In the brush-off to the Legislature's Government Operations and Audit Committee that he pens for former state employee and EB-5 profiteer Joop Bollen, lawyer Jeffrey T. Sveen makes this claim about Bollen's EB-5 management company:

SDRC, Inc. has previously provided information to government authorities when requested to do so. As the Committee is aware, an audit by the State of South Dakota has shown that all funds administered by SDRC, Inc., were properly applied [Jeffrey T. Sveen, letter to Senator Larry Tidemann, 2014.09.08].

Really? Let's review what that state audit from February 12, 2014, said about SDRC Inc.:

Finding No. 2003-001:

The former Department of Tourism and State Development (DTSD) and the current Governor’s Office of Economic Development’s (GOED) policies and procedures were inadequate for the monitoring of the contract with the SDRC Inc.

  • ...Although the SDRC was providing to the DTSD a monthly e-mail containing a report and the balances in the two funds, the report was not sufficient to ascertain that the correct amounts were being collected and deposited and copies of bank statements did not accompany the e-mail to corroborate the balances being reported.
  • Documentation was not adequate to determine whether the DTSD or the GOED was receiving the books, records and reports that were required to be provided to the CIS by the SDRC.
  • Inadequate internal controls existed over the payment of expenses from the Expense Fund. Five disbursements were made from the Expense Fund totaling $67,259.97. The invoices were signed by the former Secretary of the DTSD and the DSTD’s Administration Director. The invoices identified the expenses as being for meals, lodging and transportation. Other than the information contained in the invoices, there was no supporting documentation retained to evidence that the expenses were incurred, who incurred the expenses, or the purpose of the expenses.
  • The DTSD and GOED did not report Indemnification Fund One and the Expense Fund in the State’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports for FY2010 through FY2012.

As a result, there existed a potential for the loss of assets and two funds were not properly reported in the State’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report [Department of Legislative Audit, "Governmental Funds of the South Dakota Governor's Office of Economic Development: Audit Report," 2014.02.12].

As I noted in my February analysis of the audit, "loss of assets" is a brilliant euphemism for theft.

Auditor General Martin L. Guindon also emphasized in his report the audit transmittal letter that his office only reviewed only the expense and indemnification funds SDRC Inc. managed for the state, not the entirety of money managed by SDRC Inc.

Sveen and Bollen's claim is thus false. The state audit did not show that "all funds administered by SDRC, Inc., were properly applied." The audit showed that Bollen told the state that its portion of SDRC Inc's business was being handled properly, but he did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that claim.

And in arrogantly rejecting Senator Larry Tidemann's invitation-not-subpoena to testify before the Government Operations and Audit Committee, Bollen is again refusing to provide that evidence and doing so by telling us... something less than the truth.

Chairman Tidemann, are you ready to issue that subpoena yet?

14 comments

The arrogance continues. Joop Bollen wants to hide his activities as a state employee behind the façade of his private corporation, yet he demands the same deference as the highest state employee in South Dakota.

On August 21, 2014, Senator Larry Tidemann (R-7/Brookings), chairman of the Government Operations and Audit Committee, sent a letter inviting Bollen to attend GOAC's September 24 meeting. "This is not a subpoena," Senator Tidemann emphasized.

Since you were instrumental in the development of the EB-5 program in South Dakota, I believe a presentation by you of the chronology and details of the operation of the program would be beneficial to the Committee [Senator Larry Tidemann, letter to Joop Bollen, 2014.08.21].

For 18 days, Bollen remained silent. Then he had his lawyer and EB-5 confederate Jeffrey T. Sveen pen this response:

As you know, Mr. Bollen operates a private business, SDRC, Inc, which until recently administered the EB-5 Program in South Dakota. Due to the nature of the EB-5 Program, SDRC, Inc. is obligated to maintain appropriate confidentiality. SDRC, Inc. has previously provided information to government authorities when requested to do so. As the Committee is aware, an audit by the State of South Dakota has shown that all funds administered by SDRC, Inc., were properly applied.

