By Monotreme
Mayor Godfrey has made his effectiveness as a crimefighter a centerpiece of his mayoral re-election campaign. Yesterday, our household received a glossy mailing that touted his crimefighting skills, his fecundity and his ability to read bedtime stories to his daughter. All good qualities for a mayor, I suppose, but personally I find the only relevant or useful part of the mailing to be his claims regarding his crimefighting skills.
An earlier WCF article examined the problems with this claim, including his unprovoked mugging of the rules of logic and argument (the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy) and some chicanery with numbers.
In Mayor Godfrey’s latest fusillade against logic and reason, he finally reveals the “raw” data underlying his startling campaign claims: a 23 percent reduction in overall crimes from 1999 to 2006, and a 43 percent reduction in violent crimes over the same period.
Let’s set aside for a moment the questionable ethics of using taxpayer money to buy a full-page ad in the Ogden Standard-Examiner for what is essentially a campaign document. We’ll also not beat a dead horse on the post hoc logical fallacy, even though it still casts doubt on his claims of crimefighting prowess.
What I want to talk about today is the fact that he is guilty of depraved indifference to the truth. Either he has negligently failed to check the data underlying his claim, or he is a liar who fabricated numbers to make himself look good.
There are three sources of data which I’ve used for this analysis.
1) An undated report signed by Chief Greiner, apparently from 2004, available as an Acrobat version of a Powerpoint presentation on the Ogden City website. Click on the “12-Year Crime Report” link. (Greiner 2004).
2) The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Report, published annually with data breakdowns for all cities, states and regions (FBI UCR).
3) Mayor Godfrey’s personal advertising space, under the guise of an Ogden City communication with its citizens, published in the Thursday, August 30, 2007 Standard-Examiner (Godfrey 2007).
The Ogden City advertisement repeats exactly, almost verbatim, the claims contained in Mayor Godfrey’s campaign material:
“Over the last eight years, since Matthew Godfrey became mayor, Ogden has hired 18 new police officers and crime has dropped more than 23% — including a drop in violent crimes of 43%. That’s no coincidence.” [Campaign mailing, paid for by the People to Re-elect Matthew Godfrey]I’ve taken the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report statistics and converted them to the same basis used in the Greiner and Godfrey reports (crimes per 1,000 population): I divided by 100 the FBI metric (number of crimes per 100,000). I dropped the 2003 data from the Greiner report because it was marked “projected” and therefore I did not think that Chief Greiner should be held accountable for its veracity.
“According to statistics from the Ogden Police Department, the overall crime rate in Ogden has dropped by 23 percent in the last eight years. Non-violent crimes are down by 21 percent, and data on violent crimes proves even more significant.
“In a report calculating incidents based upon crimes per thousand population, violent crimes recorded in 1999 were 6.7 compared to 3.8 reported last year — in other words, violent crime in Ogden is down by 43 percent.
…“[There is a] remarkable drop in crime that is already evident in Ogden” [Ogden City advertisement, paid for by the People who May or May Not Want to Re-elect Matthew Godfrey But Who Must, By Law, Pay Taxes to Publish This Unadulterated Nonsense]
The Godfrey and Greiner numbers (red and blue) are in general agreement, except for a troubling increase in 1999 crime in Godfrey’s data which is not shown in Greiner’s data. The Godfrey and FBI UCR data are also in good general agreement, except for that same spike in 1999 which Godfrey claims (and which he uses as a baseline for his “23% drop” claim) but which is not reflected in the federal reports.
I’ve already discussed in my previous article why the apparent drop in total crime is not so startling, since total crimes in Utah dropped at an greater rate over the same period, probably due to demographic changes.
Here’s a comparison for the “remarkable” drop in violent crime during Mayor Godfrey’s administration:
Evidence of data manipulation is manifest here. The 1999 number is far higher than we’d expect from either the FBI Uniform Crime Report or from the Ogden City Police Department’s own published report, and the 2005 number is far lower. The 2002 spike in the FBI data for violent crimes is inexplicably absent in both Greiner’s and Godfrey’s data. The 2000, 2003 and 2004 data are in good general agreement, and the 2001 number is identical in all three reports. The 2002 spike is probably a statistical aberration, as is the 2001 dip, since they both lie away from the trend line. Still, Godfrey’s and Greiner’s data preserve the artificially low 2001 figure but “shave off” the artificially high 2002 figure.
