Tue 2 Dec 2008
Maricopa County Supervisor Don Stapley Indicted
Posted by Sonoran Alliance under Campaign Finance , County Government , Crime and Punishment , Ethics , Press Release[15] Comments
Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas just concluded a press conference in which Maricopa County Supervisor Don Stapley has been indicted on 118 counts dealing primarily with financial disclosure irregularities. The counts include several felony and misdemeanors.
The County Attorney also requested an arrest warrant but was turned down by a judge.
Sonoran Alliance has also learned there is an investigation of other County Officials.
Sonoran Alliance will report more later as information becomes available.
Update: Here is the text of the press release just issued by the Maricopa County:
County Supervisor Don Stapley Indicted
118 Counts Allege Extensive Non-Disclosure of Financial Dealings
Donald T. Stapley, Jr., a member of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and President of the National Association of Counties, has been indicted for failure to disclose to the public his involvement in a wide variety of land dealings, business associations and business assets. The alleged felony and misdemeanor offenses span more than a decade and involve at least one convicted felon, Conley Wolfswinkel, a business associate who was convicted of federal bank fraud charges.
In a 118-count indictment returned on November 20, 2008, a Maricopa County grand jury accused Stapley of perjury (class 4 felony), forgery (class 4 felony), false swearing (class 6 felony) and filing an incomplete and/or false financial disclosure statement (class 1 misdemeanor) for offenses dating from 1994 to 2008. This indictment is the culmination of the first phase of an investigation conducted by Operation MACE, a joint anti-corruption task force run by the Sheriff’s Office and County Attorney’s Office.
The investigation to date found Stapley failed to disclose multimillion-dollar parcels of land in Maricopa land Pinal County, hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal and business bank accounts, leadership positions in Arizona corporations, and many other financial holdings and dealings.
Stapley did not disclose required information about businesses that he owned or operated. Three of these—Arroyo Pacific Investments, Arroyo Pacific Partners and Arroyo Pecans Partners—obtained loans totaling approximately $10 million for two parcels of property. Those loans were refinanced, with Stapley pledging a personal guarantee on the loans. In 2008, he defaulted on one of those loans. A notice of trustee’s sale was set for October 31, 2008, but was canceled after the FDIC took over the bank holding the loan.
In January 2008, Stapley failed to disclose that he deposited over $550,000 from his checking accounts into two investment accounts, one in his name and one in the name of Arroyo Pacific Investments.
Sheriff’s deputies also are investigating whether county employees assisted Stapley in trying to hinder the investigation. On May 27, 2008, sheriff’s deputies questioned the clerk of the county board of supervisors about Stapley’s disclosure forms. Sheriff’s deputies instructed the clerk to keep the investigation confidential so that it would not be compromised. The next day, Stapley filed new disclosure forms. For the first time, he acknowledged a deferred compensation plan, accounts with Charles Schwab, additional land ownership, and additional business interests.
As a result of his failure to disclose companies he has been doing business with and his personal and business accounts, the public has not been able to assess whether any conflict of interest existed as Stapley regularly made decisions on land development, rights of way, and purchases of county property.
Several counts revolve around farm land in Pinal County. This land was listed for several years as 210 acres, then 120 acres, then just farm land, but all shown as acquired in 2003 by Arroyo Pacific Investments. However, despite purchasing 210 acres in 2003 for $2,338,210, Stapley in fact sold it back to the same companies in 2004, companies owned and managed in part by Brandon Wolfswinkel. In 2004, Stapley purchased two parcels of land from ABCDW, a company also owned and managed in part by Brandon Wolfswinkel along with his father, Conley Wolfswinkel and brother Ashton Wolfswinkel. Those parcels were purchased in 2004 for $1,008,715.07 and $1,380,358.00. Decisions have been made by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors over the last several years relating to land owned by Riggs/Queen Creek and/other companies and individuals with whom Stapley has done business.
On at least two separate occasions, Stapley filled out loan application documents and checked “no” when asked whether any of his businesses had ever been involved in bankruptcy. This omission was made in spite of the fact that he was sanctioned on October 13, 2000, by the Arizona Department of Real Estate for failing to disclose on his application for real estate broker’s license that his company, Val Vista Lakes, a general partnership, had filed for bankruptcy.
Despite listing assets of $12,185,000 in 2006 in an application for a loan, including cash, securities, residence, real estate investments, partnerships, and $565,000 in stocks and bonds, Stapley’s 2007 disclosure form for the year 2006 showed no ownership in trusts or investment funds and no bonds owned.
Statutes requiring disclosure by public officials have been in place for decades. In 1983, the Arizona legislature made clear that disclosure was crucial to the public good when the following purpose and intent was stated in adopting the relevant statutes: “It is in the interest of the people of this state to promote the inquiry by the public into areas of potential conflicts of interest. In furtherance of this goal, the people must be informed of the significant financial interests and business dealings of public officers without endangering the financial welfare and legitimate business relationships o the public officer. For the interest and benefit of the public, and to further the peoples’ right to know of potential conflicts of interest due to financial interests, public officers are encouraged to disclose more extensive information than is statutorily required by this act.”