The press has published many inaccurate and misleading articles about the EB-5 Program. Mr. Bollen does not desire to participate in the political and media frenzy which has surrounded the actions of NBP and GOED personnel. Therefore, Mr. Bollen respectfully declines your invitation to appear in front of GOAC. I understand the Committee has requested that former Governor Rounds and Governor Daugaard respond to written questions from the Committee. Please be advised that Mr. Bollen is open to the same approach to provide appropriate information to the Committee [Jeffrey T. Sveen, letter to Senator Larry Tidemann, 2014.09.08].

We need to break this down.

1. "Mr. Bollen operates a private business, SDRC, Inc,...." Bollen developed and administered the EB-5 program as a state employee from 2004 through 2009. Bollen was a state employee when he signed the January 2008 contract that shifted EB-5 to SDRC Inc.'s bailiwick and set the stage for exactly this kind of dodge of public scrutiny.

2. "Due to the nature of the EB-5 Program, SDRC, Inc. is obligated to maintain appropriate confidentiality." Who said GOAC would ask anything about confidential business matters? SDRC Inc. didn't exist until January 2008; why cannot Bollen answer the Legislature's questions about the development of EB-5 prior to SDRC Inc. and the state's side of interactions with SDRC Inc. after its formation?

3. "SDRC, Inc. has previously provided information to government authorities when requested to do so. As the Committee is aware, an audit by the State of South Dakota has shown that all funds administered by SDRC, Inc., were properly applied." It sounds like Sveen and Bollen are keenly sensitive to money questions that Senator Tidemann never asked in his invitation.

4. "The press has published many inaccurate and misleading articles about the EB-5 Program." Wait? Really? Like what? Joop, Jeff, call me. Help me clear up those inaccuracies. Or just come to committee and put those misleading articles to bed once and for all.

5. "Mr. Bollen does not desire to participate in the political and media frenzy...." Senator Tidemann is not inviting you to a political frenzy. He is inviting you to a hearing of a committee of the South Dakota State Legislature, to take questions from the elected representatives of the people who wrote your checks.

6. "...which has surrounded the actions of NBP and GOED personnel." Oh! Catch the blame shift! The "media frenzy" isn't about Joop Bollen and SDRC Inc. It's about people who worked for Northern Beef Packers and the Governor's Office of Economic Development! (I'm telling you, press Bollen, and he will turn on his former patrons with a vengeance to save his own skin.)

7. "Therefore, Mr. Bollen respectfully declines your invitation to appear in front of GOAC." Note that Bollen is not offering a legal reason for refusing a Legislative request to provide information about his activities as a state employee. The reason is purely personal. If I were a Legislative committee chairman, I would assert the superiority of the state's interest to Bollen's personal pettiness with a vengeance.

8. "I understand the Committee has requested that former Governor Rounds and Governor Daugaard respond to written questions from the Committee. Please be advised that Mr. Bollen is open to the same approach to provide appropriate information to the Committee." And finally, the ego trip. That deference you're showing the elected head of this state? I expect the same treatment. Kiss my ring, too, and I'll be "open" to answering your questions. 

Bollen has dismissed other investigators with the same arrogance. Now, Senator Tidemann, Joop Bollen is flipping that bird at you and at all the people of South Dakota. Senator Tidemann, on behalf of the people of South Dakota, I say it's time to stop taking that bird. He has given you no good reason not to accept your invitation to explain his activities as a state employee and contractor whose checks your appropriations bills wrote. Senator Tidemann, issue that subpoena.

28 comments

Senator Larry Lucas (D-26/Pickstown) smells conflict of interest in the Mike Rounds–Joop Bollen relationship. Recall that Joop Bollen quit his state job running EB-5 investment for the Governor's Office of Economic Development on December 21, 2009, then signed a no-bid five-year contract with Rounds's GOED to run EB-5 investment for the state through his private company SDRC Inc. the next day.

Senator Lucas has proposed an amendment to state law on conflict of interest that would make such a swift revolving-door deal illegal. SDCL 5-18A-17 currently prohibits any "state officer or employee who approves, awards, or administers a contract involving the expenditure of public funds or the sale or lease of property" (like Joop Bollen, from 1994 to December 21, 2009) from having "an interest in a contract that is within the scope of the officer's or employee's official duties." Lucas would extend that prohibition to remain in effect for one year after the interested party leaves state employment. The Government Operations and Audit Committee will discuss this proposed amendment on Wednesday morning, September 24, as part of its discussion of the EB-5 program.

