Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Monday, Dec. 29, 2008 | 2 a.m.
Sun Archives
- Dix questions for Conrad Hafen, Chief Deputy Attorney General (12-24-2008)
- Yellow notes could help fraud charges stick to Krolicki (12-22-2008)
- Lt. Gov. Krolick says he’s an indictment target (11-24-2008)
- Guv wants Loux to pay back $64,000 (11-14-2008)
A future “Law and Order” episode, this is not.
“Off-line budgeting” — a plot twist that only an accountant could love (or follow) — led to the indictment of Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki by a Las Vegas grand jury.
Veterans of government know that audits routinely find money misspent or given out in questionable ways.
Rarely, at least in Nevada’s history, have those findings led to felony charges as they did against Krolicki, who is accused of mismanaging a multibillion-dollar college savings program in his previous position as Nevada’s treasurer.
The charge was perhaps best summarized by an exchange between a deputy attorney general and a grand jury witness:
“And so for somebody to squirrel away funds someplace and then for a constitutional officer or any public officer to use those funds for purposes that he deems to be within the State’s interest, would that be within the state budget act or would you consider that to be off-line budgeting?”
Yes, that would be off-line budgeting, the witness confirmed.
The case has some observers wondering if a tougher definition of public accountability is emerging, with Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto as the enforcer.
Her close associates say Cortez Masto intends to raise the ethical standard. She is a straight arrow who believes strictly in the rule of law, they said.
But some Republicans see in the case against Krolicki signs of partisanship.
Former Assemblyman John Marvel, a Republican who had served on the legislative audit committee since 1989, said this is the first time he can remember an audit leading to an indictment.
“Every audit we have, there’s some infringement of the law,” he said. “We could probably indict everybody for something.”
One memorable example is a 2006 audit of the Southern Nevada Workforce Investment Board, which couldn’t account for millions of dollars. “Other than a complete disregard for government accounting standards and financial principles, ignorance or disdain for the taxpayer, the consultants know of no legitimate reason for ... allowing for these deplorable practices,” the auditors said.
Yet no indictments came down.
One of the grand jurors in the Krolicki case seemed to question whether Krolicki had crossed the line. According to a transcript of the grand jury proceedings, the juror asked a Department of Public Safety investigator whether “gratuities” were changing hands between Krolicki and the marketing company for the savings program, Rose/Glenn Group.
“It seems now this is just accounting malfeasance” the juror said.
An audit of the College Savings Plan last year accounted for all state money.
This is not to be dismissive of the charges against Krolicki and his chief of staff, Kathy Besser.
The grand jury, despite at least one member’s earlier qualms, did indict Krolicki.
If the allegations of the indictment are true, the two intentionally took about $6 million of taxpayer money and decided to spend it on television ads and mailers promoting the savings plan — and featuring Krolicki.
There was testimony from a deputy treasurer that Krolicki and Besser were upset that the Legislature had allocated only a minimal amount of money for marketing the program.
And, as Cortez Masto told the Sun: “It comes down to transparency in government. One individual doesn’t get to decide which money goes into state coffers and what money doesn’t.”
Krolicki, a Republican, has also blamed partisanship.
Cortez Masto and Krolicki’s successor at the treasurer’s office, Kate Marshall, are Democrats.
Krolicki pointed out that the indictment followed his announcement that he would challenge Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. But the investigation had been going on for nearly two years and it was an open secret in Carson City that he was likely to be indicted.
So has the bar for public behavior been raised for Nevada elected officials?
Bob Loux would seem to provide a perfect test case.
As head of Nevada’s anti-Yucca Mountain staff, Loux has admitted to paying himself and his workers more than the amounts approved by the Legislature — off-line budgeting. He has resigned, effective with the appointment of a permanent successor.
Assembly Minority Leader Heidi Gansert, a Republican, had requested Cortez Masto investigate Loux, director of Nevada’s Agency for Nuclear Projects, for possible malfeasance in office and criminal activity.
The public will have to wait for another case.
Cortez Masto sent a letter to Gansert saying she had recused her office from the investigation.
“Over the last twenty years Mr. Loux has had an ongoing working relationship with my office in this State’s fight against the federal government regarding Yucca Mountain,” she wrote. “To avoid a conflict of interest and any appearance of impropriety if my office were to undertake the criminal investigation, it is in the best interest of the State that the matter be referred to the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office.”
In every article written about this issue, you need to remind people in layman's terms exactly what is the crux of the case.
Partisanship? I don't believe that. Cortez-Masto doesn't operate that way.
Hey Krolicki, should we call the WAAAAMbulance?
You got caught. Take responsibility and stop blaming everyone else for your errors.
I hope there are more people charged with these types of crimes.