As far as I’m aware, the Ogden City Police Department is legally obligated to provide accurate data to the FBI for their Uniform Crime Report. They seem to have done a good job doing so; there are minor discrepancies in the data which may be explained by methodological differences (such as different population estimates, different types of crimes included, and the like).
But how in the world can we possibly explain an artificially inflated total crime rate in 1999, before Mayor Godfrey was elected?
How can we possibly explain an artificially inflated violent crime rate in 1999, and an artificially low violent crime rate in 2002 and in 2005, the last year for which we can compare publicly available data? Isn’t it odd that the “43% drop in violent crime” claim simply reflects a comparison of two faulty datapoints (1999 and 2005)? How odd that the faulty data is in exactly the direction that makes Mayor Godfrey look more effective at reducing crime than he actually is.
(A full version, including city-by-city breakdown, of the 2006 FBI UCR data has not been released yet, so I did not include the Mayor’s claim for 2006 data of a rate of 3.8 violent crimes per 1000 population. His “43% drop” claim is apparently based on comparison of the bogus 1999 datapoint, 6.7 per 1000, versus the unverifiable 2006 datapoint, 3.8 per 1000. 3.8/6.7 is 57%, and 100% minus 57% is a drop of 43%.)
The real drop, using real, verifiable statistics, is 13%, as I’ve argued earlier. There is a lot of year-to-year fluctuation, so I took the average of the pre-Godfrey years for which FBI UCR data were available (1995-1999) and compared them to the average of the Godfrey years (2000-2005). I think it’s disingenuous to use only two favorable datapoints in making comparisons when you have yearly data for an eight-year mayoral administration.
To get a 43% drop in violent crime, the author of these statistics had to artificially inflate the 1999 number and artificially deflate the 2005 number.
Last year Mayor Godfrey explained to me that we were in a Republic, not a Democracy. This year, based on the letters generated by his toadies, it appears we are employees (or maybe stockholders, I’m not sure) of the Ogden City Corporation, which like all corporations is looking out for the commonweal, like water and sewer and parkland and police services.
It seems to me that the CEO of a $120 million corporation, a Captain of Industry, what Tom Wolfe would have called a Master of the Universe, would want to have accurate data in order to make his Important Corporate Decisions that we mere mortals could not possibly understand.
It seems to me that the CEO of a $120 million corporation would be tarred and feathered by either his board or the stockholders if he were found to have fabricated accounting data in order to make it appear the corporation was more successful than it actually was.
Was this done by Mayor Godfrey, or was it done by one of his employees?
Will the theft of lawn signs be included in next year’s statistics?
Update 9/1/07 11:09 a.m. MT: At the request of one of our readers, we have created a printer-friendly page for readers who would like a hard-copy printout of this article. The page can be found here. Simply navigate to the page, and send the document to your printer.
46 comments:
The reason that Crime is down in Ogden says one former police officer. is that Godfrey told the strike force not to aggressively look for meth labs.
because as they would make arrest, then the crime rates would then go up and this would make him look bad. so they were only to go to the labs that some one had reported. but they were not to look for them on their own.
I think it's deplorable the lack of respect that the Mayor has for his police force.
These men and women have some of the hardest jobs in America, and they are deserving of our support.
The only way he can claim to have reduced crime is to manipulate statistics, both directly (as presented above) and indirectly (as suggested by History of Ogden).
Because I love and respect our city's police and fire protection officers, I deeply resent the manipulation of these data. It cheapens their efforts on my behalf and shows contempt for their hard work, reducing it to a political football.
Citizens of this republic, or corporation, or whatever the heck we are today, should rise up in righteous indignation at this nonsense.
Interesting figures and comments. I must say, my husband and I were quite outraged when we saw the Ogden City ad in the paper. Blatant propaganda for the Mayor, paid for by John Q. Public.
