Ace Reporter Schwebke this morning continues his relentless reporting on Boss Godfrey's secret gondola study, with the news that Boss Godfrey has now fired off an angry letter to the Emerald City council. In classic Boss Godfrey fashion, the Little Lord goes on offense when cornered, twists the facts, blames the victims (the council) and whines that it's the council (and not he) who is "fostering" all the ill will -- cunningly dodging the council's questions all the while:
OGDEN -- Mayor Matthew Godfrey is taking the Ogden City Council to task for failing to give him advance notice about concerns regarding a fiscal impact study for a much talked-about gondola project.Councilwoman Jeske hits the nail squarely on the head with her above retort, of course. As the Standard-Examiner has previously reported, the $16,250 Lewis, Young, Robertson & Burningham study, completed in November of 2006, remained Boss Godfrey's little secret, until it inadvertently came to the council's attention earlier this month.
Godfrey said in a letter to the council he is extremely disappointed the concerns weren't raised during a meeting he attended Thursday with the council's leadership just an hour before the questions were released to the Standard-Examiner.
"I cannot see how this kind of action fosters good-will and positive relationships between the administration and city council," Godfrey said in his letter, which he provided to the newspaper.
Councilwoman Dorrene Jeske said Godfrey has no right to criticize council members because he didn't inform them that the study exists. "It's like the pot calling the kettle black," she said.
We don't have a copy of the council's letter. According to this morning's story, however, the letter enumerates two main queries:
The council asked Godfrey to explain a Dec. 22 expenditure of $16,250 to Lewis, Young, Robertson & Burningham Inc., a Salt Lake City firm that completed the study. The expenditure was later canceled.Quite predictably, Boss Godfrey's response to the first question has solidified since he was first quoted on the subject a mere four days ago. This was Godfrey's "explanation" on or about June 15:
The funds were to come from the city's Crossroads of the West Historical District account, according to city council Executive Director Bill Cook.
The council also asked the administration to detail two other financial postings of $16,250, dated March 9, for payments to Lewis, Young, Robertson & Burningham
Inc.
He said he has no idea what the council is referring to relating to the payment for the study.Here is today's version, wherein he acknowleges his understanding of the question, and then blames it all on some dumb clerk in the accounts payable back office:
"My guess is, there is confusion on who was supposed to pay the bill and it was canceled," Godfrey said. "(Lewis, Young, Robertson & Burningham Inc.) could have been paid for some other consulting work, such as bonding for the city."
"It was a clerical error," the letter says. "When the error was discovered it was corrected. There was confusion from some about the city's role versus UTA's role. There is no nexus between the gondola study and the Crossroads of the West."Yeah... that's the ticket. When under fire, blame your secretary for your problem.
Of course the second council question, i.e., "What about the two other $16,250 LYR&B book entries(?)" remains entirely UN-answered.
We hope for a future Schwebke article about this shortly.
In another related morning story, Ace Reporter Schwebke reports something that Weber County Forum readers already knew -- that Boss Godfrey has been running a pre-election poll. We give due credit to Boss Godfrey for doing this. He obviously understands that his email letters of support come mostly from the Crazed Gondolist Cult Letter Mill. We congratulate his effort to find out how he's perceived by normal, rational Emerald City citizens.
And in an effort to help Boss Godfrey properly gauge his level of popular support, we graciously offer Boss Godfrey free and unfettered use of our own highly-scientific ongoing mayoral popularity poll, which is conveniently located in our right sidebar.
Amongst our gentle readers, at least, Boss Godfrey is certainly "The Mayor with the Mostest."
39 comments:
Should not Schwebke's headline read," Godfrey refuses to answer questions"? A little more tenacity Scotty.
Bill,
I too did a double-take when I saw that headline. Reminded me of Smart Growth Ogden's list of 22 questions", sent to Godfrey 13 months ago and mostly unanswered to this day.
But please don't jump on Schwebke. Headlines are written by editors, not reporters.
Gee, would it be vain of me to point out, when everyone was speculating who paid for the study, that it was the city that did?
So Godfrey uses Crossroads of the West money to do a gondola study (with all relevant data supplied by him) then claims that it has nothing to do with Crossroads.
No kidding, Sherlock.
