We find a couple of stories of particular interest in this morning's Standard-Examiner:
First, Boss Godfrey's American Can/Governor's Office of Economic Development grant is front page news again this morning, under a right column headline "Ogden's use of $900 of $900 thousand grant OK'd.":
OGDEN — The city hasn’t violated the terms of a $900,000 state grant used to purchase the former American Can Co. and shouldn’t be forced to repay the money, according to an opinion from the Utah Attorney General’s Office.It comes as no great surprise of course, to those of us who have been following this story, that Attorney General Shurtleff's office would provide Boss Godfrey with political cover in this politically-prickly matter. Above all else, the Emerald City political wonks who read Weber County Forum are keenly aware of certain "political realities."
The city has attempted to comply with the grant contract even though a provision requiring the American Can facility to become a "high-tech center" hasn’t materialized, Assistant Attorney General William C. Loos said in a four-page written opinion released Friday to the Standard-Examiner.
"It seems that they made a good-faith effort to develop a high-tech center and simply ran into some problems," he said.
We think gentle reader Ozboy got it "spot on" in his May 30 comment:
"The Governor, Republican that he is, is not going to go against and embarrass the Little Lord (also a Republican as Curmudgeon is fond of pointing out) in the months leading up to the election.And gloating in his high-chair on the municipal building ninth floor, Boss Godfrey could not resist dropping in yet another snarky comment, which left us more than slightly puzzled:
The governor may or may not like Godfrey, but he is not going to hang him out to dry - ever - for any reason. That is not how it works in Republican and LDS land. Remember, we do not criticize leaders, even if it's true."
Mayor Matthew Godfrey said he isn’t surprised by Loos's opinion and hopes it ends a strong message to Littrell.We're not sure which "group" Dear Leader" is alluding to here. In our experience nobody acts with more political independence than Dorothy Littrell. Dorothy Littrell -- the member of a group? Take it from us, Boss Godfrey. Dorothy Littrell doesn't do groups.
"I hope Dorothy Littrell and her group (sic) will stop fighting Ogden’s progress," he said.
In yet another morning story dealing with yet another Attorney General opinion, the Standard-Examiner reveals (surprise of surprises) that A.G. Shurtliff was also dead-wrong on the law regarding the legislature's two twin voucher bills:
The referenced confusion, of course, resulted from an earlier Attorney General opinion, which said that the two bills were independant and free-standing. Yesterday's Supreme court decision pretty well makes mince-meat of our neoCON AG's reasoning and rationale re the voucher situation. We think one Utah Legislator/blogger hit the nail squarely on the head in his article of yesterday:SALT LAKE CITY — Utah’s voters will get to decide the fate of school vouchers, the state’s highest court decided Friday.
The court, in a 4-0 decision, said the November referendum language will not be changed and that the creation of a voucher program will depend entirely on the outcome of the vote.
Before the decision, confusion existed as to whether the referendum could really repeal the voucher program because the referendum addressed only one of two bills that created the program.
"Should (House Bill) 148 be rejected by the voters … (House Bill) 174 would be without meaning," Associate Chief Justice Michael J. Wilkins read from the court’s findings Friday before a large crowd at the Matheson Courthouse.
The biggest loser in this chapter seems to be Attorney General Mark Shurtleff whose legal analysis (and political instincts??) appears to have been dead wrong. I guess Carol Lear and Jean Hill got it right. Instead of trying to fire them maybe he should listen to them. Note to State Board of Education: Keep taking your counsel from your long-time attorneys and ignore the Big Bully. The Supremes have got their (and your) back. I have a hunch a majority of Utah voters will too.Ah yes! a reference to the voters; an allusion to the ballot box. That reminds us that there's a municipal election in November.
14 comments:
On the AG's Opinions:
(1) On American Can: the AG's opinion on this one was probably a sound one. If the City's administration made a good faith effort to implement the terms of the grant, and failed [not all grants-funded development projects succeed], and then, when it became clear the project was not working out as envisioned, moved on to achieve those parts of the grant's intentions that it could achieve [historic preservation of the building; economic development of the downtown area], then the terms of the grant were substantially met.
It would have been nice had Ogden's spokesperson on this, Mr. Harmer, said that plainly when questioned earlier by the SE, and not diddled around trying to argue that Amer's using up-to-date machines in its manufacturing process made the American Can building a "high tech center." But dissembling seems to be this administration's default reaction to any questioning of its actions. And, in this case, the dissembling was so unnecessary.