The GOED–SDRC Inc. contract came one day after Joop Bollen quit his state job. It thus did not violate the statute Senator Lucas suggests amending.

But remember: the state gave Bollen's SDRC Inc. one earlier no-bid contract. On January 15, 2008, Joop Bollen, in his state job as director of the South Dakota International Business Institute, signed a contract giving SDRC Inc., the company he incorporated just five days earlier, authority to manage EB-5 activities for the state. That contract, issued by a state employee to a private company that state employee owned, violated state conflict-of-interest law as written.

The Lucas amendment deserves discussion. But Bollen-SDRC Inc. contract of 2008 deserves prosecution.

9 comments

On Monday, the South Dakota Democratic Party launched a local ad campaign encouraging citizens to call Senator Larry Tidemann and urge him to subpoena Governor Dennis Daugaard, former Governor Mike Rounds, and other state officials who could explain just what happened in the GOED/Northern Beef Packers/EB-5 scandal. Remarkably, the discussion on this blog turned to the propriety of publishing Senator Tidemann's phone number (a number which is published on Senator Tidemann's official Legislative webpage, as are phone numbers for every other South Dakota legislator).

One eager reader took up the ad's challenge and called Senator Tidemann. The reader got voicemail and left a message. Senator Tidemann called the reader back. Here's the reader's account of their very civil conversation:

When he called me back he was very nice and tried to be helpful explaining what he was doing and what they hoped to accomplish.... We talked about [Richard] Benda, Joop [Bollen], records missing and he basically held to the party stance on this whole thing. He said it was a federal program and I agreed but I pointed out my concern was how it was administered here in SD. It was almost as if there were things with standard responses he made that are used to throw me off and diminish this but I held on and was pointed yet very tactful and respectful.

He said the reason he did not want Joop to be present was that it would have been a circus atmosphere and that the written responses were the same as a subpoena. He mentioned the U.S. Department of Justice ongoing investigation and covered the basis of they are legislators and some of this is better left to police, FBI and DCI agents [blog reader, e-mail, 2014.09.17].

Senator Tidemann's willingness to call a questioner back and discuss serious issues seems to deflate the critique of the propriety of encouraging citizens to call legislators. Senator Tidemann gets extra points for affirming that a federal investigation continues and acknowledging that there appears to be criminal activity in this scandal that warrants investigation.

But Senator Tidemann loses points for talking points. Bob Mercer has rejected the "EB-5 is federal " dodge; so should everyone else.

Senator Tidemann loses more points for his circus-phobia. Is Senator Tidemann saying he is incapable of maintaining order at any committee meeting where a prominent or controversial figure may testify? When is the last time any Legislative committee meeting turned into a circus? How circusy can things get in Pierre? Is Tidemann afraid Bob Mercer will bring peanuts and thundersticks?

The worst that happens if Joop Bollen appears in person in front of the Government Operations and Audit Committee on September 24 is that two bloggers, five reporters, and ten lawyers come to the meeting. Chairman Tidemann raps the desk, points his gavel, and says menacingly, "No circus, or you're out!" And then everyone sits in rapt silence, punctuated only by the raindrop tap of laptop keys, as Senator Larry Lucas and Rep. Susan Wismer grill Joop Bollen.

Senator Tidemann is serving the public trust by talking with voters directly on the phone. Now let's serve the public trust by having former public employee Joop Bollen talk directly with the public at GOAC, in person, under oath, on September 24.

p.s. [09:52 CDT]: The caller notes that Senator Tidemann deserves extra credit for taking a call from a South Dakotan outside his district. The caller made clear in the voicemail that the caller lived in another legislative district, yet Senator Tidemann still took the time to call back. Well done, Senator Tidemann!

