On July 23, 2009, North Idaho College (NIC) issued a press release headlined NIC Foundation finalizes purchase of mill site. The press release included this paragraph:
The NIC Foundation, an independent nonprofit organization, secured financing through Mountain West Bank for the purchase of the 17-acre parcel located to the north of NIC’s main Coeur d’Alene campus, the former site of the DeArmond Mill owned by Stimson Lumber Company. A competitive bid process was used to secure financing.
Independent? Competitive bidding? Really?
Is the NIC Foundation independent from NIC? It depends on what your definition of “independent” is. The NIC Foundation’s Executive Director is Rayelle Anderson. According to the NIC online Employee Directory/Faculty Finder, she is employed by NIC as Development Director – Development/NIC Foundation. Her office is in the Sherman Administration Building, room SHE-106. NIC President Priscilla Bell’s office is in SHE-101, and spokesflack John Martin’s office is in SHE-102. Anderson’s telephone number is 769-5978, a campus telephone number. Her email address is Rayelle_Anderson@nic.edu.
On July 23rd, John Martin, the NIC Vice President for Community Relations and Marketing, sent a draft press release via email to Anderson and Bell. Here is the exchange of some emails between Martin, Anderson, and Bell. A few points jump off the page:
- Martin’s email with draft press release to Bell and Anderson at 10:25 AM evidently had a headline which read “NIC finalizes purchase of mill site.” That can be reasonably inferred from Bell’s response at 10:57 AM in which she corrects Martin’s Fraudian Slip. The NIC and NIC Foundation party line is that the mill site is being purchased by the NIC Foundation, not NIC. Anderson’s email at 10:36 AM to Martin and Bell reminds them to stick to the party line when she says, “Should headline be ‘North Idaho College Foundation finalizes purchase of mill site’ since NIC isn’t technically purchasing anything yet?” Consider the meaning and significance of Anderson’s using those two words “technically” and “yet.”
- In his email to Bell and Anderson, Martin said, “We mentioned the financing by Mountain West just so folks know we did it locally.” Who is “we”, John? Martin is an employee of NIC but is not on the NIC Foundation. The public has been told the financing was arranged through the Foundation, not NIC. So is Martin’s use of “we” yet another Fraudian Slip?
- Anderson’s response at 10:35 AM seemed to try and discourage including any reference to Mountain West Bank. She also provided the wording that ended up in the press release. Was she acting in her role as an NIC employee, or was she acting as the Foundation’s executive director when she dictated the content of the press release put out by NIC? It’s so confusing. Well, not really.
As for Anderson’s emphasis that Mountain West Bank won through competitive bidding … we’ll see. I submitted an Idaho Public Record Law request today to John Martin at NIC. The request is for a copy of the solicitation sent out to prospective bidders, a list of the prospective bidders to whom the solicitations were sent, and a list identifying those prospective lenders who actually submitted bids. Although Martin may respond that the competitive bidding process was handled by the NIC Foundation and thus the information I seek is beyond the reach of the Idaho Public Records Law, I doubt that alleged distinction would pass either the straight-face or smell tests. Readers should never forget it is public money that NIC is funneling to the NIC Foundation to acquire the property. The NIC Foundation’s role in this scheme is nothing more than an intermediary handling public money to buy land NIC cannot legally purchase itself without a public vote or judicial confirmation.
There are other “overlaps,” too.
Recall our earlier OpenCdA post in which attorney Mark Lyons identified himself as being the attorney for both NIC and the Foundation.
It is a matter of public record that NIC Trustee Judith Meyer is married to NIC Foundation Director Stephen Meyer. It is a matter of public record that Stephen Meyer serves on the Board of Directors of Mountain West Bank with Charlie Nipp, Jon Hippler, and Brad Dugdale . Dugdale and Hippler are both also NIC Foundation Directors. Charlie Nipp is Stephen and Judith Meyer’s partner in Parkwood Business Properties, a company with land holdings whose value will dramatically improve with the annexation and commercial rezoning of the land euphemistically marketed as the “Education Corridor.” And, of course, the appraisal of the mill site property in question was done by Ed Morse, a business partner of Stephen and Judith Meyer in Meyer-Morse Ironwood Partners. NIC President Priscilla Bell is also the Secretary of the NIC Foundation, and NIC Trustee Mic Armon is also an NIC Foundation Director.