“Throughout my experience as a federal and state law enforcement official, I have always been concerned when the specter of a government cover-up surfaced in any investigation,” said Sheriff Joe Arpaio. “The credibility of the Maricopa County Government is at stake and so I want to assure citizens that we seek to keep their trust intact and will investigate this matter professionally and thoroughly.”
“We will diligently prosecute this case, and we appreciate the fine work of the Sheriff’s Office in this matter,” said Thomas.
The investigation regarding Stapley and other county employees is not over, Arpaio and Thomas noted. Their investigative team still seeks to determine any additional reasons for Stapley’s nondisclosure of assets and the involvement of county employees in the matter.
Thomas added that the case showed he would follow through on his promise to voters to prosecute fraud and financial crimes.

December 2nd, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Stapley says he is not guilty?
Strange, but didn’t he say Sandra Dowling, who had all charges against her dismissed, was guilty by the mere fact that she was accused? He tried very hard to bury her – now, the county can pay her for lost reputation and legal fees that they should have paid, but didn’t.
Stapley will not be entitled to taxpayer legal support because these charges stem from his private work. 118 counts seems like a lot – I remember him noting the 25 counts against Sandra.
I guess this is what happens when you throw homeless kids out of their schools.
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Stapley has long been linked to shady deals and so the only surprise here is why it has come so late.
However, I would not be surprised if 116 of these specific charges are a total crock – Stapley probably didn’t something Joe and Andy didn’t like so know they’ve decided to throw everything at him.
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Thomas has put partisan politics aside and shed some light on a public official. Let’s see what the full investigation brings.
One fact apparently not in controversy is Stapley filing new forms as soon as he learned of the investigation. What does that tell you?
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:27 am
You wrote, “Sonoran Alliance has also learned there is an investigation of other County Officials.”
Maybe this is why BOS was so vehement about keeping prying eyes off its business.
Shakespeare’s ‘thou protesteth too much’ is beginning to sound as it has some validity.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:35 am
Ron – just curious, what is BOS? Is this a reference to the claim that some of the writers for SA are actually high level employees of the County Attorney’s office.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:32 am
It takes little effort to see that other county officials are under suspicion. The release from Thomas’ office infers as much with the statements about Stapley filing a new form the day after the Clerk was asked to keep quiet about the probe. You don’t need to be Perry Mason or a County Attorney staffer to figure that out.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
BOS = Board Of Supervisors
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:41 pm
There is some interesting connection of people and timing in these events.
First, this investigation and others alluded to in the news release into the affairs of the BOS (Marciopa County Board of Supervisors) began long before November 4 (the date of the election). In order to come up with enough data to convene a grand jury in order to get a November 20 indictment. If this information was known to those in charge of the information prior to November 4, how did their withholding of the same effec the elections held on that date?
Second, the County attorney is the attorney of record for the county and its officials. The County attorney with the assistance of the County Sheriff’s office conducted the investigation on the county’s own officials. Is anyone besides myself curious about this? Why wasn’t an outside country invited into do the investigation and to present the data to the grand jury?
Third, what is the fallout for this County Attorney and County Sheriff if the case unravels as most of the case against MC School Superintendent did? If the case succeeds at an appreciable level of conviction of Mr. Stapley and others in county leadership, what might be the upside/downside of such success?
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:48 pm
First, grand jury proceedings are secret. That’s how those New Times goofs got into so much trouble. That way if there’s no indictment the person’s reputation is intact.
Second, the legal representation is for civil, not criminal matters. if Stapley got pulled over by an MCSO deputy and reeked of alcohol (relax, just an example) do you want him to let him go because of a perceived conflict? It’s a criminal case, not a civil one. He doesn’t call the county attorney to defend him. Same with the perjury charge.
As far as outside counsel goes, they can always do that for the trial, if necessary.
As far as political or electoral fallout goes, Rick Romley indicted two fistfuls’ worth of lobbyists and state legislators in both parties in the early 90′s and got re-elected three times after that.
And for all we know, Thomas still has paralegals going through the financial statements of all 90 legislators and a bunch of other elected officials. Maybe Stapley is just the tip of the iceberg.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:40 am
ron – I think you have some good points. It will be interesting to see what other elected officials are indicted and when they started to be investigated. For instance, what if Fulton Brock or other GOP officials gets indicted but the indictments were delayed to keep those board Republican through the last elections.
Wooden Teeth – I didn’t realize Thomas was investigating all 90 legislators, if that is true what is his justification for looking at politicians not even in Maricopa County.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Todd: They (state legislators) file their financial disclosures with the SOS, which is right there in Maricopa County.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Thanks Wooden Teeth for the explanation(s).
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:24 pm
[...] Alliance was first to break the story that County Supervisor Don Stapley was indicted by a grand jury on 118 counts on November 20th. [...]
January 4th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
[...] biggest political scandal in Arizona currently, “Stapleygate,” involves the prosecution of a Maricopa County Supervisor on 118 counts of financial fraud, many [...]
January 14th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
[...] disclosure statements surrounding personal and business financial dealings. Sonoran Alliance first reported on the indictment on December 2nd, 2008. [...]