[
Question: When is theft not really stealing?
Answer: When it is committed against the taxpayers of the State of Idaho and when aggressive criminal prosecution by a prosecuting attorney might politically embarrass Idaho public officials.
While I could be talking about the Kootenai County Prosecuting Attorney’s decision to water down the grand theft charges (plural) that could have been filed against a former Kootenai County Deputy Clerk, I’m not.
This time, I’m talking about the decision by the Ada County Prosecuting Attorney to not criminally charge contractors who billed the Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC) for work actually done under a different contract to the State of Alaska.
The information was reported by the Idaho Statesman newspaper in a May 6, 2011, story headlined Boise contractor double-billed Idaho prison agency, report says.
The May 24, 2010, Investigation Report completed by the IDOC Office of Professional Responsibility, alleged that the contractor, CRI Advantage, Inc., of Boise, and its subcontractor, AnalyzeSoft, Inc., also of Boise, engaged in fraudulent billing practices. Specifically, the report alleged that the subcontractor had been using IDOC time and equipment while actually working on contracts for the State of Alaska. Idaho taxpayers were paying for work being done for Alaska. The 80-page IDOC investigative report notes:
There is a wealth of forensic evidence to support the assertion that ASI contractors were engaging in unauthorized activities as early as 5/9/2007, and it appears there was a long-term pattern of the contractors using IDOC equipment without restriction. There is evidence to suggest that some of the contractors worked almost exclusively on the Alaska Corrections Offender Management System (ACOMS) with little or no work performed for IDOC, while they continued to bill IDOC for their time.
Significantly, the IDOC investigative report also states:
On January 6, 2010, a meeting took place between IDOC IT management staff and ASI principals, Arup Patranabish and Platt Thompson in which it was requested that ASI cease all unauthorized activities including removing IDOC equipment from the building without specific permission. ASI agreed to address the contractors’ behavior and correct some of the issues raised in this meeting to ensure that “double-billing” was not occurring. However, evidence gathered from e-mails, screen shots and the contractors’ hard drives indicates that the contractors’ activities actually accelerated after the 1/6/2010 meeting and continued steadily until they were removed from the building on 2/16/2010. This activity corresponds with the deadlines associated with the Alaska projects. [emphasis added]
In other words, after being formally told to cease unauthorized activities, the contractors “accelerated” their unauthorized activities, ostensibly to use Idaho’s resources to complete their work for Alaska.
So why didn’t the Ada County Prosecuting Attorney prosecute this? The best explanation, if it is that, is in the Idaho Statesman article in a quote attributed to Ada County Chief Deputy Prosecutor Roger Bourne who had noted earlier that the Alaska and Idaho products were “similar.”
“Even though it appeared that the contractors were using resources that should have been used to produce the Idaho product, in a sense they were,” Bourne said. “We just couldn’t find there was any criminal intent or evidence that anybody was trying to defraud or steal.”
Really? The contractors were told by IDOC to stop doing the illegal act and instead of stopping, they apparently “accelerated” their work to complete the Alaska contract using Idaho resources, and the Ada County Prosecutor “just couldn’t find any criminal intent or evidence that anybody was trying to defraud or steal?”
In his self-serving damage-control memorandum, IDOC Director Brent Reinke said:
We handed the evidence to authorities.
Ada County determined that while there was evidence of double-billing by the contractors, there wasn’t enough evidence to pursue prosecution. IDOC investigators kept the Attorney General’s Office informed and consulted with them throughout the investigation.
We’re now working with the Division of Purchasing to negotiate an acceptable settlement with the
contractor. These negotiations are ongoing and we remain hopeful we’ll be able to recover some of our losses.The Idaho Statesman recently requested this report and several others. We have provided them with copies.
The last line of that quote is the key: If the Idaho Statesman had not started digging, it is fair to conclude that the IDOC report would have remained confidential, and Idaho’s taxpayers would never have learned about this use of Idaho taxpayers’ money to help pay for an Alaska project. But at least IDOC Director Reinke is “…hopeful we’ll be able to recover some of our losses.” [emphasis added] Of course, the “our losses” really refers to the loss incurred by Idaho’s taxpayers via the IDOC budget.
I wonder if Idaho’s prosecuting attorneys are issued emergency blindfolds when they’re sworn into office. The blindfolds are to be used whenever there is a “political emergency” requiring the prosecutors to protect officials in state, county, or city government agencies from having those officials’ or their subordinates’ incompetence, laziness, nonfeasance, or criminal conduct exposed.
