(Boise) – The Attorney General’s Office has concluded an investigation of allegations of conflicts of interest regarding Lake City Development Corporation (LCDC) chairman Charles Nipp. Attorney General Lawrence Wasden’s office notified Kootenai County Prosecuting Attorney Barry McHugh that the Attorney General will not be filing criminal charges.
In March of 2008, Kootenai County Prosecuting Attorney William Douglas requested that the Attorney General investigate and review for potential criminal prosecution allegations of a conflict of interest regarding Mr. Nipp.
The Attorney General’s investigation was limited exclusively to the potential of a criminal law violation as a result of Mr. Nipp’s involvement on both the LCDC board and his employment with Mountain West Bank and did not address other issues surrounding the operations of the LCDC that were circulating in the community at that time.
Although the statute of limitations for prosecution of a conflict of interest had expired more than a year before the matter was referred to the Attorney General’s Office, the Attorney General investigated to ensure that the allegations were fully reviewed and that Mr. Nipp’s conduct as a public official was made a matter of public knowledge.
“Our investigation revealed that Mr. Nipp’s conduct, while constituting a technical violation of the statutes, does not rise to the level of a prosecutable crime,” Deputy Attorney General Stephen Bywater wrote in a letter to Mr. McHugh.
The investigation reviewed loans for 13 properties acquired by LCDC from 2003 – 2006. During that time, Mr. Nipp served as chairman of the LCDC board and on the Mountain West Bank board of directors.
All 13 properties were financed by local banks through a competitive bidding process. In all 13 instances, at least 3 banks submitted bids. Mountain West Bank acquired 6 of the 13 loans, the largest of which was for $242,000.
With regard to Mr. Nipp, the investigation also revealed that:
-
He voted on each of the loans.
-
He did not disclose his interest in Mountain West Bank.
-
His compensation from Mountain West Bank is fixed and does not vary depending on loans the bank makes.
-
As a board member of the bank, Mr. Nipp has no involvement with the approval/disapproval process for any loan less than 1.5 million dollars.
-
He did not obtain any personal financial benefit from the awarding of loans to Mountain West Bank by LCDC.
-
On one occasion, when he believed he had a conflict of interest on an unrelated matter, Mr. Nipp disclosed the conflict – despite advice from an attorney that no conflict existed – and did not vote on that matter.
“It appeared clear to us that his failure to disclose his potential conflict of interest was not done with the intent to defraud or deceive LCDC, but rather was the result of his belief that he did not have a conflict. Although this belief was in error, we do not believe that Mr. Nipp acted with criminal intent,” Bywater wrote. “As such, we believe that criminal charges would not have been appropriate given the facts of this case and that filing such charges would not have served the interests of justice irrespective of the statute of limitations issues.”
so?
Comment by reagan — February 26, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
The gravity of this should easily elude someone who is ethically challenged.
(This is not a comment on Mr. Nipp, but rather on others in the community who will brush aside this decision as inconsequential.)
Comment by Dan — February 26, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
So he basically got off because the complaint was filed too late, even though he “technially” broke the law, but there was no intent in doing so?
It’s wonderful to know that technical aspects of the law are not considered crimes. How is that?
When I had a psychologist investigated for publishing medical records that do not exist, the state investigation that was referred to the AG’s office concluded that there was no law on the books against the “receipt” of that kind of documention through another party, who is not a health professional. The psychologist who recieves medical information does not have to verify their authenticity and they do not need to be hospital certified. This can happen in child custody and divorce cases. They can be fabricated and retrieved from a garbage can/trash pile somewhere because no one will ever admit how they really got them.
However, they mentioned that she did make mistakes. The letter is written in a manner that violates my privacy and it cannot be made public. It’s much like the one above that basically gets the alleged criminal off, but admits a few errors that relieves them of any personal ownership of their ngeligent unintentional crimes. It pays to be in high places when you really screw up.
I have failed to get my matter on the legal plate, and I also passed the statute of limitations to be effective, but I can tell you I was damn close in Tulsa, Oklalhoma, when I asked for mediation through a special city mediation program concerning my privacy and Wasden called them up and started screaming after this division served the State of Idaho with subpeonas. They thought he was wacko. He failed to recognize the mediation was voluntary and he lost his grip, because he knew the reality of my complaint that he has managed to squirm out of. Lucky for the psychologist who’s husband is a judge. Lucky for the Health and Welfare admistrative offices who sent my correspondense to a prisioner in South Dakota along with gobs of personal information from little kids. I was basically looking for civil mediation where one could voluntarily step forward and right a wrong without courtroom drama. No such thing in Idaho and I cannot afford the big guns to represent me. My persoanl privacy and my safety was hugely compromised and I still feel the after effects.
