CHEYENNE—The House Special Investigative Committee tasked with investigating campaign checks distributed on the House floor voted unanimously to pause its inquiry while the Laramie County Sheriff’s Office conducts its own investigation of the matter, the lawmaker heading the panel said Tuesday.
Meanwhile, one of the lawmakers who received a check questioned why the sheriff’s office announced its investigation during the weekend. And the Democratic legislator whose photo is at the center of the incident issued a formal protest due to information that subsequently came to light that indicated one of the checks was intended for the Speaker of the House.
The Laramie County Sheriff’s Office announced Saturday it had opened a criminal investigation to examine whether the checks, which a conservative activist gave to multiple lawmakers, amounted to bribery.
“All notions of justice and fairness require that the House’s investigation be delayed so that those persons under potential criminal investigation may be afforded all the legal protections available to them throughout that investigation,” Rep. Art Washut, R-Casper, said Tuesday on the floor.
Washut, who chairs the special committee, said the sheriff’s office expects its own investigation to last approximately two weeks, at which point its findings will be submitted to the district attorney.
The special committee had met at noon Friday “to outline a plan for conducting [its] work,” Washut, a retired police officer, said.
At the meeting, Legislative Service Office staff was “directed to gather evidence and to develop a structure to contact potential witnesses,” Washut said.
“The committee planned to send letters to witnesses inviting them to appear at a hearing early this week,” Washut said.
Those plans, however, were upended when Laramie County Sheriff Brian Kozak announced Saturday his office was launching its own investigation.
The special committee’s public hearings could “inadvertently affect the collection of evidence, or interfere with the integrity of the sheriff’s criminal investigation,” Washut said.
As such, Washut said, his committee formally hit pause. Washut further recommended the discussion be added to the House’s Wednesday agenda, so as to allow the chamber to focus on the budget and other legislation set to be debated Tuesday.
“Today is scheduled to be a very busy day,” Washut said, a nod to the 122 budget amendments alone up for consideration.
Muddying the waters?
Ultimately, the House agreed with Washut via a voice vote to delay the conversation about pausing the committee’s work until the following day. Ahead of the vote, however, one lawmaker who said Monday he received a check cast doubt on law enforcement’s investigation.
“I think the body should know what kind of communication the committee or leadership has had with the sheriff,” Rep. John Bear, R-Gillette, said.
Bear told a reporter Monday he had received one of the 10 checks in question. The exchange, Bear said, did not happen on the floor. He declined to say when it occurred.
Bear told the House on Tuesday that he thought it was “unusual” for law enforcement to announce an investigation on social media on a Saturday.
“The good chairman stated that he wants to ensure that justice is served, and not muddy the waters, but hasn’t the sheriff already done so?” Bear said.
After Bear asked whether there was “really an investigation” being conducted by local law enforcement, Washut said that much had been confirmed by the Legislative Service Office. Detectives were expected to be assigned to the case Tuesday, Washut said.
Points of order and protests
As discussion proceeded, Rep. Mike Yin, D-Jackson, called for a point of order, arguing that without a motion up for consideration the House was violating its own rules that regulate who can speak on the floor and for how long.
“What I would propose to you, Mr. Speaker, is either someone makes a motion that we can debate, or you can make the decision that we just deal with this tomorrow,” Yin said.
House Speaker Chip Neiman said he “would like to hear the feeling of this body.”
“I don’t want to take a lot more time than what is absolutely necessary, but this is, this is very, very important,” Neiman said, adding that he wants to see “complete transparency.”
Don Grasso, the Teton County donor who wrote the checks, said one of the campaign donations was made out to Neiman. So far, Neiman has neither confirmed or denied whether he accepted such a check. He has not responded to multiple requests to comment.
Before the House voted on a motion to pause the discussion, Rep. Jayme Lien, R-Casper, asked whether the Wyoming Highway Patrol would be better suited to carry out the criminal investigation since the Capitol is a state building.
After the vote, Rep. Karlee Provenza, D-Laramie, moved to submit a “protest” to the House’s journal.
Provenza — who snapped the now well-circulated photograph of Rebecca Bextel of Teton County handing Rep. Darin McCann, R-Rock Springs, a check on the first day of the budget session — brought the motion to launch an investigation last Wednesday.
The House voted unanimously to pass the motion, which created the seven-member committee to examine whether the incident violated the Wyoming Constitution, or if it constituted legislative misconduct. The motion tasked the speaker with selecting the committee’s chairman and members.
“I, at the time, didn’t know that further members of this body were implicated,” Provenza said.
It was Friday, two days after Provenza’s motion, that WyoFile and the Jackson Hole News&Guide first reported the names of the 10 people that Don Grasso said he intended the checks for. Grasso gave the checks to Bextel ahead of the session and said he expected her to mail them.
Since then, Provenza said, “I received phone calls, asking if I knew at the time, when I made my motion, that potentially the Speaker who nominated the committee was involved.
“I did not know that,” Provenza said. “That is my protest to the journal, that I did not know that information. And I am protesting the actions of this body right now because it sounds like maybe this committee convened on Friday.”
Provenza’s motion that authorized the investigation requires that the committee report its findings and final recommendation to the House no later than the fourth legislative day following the date the special committee was convened. If the committee “convened” Friday, that could have put the four-day countdown into motion.
For more legislative coverage, click here.
Neiman said he wants to see “complete transparency.”; Yet will not confirm or deny whether he accepted such a check. Transparency would have been for him to reveal this on the day Rep. Yin bravely brought it up on the floor
Provenza’s motion requires that the committee report its findings and final recommendation to the House no later than the fourth legislative day following the date the special committee was convened. If the committee “convened” Friday, that could have put the four-day countdown into motion. Like Bondi with the Epstein files, Chipper will release the findings when he is ready, not when the motion requires him to do so. I wouldn’t surprise me if any one of the “Bextel 10” contacted the Sherriff in order to create a situation that would assist Nieman in not doing his job.
I find it interesting that the entire legislature say they are very concerned about this matter, yet Yin and Provenza are the only ones doing anything about it.