Godfrey spends city money like it’s all his personal slush fund. This time he got caught. Now he complains the city council is using press release diplomacy. How does he make that complaint? He uses press release diplomacy.
As far as why he ran for mayor, I don’t remember him proposing increasing city debt to $93 million, or selling the golf course for a residential development being part of his platform. Actually, his platform was the opposite.
Sniping he says? For me, it’s an expression of being appalled. And although some in the community have forgotten, freedom to express difference of opinion with government is one of the things we get to do in this free society.
It’s a question of competing visions, and both sides get to talk.
And as far as Godfrey saying there are easier ways to make money than being mayor? I suppose there are, but not for him. He will run. Other than flipping millions into Peterson’s pocket in the hopes of a post mayoral job, he has no other options.
There's another great Godfrey quote in the "questions" article. Referring to the Lewis-Young-Robertson-Burningham study, he says, "Moreoever, this is not our document. It is UTA's."
I just double-checked the draft report from LYRB. In large letters on the front page it says "for Ogden City." There's no mention of UTA anywhere in the document.
Probably a clerical error.
althepal:
He he he. Love it.
Another "mother lode" finding from the invaluable Dan S.
Godfrey commissions the study, agrees to pay for the study (and now perhaps is refusing to pay for the study), his bureaucrat said the city commissioned the study, it says on the study it's his study, and now Godfrey says, in writing, that it's not his study, but UTA's.
It seems some folks have been saying Godfrey and his klan aren't too honest. Is using facts to express concerns about a politician’s honesty, sniping?
When he says he's thinking about not running, I suspect what Godfrey is doing is trying to generate calls of support from his few supporters, so that when they call to urge him to run he can hit them up for campaign money. It's that time of year after all.
Godfreyites, now is the season to call the mayor and urge him to run, checkbook at the ready!!!
Dan, Good to see you back. Are you a candidate to run this flowrider rig. I know your in good shape from all the foothill hiking you do. Let's go run it one day. In fact let's get Godfrey in on the action. Nothing like getting down to just board shorts and having the snot blown out of you and replaced with pool water to disarm and bring one down to citizen level. Let's put the mayor up to it. He may see we're actually a decent bunch. Trashing ones own inhibitions publically can do wonders for humanizing the pompous.
Have anyone seen Adobe Digital Editions. It's there new flash based reader software for PDF's and eBooks. Nice lightweight alternative to Acrobat Reader. Download free from Adobe. Makes getting through crap like bogus gondola studies easier and to organize all the nonsense quotes and data.
I have a question as to the much delayed cancelation of the payment. The custom of all businesses as far as I know, is to promptly deposit receipts, the day they arrive. If this occurred, the firm would have had to return the money, Ogden City would have to had made a deposit of their own, a clear paper trail. I also was intriqued to see that the same amount appears on multiple billings. It gives the appearance of a standard rate the firm has negotiated with the City. It would be interesting if Schwebke inquired of Mr. Arrington as to what has transpired, he being the one that volunteered such an artfull explanation of the city's outstanding debt.
Having finished the story, it dawned on me that we still do not know for sure who paid for the report. The Mayor now insists that the City did, once, but didn't mean to and took the money back. UTA has said it didn't pay. Is Lewis, Young, Robertson & Burningham Inc. a charitable organization? Does it do this sort of work for free?
Lewis, Young, Robertson & Burningham Inc. billed the city for [making it pretty clear that LYR&B thought they were working for the city, and they labeled the study "For Ogden City", indicating the same.
If anyone needed reasons illustrating why Mayor Godfrey should not be returned for a third term, his letter to the Council provides them. Asked about a city expenditure, his reaction is to be annoyed that the Council dared ask him, then to claim not informing the Council was done at the Council's request. Then to claim it was all about a clerical error anyway. And then to ignore two of the three questions the Council asked. Pretty breathtaking chutzpah when you step back and take a look at it.
Granting for the moment that a "clerk" [the kind that makes "clerical errors"] got confused and thought the city should pay an invoice sent to the city by LYR & B for doing a report it delivered to the city, that still leaves this question: who decided the bill would be paid out of the Crossroads of the West budget? That was not a clerical error. Somebody had to decide which fund to tap for the money. We're supposed to believe a clerk reasoned things out this way: "Oh, here's a bill the city has to pay. Gosh, what account should I pay it out of? Oh, why not the Crossroads account? There's money there."