Now that we can also look at data for "before Godfrey", it appears that the rate of total crime was dropping like a rock, but only until Godfrey took over.
How about taking credit for that too, Matt?
The biggest crime statistic of all is spelled G O D F R E Y. A pathological liar with the keys to the public treasury.
Statistics in the hands of liars is a very dangerous weapon, and Godfrey is doing like all crooks before him, using all the weapons he has.
Where did Godfrey obtain those stats? I would like to see where they came from. That doesn't surprise me that he has been telling his police force not to do their job, because if I remember right, when he was first elected he told the cops "if you don't like the way I tell you how to do your job, you can go elsewhere" so a bunch of safety enforcers left. Honestly, how STUPID do you have to be to openly invite crime to Ogden. The day I saw that billboard on 20th and Washington offering OPD positions, what not a better way to say, "hey, look at ogden! We're understaffed as a PD, why not come do crime here!" Not a bright idea to tell the public that their public dollars aren't being used to the fullest.
And another question, why is most of Godfrey's signs in vacant buildings, houses and lots. Doesn't he have any more friends in ogden, or did he chase out them like those who used to live on 25th and jackson next to the Ivy Lane Recpetion Center?
And where is Suzy in all of this, does she have an opinion?
Well, Hansen, you have my support.
Susie is nowhere to be found, that is because she said that she in not a politician. Then what is she doing running?
Suzie said she's not a politician? I thought she sat on the council? And why is she running for mayor if she is telling everyone she isn't a politician? Is that written somewhere, when did she say it?
Call and ask her.
Get your letter in to the Standard because they aren't accepting any after Sept. 4.
"Not a politician."
It is a very traditional theme in American electoral politics for people running for office to claim they are not politicians, while their opponents are politicians. [Politician has, undeservedly, taken on pejorative overtones in common use in the US.] What they usually mean by it is that they are not professional politicians, meaning they have not earned their livings in politics.
Mayor Godfrey, as a two-time winner and incumbent, cannot make that claim since he's made his living from elected office now for nearly eight years. If Ms. Hooser wins, four years from now, she will no longer be able to make that claim. "Not a politician" is the local equivalent of a candidate for president insisting he [or she] is not from "inside the beltway." [Romney can claim that; Clinton can not. If Romney wins, he would no longer be able to claim that. The assumption they rely on is that people "not politicians" or "not from inside the beltway" are necessarily more pure, less corrupt, etc. than others. There is no, repeat no, evidence to support this assumption. George W. Bush claimed to be from "outside the beltway" when he first ran for president and look where that got us.]
Curm:
Last time I checked, a politician is an elected offical that is to represent the public! Not to claim the way they collect their paycheck. But I guess if Van Hooser is stating that she's not a politician, (or a public servant) I guess you would be saying she's in it for the money?
Bump:
I was not talking dictionary definitions, but perceptions, particularly during campaigns. Listen to talk radio or man-in-the-street interviews on public matters, and you will hear over and over phrases like "these politicians don't give a damn aouut us," or "politicians only care about themselves" and such like. Very very rarely do you hear it used by someone who is not in office as a synonym for "public servant. Very rarely. Besides, your definition is, even on its own terms, so limited as to be nearly useless as a guide to American politics. Carl Rove, for example, is not an elected public official. He is [or was] very much a politician.
As you well know, no where did I suggest that Ms. Van Hooser is not a public servant [she serves on the City Council] or wouldn't be if she wins election. Nor, as you well know, did I suggest that she was "in it for the money." The "using my definition of terms, we can conclude you must have meant this" is not a very effective way to make a point. You can do better than that by way of campaign rhetoric.
However, you've raised an issue that was much debated among the founders, and since: pay for elected officials. Myself, I'm for substantial pay for those who work full time in elected positions with much responsibility. The Mayor's office is a full time job with a great deal of responsibility in the hands of whoever holds it, and he or she should be paid accordingly. Otherwise, public elected office becomes open only to the independently wealthy. [To prevent which the founders decided that Congressmen, the President and Senators ought to be paid, by the public, for their work. It was the right decision.]
...Interesting....