The AG's decision on this matter, then, is a good one for Ogden --- it would not be good for the city to have to scrape up 900K to return to the state. I hope the state office of economic development which made the grant will accept the AG's opinion and the matter will then finally be resolved in the city's favor.
(2) Mr. Shurtliff's opinion on the school vouchers matter has turned out to be, more or less, worthless as Rudi notes. Kudoes, by the way, to the unanimous court in not falling for the disingenuous and dishonest manuverings of the Pro Voucher legislators who were trying to avoid the plain intent of the state's referendum law [all of them Republicans, need I add?]. The court's decision was the right one on every possible ground. Good on 'em. And shame on Mr. Shurtliff for trying to strong arm the state department of education and its lawyers into ignoring the referendum law's clear intent.
SL Trib has the American Can grant story with a slightly different emphasis. Link here.
I wondered if I was the only one who was offended by the snarky tone of Mayor Godfrey (assuming he was quoted accurately).
I don't think a politician, for any reason, at any time, should issue a statement that makes a personal issue out of a taxpayer's reasonable concern. You can certainly say, "I'm confident I was right, and this confirms it" or words to that effect, but accusing someone's good-faith watchdog efforts of being a block to progress is typical of the high-handed and self-centered approach which has this mayor in so much hot water on this blog.
I've never met Ms. Littrell, and don't consider myself a particular ally of hers. In short, I don't have a dog in this hunt. Still, I find myself annoyed and offended by the statements made by both Mr. Harmer and Mayor Godfrey in this matter.
Mr. Mayor, not everyone who has a disagreement with you is a Luddite. Get over yourself.
I hope that this does not discourage Dorothy in her quest to bring integrity and honor back to Ogden City Government.
Although here in Republican Utah it is a stacked game, the pursuit of honesty is a noble cause and I believe if we all keep on keeping on we will prevail in the end.
Dorothy is a real patriot in every sense of the word. She has more integrity in her little pinky than Godfrey will ever have in his whole dismal and arrogant life.
Go Dorothy!!!
Shurtleff has once again shown what a complete embarrassment he is to the legal profession.
Only in Utah could a bozo like this hold the office of Attorney General.
With him as our chief law enforcement officer I can only say - God help us because the rule of law won't.
One consistent theme in WCForum since its inception has been the Louis XIV-esque "le cité, c'est moi" attitude of Mayor Godfrey.
Vangate is an example of this. ("Insult me, defame the city.")
Certainly, today's quote in the S-E is a perfect example.
That's why Curm and I aired our suspicions, in the previous thread, that he's using city staff to advance his own political ends. What's good for Matthew Godfrey personally is perceived by him as being good for Ogden City, automatically.
Nothing could be further from the truth, and an inability to set aside the personal in favor of the civic is — I strongly believe — a damn fine reason not to vote for him come the municipal elections.
The next time I go and take out a loan to remodel my home and then tell them that this was a good faith effort because I could not get the contractor lined up, I guess I will go and buy a vintage car with it and then sell it and make some money and then tell the bank sorry I shouldn't have to repay you, I made a good faith effort to remodel my home. boy where do I go to get a loan like this. Can I line up at the state, and where is this cash cow at.
I think that Carol Lear would be the best candidate for the AG office so that we the people can Fire (Shurtleff) him because we don't see I to I.
Greiner and Shurtleff are A-Hole buddies! Seriously. When Greiner won the election they had his victory party in the Attorney Generals office. Birds of a feather so to speak. They both have the same contempt for the law, integrity and the people.
"(1) On American Can: the AG's opinion on this one was probably a sound one."
Geebus, Curm. We know you bend over backwards to avoid the impression of being unfair.
But do you honestly believe that the neoCON A.G. Mark Shurtleff actually examined phone logs, Boss Godfrey memos and other necessary evidence to determine that this crooked administration made a "good faith effort" to comply with the originally-stated grant terms?
Although we do admire your constant attempt to at least posture in "fairness," your latest comment is way over the top, we think.
There's no way that Shurtleff's office could have properly examinined the evidence during the recent short time frame.
As the article said, Shurtleff accepted the Goofrey Administration's (no that's NOT a typo) "representations," and entirely failed and refused to carefully examine the actual evidence.
This is a whitewash plain and simple.
Shurtleff ought to be crucified for this.
The fix is in. The system is rigged. Surely a REAL Brooklyn Italian-American homeboy would instinctively know that.