8 comments

South Dakotans Fighting Animal Cruelty Together has released its "PAWSative" scorecard for the South Dakota Legislature. SD FACT scores legislators on critter-comity based on votes on four bills:

  1. Support for Senate Bill 46, the bill SD FACT championed to make animal cruelty a felony in South Dakota as it is in every other state in the Union.
  2. Support for Senate Bill 75, the ban on pit bull bans.
  3. Opposition to Senate Bill 76, which would have expanded current law to allow people to kill mountain lions when their safety is threatened, not just their lives.
  4. Opposition to House Bill 1068, which would have allowed Rep. Betty Olson to hunt mountain lions across the state with more than one dog.

Seven Senators and twelve Representatives score 100% PAWSative:

  • Sen. Angie Buhl O'Donnell (D-15/Sioux Falls)
  • Sen. R. Blake Curd (R-12/Sioux Falls)
  • Sen. Jean Hunhoff (R-18/Yankton)
  • Sen. Mark Kirkeby (R-35/Rapid City)
  • Sen. Deb Peters (R-9/Hartford)
  • Sen. Deb Soholt (R-14/Sioux Falls)
  • Sen. Alan Solano (R-32/Rapid City)
  • Rep. Dan Dryden (R-34/Rapid City)
  • Rep. Christine Erickson (R-11/Sioux Falls)
  • Rep. Marc Feinstein (D-14/Sioux Falls)
  • Rep. Peggy Gibson (R-22/Huron)
  • Rep. Timothy Johns (R-31/Spearfish)
  • Rep. David Lust (R-34/Rapid City)
  • Rep. Scott Parsley (D-9/Madison)
  • Rep. Dean Schrempp (D-28A/Lantry)
  • Rep. Karen Soli (D-15/Sioux Falls)
  • Rep. Roger Solum (R-5/Watertown)
  • Rep. Kathy Tyler (D-4/Big Stone City)
  • Rep. Susan Wismer (D-1/Britton)

Only two departing Representatives, Republicans Manny Steele (12/Sioux Falls) and Don Kopp (35/Rapid City), are in doghouse with zeroes. Five Senators and twenty Representatives scored just 25%:

  • Sen. Jason Frerichs (D-1/Wilmot)
  • Sen. Tom Jones (D-17/Viborg)
  • Sen. Al Novstrup (R-3/Aberdeen)
  • Sen. Larry Rhoden (R-29/Union Center)
  • Sen. Mike Vehle (R-20/Mitchell)
  • Rep. David Anderson (R-16/Hudson)
  • Rep. Jim Bolin (R-16/Canton)
  • Rep. Gary Cammack (R-29/Union Center)
  • Rep. Scott Craig (R-33/Rapid City)
  • Rep. Brian Gosch (R/32-Rapid City)
  • Rep. Brock Greenfield (R-2/Clark)
  • Rep. Jenna Haggar (R-10/Sioux Falls)
  • Rep. Steve Hickey (R-9/Sioux Falls)
  • Rep. Kris Langer (R-25/Dell Rapids)
  • Rep. Isaac Latterell (R-6/Tea)
  • Rep. Elizabeth May (R-27/Kyle)
  • Rep. Scott Munsterman (R-7/Brookings)
  • Rep. Stace Nelson (R-19/Fulton)
  • Rep. Betty Olson (R-28B/Prairie City)
  • Rep. Herman Otten (R-6/Tea)
  • Rep. Lee Qualm (R-21/Platte)
  • Rep. Nancy Rasmussen (R-17/Hurley)
  • Rep. Lance Russell (R-30/Hot Springs)
  • Rep. Jim Stalzer (R-11/Sioux Falls)
  • Rep. Dick Werner (R-22/Huron)

There's certainly more Democratic flavor in the higher rankings and more arch-conservative flavor down low. But Senate Minority Leader Frerichs is among the low scorers. Among the top dogs, we have House Majority Leader Lust and other prominent Republicans.

I mention this partisan mix because Republican squawkers, Big Ag, and some of the press have misportrayed SD FACT as "out-of-state greenies" working for the vilified HSUS. But SD FACT's legislative agenda apparently is not so foreign or radical that it can't find support from South Dakotans of both parties in Pierre.