Curm, don't forget that some founding fathers (Ben Franklin) in particular felt that U.S. Senators should not be paid, that way we could be assured that anyone in the Senate was wealthy enough to hold that position. Given that the Senate is often referred to now as the millionaires club (because they are millionaires before they get elected) it would seem that Mr Franklin, and not the other founders to which you are referring, would be pleased.
I say shoot all the bastards!
Let’s look at the last 18 months:
On 4 separate occasions, Ogden Police Officers were involved in gun fights with violent criminals in Ogden. This is unparalleled in Ogden’s history.
Last month, there was a double homicide where two rival Ogden Gangs were involved. There has not been such a crime since the Hi-Fi Shop murders in the 1970s.
The increase to the police force has been primarily in the area of the Traffic Enforcement Division. Mayor Godfrey has increased this division to levels never seem in the history of the police department. There has been no increase of officers in the Gang Unit, Narcotic Unit or the Detective Unit.
Mayor Godfrey has required all police officers to write a certain number of traffic citations. It is only in this area that the mayor can truthfully take credit for an increase. In the mayor’s tenor, he has required enough citations to be written for every man, woman and child in Ogden to receive three citations. Here lies his true priority, revenue.
One only needs to listen at night to hear the sporadic gunfire on a consistent basis.
The true question, the question that unravels Mayor Godfrey’s claim, is do you feel safe in Ogden? Do you feel that you can walk down most any street, at any time of the day and feel safe?
I believe that the answer to that question will be the same to this one; do you want Mayor Godfrey re-elected to a third term?
Cato:
My favorite Ben Franklin advice from the period is this. Ben was infuriated by the large number of Pennsylvanians who flat refused to pay their taxes during the Revolutionary war, creating huge holes in the rebel government of Pennsylvania's budget.
In December of 1783, he declared that men have a right only to that property immediately necessary to their survival. "All property superfluous to such purposes," he wrote, was "the property of the public, who by their laws, have created it." Such superfluous property might be justly seized by taxation "whenever the welfare of the public shall demand such disposition. He that does not like civil society on these terms, let him retire and live among the savages."
[Franklin to Robert Morris, 25 December 1783, in John Bigelow, The Complete Works of Benjamin Franklin, IX, p.138.]
So, will the real Ben Franklin please stand up: elitist sycophant of the wealthy --- or running-dog of a tax and spend liberal?
A man of many facets, Ben was. Had almost as many facets, it seems, as he had mistresses....
monotreme:
Your research on crime statistics is impressive. But by publishing it only on this blog, and anonymously at that, it seems that you've ensured that it will be seen only by Weber County Forum readers. Are you making any serious efforts to get this information to the press? Even the television stations might be interested in accusations that the mayor is manipulating crime statistics for political purposes. The problem is, the press usually won't touch accusations that come from an anonymous source. I know that the raw data is available to anyone, but reporters won't go to the trouble to reproduce your analysis on their own.
It seems that lying little matty is sticking tenaciously to the only talent he has ever developed,lying his ass off. Undoutedly has learned from our own political history, if you can repeat a lie often enough the majority will begin to believe it.
This applies to every claim he seems to make about his time in office. Redused crime 23%, brought the the dept down to 20 million $$$.
The only way he has been able to feel comfortable enough to actually print this BS has been the lack of vigilance on the part of the media,(press) It's a shame, very unfortunate that many Ogdenites have heard these unadulterated disengenuous fabrications thru what I suspect most concider a reliable source of information,outright fabrications. Unchecked and repeated often enough that his lying strategem has effectively fooled alot of the uninformed general public.
The SE dear Curm, has truley been derilict in their #1 purpose for existence.
It seems that lying little matty is sticking tenaciously to the only talent he has ever developed,lying his ass off. Undoutedly has learned from our own political history, if you can repeat a lie often enough the majority will begin to believe it.
This applies to every claim he seems to make about his time in office. Redused crime 23%, brought the the dept down to 20 million $$$.
The only way he has been able to feel comfortable enough to actually print this BS has been the lack of vigilance on the part of the media,(press) It's a shame, very unfortunate that many Ogdenites have heard these unadulterated disengenuous fabrications thru what I suspect most concider a reliable source of information,outright fabrications. Unchecked and repeated often enough that his lying strategem has effectively fooled alot of the uninformed general public.