Every citizen has to follow the laws of the state, and so should our elected officials. We are tired of the game you all play. We want honor and integrity in our government.
Today the LV Sun has a "Hero" piece on DEMOCRAT Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto on how she intends to raise the ethical standard. She is a straight arrow..."
Meanwhile John Marvel who had served on the legislative audit committee since 1989, said this is the first time he can remember an audit leading to an indictment.
"Every audit we have, there's some infringement of the law," he said. "We could probably indict everybody for something."
Meanwhile Cortez Masto sent a letter to Assembly Minority Leader Heidi Gansert, saying she had recused her office from the investigation.
"Over the last twenty years Mr. Loux has had an ongoing working relationship with my office in...," she wrote. "To avoid a conflict of interest and any appearance of impropriety if my office were to undertake the criminal investigation, it is in the best interest of the State that the matter be referred" to a local County Sheriff's Office. This mean the crime is being buried, and this is raising the ethical standard. Mastro has only been in office since the last election - 20 years?
So if you are a "Friend of Masto and Reid" you will not be indicted.
Loux no doubt will plead this out and pay a fine. Any bets?
On 12-24-2008 the LV Sun had a "Hero" piece on DEMOCRAT Chief Deputy Attorney General Conrad Hafen who oversees the Public Integrity Unit and is the Lead Prosecutor against Brian Krolicki.
This furthers the AG's effort to put the trial in the public long before the court room trial in 2010.
When asked to compare the Krolicki and Gilbert cases rank? Hafen admitted that money was not the issue for Krolicki. Hafen also said that "Unfortunately, as with everything else, you have individuals who choose to violate laws." The AG Office is holding a Public Trial without a jury.
I don't want to discuss the Krolicki case. In terms of money, the Gilbert case ranks as one of the bigger cases we've done. Thousands of dollars were involved.
The AG Office has also compromised grand jury secrecy.
Every leading Democrat in the State that testify in grand jury secrecy has opened up to the newspaper or the office of the Democratic AG gave out the information.
Now they are leaked the knowledge that there are yellow stickies. So much for the rumored destruction of records
But unfortunately for the Democrats Public Trial - they have not made a case.
Member of the state oversight board including former state budget director Perry Comeaux did not see a need to stop the practice. The last Nevada Attorney General under Guinn provided guidance on the process.
Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto on how she intends to raise the ethical standard
Trial in the newpapers
DEMOCRAT Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto and DEMOCRAT Chief Deputy Attorney General Conrad Hafen who oversees the Public Integrity Unit and is are leaked the knowledge that there are yellow stickies.
So much for the rumored destruction of records
Deputy Treasurer Janice Wright started to do yellow stickies on the bills to say Is this what you want me to pay from this off-line account? she testified. I noticed on all your invoices there are stickies, a juror said.
When Democrat Kate Marshall took over, Deputy Treasurer Janice Wright told the new treasurer about what had been going on, which she thought was not illegal.
Democrat Kate Marshall "said, because she was an attorney, this is wrong, this is not legal and you can't do that," Wright said.
Because she was an attorney !!!! -- Democrat Kate Marshall is not AG she is the State Treasurer. Was Democrat Kate Marshall qualified to be a State Treasurer?
So the professional Deputy Treasurer Janice Wright thought that it was not illegal. This the State employee professional that stays though all the political administrations that come and go.
Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto ....tough?????
Oh.....Masto......she has shaken Loux's hand.....It would be a conflict of interest for her to indict him..........more like a conflict of him being a Democrat.
All General Masto said was that she could not investigate Loux. That is why the Washoe County Sheriff Bill Haley is investigating. So forget the calls for partisanship.
Masto as Straight Arrow? Yes. Calling for a higher standard from Elected Officials? Yes.
Gee whiz former assemblyman Marvel...just because others have skated for inappropriate use of state funds doesn't make it right.
I guess there is a new General in town and her name is Catherine Cortez Masto and LG Krolicki better stop worry about raising money for his defense fund and figure out his exit strategy as his whining is an embarrasment to the office and this state. You played fast and loose with State money and it is the legislature who has determined that is a crime. General Masto is enforcing that law.
Masto is a big girl.....Not....
She said she could not investiage Loux because the AG office for years has work with his office.
What does that have to do with anything?
The AG's office had nothing to do with Loux giving himself an illegal big 30% raise.
I believe she can say the same about the treasury office, too. The AG office has work with the treasury for years, too.
In fact, the AG office signed off on the contracts that are in question.
I think that would be a higher conflict of interest.
How come the AG did not recuse her office from indicting the Krolicki?
Sounds like a big double standard to me.
The difference is one is big time Democrat and who is a friend of Reid and other person is a big time Republican and who is planning to ran against Reid.