4 comments

Bob Mercer follows up on his Wednesday list of legislator out-of-state travel reimbursements with a big Sunday feature on the Legislature's far-too-loose travel policy. Evidently the Legislature continues to slide away from rule of law and down into the arbitrary discretion of one man.

Mercer reports that the Legislature has a list of approved events for which legislators can foot the bill. But faced with requests from lawmakers who went to events off that list, the Legislature's Executive Board lost its nerve and handed decisions over to their chair:

But at least one trip fell outside those approved events.

Rep. Isaac Latterell, R-Tea, and Rep. Jim Stalzer, R-Sioux Falls, attended the meeting of the group called the Mount Vernon Assembly held in Indianapolis in June.

Maher said he gave that trip the go-ahead because last year he approved a trip by Rep. Ray Ring, D-Vermillion, to a special economic conference.

Rather than fight over the Mount Vernon matter, or tighten the policy, the board instead loosened the approval policy by adding a sentence to the policy effective Oct. 1 to give the chairman more latitude. It says, “Any out of state travel to a non-mentioned organization shall be at the discretion of the Executive Board chair” [Bob Mercer, "Secrecy Surounds Increased Travel by South Dakota Lawmakers," Rapid City Journal, 2014.09.14].

Combine this increased latitude with the Legislature's decision to end election of the Executive Board chair and hand that position to the House Speaker and the Senate President Pro-tem (in alternating years), and we see one less chance for accountability to policy and open vote and one more chance to concentrate power in the hands and the whim of one legislator.

Related Arithmetic: Eight Democratic legislators and seventeen Republican legislators have submitted vouchers for out-of-state travel since the end of the 2014 session. The average travel expense request among the Democrats is $741. The average travel expense expense request among the Republicans is $1,633. The thriftiest traveler is Democratic gubernatorial candidate Rep. Susan Wismer, who vouchered $252.51 for one trip. The most profligate globetrotter is Republican Speaker of the House Brian Gosch, who is claiming $4,339.09 for two trips.

13 comments

While the GOP leadership treats Joop Bollen with kid gloves, accepting without complaint his refusal to testify in person before the Government Operations and Audit Committee, I am reminded of a somewhat testier Legislative committee that responded to balky witnesses with somewhat more intensity.

In December 2011, Rep. Stace Nelson and five other Republican legislators complained that the GOP House leadership was violating ethics rules. Leadership threw together an ad hoc committee, chaired by Sen. Joni Cutler, that declined to exercise subpoena powers or take testimony under oath. Dissatisfied with that lack of rigor, complainant Reps. Nelson, Lance Russell, and Lora Hubbel decided the hearing was not worth attending.

Chairwoman Cutler implored Rep. Russell to play nicely and said his attending the hearing in person would be much better than discussing the matter in writing:

There are both procedural and legal reasons for addressing those issues in this manner. My hope is that you would refrain from drawing conclusions about what you think I intend to do in the hearing as you risk inaccuracy in so doing. That is one of the huge drawbacks in trying to assess this through email and letters and why it is preferable, in fairness to everyone, to handle all of this in an open meeting and on the record with witnesses personally present.

We really need your cooperation and presence so that we can have the type of dialog that will help us work toward a proper resolution. We would be happy to meet into the evening if that would help you come to Pierre [Senator Joni Cutler, letter to Rep. Lance Russell, 2012.01.02].

When the hearing convened the next day and certain legislators remained absent Chairwoman Cutler got out the stick:

Emphasizing the seriousness of the hearing, Cutler reviewed statutes outlining the consequences of a legislator neglecting or refusing to testify when summoned. The penalties include a Class 2 misdemeanor, the forfeiture of public office and disqualification of running for public office again in the state.

It was the chairwoman’s review that prompted Rep. Lora Hubbel, R-Sioux Falls, one of the three missing legislators, to hop into her car and make the 225-mile drive to Pierre.

“They said we had to or we are breaking the law. If they want to beat me up there, I will let them beat me up,” Hubbel said while getting into her car to leave [Megan Luther, "Legislative Probe Hears Conflicting Testimony," that Sioux Falls paper, 2012.01.04].