The SE dear Curm, has truley been derilict in their #1 purpose for existence.
Signs signs every where there's signs! Actually drove the length of Washington Blvd this afternoon and didn't see near the number of signs that are proliferating on the east side. Also didn't see the infamous Hansen sign at the mill stream motel. Did the Geiger's succeed in getting it removed?
Of the ones that I did see, almost all were large ones incidently, I thought Hansen's stood out and looked the best. Next were Godfrey's which I felt were a bit ho hum and boring - just like the punk they advertise. Last, and least effective by a very long way was VanHooser's. What the hell was she (or Mary Hall) thinking when they wasted the money to print them up? Not only are the signs ugly and of a very poor graphic quality, but for the most part they are completely unreadable, especially from a moving car. A total waste in my humble opinion. My advice, unsolicited as it is, to VanHooser - get a new graphics team ASAP! The signs you have up aint even worth Bobby G's time and effort to tear down!!
Oh yea, the Eccles dude has a bunch of the real large signs down the blvd also. Probably more than the others mentioned combined. Good looking signs incidently, probably the best of the crop.
Bill C:
You wrote: The SE dear Curm, has truly been derelict in their #1 purpose for existence.
And what would that purpose be, Bill? We all have, or at least most of us here do, a clear idea I think of what we want/expect our home town paper to be. I know my preferred model is the "crusading journal," exposing corruption, shining light where the powerful, and especially the powerful in office, do not want it shined, questioning every statement made by an office-holder or prominent citizen, to see if they stand up to scrutiny. But then, I grew up reading the NY Times and Newsday in their crusading heydays [the Times alas has fallen upon parlous times itself of late]. And later five years reading daily the Madison, WI Capitol Times when it was still be edited by an old LaFollette progressive and still considered itself a crusading progressive paper. [It ran, every issue, this line over its editorial page: Let the people have the truth, and the freedom to discuss it, and all will be well.
I don't think the publishers and editors look upon the SE as that kind of paper. [Most mid-sized city papers I'm familiar with no longer seem to be that kind of paper]. Mr. Schwebke is probably right about me: I have watched The Front Page too many times.
The SE turns a profit, I understand [which not a whole lot of dailies seem to be doing these days], most of its readers do not live in Ogden, its managers see themselves running a regional paper, not an Ogden one, and --- unlike most of the politicos and policy wonks here at WCF --- I think they look upon the role their paper plays, or should, differently than you and I do, with respect to news judgment and news coverage.
And to be fair, they don't always get credit here for good work. Recall the recent story about out of staters investing in downtown Ogden real estate? Big front page spread? Now, that story contained a lot of information I did not know and was glad to learn. For example that Mr. Lesham now owns 28 parcels in downtown Ogden and, in general, where they are. And it named other outside buyers, how they got interested in Ogden and, in general where their investments were located. Lots of new information, in short, and interesting information.
Yet here, the SE got exactly zero credit for having done the piece. Instead, it drew immediate criticism for not doing the article the way some people here wanted it done. Sharon seemed miffed that its opening paragraph was not "Matthew
Godfrey's crony, G. Lesham, who has been indicted for business fraud in California, now owns 28 tracts in downtown Ogden." Others piled on because the piece did not discuss Mr. Lesham's California legal problems.
Now while I agree with the critics that a line about that could and should have been included, what most here seemed to focus on was not that the SE had done the story [answering some questions people here at WCF had been asking for some time]. Instead, people focused on a flaw in the story, and ignored the fact that the SE did the story and that, flaw included, it contained much of interest.
That's an example of what I mean about them not getting credit often for their work. The gang story series I thought was good. And as was noted by one or two people here, with Hizzonah making an alleged drop in Ogden crime a key element of his campaign, the SE ran on a front page the story that Ogden Regional Medical Center was having to contract for armed guards to help out when wounded gang members came to the hospital emergency room.
