The Mary Kiffmeyer - bank closure story is reported first here, with a follow-up account, here.
I want an investigation. The rationale for wanting detail of the failure of Riverside Community Bank headquartered in Otsego with an Anoka branch to be fully investigated is basically that one might infer the Pawlenty appointed Commerce Dept. boss had a neck problem from looking the other way on this purported "Christian" governed bank, for the last half year or so (or perhaps longer); with Uncle Sugar now (via the FDIC) on the hook for a reported $20 million. What would losses that way have been if the operation was anesthetized and put under a half year ago? I do not know. But the question is a valid one. With it being a State chartered operation, Lori Swanson in my view has a duty to Sherlock into things - why the dog did not bark earlier, etc. Plus, with a federal hit of twenty million, her duty would be to coordinate a thorough investigation with federal authorities. Anything less would be dereliction of duty. Certainly, investigating the thing could be termed in public banter to be a partisan witch hunt, but that's a risk going with the AG job, and Swanson, primarily, should do her job and not duck things. And the job is to investigate and prosecute if any wrongdoing is found or to report publicly if none is uncovered.
Anything less would be remiss, and it would be doing a job less than we'd hoped in voting Swanson into office. Certainly one thing we can all agree on is that over the last crucial month before bank closure, or longer, the man in the middle was not signing major documentation for the bank or its holding company. So who was? Who was boss at that bank? That's the first question for our AG, Lori Swanson.
Read those two links. Be informed.
_______________
photo credits - Mary Kiffmeyer pic, here; Riverside Community Bank wall art item, here
_______UPDATE_______
Hat tip to Paul Schmelzer, at MinnIndependent, this link, for linking over to good evidence, here, that it was Mary Kiffmeyer running things at the bank holding company, thus removing some uncertainty. Yet resolving things in one sense, Schmelzer opens an entirely different can of worms - who at Strib made the bosses' call to scrub Kiffmeyer's name from present reporting? Some "Republican whore" or is that hack? Is Doug Tice still senior in the news department at Strib?
What we need, clearly, is thousand-points-of-light Katherine Kersten, to bring all threads of truth about God's Bank into focus - into a tightly woven tapestry of truth. She could even tell us whether the rhyme still holds up or not.
Yet, somehow, I fear waiting for Kersten to write on these recent events might prove unproductive.
Let's be totally serious. We need answers. What bad loans exactly were being made and carried on that bank's books - who were the borrowers, how good was the security and who measured and documented that, and was any lending tied in any way to possible borrower status as a major GOP player? What standards, if any, did that bank have for decision making? Was there an operations manual? A lending policy manual? A book of guidelines for judging soundness of proposed loans? A list of qualified favored appraisers?
What were Mary Kiffmeyer's qualifications to be running a bank holding company in Minnesota, and why did not Commerce Department regulators ask? Or did they, and if so, what answers did they deem acceptable to quell further curiosity? How high a level of decision making does the email trail at the Commerce Department show involved when it was this bank that was being reviewed? What email trail is there of Kiffmeyer to Commerce Department officials and others in the Pawlenty administration, about this bank? What do suitably maintained phone logs kept in the regular course of business disclose? What conversations or paper discussions are retrievable between the Fed, the FDIC, and the Commerce Department - what stance were these three players taking relative to one another? There are a host of questions that only a formal legal agency investigator could likely to get answers beyond a tall, thick stone wall. We, the public, voters, need and deserve answers.
Mary Turck at Daily Planet, this link, points out info that highlights a ten page 2004 New York Times feature (this link) on the start of this divinely guided venture.
So where are the ten page autopsy reports? The starry eyed feel good start of an angelic adventure is less news than its unraveling and the causes for the big windshield splat.
So where's the autopsy? Foot-shuffling and murmurings about "the current market and economy" will not cut it. Lifting rocks to see what's under is needed.
That Schmelzer-linked Minneapolis Fed news release is dated October 19, 2009. The closure was less than a week later. What's up? Why moving on that kind of time frame? What were the motivations to wrap things up with the Fed days away from a closure event? Who benefits by wrapping up the one before the other? Did the acquiring bank need assurances? What? Answers. We need answers. How are levels of government coordinating things or not? Who calls the shots on timings such as this?
Again, answers, answers, answers. There must be some. Let's hear them.
Sooner is always better than later, yet ongoing investigations, if there are any, will have to run their course before any professional investigator might divulge anything beyond existence or nonexistence of investigative effort. That is step one then is there investigation going on or soon to be started? A diligent press should be raising at least that question now, with appropriate officials. Blogs are great for opinion and sometimes little known fact disclosures - but officials can hold a hammer when asking embarassing questions, and thus can gain effective attention that way.