Box 252
Van Meter, Iowa 50261
Tel: (888) 366-5107.  Randy gave the local number 996-2050
Fax: (515) 996-9339

Randy explained that Dave Jungman is Amy’s uncle.  Furthermore, Amy is the granddaughter Lloyd Jungman, the owner of Hawkeye Breeders.  Hence, the Van Meter addresses.  I spoke with Amy via telephone on April 15 and learned that she lives at 23602 River Heights Drive, Dallas Center 992-3266.  Amy seemed interested enough to discuss the matter and suggested that we begin with her visit to the site that was scheduled for Thursday, April 24 at 8:30 a.m.   Amy hired on and did inquire of Bob Ockerman and did, eventually receive a written reply.  Then Amy was called to withdraw as counsel for personal reasons. 

21. Brad Schroeder, a Polk County attorney was hired November 8, 2008.

---

 [G1]Wow! The jackpot. Keith Heenan has adamantly refused to name the E-911 Board's attorney whom he had consulted and had been advised, "not to talk to me."

 [G2]Wayne Reisetter, Dallas County attorney.  The question was, "why did Heenan and the E-911 Board hire a private attorney for a Dallas County Board."  Why are the taxpayers paying a private attorney when we already elect and are taxed for a County Attorney with assistant attorneys and support staff? 

 [G3]"minor?"  Whoa!  "Minor,?  when the attorney for the Iowa Communities Assurance Pool, representing the E-911 Board revealed, 'we have $450,000 to defend the Dallas County E-911 Board?'  Stay tuned.

 [G4]Wow! Another jackpot!  Dallas County  government is indeed a small world.  All politics is local in Dallas County.

 [G5]The invisable elephant in the room here is the real reason why Heenan could muster such passion for his opposition to my address.  There is something more he isn't admitting?  Remember, he had never met me at this point.  Why then, without contacting me, and apparently with no other person present, did he stick an address sign at the entrance to my property.  Stay tuned.

DALLAS COUNTY E-911 SERVICE BOARD HEARS [SORT'A, MAYBE HEARS ABOUT] ADDRESS REQUEST

        After eleven months of enduring obfuscation to outright lies from Keith Heenan and Bob Ockerman,  I could not ignore that I had been drawn into a put-up job to distract attention away from the actual reasons for Heenan's and Ockerman's refusal to address my homestead, the truth of which is unbrevealed today.

        I persisted and my request was eventually placed on the E-911 Board's agenda for its meeting of October 11, 2007.  The agenda and the minutes for that meeting follow:

_________________________________________________________

DALLAS COUNTY E911 SERVICE BOARD MEETING

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 20075 7PM

DALLAS COUNTY CARE FACILITY

___________________________________________________________ 

TENTATIVE AGENDA

CALL MEETING TO ORDER:

SILENT ROLL CALL: 

APPROVE AGENDA: 

APPROVE MINUTES FROM LAST MEETING:  

OLD BUSINESS: 

NEW BUSINESS:  

• CARL HAYS REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL ADDRESSES

• 911 ORDINANCE CHANGE

• IOWA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS REQUEST TO RE-NAME

R AVE BETWEEN 1-80 AND VAN METERS NORTH CITY LIMITS • DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER TEMPORARY

RELOCATION

• FINANCIAL STATEMENT

• QWEST QUOTE FOR PSAP UGRADES TO POWER 911 

• WOOD WARD FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR CHARGER REIMBURSEMENT

• CITY OF VAN METER FUNDING REQUEST

• DALLAS CENTER POLICE DEPARTMENT FUNDING REQUEST • REDFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT FUNDING REQUEST

• 911 COORDINATOR REQUEST FOR MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT INCREASE 

OTHER BUSINESS:  

ADJOURN: 

[END OF AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 11, 2007] 

Dallas County

E911 Service Board Meeting.

