The Standard-Examiner reveals more discrepancies in the Secret Study Story
We honestly don't know what's come over Standard-Examiner reporter Scott Schwebke recently, but we'll remark that his journalistic performance has been most excellent of late. While most of our readers gentle were out playing on the long Memorial Day weekend, Ace Reporter Schwebke was slaving away, adding another reportorial gem to his already excellent series of articles exposing Boss Godfrey's $200 thousand secret Gondola study.
Yesterday's front-page article reveals these further essential facts, wherein the stories of all the "players" grow increasingly divergent:
• A spokesman for Lewis, Young Robertson and Burningham Inc., the Salt Lake City-based company who prepared the study (over a year ago) claims UTA paid for the study that measures cost and revenue projections for a proposed gondola system stretching from Ogden’s downtown intermodal hub to Weber State University.
• UTA has failed to provide a copy of the purported study pursuant to the Standard-Examiner's GRAMA request, claiming it doesn't have a copy of the study. UTA has of course previously denied either paying for the year-old study, or agreeing for the payment for such a study.
• Key gondola proponents, including developer Chris Peterson, Ogden Mayor Boss Godfrey and Lift Ogden chairman Bob Geiger, claim they don’t know who funded the study.
Boss Godfrey of course continues to admit having a copy of the study, and even claims "I would love to have (the study results) come out." Yet he nevertheless declines to voluntarily provide a copy to the Standard-Examiner, preferring instead to play "cat and mouse" with the home town newspaper's pending GRAMA request. Ominously, Boss Godfrey apparently continues to contend that this year-old study is merely a "draft," raising the distinct possibility that he'll claim that it's "work product," a category of information legally excluded from GRAMA document production requirements.
We'll resist the impulse to engage in any microanalysis at this time. We believe it's impossible to draw further conclusions until our favorite Ace Reporter relentlessly digs out further facts. Scott Schwebke's reporting on this story has nevertheless been most revealing thus far -- like the journalistic equivalent of peeling back the layers of a rotten onion.
We do believe it is fair to draw one early conclusion at this juncture however: Somebody ain't telling the truth.
In spite of low-volume site traffic over the weekend, we have had some reader comment on this story in the previous comments threads. In the interest of keeping our new Secret Gondola Study article category on-topic, we'll thus dutifully move some of those earlier comments over here.
In the expectation of the usual flood of post-weekend readers, we now establish this new article thread.
The floor is open, gentle readers.
The world is waiting to know what you think.
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
32 comments:
I'd like to know the difference between a 'draft document', and a document that can be shown to the citizens who need to know it's contents.
Those who need to know also include the Standard Examiner.
Thank you, SE, for pursuing this Gondola 'study'.
However, Scott, would you please lose that *^%#%&*^$ file of yours? Weber has said they aren't selling. Whey do you persist in the wussy "Weber wants to keep"....the land?
Stop with that drivel about the route and the ride up to Malan's. That carny ride is years away, if it ever does happen!
And if Weber won't give up its land...where the heck will the ride to Weber be...and the ride FROM Weber to Malan's? Where would those off- load and loading platforms be?
Get real...stay on this story. Nail UTA..which seems to have about 6 official spokespersons now..and the high priced SLC law firm that can't remember what it's doing either.
Stay on Godfrey and his 'yes men'. Have you ever seen such a clownish outfit hit by so much amnesia?
Must be contagious. Call the Health Department. Too many nuts littering the Municipal Building.
Thank you, Sharon, for hijacking the thread and bringing the subject back to local issues!
I must say, I'm really impressed with the job Schwebke is doing on this story. Records requests to both UTA and the city! That's what journalists are for.
What the truth is regarding the study, I have no idea. Has it actually been completed? If so, who paid for it, why is the report still just a "draft", and why does neither Peterson nor UTA have a copy?
I will say this, though: Our beloved mayor is telling another of his little fibs when he says he would love to release the report but can't because it may be only a draft. If the document is truly a draft, and hasn't yet been used in any significant way because a final version will soon be forthcoming, then the document is "protected" under the GRAMA statute. But even then, the document could be released with the permission of a representative of any person or governmental entity whose interests are (supposedly) being protected. And whose interests are being protected here? Not Peterson's, if he hasn't even seen the report. So that leaves only the city itself, whose principal representative is the mayor himself. In other words, the mayor has the authority to release this report if he wants to.
Seem that if the so called study was favorable to the gondola concept that the midget would have surely released it with fan fare by now. No?