Masto is a Reid boot licker.
We do not need an AG that will run and hide anytime a friend of Reid gets into trouble.
The AG is suppose to represent all Nevadans and not just Democrats.
Masto is a disgrace to the state of Nevada.
The contracts that the AG office approved are not in question, jfnance32.
The implementation of those contracts by Krolicki, and the failure to acquire permission from the legislature to use funds by Krolicki is under question.
Masto is holding herself to a high ethical standard, and you are criticizing her for it?
I guess ethics aren't very important to you.
Matso is holding herself to a high ethical standard only when it deals with Democrats targets.
Her reason not to investigate a Democrat: "Over the last twenty years Mr. Loux has had an ongoing working relationship with my office "
Her office had a "working relationship" with Korilicki for many years, too.
Did she adjust her high ethical standards or something?
It was a lame reason not investigate Loux. If she applied that high standard then she probably can not investigate many government entities because the AG has a working relationship with most of them.
Masto is the AG for Democrats only.
She is suppose to respresent us all.
That is so shameful for the State of Nevada.
So you call it a high ethical standard, then criticize her for standing behind it?
And you don't see the problem with that?
I see you agree that the contracts are not in question. Why did you assert differently earlier?
I guess you have a low opinion of the Washoe County Sheriff's Office, since they are now handling the Loux investigation.
I guess you think that are not competent, since you want Masto to finish the investigation.
Masto and her AG has have a working releationship with the treasury for decades.
By her "high ethical standard" (LOL), she should remove the AG from investigating and indicting the former sec. of treasury.
Of source, her standard changes based on whether the target is a Democrat vs. a Republican.
We elected her to investigate wrong doing by state officals and employees. We did not elect some sheriff to do that job.
She has failed to do her duty.
Instead, she has demostrated a shameful display of partisanship.
Leave it to Nance to criticize Masto for having ethical standards.
He has no first-hand knowledge of the level or depth of involvement Masto has with either Loux or Krolicki, just baseless allegations he can't substantiate with any proof.
That's why he's floundering about here.
I did not know that theBS was a full member of the Democratic good-old-boys network.
Masto's excuse for not investigating Loux was extremely lame and if extended could greatly reduce her ability to investigate tons of people in the government sector. Of course, she is only going to use that "standard" when it comes to investigating Democrats.
Your reasoning is lame, too. According to theBS, we have to have full first-hand knowledge on all things to render an opinion any matter. That is silly because you do not first-hand knowlege on most matters. Therefore, I guess you will not render any opinions on matters of public policy. I guess you are going to stick to things that only deal with your personal life.
I know that you are the tread queen, but this ridculous new ruling by you is just going a bit too far.
That is right, you have no proof, evidence or first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing by Masto. You have an opinion that is not based on anything other than partisan rancor.
Your criticism of Masto is based solely on her party affiliation, not on her actions.
First, today, you are saying that a commission violated the law. When challenged to show that, you failed. Now you are saying Masto recused herself because of her party affiliation, but have NO PROOF of that.
You are just making wild accusations today that are not grounded in any evidence.
I know some crazy homeless people who do that.
"Of course, she is only going to use that "standard" when it comes to investigating Democrats."
That's an accusation.
I asked you for proof of your accusation.
You offer nothing, just more accusations.
Where's the proof, Nance? How many times did Masto work with Loux last year? How many times did she work with Krolicki?
Quantify your accusation... otherwise it's just baseless whining.
Jfnance32 just hate hate hates Masto because she got his buddy Krolicki in trouble.
I guess he doesn't think the law should apply to Krolicki.
He's rather throw baseless claims against a woman who has never been even accused of an ethics violation because he doesn't like Democrats.
It is partisanship at it's worst.
The proof is reality.
The only person who she has used this lame "standard" is a Democratic government offical.
I do not know that Masto was in the AG office for 20 years and worked with Loux. WOW...you are really smart if you uncovered that unbelieveable fact.
You need to read her letter. She does not mention that her "excuse" is that she personally worked with Loux. She said the AG OFFICE had a "working relationship" for over 20 years.
If she applied that "standard" of the AG office having a "working relationship" than she has an excuse to not to investigage a large section of government officals and employees.
It is obvious that the AG office has a "working relationship" with the treasury department, including the sec. of treasury. Krolicki worked with the AG office to get sign-offs on the contracts that are in question. Boom.....she should have removed the AG from the case because that the AG had working releationship with the Treasury.
It is a lame silly standard and she only has applied that standard in the Loux matter because he is a big time Democratic and a friend of Reid.
It is a shameful display of partianship by the AG Masto.
Oh, I get it.
Ethical standards are "lame," according to Nance.
