Voters tend to pay attention to national elections first, then local elections for mayor and city council. Other elections often get little attention, because voters assume that the “no-name” elections for library trustees, community college trustees, and school district trustees don’t matter as much. After all, in many communities, these “no-name” positions are often filled by volunteers who receive no pay.
No pay means no opportunity for self-enrichment, right? No, as this Los Angeles Times investigative series about the Los Angeles Community College District shows, there is profit in obscurity and voter ignorance. The series is titled Billions to Spend.
After you’ve read the Times series, go back and read Mary Souza’s OpenCdA post on February 18, 2011. Over $6,000,000 in public money was paid by the North Idaho College Board of Trustees to the North Idaho College Foundation, Inc., for “prepaid rent” on land the College owned. It has yet to be refunded, and it doesn’t appear to this writer that anyone is trying very hard to get it back..
Bill,
Who has the $6,000,000?
Comment by concerned citizen — March 6, 2011 @ 10:14 am
Interesting. I saw a post on ‘Betsy’ Eye on Boise blog that references “Bare-bones budget set for community colleges.” She quotes Rep. Jaquet, “they’re finding additional efficiencies.” Have to wonder how the $6 million fits in with “additional efficiencies”?
Comment by Happy Trails — March 6, 2011 @ 10:49 am
Isn’t the NIC Foundation in existence to help get money for the college? Why wouldn’t they just give back the excess rent payments?
Comment by mary — March 6, 2011 @ 10:54 am
The assumption is that the NIC Foundation still has the $6,000,000.
Comment by Dan — March 6, 2011 @ 11:01 am
Why should they? It’s all one big pot of money that rests in their hands no matter where it is supposed to be – so why bother putting it back where it should be? It’s moot.
Welcome to Idaho.
OpenCDA is really as close to “investigative” journalism we have here. Taryn Hecker was good – but that is probably one reason why she is no longer working. Additionally, another journalist in the area by the name of Brent Andrews, he was run out of the state – all the way to Tennesee. Risky business stickin’ your nose into this stuff and like kind situations.
Comment by Stebbijo — March 6, 2011 @ 11:03 am
concerned citizen,
The money was paid as “rent” to the NIC Foundation by the NIC Board of Trustees. It may be in an account belonging to the Foundation, or the Foundation may have given all or part of it to Mountain West Bank in repayment of the $6 million (plus interest) loan the Foundation took out to buy the Stimson Mill site. We really don’t know where it is, but we’re pretty sure that where it isn’t is back with NIC where it belongs.
Happy Trails,
The $6 million is an estimate based on our calculations derived from the “Lease Agreement” signed between NIC and the Foundation on July 23, 2009. The College and Foundation’s interpretation of the wording of the “Lease Agreement” evidently is that every penny paid by NIC to the Foundation was “prepaid rent”. (If it wasn’t so, then the entire transaction would have been a constitutionally prohibited purchase.) It would have been up to the Court to determine the exact amount of the refund due from the Foundation to NIC based on the rent that had been prepaid and applied between December 3, 2010, and July 23, 2013. By our calculations, the amount of money that must be refunded to NIC by its Foundation is about $6.7 million.
Mary,
I believe the general public believes that the NIC Foundation exists to help raise money for the College. We don’t know why the Foundation wouldn’t just give back the excess rent payments. Here is an even more important question since the approximately $6.7 million in excess rent payments derived from taxpayer money given to the College: Why isn’t the College demanding the return of the “prepaid rent” it paid on land it already owned?
Comment by Bill — March 6, 2011 @ 11:14 am
Dan,
We really don’t know, because of course the Foundation is not required to divulge financial information beyond its IRS Form 990.
Stebbijo,
But it does matter, because the NIC is a taxing entity, and the Foundation is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation. The interest paid by the Foundation on its loan from Mountain West Bank was exempt from federal tax as a result of the 63-20 agreement between the Foundation and NIC.
I’m working on a very detailed (read: clunky) report on what our lawsuit against NIC and the Foundation has found. Based on public records and reasonable analysis, we have a clearer financial picture of the entire Stimson Mill purchase and delivery to NIC. Our two alleged newspapers (The Coeur d’Alene Press and The Spokesman-Review) have avoided any meaningful reporting, preferring to tout the speculative long-term financial benefits over the constitutional and statutory irregularities.
Comment by Bill — March 6, 2011 @ 11:29 am
Bill, I’m not sure if you can disclose this, but during “discovery” for your lawsuit, did you obtain copies of the checks written by NIC to the Foundation?
Comment by Dan — March 6, 2011 @ 11:45 am
Bill, I do get it and I know that it matters – but seriously it doesn’t matter to those who want to keep you out of court. That’s why you lost – it doesn’t matter if you were right or not. You are not supposed to win. The fight is exhausting, they know that – the money, the time – it’s enough to give a person angina.
You can’t get justice out of a corrupt judicial system, a pathetic legislature, and an arrogant executive branch.
Dan Popkey is really good at breaking some of this stuff. Maybe he would be a good contact in order to get some media coverage?
BTW, the judiciary now accepts public comment.
Comment by Stebbijo — March 6, 2011 @ 11:53 am
Dan,
I believe we did get copies, but I’ll have to check. I am quite certain that is where the amounts came from in our PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF REGARDING STANDING, filed February 4, 2011, at 4:26 p.m. with the Clerk of the First Judicial District Court. The checks from NIC to the Foundation would have been public records anyway, regardless of how we got them.
Stebbijo,
We haven’t lost. As far as we know some of our issues are still in the Idaho Supreme Court.
Thanks for the suggestion and the contact information. You are absolutely correct: To keep the courts honest, the public needs to better inform itself about the courts.
Comment by Bill — March 6, 2011 @ 11:59 am
Well, according to a new proposed rule – don’t be filing too many appeals – you might be considered a vexatious litigant.;-) That new rule almost appears to be like a new law – out of the hands of the legislature. Wonder what the judiciary Senate and House committees think of that one and if they even know? That is Vick, Sims, and Hart in this area. I believe no matter how many times a pro se litigant goes to court to fight a decision it’s their constitutional right to pursue justice. A pro se litigant may not find the correct statute until later because they are not attorneys, but represent themselves due to most likely financial reasons. It’t not justice to throw out the pro se litigant because the court has determined that their legal endeavors represent harassment. I am not sure what judicial committee decided to do this – I will try to find out. Here lately, ‘they’ ignore me.
Bill, good luck. I sincerely hope the NIC suit comes out in your favor for so many of us. God knows how hard you and so many people have worked on these lawsuits. Looking forward to the Brannon Supreme Court hearing as well – that is if they ever decide to move it to a hearing date.
Comment by Stebbijo — March 6, 2011 @ 12:17 pm
If it is true that the devil is in the details, perhaps inspecting change orders for public projects is in order.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — March 10, 2011 @ 2:07 pm