The paper's biggest flaw is, from this old progressive's POV, that some of its reporters are too often willing to print, unchecked, the claims made by candidates and officials. Nor are the editorial directors eager enough often enough to tell their reporters to dig beyond the press release, the office holder's claim, the candidate's assertion. Sometimes they do. Often they don't. Will the news editors direct a reporter now to dig into the Mayor's statistical claims about how he's reduced crime in Ogden? To see if the numbers stand scrutiny? I don't know. At my model progressive crusading journal, the editors would. But, as I said, the SE publisher and editors seem to have a different vision of what their paper ought to be. [And no, that vision is not to make it an appendage of the Re-Elect Matthew Godfrey Committee].
You, some others, and occasionaly I, have criticized the SE for not being a crusading paper, for not doing a lot of investigative journalism. I'm not sure the paper has the resources to do a great deal of that, but I wish it would do more than it does. As I said, it's not my model mid-sized city paper. Nor, clearly, is it yours.
But it's a long way from being worthless. It covers a great deal more than just the city politics which seems mostly to concern us here. And much of the political coverage it does is worthwhile, even if some here sometimes seem more interested in picking out flaws rather than noticing the worth of a piece overall.
As I've said on many occasions, it's not the paper Ogden deserves. Not the paper the SE could be. Should be. Not my crusading investigative-reporting challenging authority at every turn paper. But, as I survey the mid-sized city press around the country when I get the chance, very few papers seem to be that anymore.
Enough. Going to pop The Front Page in the DVD player again. Then maybe Citizen Kane. Ciao, paisan.
Curm, In the last 3 years the SE has repeatedly just printed any lies lying little matty and his gondola worshipping minions (rhymes with onions) have desired to have the broader uninformed public to be subjected to.
These blatant falsehoods have appeared as headlines and themes over and over in our local publication, leading the populace to be conditioned to believe there is validity in them. Let's take one of lying little matty's earliest blantant lies, offered repeatedly,printed without one check for accuracy over and over by the SE, "Mt. Ogden Golf course has lost $300 thousand a year, every year since it opened. This lie can be easily dismissed with minimal effort. I mention that one because it may be the catalyst of my rabid distain for the lying little &*&#*&#, and anyone that would now condone or support him.
But the point is to repeatedly print these lies and never make any effort to check for their accuracy is a true public dis- service, and as bad has the original telling of them. It's simple dishonesty, let the edidtors try to convince you otherwize, but thats what it is.
Bill:
Well, I don't move in such rarefied levels as to get involved in discussions with SE editors. Except to send a complaining email now and then, or an email asking a question. And, rarely, a nod for a good piece of work. Whatever I've concluded about the SE and how its managers see it and their role comes from reading the thing. Daily, front to back.
And I hope you noticed that your main complaint about the reporting... it too often amounts to press release journalism, not checking claims, facts, assertions offered by those in office [or on the campaign trail] is precisely the major weakness in the paper I listed above. Only adding that so far as I can see, the kind of paper that as a matter of editorial and reporting policy, routinely probes such claims is not large, and that the SE's approach to local journalism is, I suspect, the norm for mid-sized city dailies, not the exception. That's unfortunate, I think, for the nation in general, and Ogdenites in particular, I agree. But discouraging though it is, it doesn't render the SE [which covers much else besides politics and elections] a "worthless rag." So, seems to me, the course of wisdom is to read it for its strengths, the breadth of is coverage of matters Ogden [of which politics and city administrations in only one, albeit a very important one], and recognize [and allow for] the weaknesses we both agree are there [I.e. accept no figure, claim, allegation reported by the SE as coming from an official or candidate as valid on its face, even if the SE raises no question about it.] and allow for them when reading. That's all.
I'm a cop and I won't drive my family around Ogden if I can help it. Its not that I'm worried about criminals. I'm worried the mayor will call in my licence number into his good old buddy Chief Senator Greiner, while my wife is driving.. Then charge me for something that happend three months earlier, that the Internal Affairs Department cleared me from.
But they'd fire me anyway just like they did with Officer Matt Jones.
These two guys are like Larry Craig the toe tapping "not gay" Senator from Boise. Ya know boys of Boise.