Rudi:
Well, the fact is, I don't know what the EcoDev office looked up, researched, received from Hizzonah's staff, and it was the EcoDev office that did the investigating, not the AG's office. According to the paper, it then passed its findings on to the AG's office for an opinion on the material it had collected. That was the extent of the AG's involvement: to take what the EcoDev office turned up in its investigation, and on the basis of that, issue an opinion. Which it did.
Could it be a whitewash? Of course. Could the Republican AG have decided to wink wink nudge nudge his opinion to shelter a fellow GOPer? Sure. Do we have an evidence that that happened in this instance? Not that I see.
Grants like these are more in the line of venture capital grants rather than, say, a grant for a very specific purpose that does not involve risk [i.e. a grant to buy 100 computers for a school or college]. In the nature of things, not all these growth-spurring grants are going to work out as hoped for.
If the administration put major effort into making the High Tech Center go [and I am presuming it did, but I haven't seen what it presented to the EcoDev office, though I imagine we will see it soon; somebody will Grama it, though that should not be necessary: the Godfrey administration should do now what it should have done when this first hit the papers: release a calendar of its efforts to make the High Tech center idea work and the results of those efforts.] As I said, if it did make a strong effort and that effort failed, then the AG's opinion seems reasonable to me, absent any evidence [not just suspicions, evidence] to the contrary.
And I'll be happy, purely as a practical matter, if Ogden does not have to scrounge up 900K to give back to the state.
My respect for Mt. Shurtleff has been falling rapidly of late, in light of his strong-arm actions regarding vouchers and the State Department of Education. But as I recall, about a month ago [I forget the issue], folks in here were singing his praises for an opinion they liked.
The AG's decision in re: American Can does not on its face seem to me to be unreasonable. If more evidence develops, I reserve the right to change that opinion, of course. But so far, none has that I know of.
Now, the question about non-profits, and which foundation was, and which was not, and [possible] IRS implications of millions in property being transferred to a city foundation that was in fact not a registered non-profit... well, that's another matter, seems to me, separate from the question of whether Ogden substantially met the purposes of the 900K grant.
With all due respect, Curm...
I swear your friggin' house could burn down and you wouldn't recognize it, until you read about it in an official report.
I'd suggest you use the brain that momma gave you; and apply a little common sense.
And we reiterate:
There's no friggin' way that the A.G.'s office could have properly conducted an investigation in the short time frame since the matter was "handed off" from the governor's office.
Rudi:
Again, and if I'm wrong about this, I'll be happy to be corrected, I don't think the AG's office was tasked with conducting an investigation of the matter. I think it was asked to render an opinion based on what the EcoDev office turned up and sent it. [This is based on the news reports in the SL Trib and SE, which is all I have to go on.] If that's so, then saying the AG's office didn't have time to conduct an investigation is beside the point. It wasn't asked to conduct one.
Sorry, Rudi, but my guild oaths require me to want evidence before drawing hard and fast conclusions on matters like this one. Suspecting the AG and the gov's office rallied round to defend one of their inept Republican colleagues is certainly a plausible explanation of what happened, but it's not evidence, and there are other plausible explanations.
I suppose at bottom our difference on this matter lies here: I think the question of whether Ogden should have to return the 900K is not an obvious call either way; I think it's a matter of judgment and reasonable people can disagree on what should be done without either side being necessarily corrupt. You, it seems, think the question is not a seriously open one, that it is so plain and clear that Ogden should have to return the money that there can be no reasonable disagreement about it. And so you conclude that a decision going the other way must necessarily be a corrupt one.
As has been pointed out here before: There has been evidence of many different crimes committed by the Godfrey Gang taken to the Attorney General's office by concerned citizens of Ogden.
The AG has steadfastly white washed every single complaint and has refused to conduct any sort of meaningful investigation on any of them. His response has been to assign a low level para-legal to take the complaints and placate the complainers. Nothing more.
These were serious allegations with serious proofs taken to the top law inforcement agency in the State. An agency with dozens of lawyers and investigators on board, and the complaints were assigned to the lowest and least competent person in the office. These complaints did not even warrant a look by an investigator, let alone an attorney.
The AG's office is so tainted and corrupted by special interest GOP political agendas that there is no possibility of getting justice from them on matters like the criminal conduct of other GOP members.
This latest go around with vouchers has elevated the Shurtleff joke to a national stage. Once again the Republican cartel has made Utah the laughing stock of thinking Americans everywhere. Don't it just make your chest swell with pride?
Post a Comment