Questions asked by WaterClaim attorney Pete Burger

Answers given by Mike Mosel, director on URNRD board.

Mr. Burke is the attorney for the URNRD

Q.      (By Mr. Burger) Were there any individuals whose reputation would be damaged by discussing a telephone conference between a negotiating committee and the Department of Natural Resource representatives?

 A.      Yes, there would be.

 Q.     Who would that be?

 A.      We’re talking about-­

 MR. BURKE: Could we--Let’s go off-the-record for a second.

 MR. BURGER: Okay.

  (Off the record at 12:01 p.m.)

  (At 12:10 p.m. the deposition of Mike Mosel resumed.)

Q.      Who--What are the names’ or the individuals whose reputation you felt it was necessary to protect by voting to go into closed session?

A.       I--I--I’m--I mean, there was the key people that they were working with. I’m not sure who those individuals are.  I mean, sir, I do not know. I mean, I know one or two of them, but there was--there was a mult- --there was multiple people that were working on this negotiation.

Q.      Tell us what you can, the names of the people you do know whose reputations needed to be protected, or their titles?

 MR. BURKE: I’ll object to the form of the question. Go ahead and answer-

 THE WITNESS: To the best of my knowledge--

 MR. BURKE: --involved in the negotiations--

 THE WITNESS: Roger Patterson, Jim Cookson, the--you know, the attorneys and their attorneys and then their staff people that were working with--Ann Bleed is one. I mean, it goes on and on. There’s multiple numbers of people in each department that were working on this negotiation process.

 Q.     (By Mr. Burger) Help me to understand by telling me how closed session was necessary to protect the reputation of Roger Patterson?

 MR. BURKE: Is that for an example?

 THE WITNESS: For an example-

 Q.     (By Mr. Burger) You said Roger Patterson was one of those people, so, I’m going--tell me how you had to do this to protect his reputation?

 A.      He is negotiating--

 MR. BURKE: I’ll object as to the form of the question.

 THE WITNESS: Okay. To my knowledge- -

 MR. BURKE: He was the one that had to be protected.

 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I mean--

Q.      (By Mr. Burger) Well, let’s back up. Was Roger Patterson one of the people whose reputation had to be protected?

A.       Potentially, yes.

Q.      Okay. Tell me why and how, you know, tell me what was necessary to go to closed session for to protect Roger Patterson’s reputation?

A.       In my opinion, and only in my opinion--

Q.      Well, you voted for the motion; right?

A.       Right.

Q.      Okay. Tell me.

A.       Roger is negotiating with the Lower Republican, he’s negotiating with the Middle Republican and he’s negotiating with the Upper Republican. He is trying to win for the State of Nebraska. We are trying to protect as much as we possibly can for Upper Republican. He is willing to give, and try to strategize to our side of how much he would give to our share. In the meantime he’s trying to negotiate with the Middle and the Lower and they’re strategizing to get their share. If he makes a promise and he makes another promise and he makes another promise, they could be three different promises trying to--trying to win to the middle. So, yeah, his reputation is at stake based on promises being made that are not finalized yet.

Q.      What promises are you referring? What promises did he make to the Upper Republican?

MR. BURKE: If you know.

THE WITNESS: I mean, there--I don’t--that would be a--that would be a--direct more to the negotiating team at that point in time.

Q.      (By Mr. Burger) What promises did he make to the Middle Republican?

MR. BURKE: I’ll object as to the form of the question. If you know.

THE WITNESS: I have ideas, but I don’t have facts. I don’t know what the exact facts are.

Q.      (By Mr. Burger) What are your ideas?

A.       Ideas?

Q.      What did you believe on that date, November, 2004, what was your belief about promises?

A.       How many inches are they going to be given for their allocations. How many allocated acres are they going to be allowed to have in their district. And remember Roger Patterson and the State Attorney General’s Office are signing off on these plans. So what’s coming into the middle? He’s got to balance it for the whole settlement agreement. We’re going to balance it for our best interest.

Q.      What did you know, or believe, or have a reason to believe, about any promises Roger Patterson made to Middle Republican?

A.       The Middle Republican? Specifically, they had their Integrated Management Plan passed by this time, if I remember right. So it would be the Lower Republican that probably would have been the issue.

 Q.     Same question, Lower Republican?

 A.      Were they promised seven inches; were they promised nine inches?

 Q.     I’m asking what you knew or believed?

 A.      I believe that they were given like a--eleven inch at that time. Again, I can’t give you a specific number. don’t recollect the exact number.

 Q.     And what basis did you believe that?

 A.      Basis of believing? Conversations with board members from the other NRD Districts. Conversations with individuals that work for the Department of Natural Resources. Conversations with the negotiating team.  Conversations with the, um, other members of--in Lincoln.

Q.      Are you suggesting that the promises that you discussed by Mr. Patterson were somehow unlawful, unethical?

A.      No.

Q.      How would his reputation be damaged by discussing the discussions that he had in this telephone conference with, you know, your negotiating committee?

MR. BURKE: I’ll object to the form of the question. Move to strike the previous response.

THE WITNESS: His character is at risk potentially.

The court later ruled that the URNRD must continue to answer questions.  However, the URNRD defied the first court order.  For the second time the court ordered the URNRD to continue answering questions and fined the URNRD for the failure to show.  The URNRD is currently asking the Supreme Court to protect it from any questions.  

For some reason the URNRD believes that the reputation of Roger Patterson must be protected at all costs.  Mosel says that if what Roger says is made public that Roger’s character is risk and that he has made different promises to different NRDs and it is important that the public not know what Roger said.