Cutler's January 2 letter to Rep. Russell doesn't appear to be a subpoena; she's simply inviting him to come speak in person to the committee. But when Rep. Russell refused to attend in person, she broke out statute:

SDCL 2-6-5: Disobedience of legislative summons as misdemeanor. Any person who is summoned to attend as a witness before either house of the Legislature or any committee thereof authorized to summon or subpoena witnesses, and who refuses or neglects without lawful excuse to attend pursuant to the summons or subpoena, is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.

SDCL 2-6-6: Refusal to testify or produce evidence before Legislature as misdemeanor. Any person who, being present before either house of the Legislature or any committee thereof authorized to summon witnesses, willfully refuses to be sworn or affirmed, or to answer any material and proper question, or to produce upon reasonable notice any material or proper books, papers, or documents in his possession or under his control, is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.

SDCL 2-6-7: Forfeiture of office by legislator in violation--Disqualification from public office. The conviction of a member of the Legislature of any crime defined in § 2-6-5 or 2-6-6 involves as a consequence, in addition to the punishment prescribed therein, a forfeiture of his office and disqualifies him from ever thereafter holding any public office under this state.

Chairwoman Cutler wielded this statutory threat on an ad hoc committee, in the absence of any formal summons.

Fast forward to today. Senator Larry Tidemann chairs the Government Operations and Audit Committee, which is specifically empowered by SDCL 2-6-4 to summon witnesses in its thorough examination of every state department's management and expenditures. He asks former state employee Joop Bollen to testify before the committee. Bollen refuses, with no apparent lawful excuse, and Tidemann shrugs.

The moral of the story: make millions of dollars while promoting a prominent Republican's pet project, and the Legislature will go easy on you. Question the Republican leadership, and the Legislature will discover its teeth and its statutory authority to bite.

59 comments

The Government Operations and Audit Committee should be receiving some interesting reading in the coming several days. GOAC chair Senator Larry Tidemann (R-7/Brookings) says that SDRC Inc. exec Joop Bollen has declined to appear before the committee in person but has offered to write answers to questions.

Senator Tidemann says that if Bollen is "willing to provide the answers in writing, that is as good as in person." False:

  1. Taking answers in writing allows Tidemann and Bollen to filter and stall. Tidemann is requiring legislators to submit questions by Friday, September 19. The committee will then "discuss" (i.e., weed out the questions the Republican majority doesn't want asked) those questions at its September 24 and forward the surviving questions to Bollen. We don't know when GOAC will receive or discuss Bollen's responses, since GOAC does not have another meeting on the calendar.
  2. Answers in writing don't allow for immediate follow-up. Bring Bollen in person to Pierre, and an attentive legislator or counsel for the committee could ask for clarification of unclear points, delve deeper into new information, and immediately redirect Bollen if he evades certain points.
  3. We cannot know if written responses are coming from Bollen himself, from his lawyer (Jeff Sveen? Rory King? Harvey Jewett himself?), or from the Rounds for Senate campaign. Only in-person testimony allows truly curious and nimble legislators to get Bollen off whatever script his minders prepare for him and hear directly from the witness.

Committee members composing questions will have written responses from Governor Dennis Daugaard and former governor Mike Rounds in hand to inform their questions:

Tidemann said Gov. Dennis Daugaard and former Gov. Mike Rounds, the GOP candidate for U.S. Senate, both indicated that by Wednesday they will provide written responses to the committee's questions so its members have a week to review the information before the Sept. 24 meeting [Carson Walker, "Joop Bollen Vows to Give Written Answers on EB-5," AP via that Sioux Falls paper, 2014.09.12].

To further inform their questions, committee members should turn to documents from GOAC's 2008 inquiry into Bollen's activities as director of the South Dakota International Business Institute at Northern State University:

  1. NSU President Patrick Schloss's June 16, 2008, letter to GOAC explaining what SDIBI was doing and where Joop Bollen sat in the chain of command.
  2. NSU interim president Laurie Stenberg Nichols's September 8, 2008, letter telling GOAC that SDIBI activities were creating lots of jobs and economic activities (with attachments listing EB-5 projects and showing growth in exports).
  3. NSU Nichols's October 14, 2008, letter explaining SDIBI's activities and itemizing expenses for the 2006, 2007, and 2008 International Business Conference hosted by SDIBI at Mount Rushmore.
  4. Minutes of December 1, 2008 GOAC meeting (Bollen and Nichols testified the same day as Richard Benda, who assured GOAC there was nothing funny going on with his department's $6.9-million contract with Lawrence & Schiller).