The AG’s office will always find the loophole they need to get the influential off. These folks have attorneys who will make the state work, can’t have that.
Thus, we are written off as nutcases, caver’s, or whatever it takes to discredit us. I can certainly empathize with this gross miscarriage of justice. It happens everyday in Idaho and this another one of those days.
Comment by Stebbijo — February 26, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
For a high powered person who is well connected to our local leadership to be so lax in this one area of his duties it would certainly seem likely that he was probably as lax in his other duties as well. Apparently rule books were not applicable. What about the open meeting laws? I think the AG could open a branch office right next to the Mayors office with all that NEEDS to be investigated around here.
Comment by Wallypog — February 26, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
Stebbijo,
The AG did a huge service to the people in our community. As he clearly said, the statute of limitations had expired before he received the request from Douglas, yet the AG still investigated. I sincerely appreciate AG Wasden’s and DAG Bywater’s desire to conduct the investigation and provide the public with the verified information about Mr. Nipp’s conduct.
Comment by Bill — February 26, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
Wallypog,
Although Nipp’s conduct may not have met the necessarily high and demanding standard for criminal prosecution in state court, the court of public opinion is not bound by the same high standards. After carefully reading the AG’s press release, DAG Bywater’s letter, and the investigator’s report, the community jury can draw its own conclusions.
Comment by Bill — February 26, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
At the very first meeting of the LCDC back in 1997, the city’s attorney explained the importance of the conflict of interest disclosure forms and told them all to file theirs “immediately”. It took TEN YEARS for Charlie Nipp, the chairman, to file his.
Comment by mary — February 26, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
Bill,
The AG’s office is supposed to investigate, it’s their job and it is their job to service us. They are paid from us to do that. I expect that from them and I also expect them to get it right.
They only investigated to clear him with all of their mucky muck jargon that reeks.
Personally, I sick of being nice anymore. It gets you no where. I call the kettle black. They are what they are – worthless. The Nipp case was handed to them on a silver platter, yet they have failed in my eyes to recognize that.
The whole thing stinks and it’s not because the AG’s office did any good at all. They did nothing. The only reason they moved at all is because a formal complaint was filed through the prosecutor’s office of which this I commend!
Lawrence Wasden and his cronies are all wearing their [word deleted by Bill] undergarments way too tight.
Comment by Stebbijo — February 26, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
Thank God, it’s not a conflict of interest or blatant violation of the law, only a minor technical aspect that bears no deliberate intention of harm or self serving interest.
Comment by Stebbijo — February 26, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
Stebbijo,
I guess we’re going to disagree.
An investigation should never turn into an inquisition. It’s not a bludgeon, and we don’t want it to be. Ever. Remember the Duke lacrosse case and district attorney Mike Nifong? A prosecutor can only work from the verifiable, admissible facts he has, not the facts he might wish he has.
The AG’s office did what the county prosecutor requested. It is not the AG’s fault that there were insufficient facts (not to mention that the statute of limitations had run its course) to ethically and legally justify prosecution.
I do not want an AG or a county prosecutor or an AUSA who is willing to even consider bringing an insufficiently substantiated case to trial. I could be the person wrongly accused, and so could you.
Comment by Bill — February 26, 2009 @ 7:18 pm
I think this decision speaks volumes.
First, the Attorney General could have dismissed it outright. He didn’t.
Second, he could have merely sent a formal reply to the prosecutor. He didn’t.
Third, the report, which took time and effort to complete, outlines questionable actions. Not precisely illegal, but highly questionable.
If anything, this document underscores that there exists a culture of privilege here in Coeur d’Alene. An insider’s connection. It’s part of the toxic elitism that infects our country; some people believe that they are better than others, that they are owed something. That’s wholly un-American, but it doesn’t stop the stakeholder class from believing that the rules do not apply to them.
Yes, it’s not completely illegal, but it’s not exactly Will Rogers humility, either. We’ll have to wait to see the response from Mr. Nipp, as well as the Usual Suspects, before we can determine whether they understand what this letter really means. I do not believe this to be over by any means.
Comment by Dan — February 26, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
Well said, Dan.
