Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


State Senate’s bills for Brodkorb discrimination lawsuit now top $100K

The state Senate’s legal bills in the Michael Brodkorb discrimination case (bills that are being paid with public funds) keep growing.

New invoices totaling nearly $18,000 have come in from the Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren firm, reports MPR.

Previous bills totaling $85,000 have already been paid.

Brodkorb, a partisan Republican who’d been working as a top GOP state Senate aide, was fired after public revelations that he was having an affair with then-Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch.

He has sued the Senate for discrimination because he claims women staffers who’ve had affairs with legislators were not fired.

The Senate’s contention, though, is that Brodkorb could be fired at will.

State Senate DFLers have called for Republicans to raise private funds to pay the outside lawyers.

Comments (4)

  1. Submitted by Thomas Swift on 08/24/2012 - 12:15 pm.

    A bit of perspective…

    That’s less than one month’s cost of Minneapolis’ average yearly bill to settle it’s police abuse cases.

    I think we’ll be OK.

    • Submitted by Charles Holtman on 08/24/2012 - 04:58 pm.

      Ah, I think I get it.

      So if we can encourage the Minneapolis police to abuse more people, we will have more money available to pay fiscally conservative, family-values Republican legislators and operatives when they sue us for their having sex with each other. That’s your point, right?

    • Submitted by Logan Foreman on 08/27/2012 - 09:46 am.

      A pathetic analogy

      If it is even true. Equating police work with fornication under the dome of the Capitol is laughable. The republican party which handled this fiasco as stupidly as possible should pay and take responsibility – the word the party uses a lot and never follows.

  2. Submitted by Beryl John-Knudson on 08/24/2012 - 01:26 pm.

    Curious conundrum:

    I do wonder if “inappropriate” behavior solicits $85,000 plus $18,000 in pay-back for whatever services were rendered here…who is paying what for whom?

    Sounds like a crazy salad with more than one proposition, intent, offer…possibly conceived?

    What to call it then…payback or shut-up; or merely an indirect payment for services rendered or not rendered?

    Who are the solicitors, who solicit when money changes hands? What is the solicitation or solicitations in the final summation?

    The only victims appear to be the taxpayer and the voter?

Leave a Reply