If UTA paid for it a year ago, then what was the BS they put out to several inquiries last week all about? Are they as disingenuous as Godfrey and the gondolistas? Is there any one that the citizens of Ogden can trust on this infernal damn gondola idea? Are they all just going to continue to baffle us with bull shit and wear us down?
I say if the UTA financed this supposed "study" after the earlier "study" that said it was a bad idea, then we all should actively lobby the legislature to in fact fold them into UDOT. If Inglish is this irrisponible with public money he should be replaced along with the UTA
Ozboy:
I am as confused now as you are. Probably more so. I don't know how many studies were done, or by who, or who paid for them. We know of the one UTA partly funded [done by Wasastch Front Regional Council] which recommended street car or BRT [in that order] and dismissed the gondola as a transit option for Ogden. Then we have the study of the gondola UTA earmarked 200K for but apparently has refused to release [see Mr. Inglish's letter to the mayor, linked on lower thread, outlining what the city would have to do first before the money could be released.] We have this "financial feasibility study" done by the SLC firm which, apparently, nobody knows who paid for [mayor says he didn't, Peterson says he didn't, and UTA seemed to say it hadn't]. UTA now seems to be hinting that it did pay for it, but can't find a copy. Mayor has a copy apparently but won't release it because it "may be" only a draft. This is starting to look like a game of three card monte.
I am happy the SE is continuing to dig, but somebody needs to lay all this out in a clear manner so we Poor Suffering Citizens can figure out what the hell is going on. UTA, which seems to have contradicted itself, and now seems to be saying it in fact did pay for a study, the one it can't find a copy of, needs to put out a clear statement of its involvement in any and all gondola related studies --- completed, under way, or pending.
I would say its also time for Hizzonah to abandon his near pathological committment to secrecy in the conduct of the public's business, but I suspect that's not likely to happen. So it will be up to the SE and/or the UTA to unscramble this mess. Please?
That said, Oz, it would not be a good idea to fold UTA, which has a reasonably good track record [no pun intended] in promoting public tranist in Utah, into the road-centric "pave it all!" UDOT office. That would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I think, regardless of what UTA did or did not do, has or has not promised to do, in re: gondola studies.
Dan S.:
Interesting point about "drafts" being protected from GRAMA requests. I agree with you (if I understand you correctly): he is claiming the document is in "draft" to avoid responding to the S-E's GRAMA request.
I'm not Curmudgeon, but he's taught me a few things about history. The Founding Fathers obtained a quorum at their Constitutional Convention on May 25, 1787. The U.S. Constitution, one of the greatest such documents ever created, was voted out of convention on September 17, 1787.
If the constitution, a finely-balanced and ineffably complex instrument of government authority, could be drafted and agreed upon in less than 17 weeks, then I find it very difficult to believe that this so-called "Gondola Study" (which must be a lesser document by far) should take over a year (and counting) in draft form.
I think Mayor Godfrey owes us all an explanation, and fast.
Curm: It seems pretty clear that one (or more) of the S-E's sources regarding the study was either wrong or was misquoted. At this point I hesitate to guess which piece(s) of information we need to throw out in order to make sense of the rest. But the S-E has now invested enough in this story that I'm sure we'll see some further follow-up on their part. If they don't clear up the confusion, we can always submit our own GRAMA requests. One way or another, it should be interesting!
Does Godfrey KNOW that the US Constitution supercedes and is a far superior document than the gondola study which appears not to appear?????
I think space aliens kidnapped Scott Schwebke, and substituted an android "double."
One possible explanation for the discrepancy seems obvious.
. . . Godfrey paid for the study with city money, but told the consultants it was UTA money.
. . . in which case, everyone else would is operating in good faith, but him. This would explain the confusion.
Go Schwebke. This is the kind of thing that gets a reporter noticed.
BTW Schwebke –
Sharon is right. Lose the last three paragraphs of boilerplate in your article. It’s way out of date. The Weber State land connection is a goner. The Board of Regents said it isn’t going to happen, for Pete’s sake. Continuing to quote Peterson’s wishes (in the absence of so much as a proposal from him,) in the face of clear, unambiguous statements from the owners of the land, is an unnecessary affront to the state government. And it makes us look like rubes.