Minutes: October II, 2007

 

A silent roll was taken. Those in attendance were: 

Bob Ockerman, E911 Chair

Don Wilson, City of Redfield

Teresa Nolan, City of Redfield

Michelle Leonard, City of Dallas Center

Mitch Price, City of Dallas Center

Ron Steilen, City of Dallas Center

Ken Cavanaugh, Woodward Fire and Rescue

Garber [sic. Amber] Williams, Dallas County News

Ron Flam, City of Miñburn

Barry HaIling, Dallas County Emergency Management

Keith Heenan, E 911 Coordinator

John Korkie, Quest

Don Young, Quest

Glenda Hiddleson, City of Dawson

Mark Hersch, City of Dallas Center

Lyle Griswold, City df Granger

Jim McNeill, City of Adel

Allan Adams, City ofVan Meter

Chad Leonard, DalIaè County Sherriff

Chad Hiddleson, Secretary

 

Ockerman called the meeting to order at approximately 7PM.

 

Agenda Approval

 

Heenan said there were a few items that needed to be added to the agenda for tonite.

1. Dawson Fire dept' funding request for generator

2. Dallas Center funding request

3. Griswold was to make request for Granger funding

Adams moved to approve the agenda

Flam 2nd

Motion carried

 

Approval of Minutes:

McNeil made a motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting. 2nd by Cavanaugh

Motion carried

                                              Note: G1 through G6 refer to foootnotes found

                                                     below at the end of this article.

New Business:

 

It was said that[G1]  previous to this meeting, a ruling was made to deny the request of a Mr. Carl Hayes to address the location of his residence 24002 - 260th Street [sic 26000 O Lane]. Also prior to the October E911 board meeting, Mr. Hayes was told he could bring his appeal to the October meeting for the E911 board members to deliberate[G2] . Due to the location of the primary driveway of the Carl Hayes residence, it was decided by the E911 board that the previous ruling was justified due to the GPS'd location of said driveway, and its location along 260th street within the section where the driveway entrance was located (23996 - 260th Street). The additional secondary driveway was also addressed according to the GPS'd location within the street and section where the center of the driveway was located (23998 - 260th Street[G3] ).

 

Ockerman said that based on other Counties' procedures, the addresses are based on the predominant driveway. He further stated that the Warren, Madison and Boone County ordinances had been reviewed and that the same procedures for rural addressing existed in those counties in order to promote the general safety and welfare for residences to receive emergency services[G4] 

It was decided by the E911 board, due to safety considerations for which the new 911 addressing system was developed in the first place, that there would be no further action by the E911 board to grant Mr. Hayes' request.

 

 

 

The E911 addressing ordinances were changed as follows:[G5] 

Section 11:01 Purpose: The ordinance mandates the use of a uniform rural address system for residents of Dallas County in order to promote the convenience, safety and general welfare of those residents.

Section 11:03 Addressing System (revised from ordinance 11:02): The Board shall cause to, have installed, signs for every person owning, controlling, occupying or using any house, store, storeroom or building situated on premises, fronting any public way. The assigned number will be platted by GPS at the center of the primary entrance to the premises and will not approve multiple addresses to a premise.[G6] 

A motion was made by Griswold to approve the new ordinances.

2nd by McNeill

Motion carried

 

Heenan mentioned that the Iowa Department of Veteran's Affairs had requested that a portion of R16 (located between 180 and the bridge North of Van Meter) be changed to "Veterans Memorial Dr".

Allen made a motion to approve the street name change.

2nd by McNeill

Motion carried 

Heenan mentioned that the Dallas County Communication center relocation is now being considered a permanent location.
 

     _______________________________                           ___________________________
     Bob Ockerman, Chairman                                            Chad Hiddleson, Secretary

 

 

[END OF E-911 BOARD MINUTES FOR OCTOBER11,2007

---

 [G1]It was Bob Ockerman who "said," and what he said was "Keith and I have already denied this request but if anybody wants to, speak up." No other Board member spoke.

 [G2]Deliberate?

 [G3]Here is the same litany of of imagination I had heard for 11 months.  Notice that these reasons are claimed for the exact same location that the Board had addressed ass 2998 260^th Street 11 months earlier, then changed the address of the same location to 25998 O Avenue.  GPS readings don't lie! 