Business is business. Other people commit crimes, not business people. A suggestion? Perhaps the legislature should consider changing the law providing for County Prosecutors to be elected. A citizen’s committee could be formed in each county to investigate and recommend a person to be hired by a county as its prosecuting attorney. The person would be hired for a set contract period of time, perhaps 6 years, with a citizen committee review to follow, with one contract extension possible. Until Prosecuting Attorneys get out of the business of politics this will continue to be a problem. It’s called “Prosecutorial Discretion”…ha. A starting place would be City Attorneys. Terminate the current city attorneys, seek proposals for a set contract period of time, have the citizen committee investigate and recommend. Simply put, the problem is inherent in the system and to remedy the problem the system has to be changed.
Comment by Happy Trails — May 10, 2011 @ 10:48 am
Or you could up the cajones on the State Attorney General, perhaps create an office to investigate public corruption? However, I think too many of our legislator are more interested in bills introducing commemorative license plates.
Comment by Dan — May 10, 2011 @ 12:50 pm
Dan,
The Idaho AG appears toothless because that is how the people throughout the state seem to want him to be. They wanted to retain “local control” in their communities. The primary prosecutorial jurisdiction rest with the county prosecutors, though they can ask the AG to step in on cases where social, political, and economic influences could jeopardize the county prosecutor’s objectivity. That happened recently in Bonneville County where the AG’s office sought and received a 13-count indictment against a sewer district manager.
The Kootenai County prosecuting attorney could easily and properly have made a similar request to the AG in the Sandra Martinson embezzlement allegation. That was a complex financial crime that had the potential to expand well beyond Martinson if it had been aggressively investigated. I understand Martinson has been charged and has plead not guilty to one count of grand theft. It is a curious charge since each check within the statute of limitations could have been a separate count in an indictment.
Comment by Bill — May 10, 2011 @ 1:12 pm
Happy Trails,
As I recall, First District magistrate judges are first approved by a committee. After their first term they must stand for election (retention). As with any committee, the issue becomes who will appoint the committee who will appoint the magistrates who will become the incumbents and who will eventually run (on their magistrate’s record) for the District Court.
Elections are good only if the candidates are honest and competent for the offices they seek. If the candidates lack either or both qualities, the election only serves to endorse the chosen incompetent crook.
Comment by Bill — May 10, 2011 @ 4:45 pm
Well, Bill, and you’re assuming that the elections are honest and not being manipulated.
Comment by Dan — May 10, 2011 @ 5:07 pm
It hasn’t happened in the past; has it eh? Now that “Failure of Duty” aka Dan English is out of office perhaps those pesky non-resident Canadians won’t vote in this election and I’m pretty certain that the “Queen of Real Estate” aka Nancy White won’t risk another $200 fine for illegally voting again. I believe that would violate her probation for her DUI or for her past election shenanigans. Dan, we may actually get a fair election this time and for the first time in years.
Comment by doubleseetripleeye — May 10, 2011 @ 6:15 pm
Didn’t the School District count it’s own election results last time? Wasn’t that when Terri Seymore lost by about 39 votes and Jim Purtee lost by only 7 votes?
Hmmm…I’m very glad the County, with Cliff Hayes, will be watching over this one.
Comment by mary — May 10, 2011 @ 6:41 pm
Mary,
You may be right about the last SD 271 bored ol’ trustees election, but the last SD 271 election was the M&O Levy in May. That levy election contained the School District’s ballot wording which many voters thought was intentionally deceptive, designed to ensure that both propositions passed. When the results of that levy election were tallied, the Superintendent broke away from her district-funded Pilates session to run to Cliff Hayes and scream that he had to change the vote. In fact, if you go to the School District 271 website and read the item titled Thank You – M&O Levy Passes, you will see that the School District is reporting the “unofficial” vote count, the vote count they wish had been, not the vote count that was. It seems that the disparate vote count emphasized the district’s deception in the ballot wording approved by the bored ol’ trustees.
So when the M&O levy vote was canvassed by the Kootenai County Commissioners, who was at the meeting from School District 271 to answer questions or protest the vote count? No one. Not the Superintendent, not anyone representing the bored ol’ trustees. Both County Clerk Cliff Hayes and Elections Supervisor Carrie Phillips were there to answer any questions and to ensure the canvass was legally completed.
Comment by Bill — May 11, 2011 @ 7:05 am