Monday, November 18, 2002
Then-state legislator from Vinton had no authority over appropriation of memorial money
Was Cranwell misled on funding for D-Day Memorial?

What Richard Cranwell knew about the matching funds is not yet known.

By JEN McCAFFERY and MICHAEL SLUSS
THE ROANOKE TIMES

   There's no question that former state legislator Richard Cranwell's name is now part of the inquiry into the brouhaha surrounding the funding of the National D-Day Memorial in Bedford.

    Federal prosecutors and John Lichtenstein - attorney for Richard Burrow, who is facing federal fraud charges in connection with fund raising for the monument - agree that Cranwell was in contact with a California bank about the $3.3 million short - term loan the foundation sought to help fund the memorial's construction.

    They also agree that financial documents from National Cooperative Bank say Cranwell said the loan met criteria for the matching funds requirement, and that the state would pay the $4.2 million it had appropriated in matching funds to the foundation within two months of getting notice that the matching share requirement had been met.

    But what Cranwell knew about what may have comprised the matching funds is unknown and will likely be disputed as part of Burrow's trial, scheduled for Dec. 9. Cranwell has not returned calls for comment.

    What is clear is that Cranwell - a Vinton Democrat who held office until his retirement in 2001 - had no authority over the appropriation of the money as co-chairman of the House Finance Committee. That committee deals with taxes, not spending. But even a rival legislator said he saw nothing wrong with Cranwell's putting in a good word for the project.

    Federal prosecutors have not shown evidence that Burrow deceived Cranwell in connection with the loan, Lichtenstein argued. The financial documents filed by the prosecution, which state that Cranwell said the loan met the state's matching share requirements, did not show that Burrow deceived Cranwell, Lichtenstein argued.

    "It was really up to the bank to decide if they wanted to do it," Lichtenstein argued.

    But federal prosecutors Pat Hogeboom and Morgan Scott have argued that Burrow did mislead Cranwell because Cranwell did not know that Burrow used the $4.2 million in matching funds as collateral for the loan.

    "It does not appear that such a disclosure was ever made," Hogeboom argued. Asked what evidence he based that assertion on, Hogeboom replied that "obviously we did some looking into that prior to indicting the case" through investigation and interviews, though he would not say with whom.

    Hogeboom would not elaborate on what he said were facts to be hashed out at the trial, but added that "we are comfortable with what we indicted."

    Other state officials have said that there was nothing improper about Cranwell's contact with the bank to help secure the loan.

    Del. Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, said Western Virginia lawmakers were united in a desire to do whatever was necessary to get state funds for the project and that a letter or phone call to the bank would not have been extraordinary under the circumstances.

    "Without knowing exactly what Cranwell did, there's nothing there that strikes me as improper," he said. "If he picked up the phone, made a call and said 'I'm trying to get a project done,' that's OK."

    Richard Brown, director of the Department of Planning and Budget, said the state only needs confirmation from a financial institution that private funds will be available to match the state appropriation.

    "The law doesn't speak to the source of the funds," Brown said. "We don't care what the source of the funds was."

    JEN McCAFFERY can be reached

   at 981-3336

   or jen.mccaffery@roanoke.com.

Let any elected or appointed official know what you think and how you feel by CLICKING HERE.