Archie Brooks gets his tainted name in the paper again this morning with the headline story about a possible memo showing Polk County’s role in approving the excessive bonuses to CIETC employees. Except this supposed memo is a fake, according to Brooks. Why is it a fake? Because his signature is forged.
You can view the two signatures here on the Register’s web story about the memo. To compare, they show a January 5 memo where the bonuses are approved and signed off on by Brooks — which he admits is his signature and he did approve the bonuses. A second memo dated January 9 has an explanation for the bonuses, saying essentially that they were requested by Polk County officials. The January 9th memo is the fake one, says Brooks, or at least his signature is forged.
At first glance, just looking at the two memos and the signatures, I’m inclined to believe Brooks. And then I realize we’re talking about Archie “My stroke made me forget and be bad at the job that I won’t resign from” Brooks who has been a compulsive liar and cheater for a good decade. I think State 29 has the public (at least here in Polk County) reaction best when he writes:
“Archie Brooks is so dirty. Does he think anybody is going to believe him, even if the signature isn’t really his? It doesn’t matter either way. The time is coming when Des Moines voters are going to head to the polls to finally flush these thugs and greaseballs into the sewer where they belong. Perhaps Brooks will end up in his rightful destination: Anamosa or Fort Madison.”
Even if it forged, in the PR battle to save face and make this thing look any better for him, he’s already screwed (and deservedly so).
However, I feel obligated to explain my reasoning for believing him about the memos. First, the Jan. 5th memo is in an entirely different font than the Jan. 9th memo. You would assume that Archie “Do-nothing” Brooks would have the same stenographer/secretary/assistant who would conduct memos, at least under the guise of CIETC, in the same manner. Secondly, look at the two signatures. I don’t know much about comparing handwriting, but with things like signatures you expect them to be quite fluid and without awkward stops, unless you’re trying to copy it. In the image from the Register the bottom signature is the one Brooks claims is his. When comparing it to the top one which he says is faked you’ll notice, particularly in the last name the ‘B’ is not connected the same way and in Brooks’ actual signature, the ‘k’ is defined unlike the one he says is a fake. Now, I’ll grant you the fact that he could verbally sign-off on something and then have his stenographer/secretary/assistant sign off on it and then it’d be in typical Archie Brooks fashion.
The final reason that Brooks’ accusation of the second memo being a fake, and reasoning why someone would do that, is explained well in Clark Kauffman and Jason Clayworth’s story:
“Archie Brooks is the purported author of the memo directing the bonuses. However in an interview with the Register on Friday, Brooks said that he didn’t write the memo and that his signature on it is forged.
The memo is likely to be of interest to criminal investigators who are examining CIETC’s use of public money for bonuses. If, as Brooks says, the county played no role in the payment of bonuses, the memo could be seen as evidence that CIETC officials falsified financial records to deflect blame for questionable expenses.
On the other hand, if the memo accurately describes the county’s role in the approval of bonuses, it could mean that certain county officials helped steer taxpayer money to employees at CIETC, some of whom have strong political connections.
Neither scenario - forged documents or county-ordered bonuses - bodes well for CIETC, which is now in the fourth month of a multijurisdictional criminal investigation focusing on executive compensation at the job-training agency.”
I could care less right now if Archie Brooks gets bogged down in this more and more because he should resign immediately. But I’m a fan of justice and punishment for crimes actually committed and when you’re wrong accused of one crime (even though you did commit tons of others) there is still something inherently wrong with that — and it isn’t justice. It seems like someone at CIETC might have been trying to save face a bit by bringing the County into the whole fiasco (more than they already are) and saying that the bonuses came on behest of the County.
Beyond not following through with what CIETC did with their money, so far Polk County seems on the up and up in this whole scandal. But bogging them down with accusations like this adds more fuel to fire and creates more turmoil, as well as maybe taking some heat off of folks like Deb Dessert, Ramona Cunningham, Dan Albittron, and John Bargman who are all deeply embedded in what’s going on.