Danny:
Well, I'm not so sure the WSU matter is "a goner." Mr. Peterson, who previously was on record as saying w/o the WSU land, the project was dead, has not subsequently said the project it dead. Very clearly, the Mayor does not consider it dead. Nor do various elements of the Lift Ogden Amen Chorus. There have been dark hints from the latter group about going around the WSU administration and seeking legislative involvement. And as anyone who reads the SL paper regularly knows, the Utah Legislature has a history of crafting, or trying to craft, special laws to benefit particular deep pockets developers. So long as Hizzonah and his cronies do not consider the WSU decision final, Mr. Schwebke is correct in not treating it as final.
Nor do I think the SE's editors should necessarily drop the final summary paragraphs usually appended, as they were to this one, to gondola stories. Fact is, WCF readers tend to be policy wonks to some extent, and tend to particularly well-informed about matters like this. Fact also is, most voters/citizens are not. I don't see any problem with a summary paragraph like the one we're talking about to give context to the story that precedes it for readers not much aware of the issues involved or their history.
When I stop meeting people who are surprised to hear that Hizzonah wants to sell off the Mt. Ogden Park lands for private homes in a gated development, and when I stop hearing people in coffee shoppes and around campus discussing "the gondola" as one gondola [not two] that will connect downtown to Snow Basin, I'll agree it's time to cut the summary paragraphs at the end of gondola stories. But that hasn't happened yet.
In fairness to Mr. Schwepke I would like to point out that repeating pertinent background at the end of a continuing story is normal in the news business. In fact it may very well be required by most publications. The purpose is to bring the whole story more into focus for those who read the later articles but may have missed the prior ones.
Schwepke is indeed surpirising a lot of us. Perhaps he really was abducted by space aliens as Allthepal suggested, or maybe the Suits of Sandusky figure their debt to little Napolian is paid in full and they can now take off Schwepke's kid gloves.
Whatever is going on it is a refreshing change over the past sycophantic behaviour that the paper has shown toward the Godfreyite movement the last several years. Hopefully they will keep it up and sell more papers because of their new found journalistic integrity. Hells bells, they may even become a real newspaper again!
If I am understanding this correctly, UTA did a study but does not have a copy!!!! There are only two reasons I can suggest for this.
1. Incompetence. Anyone with a responsible job keeps file copies of everything they have done for several years back.
2. Evasion. In publishing, for example, it is SOP to have a "retention policy." This states how long different types of documents will be kept. The logic being "if a document is subpoenaed, and you no longer have it, you can't produce it." If UTA had responded that the retention time for this study had passed and they had shredded all copies, that would be one thing, but to just state that they don't have it seems fishy.
Neither appears to be a good excuse for UTA to not be "able" to produce this study.
Og:
Absolutely true. If the UTA did in fact pay for the study [there seem to be conflicting accounts from UTA on that point], and if the completed study --- which Hizzonah says "may be" a draft, if we're all talking about the same study here --- was in fact delivered to the UTA. At this point, who the hell knows? Flatly contradictory accounts have appeared in the SE recently.
But I, like you, find it inconceivable that the UTA got a study it paid for, and passed it on to Mayor Godfrey [or to anybody else] without making copies. That makes absolutely no sense at all. Which makes me wonder if the claim that UTA paid for it and received it can possibly be correct? Even though the claim came from UTA spokesperson. Beats me. Unless we're about to hear that UTA's copy was "misfiled." Which would be almost as lame as claiming they made no copies.
And the beat goes on....
Okay, you news hounds. So, Schwebke and his bosses keep inserting the same old tired Peterson dream of obtaining WSU land, ad nauseum. Most readers become bored reading the same drivel, and tend to dismiss much of the previous text as irrelevant also.
I can't believe anyone who has lived in Ogden over two weeks' time, hasn't read of this foolishness.
Therefore, perhaps Scott could at least put a different spin on it? NOTE that WSU has said ixnay on the andlay...and insert Curm's enlightening paragraph that the the LEGISLATURE MAY usurp WSU's authority to hang onto their land.
That would be a fresh note for the townsfolk to hear...and may put their glorious Godrey in a different light.
The AMEN CHORUS would be singing off-key over that!
But, as I've told you before, Scott, you are doing a great job. Dig deeper...and ask those follow-up questions.
Lots of inquiring minds out here 'want to know'. Thank you!
Sharon:
You wrote: I can't believe anyone who has lived in Ogden over two weeks' time, hasn't read of this foolishness.
I'm afraid, Sharon, that the majority of Ogden's residents do not read a newspaper... any newspaper... regularly. It would shock me to learn that a majority who've live here had read "of this foolishness" and could describe the Peterson/Godfrey plot accurately even in a general way.