At least he is brazen enough to admit it.
He still fails to quantify the relationships, or how the relationships between the NPO and the Treasury differ. He made an utterly FALSE allegation earlier that "the contracts" that the AG office approved were the problem with Krolicki, when it was Krolicki's actions, instead.
He can't provide a shred of proof, a document, a quote or anything to substantiate his questions of Masto, just stale old yapping.
Allegations without proof: Nance's M.O.
I am OK if you think Masto's lame standard is a high ethical standard that only gets selectively applied in the case of a Democrat and friend of Reid.
It fits you and says a hell of alot about you.
It is laughable and in the next of election of AG Mastro will be a rightful slam against her.
I'm glad that when Cortez-Masto saw a potential conflict of interest, she acted to ensure proper ethical behavior.
Only jfnance32 would see that as a bad thing.
She has a silly standard for conflict of interest.
If she applies the "working relationship" theory of between the AG and another departments in the state then she will eliminate large sections of state government from ever being investigated by the AG, including the Treasury Department.
The only conflict she had was that Loux is a big time Democrat and a friend of Reid.
"The only conflict she had was that Loux is a big time Democrat and a friend of Reid."
More unsubstantiated blathering.
You can't answer the question: How often did she work with Loux.
You can't answer the question: How often did she work with Krolicki.
Instead, you lambaste her for being ethical.
What a crock.
She has never claim that she has a personal conflict of interest. You should take some time and read her letter. It will make you look less foolish by saying she is claiming a personal conflict of interest.
Her claim is that the AG office as a whole has a conflict of interest because it worked with Loux's office.
That is so lame.
Again, the AG office has worked with large sections of state government including Krolicki. By default, this silly standard should bar the AG from investigating large sections of the state government.
Again, it is a dumb excuse.
It is obvious that her real conflict is that Loux is a big time Democrat. If she nailed Loux to the wall then her career in Nevada Democratic Party would be over.
A conflict of interest is not "a dumb excuse."
You still can't quantify the amount of work Cortez-Masto, or the AG's office, completed for either Loux or Krolicki, and that is the crux of your argument.
You have no evidence to prove they have similar contacts.
Instead, you make a baseless argument that it is because they share a political party.
I see how you work: no evidence? Who cares! The Democrats are all corrupt!
Must be nice to live in your black and white world.
All she said that the AG office had worked with Loux's office.
She did not place a threshold of very little, some or whole lot.
Her only test was that the AG office had worked with Loux office.
So by her standard, that you praised often, that would eliminate whole sections of people, including Krolicki.
Also, to top if all off, I am willing that to bet that Krolicki will call AG staff as witnesses in his defense.
So go back and drink some koolaid and keep your head in the sand.
No, YOU did not place a threshold.
You assumed they had equal ties, and were judging the Krolicki case the same as the Loux case.
Now you admit you have no idea how much or frequently they worked together.
Instead of asking yourself how the cases differ, you assume they are the same, and judge them together.
You still can't say what the threshold was.
All you have is a shot in the dark.
Pitiful!
Her test is straight forward...the AG office worked with Loux's office. Masto did not used a quantity threshold test. All she said that the AG's office worked with Loux's office as the basis for conflict.
Using that standard, the AG office should have removed itself from the Krolicki case.
What is funny is that there might actually be a conflict of interest in the Krolicki case.
The AG's office approved the contracts involved and the AG's office staff will most likely be called in as witnesses in the matter.
The Loux case is very straight forward. He illegally came himself a 30% raise. He not work with AG's office on getting that 30% illegal raise.
It is pure partianship on her part not to investigate Loux theft of state funds.
Wow, you know so much about the case, gleaned from a single letter.
You say the test was straight forward, but can't quantify the numbers. You have no idea.
"All she said that..."
Which means you are making wild accusations with little information.
Again, a shot in the dark.
I read her letter.
It is in plain English and one does not need a secret decoder ring to understand it.
She said the conflict of interest is because the AG office worked with the Loux's office.
The AG office worked with Krolicki's Treasury office.
Oh My God........she is working a case that according to her standard that there is a conflict of interest.
I read her letter, too.
It does not go into great details. Instead, you are inferring details that were never given.
You are assuming that they have similar workloads.
What proof do you have of these similar workloads?
Well I, for one, would love to read the letter.
Why haven't you linked to it, Nance?
Like you have said many times.
Go Goggle it yourself.
I don't have any goggles, Nance.
Don't be a coward, link the letter.
Nope....You often tell other people to do their own searches.
Well now, I've done a google search, and I come up empty.
You've used this letter to support your side of the argument Nance. Without it, you don't have a leg to stand on.
Prove your argument. Link the letter.