But its toe tapping Godfrey and toe tapping Greiner. When these to get together I feel sorry for the bathroom stalls.
Personally I find VanHooser's signs to be the most recognizable.
The B/W lettering with the red accent is simple and you don't even need to read it to register, "VanHooser." So I have to disagree with Oz.
BTW, Amy Wicks has signs now at her home and somebody dropped me off some this week. With all the "Eccles" signs out there we need to get some "Wicks" signs going.
Given the coercion being applied to put out "Godfrey" signs it's nice to see there aren't more of them.
But people do need to understand that Eccles is a Godfreyite, as is Johnson and Peterson.
Curmudgeon
I too would argue with those that think the Standard is a "worthless rag".
I find it excellent for paper training puppies and soaking up "accidents". I especially like it when they print a picture of the Little Lord Godfrey as it helps a lot to get the little doggies to go in a very precise spot.
Today's scoop from the SL Trib and Kristen Moulton: Ogden Mayor Thousands Ahead in Race
Godfrey, $100,000
Van Hooser $ 27,000
Hansen $ 8,200
Others $ 0
As expected, much of Matt's money comes from those who have a vested interest in his remaining Mayor and selling them the City for pennies on the dollar.
Godfrey reports spending less than $18K so far. Does that mean that if he comes in 3rd in the Primary that he'll have a "severance package" of $82K coming to him?
There is an interesting letter to the editor in the Standard this morning from the fighter of corrupt politicians - Tom Owens. I will copy it here as it is pretty short.
Also interesting how the Standard prints letters that go after Godfrey on Saturday's - the least editorial page reader day of the week. Yesterday's letter from Littrell must have slipped by. I will also attach it here.
- - - - - - - -
Godfrey's created 'financial morass'
Saturday, September 1, 2007
I'm replying to the letters that compare Ogden government to a large corporation, and then try to make the case that Mayor Godfrey is the only capable candidate to run this "$120 million company" (Aug. 28, "Godfrey revived a dead Ogden").
I am of the opinion that the purpose of city government is to furnish basic public needs like roads, water, sewer, fire, police and other common municipal needs, not to be wheeling and dealing business speculators. On this measure, I believe that the mayor is a complete failure.
The mayor has created a public debt approaching $100 million that rests on the backs of the taxpayers of Ogden, and their children and grandchildren to come.
His failures are many. They include the diversion of funds from Business Depot Ogden and every redevelopment agency project in town in order to support the bowling alley and penny arcade that is the keystone to his mall project; the Army criminal investigation into his manipulations of the BDO funds and the settlement that cost taxpayers many millions; the $5 million lawsuit he got into and lost over the Woodbury Building; the $2 million he lost in the Union Station condo project; and many, many more financial disasters he has led the city into.
It seems to me that Mayor Godfrey is the very last person Ogden needs to lead it out of the dangerous financial morass that he has led the city into!
Tom Owens
- - - - - - - - -
Mayor needs to be honest about agendas
Friday, August 31, 2007
Mayor Matthew Godfrey has become such a divisive and polarizing figure in Ogden city government that he needs to be replaced.
He acted secretively and with intent to keep the council in the dark for two years, as you can read from the recent e-mails obtained through Government Records Access and Management Act. Ogden received a $247,000 federal grant for a bus. Mayor Godfrey attempted to illegally involve UTA in using part of that grant for a gondola study.
He takes a position, then reverses it months later after citizens rebel. I frankly don't know today where he really stands on his previous idea of disposing of the Mount Ogden Park and Golf Course. Does he really plan to pursue the gondola idea or not?
Mayor Godfrey sold city property to his friends, the Leshems and Chris Peterson, without the required legal notification to the general public for the sale of city-owned property.
The mayor seems to be more interested in making us the sports and ski capital of the world than in fixing our infrastructure and solving the real issues of city government.
The mayor has us in debt $100 million before the river project even gets moving. Is his intent to get us in deeper for another $100 million or more?
Mr. Mayor, please spell out the costs of your plans for the next four years. We deserve to be told what you have in mind for us before we cast our vote.
