We got a few good laughs reading this morning's Scott Schwebke article, "Election suit sparks debate." For the second day in a row we were entertained by the preposterous posturing of Boss Godfrey, the mayoral candidate with the $140 thousand campaign war chest -- and the power of the mayoral incumbency -- posing as the victim, and trying to rope all his opposition into one neat little monolithic camp, marching to the beat of a single drummer.
Although the article wanders all over the field, there is one clear theme that binds the article together, more or less. This theme is set forth in the article subheadline, "Suit wants Godfrey disqualified; some signers say they were misled."
For purposes of this article, we're going to drill down to the single plaintiff who has now decided to withdraw from the lawsuit: Ogden resident Robert Cato. Here are Ace Reporter Schwebke's quotes concerning Mr. Cato's change of heart:
However, one of the plaintiffs, Robert Cato, of Ogden, said on Wednesday he was misled into signing a document he thought was a petition.Being the curious type, we contacted Dorothy Littrell this morning, and asked if she wouldn't mind sending an electronic copy of the written authorization (or consent form) that Mr. Cato signed, prior to the filing of the subject legal action. We were curious to know whether it was reasonable for Mr. Cato to have assumed he was signing a "mere petition." Ms. Littrell has quickly complied with our request, and this is the document Ms. Littrell sent us in reply.
Cato said he has asked Brian Barnard, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney handling the lawsuit for Littrell, to remove his name from the complaint.
Take a good look at this document, gentle readers, and decide for yourselves whether Mr. Cato was actively "misled." We're not putting the "knock" on Mr. Cato, by the way. Over the years he's been an effective citizen activist, and we consider him to be a friend of Weber County Forum. We do however believe the term "misled" may be a little excessive in this instance; as we do know that Mr. Cato can both read and write. Perhaps, we'll suggest, Mr. Cato merely failed to read the heading on the document that bears his signature.
One of the other interesting aspects of this morning's article, for us at least, was the spectacle of the folks from the Van Hooser camp, dancing to the Standard-Examiner's tune "on cue," and frantically distancing themselves from Ms. Littrell's lawsuit:
We think a better Van Hooser reply would have been something like this: "Are you nuts, Mr. Schwebke?" "Why on earth would we introduce a distraction like this into the campaign, when we're sitting in the "catbird seat"?In a statement released late Wednesday night Van Hooser asked the petitioners to drop the suit against Godfrey.
“But we cannot allow minor technicalities to get in the way of discussing the major issues that face our city: public safety, economic growth, fiscal responsibility, and quality of life. I suggest that Ogden’s citizens, the media, and Mayor Godfrey direct their attention away from this ill-considered lawsuit and back to the real issues,” she said.
We're also going to dip into the comments in a lower article thread, and incorporate some wise words offered by gentle Curmudgeon:
What the law suit has done is take the focus of the press, and the public, off Godfrey's performance in office, his continuing belief that "let's build a gondola!" is the best solution for whatever Ogden problem is under discussion, etc. And it has instead shifted press and public attention to matters of who is behind this law suit --- note the Mayor's implication in this morning's story that the law suit is really an attempt by Van Hooser supporters to win at any cost --- and "were those who signed on misled by those who filed the suit" and such like. Every day the press and public spends discussing all that is a day not spent discussing the central issues in the campaign and, finally, which of the candidates represents the best choice to lead Ogden over the next four years. It has taken the spotlight off Godfrey's sorry performance and shifted it to side issues.Curmudgeon is mostly right. But we believe it isn't necessarily "the lawsuit" alone that's allowed this to happen. What has occurred on the pages of the Standard-Examiner demonstrates Boss Godfrey's continuing ability to control the agenda -- for a couple of days at least. And to the extent that the past two days' stories have "rattled" Van Hooser supporters, these folks are themselves complicit in keeping this story alive in Boss Godfrey's House Propaganda Organ, the Standard-Examiner.