 [G4]Ockerman's statement is patently untrue.  Furthermore it is wholly irrelevant; Dallas County's Ordinance, Section 11:02, ,below flies in the face of Ockerman's remarks.

 [G5]This is really, really clever.  If ever you seek to witness  blatant changing  the rules after the fact to suit a nefarious purpose, see comment G6 below.

 [G6]This is the change.  Now you have it!  Voila, George didn't chop down that cherry tree after all. 

AFTER RECEIVING 11 MONTHS OF LIES, STONEWALLING AND BULLYING FROM KEITH HEENAN AND BOB OCKERMAN, MY FIRST, FAILED REQUEST FOR AN E-911 ADDRESS FOR MY HOMESTEAD WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE FULL E-911 SERVICE BOARD

   

     This example of Dallas County government run amok first appeared in December 2006, some six months after the E-911 addressing implementation County wide from  which the addressing of my homestead of 30 years did not appear.   I requested an address.  For the next 11 months of receiving lies, stonewalling and inaction from Keith Heenan, then Dallas County E-911 Service Board's Coordinator and Bob Ockerman, then Dallas County's Board of Supervisors appointee to the Dallas County E-911 Service and its Chair, as to why my request for an address was denied, my request was finally placed on the E-911 Board's agenda for \their October 11, 2007 meeting.  Fourteen days prior to that meeting I mailed to each person of the 21-member E-911 Board, the following memorandum and and a complete copy of each of the 11 Exhibits, titles listed below.  

     The memorandum is a summary of the first year, 2006/ 2007.

 

 

TO: Dallas County E-911 Service Board

From: Carl Hays                    Telephone 993-4140

Re: E-911 marker for 24002 260^th St.

September 26, 2007 

Keith Heenan and Bob Ockerman have taken it upon themselves to refuse to place an accurate E-911 marker at our property at 24002 260^th St., our homestead.   Apparently for the first time ever, an individual’s request for a marker is being referred to the E-911 Service Board at large.  It is to come before your October meeting.

I believe that it is incumbent upon the E-911 Service Board to restore its own credibility and to avoid further undue expense by directing Keith Heenan to accurately post the [26000 O Lane] marker and to instruct Todd Noah to correctly enter and exclusively identify my address in the “Dallas County E-911 Official Map” database.

Further, I believe that it is unlawful for the Board to continue to refuse to erect this marker and record the map data accurately.

In December 2006, unbeknownst to me and quite unpredictably, from your 2006 unsigned letter (see Exhibit 1), at a neighbor’s telephone request and with no notice to anyone, Keith Heenan personally erected an erroneous E-911 marker (23998) at our homestead at 24002 260^th St. My contact with Keith Heenan then revealed some incredible and inconsistent rationale for his error (see Aid to Memory, December 15, 2006, Exhibit 2, and Hays/Heenan letter December 26, 2006, Exhibit 3).

By April 2007 I had heard nothing from Mr. Heenan so I contacted him again and received an even more twisted response (see Aid to Memory, April 10, 2007, Exhibit 4).

By July 2007, still having had no response from Heenan, I contacted Mr. Ockerman only to hear even more astounding revelations  (see Aid to Memory, July 18, 2007, Exhibit 5).

Eventually, my property at 23998 260^th St. was correctly addressed.  At the same time, however, where my[26000 O Lane St. sign is required, a sign for 25998 O Avenue, an address that leads to no residence and has no entrance to the county road, appeared exactly where the 23998 260th sign had originally, erroneously been. With some effort I was able to discover that O Avenue record in the “E-911 Official Map” database had also been revised.

Still, 24002 260^th street, the entrance to our homestead remains unmarked (see Plat For Ethel Hays dated August 8, 1981, Exhibit 7, Access Permit To Secondary Road dated May 18,1985, Exhibit 8 and Geodallas map of 24002 260^th St., Exhibit 9)! Ockerman and Heenan are steadfast in their refusal to mark it.  That is the issue before you!

Their error is in marking 25998 O Avenue for the next parcel and, by contrast, refusing to correctly mark the directly adjacent spot in the road at my request, the property owner.