Reviewing these documents may allow committee members to focus on plowing new ground.

Inquiring legislators will also want to review my July 30 list of unanswered issues involving Bollen, Richard Benda, Northern Beef Packers, and the state's exploitation of the EB-5 visa investment program. That information and subsequent revelations should lead to the following crucial questions:

  1. Did you seek a lending license for the loan operations of SDRC Inc. and/or its subsidiary loan funds?
  2. Did you or any of your incorporated entities pay bank franchise tax?
  3. Who authorized the 2008 contract/"memorandum of understanding" between SDIBI (which you directed) and SDRC Inc. (which you owned)?
  4. Explain the genesis of the SDIBI–SDRC Inc. contract:
    1. Who participated in the conception, development, and drafting of that contract?
    2. When did that conception, development, and drafting take place?
    3. Who in state government authorized the conception, development, and drafting, and signing of that contract?
  5. Was the 2008 SDIBI–SDRC Inc. contract essentially a contract between you and yourself?
  6. How much money did privatizing your EB-5 recruitment and management functions divert from the public coffers to SDRC Inc.'s private profit?
  7. When you created SDRC Inc., did any member or employee of the Board of Regents, the Governor's Office of Economic Development, or other state government entity advise you as to whether your creation, ownership, and activities in SDRC Inc. violated Board of Regents policy, state statute, or any other rules or regulations?
  8. When Darley International filed suit to force SDIBI into arbitration in 2008, whom in state government did you notify, and when?
  9. Who in state government authorized you to submit the brief you filed in U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Western Division, on behalf of SDIBI on August 22, 2008?
  10. Who helped you draft that August 22, 2008, brief?

That's just me getting going over breakfast. Numerous follow-up questions would suggest themselves in a face-to-face interview. But since Senator Tidemann insists on shielding one former state employee from hard questions about his on-the-job activities, we'll have to trust in our legislators (well, at least in the two Democrats on the committee) to think through these questions, anticipate the possible answers, and compose an exhaustive list of follow-ups to submit on Friday for Chairman Tidemann's approval.

33 comments

Recent Comments

  • Roger Cornelius on "Robin Page Advertisi...": grudz, Stan never does anything without a goal in...
  • Roger Cornelius on "PAC Postcard Misport...": Jenny all good points, if these organizations and ...
  • Deb Geelsdottir on "PAC Postcard Misport...": Apropos to nothing here, Lisa Ling has a really go...
  • Deb Geelsdottir on "PAC Postcard Misport...": Grudz, I am honored to have you standing beside me...
  • jerry on "PAC Postcard Misport...": What country do we compete directly against that d...
  • JeniW on "PAC Postcard Misport...": Has the legislature required the all males age 14 ...
  • Deb Geelsdottir on "Jason Gant Fighting ...": Doug, just shut up about Indians....
  • grudznick on "PAC Postcard Misport...": Here, right here, I stand with my good friend Mr. ...
  • Deb Geelsdottir on "PAC Postcard Misport...": Roger, your last sentence is the perfect answer to...
  • grudznick on "Robin Page Advertisi...": Mr. C, for you to suggest, if you are and I might ...

Support Your Local Blogger!

  • Click the Tip Jar to send your donation to the Madville Times via PayPal, and support local alternative news and commentary!

Hot off the Press

Subscribe

Enter your email to subscribe to future updates

South Dakota Political Blogs

Greater SD Blogosphere

Visit These Sponsors

Join Stan Adelstein's conversation about South Dakota's past and future
Vote for Robin Page—District 33 Senate
Mike Myers, Independent Candidate for South Dakota Governor
Conversation and Lunch with Democrats!

SD Mostly Political Blogroll

South Dakota Media

Madville Monthly

Meta