Comment by mary — February 26, 2009 @ 7:58 pm
if he has any honor or self respect he will resign after a public apology.
Comment by TheWiz — February 26, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
Bill,
I don’t think I really disagree with you. I just don’t possess as nice a pair of rose-colored glasses.
I admit it. I am jaded, disgusted, and bitterly disappointed in our city, county, and local governments.
However, you are right, someone is always next. That is how Idaho works – through Stockholm syndrome tactics. That is their control and the fear appeal that keeps people in their places, except me. I have already been through the inquisition and burned at the stake. I hope the bastards all die from the clap and their computers bite the dust from surfing too much porn.
Comment by Stebbijo — February 26, 2009 @ 9:07 pm
Stebbijo,
No rose-colored glasses. I just have very low expectations for honest or ethical behavior from our city officials, and they never fail to meet my expectations.
Reduce the AG’s information to its simplest form, and it clearly states Nipp had conflicts of interest. The conflicts were factually proven, but they were not prosecutable because the statute of limitations had expired and because there was insufficient evidence to prove criminal intent. The declination of prosecution does not prove the absence of violation.
Comment by Bill — February 27, 2009 @ 7:14 am
Bill, would this comparison be correct? It’s like running a red light. Sure, you did it, but you didn’t get a ticket for it. That doesn’t mean that you didn’t run the red light.
Comment by Dan — February 27, 2009 @ 7:35 am
Dan,
Yes, although I consider Nipp’s conflict of interest violations far more consequential than running a red light.
Comment by Bill — February 27, 2009 @ 7:53 am
The most disappointing aspect of this is Charlie’s reaction: “Personally, it is very difficult to be falsely accused,” he wrote in a letter to The Press. “I would hope that these false accusations would stop in our community for it is harmful and wrong.”
It’s obvious he retains his attitude of being above the law; above any regulations, disclosures or admissions.
Comment by mary — February 27, 2009 @ 8:07 am
Credit to the AG for investigating. The law is the law. If you do not like it, work for change. Nipp is already stating that he (and his ethics) was completely vindicated by the report. The old boys will echo his sentiments.
However, I did find it illuminating. As long as your “intent” is not criminal…everything is okay. So, should I have a Robin Hood moment, I can help myself to the contents of a bank safe because my “intent” is altruistic.
Comment by Faringdon — February 27, 2009 @ 8:09 am
Was Nipp falsely accused?
Comment by Dan — February 27, 2009 @ 8:22 am
The investigator’s report states that, “the City of Coeur d’Alene Attorney told him there was not a conflict.” Why is the city attorney advising LCDC inasmuch as LCDC is an entity separate from the city?
Comment by Susie Snedaker — February 27, 2009 @ 9:25 am
Susie,
Probably for the same reason the City Attorney (Mike Gridley) and the City Finance Director (Troy Tymesen) received a letter from Terry J. Goebel (Robert B. Goebel, General Contractor, Inc.) dated February 19, 2007, and stamped received in the Legal Department on March 01, 2007, addressed thus:
Both Gridley and Tymesen are and were city employees, not (supposedly) doing any work on city time and taxpayer’s dime for the Coeur d’Alene Parks Foundation, a private 501C-3 foundation. The inside address was to the Parks Foundation which, at the time, used City Hall as its mailing address, but it was directed to city employees, not Parks Foundation Directors. Imagine that. City staff and facilities used to support the work of a private foundation.
Comment by Bill — February 27, 2009 @ 11:58 am
Ryan Armbruster of Boise is the LCDC’s legal rep. At least, that’s who they pay.
Comment by Dan — February 27, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
So is this the end of it? Where does it go from here? Can the people ask for a resignation? Can we do anything or do we need to choke this down as another example of ‘local business as usual?’
Comment by Stebbijo — February 27, 2009 @ 4:14 pm
Stebbijo,
Sure, people can ask for his resignation or do anything else lawful to encourage the City to fire him. Probably a more effective solution is to elect an honest mayor and three honest councilmembers this coming November.
Comment by Bill — February 27, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
Stebbijo, maybe we need to get people to the City council meeting on Tuesday. The mayor and council should ask for Charlie’s resignation because the investigation found that he did indeed violate the state laws.
Comment by mary — February 27, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
Mary,
That is an excellent suggestion. I gues I will have to show up, but I am not doing the talking. 🙂
Comment by Stebbijo — February 28, 2009 @ 5:03 pm