Hopefully NIC will deliver the information requested about the competitive bid process. NIC’s reply will be posted here.
….and our Attorney General thinks this is all reasonable and above board?
Comment by citizen — August 24, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
What is confusing about this whole thing is that NIC is apparently NOT considered an agency of Idaho state government. I don’t know exactly how but NIC is governed by Idaho Board of Education guidelines, levies taxes upon the public but is not subject to following all of our state agency legal requirements. The law regarding lease purchase contract by any state agency requires that that agency to rigorously work to obtain the lowest price for the property in question. That, of course, did not happen here.
Still if the AG looks into the details of this transaction they should easily see the conflict of interest with all of these interconnected parties to the deal. I still would like to learn if the lease option contract is even legal. It does not even show a purchase price threshold. How can you have any contract without a performance threshold? That is why Spencer assessment is open to interpretation. Without a purchase price he has no real idea of how much is being paid for the proeprty.
Comment by Wallypog — August 25, 2009 @ 7:08 am
What is confusing about this whole thing is that NIC is apparently NOT considered an agency of Idaho state government. I don’t know exactly how but NIC is governed by Idaho Board of Education guidelines, levies taxes upon the public but is not subject to following all of our state agency legal requirements. The law regarding lease purchase contract by any state agency requires that the agency rigorously works to obtain the lowest price for the property in question. That, of course, did not happen here.
Still if the AG looks into the details of this transaction they should easily see the conflict of interest with all of these interconnected parties to the deal. Even so will they find it within their jurisdiction and take action or not?
I still would like to learn if the lease option contract is legal. It does not even show a purchase price threshold. How can you have any enforceable real estate contract without a final purchase performance threshold? That is why Spencer’s fiscal evaluation of the deal is open to interpretation. Without a purchase price he has no real idea of how much is being paid for the property. NONE OF US HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MUCH IS BEING PAID FOR THIS PROPERTY! The taxpayers are paying for the property but have not been told exactly how much. That is crazy and it is just plain wrong.
Comment by Wallypog — August 25, 2009 @ 7:14 am
Sorry for the double post. I’m a hunt-and-peck typer and must have hit something in error.
Comment by Wallypog — August 25, 2009 @ 7:15 am
It is my impression that only political pressure will get the AG to look into this in a fair manner. This might counter act any campaign contributions by interest groups.
Comment by citizen — August 25, 2009 @ 7:20 am
Citizen…. That pressure has been applied and the AG is looking into the situation.
Comment by Wallypog — August 25, 2009 @ 7:54 am
Wallypog and citizen,
Although any outside scrutiny is good, the kind of investigation needed might take years to conduct. A hit-and-run investigation in which a few investigators hit town, examine a few records, and then run home would provide political mileage to the AG but would serve little or no practical purpose to the community or state. Long-term undercover investigations would likely be more successful, but they are costly, and even they sometimes come up dry.
A good investigation would not necessarily lead to arrests and prosecutions for criminal violations. Legislative reform more than jail time is what is desperately needed. It is the gaping holes in Idaho’s laws that enable marginally legal or outright illegal activity to occur. I very much want to believe that most state legislators would like to be part of the solution, but I could be wrong about that.
Public corruption is often tolerated and intentionally overlooked because it is a political minefield. The people involved often appear to be pillars of the community, charitable contributors, etc. Their prominence makes it politically risky for local authorities to scrutinize their conduct. Their generosity in political campaign giving makes it politically suicidal for politicians to pass effective laws curbing public corruption. If you look back at the various posts I’ve put up about corrupt public officials who have been convicted and imprisoned, you will see that almost all of them were considered trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent — not to mention generous to elected officials’ campaigns and benevolent to worthy causes. Predators thrive on the misplaced trust and confidence of their victims and unwitting cohorts.
A good investigation would first require learning what exactly is happening and how it is happening. That is in contrast to investigators simply coming in with a checklist, looking for specific violations, collecting their per diem, and leaving town saying, “Nothing here, move on,” when they don’t find the narrowly-defined violations they came to look for. They have to first understand what is happening and how it is happening before they can apply the facts to the elements of the law.
Comment by Bill — August 25, 2009 @ 11:27 am
Looks like the quickest way to clean things up would be to have new elected officials.
Comment by citizen — August 25, 2009 @ 9:11 pm