Dorothy E. Littrell
Bump on a Log
You got it right. VH IS in it for the money...her husband said so. Mary Hall and VH have come up with the worst signs of the race. Only hubris would disctate one name and undecipherable nonsense on a sign. But, don't tell her. Hansen is our man. don't we have some money for him?
A servant of the people pro tecting servants of the people.
They should have rmembered that. Too bad the firefighters aren't as loyal to Hansnen as he has been to them!
To all those wondering about van hooser's opinions or lack thereof.
She doesn't need to express opinions, if she has any:
Her website says that we are to "IMAGINE"...imagine her being a great mayor, imagine her tackling godfrey's tangled web of deceit, imagine her talking to everyone and anyone who needs her attention, imagine her getting the 'job' done!
Imagine that!
I'm with Observer...let's get behind Neil...egoless, humble, hardworking, experienced.
Jason...clean up your mouth...defecate on the SE like Bonnie Lee's dog.
You can express yourself better, be more witty and more succinct without being totally vulgar. I've read good stuff from you.
Jason....I've read witty, succinct
and good pieces by you. Clean up the vulgarity or use the SE the way Bonnie Lee's dog does...for the same purpose.
Observer 1:
If you think you're helping your candidate by trying to make yard sign design an issue, let me tell you, you are not. Actually, I'd say the reverse. ["Huh? Observer wants me to vote for Hansen because his yard signs are better designed than Van Hooser's? Is he serious?"]
You want to make a case for your candidate, then tell us why he'd be a better choice. Tell us why his plans for Ogden are better thought out and more likely to succeed than those of the other candidates. But sign design? Gimme a break.
There was in the SL Trib report on campaign financing a point I thought spoke well of Hansen: except for a one K loan to himself, nearly all the rest of his money came from small donations. That stands up very well against the attempt by the Boyer Company, the Realtor groups and other corporate interests who sent thousands to Godfrey in an attempt to buy the race for him. As a good yellow dog Democrat, I generally think it speaks well of a candidate when most of his money comes from the $10, $25 and $50 dollar check writers. Talk about that if you like. But yard sign design? Jaysus....
You know Curm, you seem to be the only person on here who can completely misconstrue what others say. I was chiming in on what others had said with an observation of my own. Are you working for VH? Sure sounds like it. If not, try remedial reading AND comprehension.
I agree...sometimes you are so professorial that you are a complete snore. No insult intended.
I've mentioned the Godfrey Ring, the corrupt group consisting of the mayor and certain connected business cronies that are looting this city. Now, thanks to Kristin Moulton, we know some of their names.
Matt Godfrey - Ring Leader with $100,000 in kickbacks in his pockets.
Where some of it came from:
Staker Parson Cos., $10,000
Homer Cutrubus, $6,000
The Boyer Co., $6,000
Cottonwood Partners, $5,000
Fresenius Medical Care, $5,000
Dave Wadman, $5,000
Larry H. Miller, $5,000
Petersen Advantage, $5,000
Weber-North Davis Association of Realtors, $5,000
Gee, I wonder why these people would give thousands of dollars to see a small town mayor re-elected?
All of these CORRUPT SOBs have their snouts in the trough of PUBLIC LARGESSE, courtesy of Godfrey.
And now, on cue, they give some back.
Let me be the first to say it. Giving those kind of sums to Godfrey paints each of these sleaze bags in their true colors, showing them for what they really are.
Tell me, you sleazy supporters of Godfrey whoever and wherever you are - In which gutter are you washing your dirty morality today?
Now that we know who many of the little guy's supporters are....maybe we should boycot their businesses, after all why would I want to support the people who are in favor of the many underhanded, back-door dealings that the present administration represents?
Danny, you could also think of it as Matt's severance package, when we vote the little prick out in the primary.
Observer:
If I misconstrued your post, please accept my apologies.
You wrote: Are you working for VH?
Talk about misconstruing a post! But since you asked, as a matter of fact, I'm not.
I'll shop else where ...
Yes. but the honest thing for Godfrey to do is return the money should he lose the primary.
but he won't because he has no moral fiber!!!
The only fiber this creep has is in his all-bran.
Post a Comment