At the January 29 county board meeting, commissioners discussed a request for any data the county may have regarding the circumstances surrounding a harassment restraining order against Cook County Attorney Tim Scannell. The request was sent to Assistant County Attorney (ACA) Molly Hicken and asked that Hicken produce all data the county might have in regard to Scannell’s relationship with the 17-year-old girl he allegedly engaged in a romantic relationship with. On February 4, 2013, the county received a Notice of Data Practices Act Violation and Potential Litigation from attorney David L. Lillehaug, who is representing the family that initiated the harassment restraining order. After a January 29 letter from ACA Hicken, Lillehaug believed the county was not complying with his request.
At the county board meeting, there was a great deal of discussion of how the county should comply—or not—with the request from Lillehaug, which asked for paper or electronic documents including emails, text messages or telephone records regarding communication between Scannell and the family, as well as any county documents relating to investigating or seeking counsel on the matter.
At the January 29 county board meeting, Personnel Director Janet Simonen said she had talked to the county’s outside attorney, Dyan Ebert of Quinlivan & Hughes, P.A. of St. Cloud, regarding the request. Ebert suggested that Simonen and Cook County Auditor-Treasurer Braidy Powers collect the data with her help. The county board passed a motion designating Simonen and Powers to be the parties responsible for responding to the request.
Not discussed at the county board meeting was the fact that the harassment restraining order against Scannell had been modified. Instead of holding a hearing, at which the girl’s family and Scannell would both have to appear, an agreement was worked out between the family’s attorney, David Lillehaug, and Scannell’s attorney, Joseph Tamburino. The modified order allows Scannell to attend high school basketball games, tennis matches and parent teacher conferences involving his family at Cook County High School, provided “that Respondent have no contact with Petitioners or any member of Petitioners’ immediate family during such times.”
The harassment restraining order remains in force regarding contact with the family until December 4, 2014.
On the same day that the county board passed its motion to comply with the request to collect the requested data, ACA Hicken sent a letter to Lillehaug’s office which referenced the modified harassment restraining order. Hicken wrote: “My understanding is that the HRO matter involving Mr. Scannell has been resolved and there will be no hearing in this matter. Therefore, I assume that your request is no longer active.”
In a phone conversation at press time, Lillehaug said, “We obviously have a great deal of concern about this.”
In the February 4 letter, Lillehaug noted that he sent the request to ACA Molly Hicken because it related to specifically to County Attorney Scannell. He wrote: “Because ACA Hicken works for County Attorney Scannell, I requested that the County Attorney be recused from any supervisory responsibilities regarding the County’s response to the request…
“Nineteen days passed without communication from ACA Hicken. Finally, by letter dated January 29, 2013, ACA Hicken responded on behalf of the County. ACA Hicken declared that my Data Practices request was “no longer active” because a permanent Harassment Restraining Order had been entered against County Attorney Scannell.
“ACA Hicken’s decision is entirely illogical and inappropriate. In no fashion whatsoever was my Data Practices request conditional on the outcome of the Harassment Restraining Order case. ACA Hicken’s decision not to provide the documents requested is a clear violation of the Data Practices Act.”
Lillehaug added that Hicken’s silence on the county attorney’s recusal “raises a serious question whether County Attorney Scannell participated in Hicken’s decision, thereby obstructing and interfering with our lawful rights under the Data Practices Act.”
Lillehaug added: “It also raises the serious question whether the County Attorney still has it within his power to alter, delete, or destroy data in County files or computers.”
Lillehaug concluded by stating that based on these serious questions, he was putting the county on notice that it is presently in violation of the Data Practices Act and unless the violation is remedied promptly, the county will be sued.
Contacted at press time, ACA Hicken emphatically stated that the county had not denied the Data Practices Request. Hicken said, “The letter came from my office because we had the understanding that the request was connected to the stipulation agreement on the harassment restraining order. My letter asked Mr. Lillehaug to call us with questions.”
“We learned that the request had not been withdrawn and the county is working to collect the information,” said Hicken, noting that the commissioners had passed a motion to do so. “We just did not coordinate our responses.”
Contacted at press time, County Attorney Scannell said he had no knowledge of the Data Practices Act request or the county’s response. Scannell said the matter is being handled for the county by Dyan Ebert. Ebert was not available for comment at press time.
At press time there was still no word on the outcome of the investigation by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension into Scannell’s relationship with the girl. Associate Editor Jane Howard also contributed to this article.
Leave a Reply