Nonsense.
I hope the SE stays on this. When an elected official squirms, obfuscates, and dissembles this much, it's usually an indication that he's hiding something, and something the public ought to know about that he does not want it to know about.
Keep digging, SE. Keep digging.
Tec, in his own demented way, Godfrey does somewhat shows that he a "conception of continual continuity".
Tec,
LOL! I'm afraid I'm a terra firma kinda guy. Not really into water sports, though when I was a Boy Scout I learned to steer a canoe and once swam a mile. Never tried riding a board of any sort--snow, surf, even skate. Makes me queasy just thinking about it. I do admire the kids (and grownups) who can keep their balance so well. But fitness and coordination aren't the same thing.
As for bringing the mayor down to citizen level, I believe there was a "beat the mayor" 5K foot race at the National Trails Day event a couple of weeks ago. I had a prior commitment and couldn't be there, but I'm not much of a runner either and wouldn't have had a chance of beating Godfrey. Anybody know how it went?
The mayor is having a poll done to see if he should run for mayor again? but with all this nay saying it is a tough job! well mayor can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
In the paper he acts like this is his sole company and he owns it. At one time I heard Rep. Hansen ask him if he could sell the mayor's office, would he, and he said yes in a heart beat. So just what does he think the roll of the mayor should be?
We would all be served better to have Neil Hansen in as our mayor.
Go Schwebke, Go!
I think it quite precious how Godfrey is showing his true sociopathic behaviour patterns right out in public for all to see!
His arrogance is breath taking, one of the things that high functioning sociopaths are usually pretty good at.
The blaming of the victim for one's own criminal acts is text book stuff.
The faux indignation is also very typical of this disorder.
The battle lines for this fall are being drawn. The Little Lord and his minions are staking out the battle field and making a rather lame attempt, so far, to claim the high moral ground. (See also the piece in "darts and flowers" in this morning's Standard)
They are clueless to the ridiculousness of trying to claim high moral ground from such low moral standing and history of actions.
A delicious comedy in the making.
I wonder if Rupert is helping with the stategy and copy?
Just a query:
If the city asked LYR&B to do the financial analysis [leave aside for the moment the question of who wrote, or will write, the check] --- and it seems LYR&B thought it was working for the city, since it billed the city and headed the analysis "For Ogden City" --- wouldn't that make Ogden City the client, in this instance? And so couldn't the Council ask LYR&B directly for information about who in the city government, specifically, commissioned the analysis, and what the payment arrangements were? If Ogden City [through the Mayor's office or any other city office] hired LYR&B to do the report, isn't the Council as entitled to ask questions of the firm about the report as the Mayor because Ogden City is the client?
Just asking.
If it pleases the Court I would like to comment on this morning's Schwepke article a little further.
The mayor keeps the study secret from the council and every one not in his inner circle. The Council later finds out about it and starts asking questions. The mayor then "takes them to task for failing to give him advanced notice about their concerns" Concerns they of course didn't know about until they found out about his secret. This is typical Godfrey logic. He has used it a number of times now.
Godfrey says he is disappointed that the leaders didn't bring it up in another meeting a few days ago. It has been my observations that he controls those meetings as he does all other work session meetings he has with the council and public. The subject was out in the open at that point, wasn't it? Why didn't he address it at that same meeting?
He was also already in the public denial mode on the subject, wasn't he?
Godfrey routinely abuses the council and his relationship with them. He sets them up for abuse and then takes advantage of them for the short comings he has manufactured - quite frequently it seems. He rarely misses an opportunity to embarrase them in the press - remember the hospital fiasco he created when this council was brand new?
Then he has the gall to say: “I cannot see how this kind of action fosters good-will and positive relationships between the administration and city council,”
As to Councilwoman Jeske's statement “It’s like the pot calling the kettle black” I say "good on you Councilor!" Continue to call it like it is, in plain simple English so that all of Ogden's folks can understand the basic truth about this nonsense game the mayor insists on playing.
Did the other two "mystery" payments to the SLC firm go through or not? That amounts to $32,500 total. The article doesn't say what happened to those two, just the first one was cancelled?