On the one hand, Keith Heenan solely at his personal, sole initiative, with no direction from the E-911 Board, on the basis of one telephone request ,  marked a Section 9 address, next parcel, where there is no residence and no access permit to a county road.

On the other hand, despite my repeated and documented requests, Heenan and Ockerman have provided only bogus excuses for refusing to mark the exact same spot in the road, [26000 O Lane], the entrance to our homestead, and instead deferred to you, the E-911 Board.

                                                    

Page 2

Heenan and Ockerman have come up with a list of incredible excuses, both for having marked for the neighboring parcel and for refusing to mark our homestead.  For examples:

1.      “Markers are available to whoever requests them, by telephone or otherwise.”  Unequivocally not so!

2.      “A marked address must provide access to emergency vehicles.”  Unequivocally not so!

3.      “There are too many signs there already.”  This is an insult to our first responders!  The E-911 addressing scheme provides 500 addresses per mile on each side of the road.  The two miles of O Circle now have a total of six markers.  There are multiple-sign positions posted throughout the County!

4.      “You are required to show your parcel plats and access permits.”  There is no precedent for this, certainly not for 25998 O Avenue!  Nevertheless, I have done so and they are attached  (see Hays/Ockerman August 22, 2007, Exhibit 6, and Exhibits 7, 8 and 9).

5.      “I heard that you are suing the County over the Sheriff’s errors in the rock caper at that address.”  This is hearsay of a rumor that, true or not, can lawfully have zero connection, other than blatant personal prejudice, to a refusal to post an E-911 address marker.

6.      “Well I’m opposed to it and Keith Heenan is opposed to it.”  The question is not Ockerman's willy-nilly opinion nor Heenan's.  The question is lawfully equitable application of the E-911 addressing regulations, set out in the Dallas County Code, and, of course the tax dollars you pay every month as a surcharge on your electic bill.

7.      “Well, this has to be approved by the entire E-911 Board.”  There is no precedent for this.  Clearly, the posting of 23996 260th St. and 25998 O Avenue did not come before the entire E-911 Board.

8.      “I’m not going to spend time talking with you, I have other things to do.” --Keith Heenan  

An unacceptable face for County government.

9.      “The signs are in the public right of way.  You have no say.” --Keith Heenan  Really?

 

Our Access Permit To Secondary Road from our homestead, 24002 260^th St. (see Exhibit 8) locates the sole access to the half of our property that lies up to 3/8 mile east of the crossing of Carl’s Branch, the North/ South creek traversing Section 16.  We have had one instance of an injured poacher to be evacuated there.  We have had two fire Department calls.  The Sheriff’s Department has been called to that address at least 15 times, five within the past eight months.

It is under this access and road that our utility lines are buried.
Depending on the wind-drift direction, this access is also our sole deep-snow emergency entrance/exit, which in March 2007 constituted a period of six consecutive days.

Further, I have liability for the emergency accesses to all of my property in Section 16 and for the safety of my family, my tenants, my employees, my invitees and myself.  From the time your E-911 signage program was enacted both my insurer and I have a liability stake in your signs.

The E-911 Board is liable for any failure of the signage to accurately guide emergency vehicles.  I do not plan to assume liability for your refusal of a $4.25 sign.  If you fail in E-911 signage this liability metastasizes to you.

Thank you.

   --S--

Carl H. Hays

Table of Exhibits

1. E-911 Service Board 2006 unsigned letter to Dallas County postal addressees

2. Aid to Memory, Telephone conversation with Keith Heenan December 15, 2006

3. Carl Hays/ Keith Heenan letter dated December 26, 2006

4. Aid to memory, telephone conversation with Keith Heenan April 10, 2007

5. Aid to Memory, telephone conversation with Bob Ockerman dated July 18, 2007

6. Hays/ Ockerman transmittal letter dated August 22, 2007

7. Platt For homestead dated August 8, 1981.

8. Access Permit To Secondary Road dated May 5, 1985

9. Geodallas Map of our homestead, 24002 260^th St.

10. Hays/ Leonard letter dated August 14, 2007

11. Hays Reisetter letter dated September 19, 2007