But so many DO know about
a gondola'...that will be 'exciting' and bring 'thousands' to Ogden, just like the opening of the Junction in two weeks!
They may not know of the chicanery, back room deals, taxpayer monies being foolishly spent in pursuit of the mayor's dreeeeeam...but they DO know about 'a gondola'.
Wouldn't it be nice to let them know, every time Scott writes of this dreeeeam, that WSU said NO, (just in case they missed that edtion of the SE?), and that Peterson has been a no-show along with his 'plan' for close to two years now?
Just another little take on this story would add freshness and relevancy.
BTW....did Amy Wicks ever get the 'rest of the story' about the $6.000. expenditures on the gondola? In fact, much more was spent. THAT would be a good story for Schwebke to keep before the people with ALL the facts!
I disagree.
Let me make the point again.
Peterson has not even submitted a proposal.
On the other hand, the State Office of Education has studied the issue of selling land. The WSU trustees have voted. So has the Board of Regents. We have nothing factual or credible to indicate the matter is anything other than CLOSED. The official statements have been firm, clear, and I would add, correct.
For Schwebke to write the last three lines the way he did gives far to much credibility to the invisible Chris Peterson and far too little emphasis on the clear and credible decisions and statements that have been made by education officials.
As I said, Schwebke needs to change his outdated boilerplate to reflect this.
“Chris Peterson to-date has submitted no proposal, but Mayor Godfrey has said he thinks it will include the sale of city-owned Mount Ogden Golf Course and adjoining municipal land to Peterson to fund a gondola from downtown to a resort Peterson would build in Malans basin.
“Peterson’s proposal may also include buying land from WSU, but university and state officials have stated that that all WSU land shall be retained for university purposes.”
It’s more accurate, informative, and it doesn’t even take as many lines as Schwebke’s current misleading boilerplate.
amen and amen except, "Peterson has claimed that his proposed non-proposed 'plan' is a "NO GO" without the WSU land."
I have a guess about what is going on here. I think my guess is consistent with the stated facts.
I agree with Honorable Blogmeister that someone is lying.
Even liars, though, use some version of the truth to construct their mendacities.
I'm not a betting man, but I can play the probabilities. Of all the parties here, who has a propensity for lying and cui bono?
Given the available evidence, I surmise that:
1. Someone paid for some variety of gondola study done by Lewis, Young Robertson & Burningham. Consultants don't work for free.
2. Said study was completed about a year ago.
3. UTA cannot politically afford to make mayors angry, no matter how meshugganah the mayor.
4. Mayor Godfrey arm-twisted UTA into funding a full-on, no-holds-barred $200K study of an amusement park ride (OK, Curm, two amusement park rides) as mass transit. He used (or tried to use) the Lewis, Young Robertson & Burningham study to prime this particular pump.
5. UTA received, in March or April 2006, a copy of the study in question, as paid for by parties unknown and completed by Lewis, Young Robertson & Burningham.
6. UTA had a good hearty laugh, ashcanned the brain-dead so-called study, then constructed a carefully-crafted response to Mayor Godfrey. (I think this is the memo Rudi has reprinted elsewhere.) They said, "we'll turn this floating turd into a $200K full-on study if, and only if, you meet these conditions".
7. Mayor Godfrey cannot or will not meet those conditions.
All of the above are consistent with all parties' public statements to the S-E.
If I'm right, who is the liar? If I'm wrong, I'd be glad to be challenged on any of the above. #3 in particular is a pure guess.
Mono:
Might be. This scenario is consistent with what appear to be the known facts at the moment, given an assumption or two on your part. Trouble is, several other scenarios are similarly plausible, given an assumption or two. Dan S. outlined two of them: The SE misquoted someone, or, second, someone at UTA mis-spoke [i.e. scrwed up] when denying UTA had spent any money on the study, or when saying UTA paid for it. [Very often the adage about not assuming mendacity when incompetence can explain what happened equally well turns out to be true.]
I'm hoping somebody will get all this straightened out and gives us a documented time line [who did what when] --- the SE or the UTA --- and soon. And I still think it might be prudent to ask our state legislators [House and Senate] to make a call or two over to UTA and ask in the best legislative manner "What in the hell is going on over there?" The UTA has a lot more to worry about from legislators than mayors of mid-sized cities.