The mayor continues with his fiction when he says: “You instructed us that you did not want piece-mealed information about the gondola and resort project, and that you were not going to spend any more time on it until there was a formal proposal,”
I think that every one in the city, including the Standard, has been asking the great unanswered question: "where's the beef?" Where is the official proposal, where is Mr. Peterson, Where is anything to back up this Gondola fiction that the mayor continualy promotes on the cities dime?
The mayor's answer is a simple case of "projection", something we learned about in Psych 101.
I think Peterson's response to it is the most telling of all:
"Peterson, reached by e mail, declined to comment."
Peterson has pretty much declined to comment for about a year now. It sort of reminds me of the old Barry Gibb song: "I started a joke that started the whole world crying".
At least Peterson has upped old Earl in one petty way. He started some bull shit talk a couple of years ago about the Gondola and phantom resort and has had the whole town on edge and taling ever since. Seems like the best old Earl did was stir crap up for a year or so over the now infamous land swap deal, which of course was actually real.
Schwebke's last paragragh has some pretty ominous implications:
"The study concluded the gondola and resort project would cost about $533 million to build and would generate more than $89 million over 10 years in tax revenue for local governmental entities."
So the public puts up the $533 million dollars in Park property, bonds, grants, future tax proceeds, etc, on a very iffy and huge gamble, which will enrich Peterson and a few other select individuals, but not the citizens, if it succeeds; and if it loses it will cost the public the half a billion dollars, and the aforementioned select few will skip away with no financial losses. And as a reward, if it does defy logic and succeed, then our various tax entities might get $89 million in revenues on the project that the mayor says will be good for only 20 years.
So the genius in the Mayor's office seems to be saying that the public should pay out $533 million dollars for a 20 year scheme that will return them $178 million during its life time - if it succeeds, And nothing if it don't.
I guess he thinks maybe we can make it up in volume?
Oz,
The Peterson Pyramid Scheme is bad enough, without you making it sound even worse.
The public isn't being asked to put up $533 million--that's the hypothetical total cost to all investors, including the folks who would buy the 400 hypothetical houses in the foothills.
The public investment would be the 175 acres of park land, plus the usual public expense of providing utility hookups and other services to the new development, plus various administrative costs, plus whatever ongoing subsidy it would take to keep the urban gondola running (up to $4 million a year). The total value of this investment would be in the tens of millions, perhaps around $100 million, but nowhere near $500 million.
Of course, the public would have to make its investment first, before knowing whether any of the private investment would ever materialize.
Why are the citizen putting up with this little monkey. should we put a leash on him and get a organ grinder and just have the monkey beg for chris peterson plan. I can't wait.
To carry on to the point that Curm made, if the clerk paid the invoice, who ever the clerk was, I'm sure someone above the clerk had to code the payment to debit the right account and it had to be approved by a supervisor.
My question is, who was the supervisor that approved the payment and instructed the account to credit the expense to? The answer to this question could start indicating where the ultimate authorization came from. The council should find out and talk to that supervisor who authorized the payment to find out where he/she got his/her marching orders and do the paper trail on who instructed that individual to make the payment. This ultimately should lead to a person that is in a position of responsiblity.
It's obvious that Mr. Fowers has never seen the copy of the grant he writes about. I have one. It states very specifically that if this money is used for ANYTHING other than the HIGH TECHNOLOGY center, the recipients have violated the aggreement and must return the money to the state. This lame guy hasn't even noticed the funny explanation Harmer offered, note the use of his weaving high tech R&D into Amersports future uses in the CAN building. Apparently GONDOLA flavored Kool-aid makes the imbiber stupid.
I don't think that the council has the authority to talk to the people in accounting. They work for the Mayor, a seperate but equal branch of government. Perhaps they would have to inquire through the mayor. Good luck on that!
The City Council is vested with "subpoena power" under a provision of the Ogden City Code:
4-4B-3: LEGISLATIVE BRANCH:
The City Council may authorize subpoenas upon a majority vote of the Council. Such subpoenas shall be signed by the chair of the City Council. Upon such vote and signature, the subpoena shall be reviewed and approved "as to form" by the City Attorney or Assistant City Attorney and shall then be issued by the City Recorder.
