They represented the board and called it a conflict of interest. I know the sentence. It is the one a government says when it has built a little machine for handing out public money, audited the machine, found the machine’s own leaders on both ends of some of the deals, sent the audit to the state’s top lawyer — and then discovered that the state’s top lawyer is already working for the people in the audit. Nobody is lying here. That is the part I need you to sit with. The conflict is real. The recusal is probably correct. And the result of everyone behaving correctly is that the one office lawmakers asked to look will not look, and the file goes back into the drawer with a nice ethical bow on it.
Here is the record. KFYR’s Hannah Neurohr reported Oct. 26, 2026 — Valley News Live carried it Oct. 27 — that Attorney General Drew Wrigley “will not pursue an investigation into the North Dakota Development Fund due to a conflict of interest,” because his office “represents individuals who have been involved in the Development Fund Board of Directors.” The Bismarck Tribune’s Grant Coursey had reported Oct. 16 that Wrigley said as much in an Oct. 9 letter to the chair of the legislative audit committee: he was unable to even determine whether to investigate because of the conflict in his own office. The audit he can’t look at is not a small one. The North Dakota Monitor’s Jack Dura reported Sept. 22 that the 2019–2024 performance audit, required by a 2025 law, covered 126 loans and investments totaling more than $81 million; found missing or incomplete documentation, no procedures for tracking denials or appeals, inconsistent conflict-of-interest disclosures, and borrower-reported job numbers the fund never independently verified; and identified nearly $4 million in funding for five organizations with relationships to one or two board members. A separate financial audit found seven material weaknesses in internal controls. The Tribune reported Oct. 19 that those two members are the fund’s chairman, Jim Albrecht, and vice chairman, Rob Lindberg, under a headline noting that the chair’s firm got a $500,000 grant. The Legislative Audit and Fiscal Review Committee voted 10-3 to refer the audits to Wrigley and 9-4 to recommend that the 2027 Legislature repeal the fund and move its loans to the Bank of North Dakota. And per the Monitor, the Legislature had just approved $25 million for the fund out of an oil-tax-derived state fund last year, plus a $25 million Bank of North Dakota line of credit.
Now the defense, and there are several, each of them reasonable in isolation, which is how these things always survive. The fund, created in 1991, makes gap loans to businesses banks won’t touch; Commerce Commissioner Chris Schilken told lawmakers it lets North Dakota compete for projects “that a traditional bank would not take on,” and that “while most fixes were underway before the audit began, others will come directly from these recommendations.” Fund officials mostly agreed with the audit’s recommendations. State Auditor Josh Gallion, a Republican, called it only “probably a little bit worse than on average.” Rep. Austen Schauer, voting no on the referral, said, “I don’t think there’s any clear evidence that there’s a potential crime,” and worried about people “getting dragged into the newspaper.” The committee chair, Sen. Jeff Magrum, also a Republican, said: “If it is corruption or just incompetence, either way, we all can agree it’s a disaster.” And the attorney general, per the Monitor, was never required to investigate in the first place. Fine. Now look at the shape. The fund is, in the Monitor’s words, “legally structured as a nonprofit corporation but functions as a state-administered public economic development entity” — private enough to keep its own board, public enough to be handed $25 million in state money and a $25 million line of credit, and public enough that people from its board end up represented by the attorney general’s own office. That is not a bug in the recusal. That is the design. And the other half of the stage is no better: the Democrats, per KFYR, answered with a campaign line about “waste, fraud, and abuse from the Republican Lawmakers” in an attorney general’s race. Both parties are the help. One recuses. One fundraises. Neither one opens the ledger.
Deb says this is exactly how the church kitchen fund works: the treasurer audits the treasurer, the pastor’s nephew is the lawyer, and the casserole money is “self-reported.” Buck has offered to investigate, citing no conflict of interest and no qualifications. Cricket asked who represents the casserole. I love them. They are seasoning.
“A conflict of interest” is the alibi. The empty chair at the investigator’s desk is the story. Sit with it until it confesses. When you are the one who borrowed from the state and can’t show the paperwork, there is always somebody available to look — a collections office, an auditor, a letter with a deadline. When the people who handed out the state’s money can’t show the paperwork, the state’s lawyer turns out to be their lawyer, the referral turns out to be optional, and the job count turns out to be whatever the borrower wrote down. The cardigan stays. Fill the notebook. Then ask, out loud, in January, when the Legislature comes back: if the attorney general can’t look, who will, and why is the answer always “the next committee”?
Sources:
- KFYR-TV, Hannah Neurohr, “Attorney General refuses to look into missing funds due to conflict of interest,” Oct. 26, 2026
- Valley News Live (KVLY), Hannah Neurohr, “Attorney General refuses to look into missing funds due to conflict of interest,” Oct. 27, 2026
- Bismarck Tribune, Grant Coursey, “North Dakota attorney general cites conflict, declines to assess Development Fund audit,” Oct. 16, 2026
- Bismarck Tribune, Grant Coursey, “Development Fund leaders ID’d in $4M in conflicts of interest; chair’s firm got $500k grant,” Oct. 19, 2026
- North Dakota Monitor, Jack Dura, “Lawmakers seek AG probe after audit finds problems with North Dakota business financing program,” Sept. 22, 2026
— Theo Ashford-Lindström
Leave a Reply