Mono:
Based on what I've seen of UTA (mostly how their staff behave in meetings and such), I think you're right that they don't want to make elected officials, including mayors, angry.
Your scenario is mostly plausible, and I don't have a better one to suggest. However, the letter that Rudi posted last week almost certainly predates the LYRB study. Also, the list of conditions in the letter concerns not what would have to happen before they fund a study, but rather, what would have to happen before they contribute $8 million to the gondola itself. The letter then goes on to say they'll help with a study that would answer the questions they've raised, if the city and Peterson each contribute a similar amount to the study. I suspect that there were follow-up communications between the mayor and UTA on this subject. For one thing, he stated last June that he had dropped his request for the $8 million. I hope some of these follow-up communications were in writing and can be obtained through GRAMA requests, but it's possible that no paper trail exists.
The big question raised by your scenario, however, is Who paid for the LYRB study? I can't think of an answer to this question that would be consistent with everything the paper has printed.
The shadow knows!
What did the CC do tonight about awarding Peddie 10 years worth of tax increments?
The state has not been repaid the $900,000. the city was given as a grant to purchase the Am Can Co for the DaVinci Academy and the Riverside Technology School.
Now the Can Co has been resold...the debt has not been repaid. The Council was urged to not give Peddie the tax increments of about $4 million dollars.
The Governor's Office was looking into this..and unless the GO's office acted TODAY for the $900,000. to be repaid....I'll bet that Godfrey hasn't and won't repay.
It's a convoluted mess..and who was at the Council meeting tonight who can tell us how that body voted?
Dan:
You paid for the study, as did I, and all the other Ogden taxpayers.
That's my best guess.
Thanks for your comments and corrections to my post.
Curmudgeon:
I agree, there are other possible scenarios. As a former reporter myself, though, I have heard people claim to be misquoted about 10 times as often as it actually happens.
I guess the bottom line is, we have to wait for Mr. Schwebke to follow this trail to its natural end. I'm looking forward to it, but I fear that (like the Matthew Godfrey Gumshoe Agency brouhaha) it will turn out to be the reportorial equivalent of a "no bill".
Can't the City Council clear this up by requesting that Mr. Arrington do a search of the accounts payable during that time period? They have that power, and I would hope he wouldn't lie to them. Don't they control the purse strings?
Mono:
Didn't know you are a reformed newsy. Hope your recovery is going well. Is there a 12-step program for that? [grin]
I think the new "I was misquoted" is "the reporter took my remarks out of context." With all those microphones around, and now cellphones that record sound and pictures, creating "Makaka Moments" it's become risky to claim you didn't say what the recordings make it all too plain you did say. But you can always play the "out of context" card.
In this case there is that consultant's report the existence of which Hizzonah hinted at at a Council work session a few weeks ago, which startled members of the Council and the rest of us. If any public agency --- UTA, Ogden City, the Feds --- funded any part of it, it is, seems to me, a public document. They can tap dance around "may be a draft" for a while, but unless it was entirely privately funded, and not delivered to Mayor Godfrey in his capacity as Mayor, at some point it will have to be revealed. So ultimately I don't think they'll be able to "no true bill" this one.
How long it will take to extract the text from either the Mayor or the UTA's relucant hands is, as you note, another matter.
On another note...
Wasn't the new wells fargo bldg at 24th/wash. supposed to have a couple of city subsidized stories to make 6 floors. Maybe I'm wrong and that initiative failed. Anyone know. Anyway, Today it looks to me like they are capping it off at four levels. What's the deal?
Interesting story by Kristen Moulton in the SL Trib this morning. Here are the opening graphs:
OGDEN - Ogden City's chief of community development, Dave Harmer, acknowledged Tuesday night that state officials are considering whether Ogden should be forced to return a $900,000 grant it wangled from the Legislature five years ago for a high-technology campus that has not yet materialized.
Staffers in the Utah Department of Community and Economic Development are weighing a complaint that the 2002 grant should be revoked, Harmer acknowledged.
Here's the link: here.
Tec:
The Mayor proposed, against the recommendation of the city's project consultant, that two floors be added to the building, with the city being on the hook for the added construction costs and bond interest if occupants' leases did not provide enough to cover the costs. The Council, by a one vote margin, elected to follow the consultant's recommendation and not to adopt the Mayor's suggestion.
Thanks Curm, I'd forgotten the outcome. The building is quite unremarkable architecturally unless there is some magnificent facade work coming.
Post a Comment