(1979 Code § 3.26.030; Ord. 94-10, 3-8-1994)
Perhaps they sould consider exercising this legislative branch power, in the event that Mayor Godfrey continues to "stonewall."
Once again, Kristen Moulton of the SL Trib scoops the SE. Fired H.R. manager sues Ogden, alleges racial discrimination
With the City Attorney's being named as one of three defendants, this could get interesting. How can a City employee defend both the City and himself simultaneously?
I don't know what they're paying Kristen Moulton at the Salt Lake Tribune.
Whatever it is, it surely ain't enough, from the perspective of Weber County citizens.
Lou:
Precisely why I wondered, if the City hired LYR&B to do the study [even if UTA funds were expected to pay for it] whether the Council could not query LYR&B directly.
It might raise the question of what is the Council's status vis a vis city contractors? Does it represent the public interest, the Ogden City Corporation, or is that role exclusive to the mayor's office? If the city is the client/contractor of services from outside sources, does the Council have any oversight function at all, once it has approved the expenditures in a general way via the budget process? Is that the end of the Council's role until the next budget round? If so, and a Mayor refuses to provide information the council requests, or city employees to the Council to answer questions about Ogden City expenditures, does the Council have any recourse? And without necessarily suggesting this is going in in the present instance, though certainly the Mayor's actions and statements have raised legitimate questions in that direction, should the Council suspect that a mayor [any mayor] is withholding information or supplying false information, what recourse does the Council have?
With an administration committed to full disclosure and no dissembling as a matter of principle, none of these questions would even arise. Sadly, they have.
Sqirrel Patrol
As I read this morning's duo of articles on Mayor Godfrey, I was reminded of an old saying:
"The only time he lies is when his lips are moving."
I'm so glad that the Mayor has to do a survey to see how he is doing. Lets hope that he didn't call the naysayers or he will not run again. Doesn't he have more confidence in himself. Since he doesn't, Maybe he shouldn't run.
Wow Tec, a weapon like that in the hands of an ex-marine captain, trained killer could be so devastating to the local ground squirrel population, could posting such a link make you an accomplice? I hope the synthetic patagonia vest wearing CP doesn't surf this blog, someone may get their marching orders sooner than defenses can be readied.
On a lighter note, word on the street is that this Godfrey- UTA GONDOLA ruse has more angles than the NEW JACKASS center.
One more interesting tid-bit that has yet to hit the local paper. If mr. Gregory Pecary Montgomery still thinks that building a housing developement on steep slopes, he may want to give his sewer dept. a call. Above Skyline Dr. above the football stadium one of their large concrete main lines has separated, the ground moved. Quite a mess,quite a mess.
still thinks building on steep slopes is ok.
Poor Godfrey should not only be concerned about the City Council but Police and Firemen. He's managed to make promises he never intend to keep.
The Cops and Firemen that I know and work with, they say they want Neil Hansen for Mayor. So if you support cops and firefighters; support Neil Hansen for Mayor.
For the topically-inclined, check out today's (Wed., June 20) Wall St. Journal, p. B1, on the streetcar system in Tampa, Fla. That city's 2.4-mile streetcar system, whose speedometer rarely cracks 10 mph, is considered a money-hemorrhaging bust, even though it's a great success as 1) a tourist attraction and 2) a proven incentive for commercial and residential development along the line.
The upshot would seem to be: for effective intra-city public transportation, it's hard to beat a bus. I certainly hope the UTA notices this.
MM:
It would seem, from your post, that for the balance to swing clearly to the side of rail, it would not have to be faster than a bus service over the same route; it would merely have to be as fast [considering all the TOD benefits it brought to Tampa that bus did not].
Thanks for the pointer. Off to work now and crashing a deadline due tomorrow, but will look up the WSJ article Friday.
BTW, glad they did the story before Rupert Murdoch took over at WSJ or the headline would have been "Naked Model Sell's Sex on Slo Late-Nite Trolly Runs In Tampa! Pix Inside!"
Curm: I'll save you the trouble and email it to you.
Could you imagine how HOT you'd be if you were inside a gondola this afternoon if a gondola system existed in ogden?
You could get arrested if you left your dog in a car in similar conditions!
Post a Comment