Now that candidate Van Hooser has made her clear statement, we believe it's time for the Van Hooser campaign to remove this non-issue from the front burner, and take control of the campaign agenda. As one gentle reader suggested in the lower comments thread: "Her statement has been made, the Standard should respect that and stick to covering all the issues... Van Hooser should [henceforth] respond to Schwebke and others with a simple no comment. She said her bit already."
Good advice, we think.
And face reality folks. We've known Dorothy Littrell for several years. There's no way she'll "drop" her lawsuit.
Turning back to this morning's article, we're going to highlight our favorite Godfrey quote: "Godfrey said he believes that several of the plaintiffs support City Councilwoman Susan Van Hooser, his opponent in the mayoral race. 'It’s sad,' he said. 'It shows their win-at-all costs attitude.'"
"Win at all costs attitude?" Somehow that phrase has a familiar ring to it, we thought, upon reading Mr. Schwebke's article this morning.
And here's where we decided Boss Godfrey "lifted" that unique phrase -- Susan Van Hooser's campaign website. We invite our readers to navigate to her site, and click on the menu item "Information About Susie." There you will find this wonderful Kent Jorgenson endorsement:
I've been an avid supporter of the current mayor since he was first elected. However, I have come to disagree with the mayor, not on the basic goals, but on how these goals are accomplished. We need a mayor who will listen to all the facts, and we can't continue to have a win-at-all-costs attitude.What Boss Godfrey has done in making this cute "win-at-all-costs" accusation is to take a swipe at his former supporter, former Gang-of-Six councilman Kent, whom Godfrey now obviously perceives as having deserted to the "enemy camp." We see this as just another display of Godfrey's petty vindictiveness, now that Kent Jorgenson has come over from the dark side.
Government isn't always the same as private business. To move a community forward you need full disclosure and a democratic process with respect for our partners and the people we serve.
I have every confidence that Susan Van Hooser will work aggressively to keep Ogden moving in the right direction. Whether it's economic development, public safety, or transportation initiatives, Susan has Ogden's best interests in mind.
I urge you to be courageous in this year's election and vote for Susan Van Hooser as Ogden's next mayor.
Kent Jorgenson
Ogden City Council, 2002 to 2005
While you're visiting Susie's site, we encourage you all to navigate around it. This site is vastly improved since the primary election. Those of you who still have lingering questions about candidate Van Hooser or her platform will find a wealth of information on this site.
Take it away, gentle readers. We're sorry to have been so long-winded.
67 comments:
Nice catch w/ the Jorgensen swipe. I'm also glad to see Jorgensen's finally coming around.
While Van Hooser is urging the plaintiffs of the lawsuit against Godfrey to drop the suit, proving what an honorable, decent lady she is, Godfrey is maligning her!! Here is his quote in the SE:
"Godfrey said its unfortunate that his opponents are unwilling to debate the issues and instead engage in political mudslinging.
'It’s disappointing once again to see an effort on my opponent's part to avoid public debate and dialogue by, this time, creating bogus claims in an effort to remove me from the ballot,' he said."
That sounds to me as If Godfrey is accusing Van Hooser for the lawsuit. She could sue him for slander! He accuses her of "mudslinging" and making "bogus claims," when actually, it is he who is doing what he accuses her of doing. He is trying to bring her down to his level, but it will never happen! She REALLY has integrity. (She doesn’t have to try to convince people of it by professing in Council meeting that she has the “highest integrity in the room.” Godfrey did.) Ms. Van Hooser has been out-of-State attending a family funeral and knew nothing of the pending lawsuit. But Godfrey would have you believe that she’s behind it, he isn’t man enough to accept the fact that he did something wrong!
I've heard enough and read enough to know that Godfrey SHOULD NOT BE RE-ELECTED! I want a decent human being as Mayor of Ogden!
On November 6th, let’s RETURN INTEGRITY TO THE OFFICE OF MAYOR! Let’s return openness and transparency to City Government!
Hey Rudi, how about a link to the Standard article for us out of town Ogden lovers.
Thanks for the heads-up, Andy.
We can't believe we forgot to include the story link.
It's fixed now.
Godfrey cannot quit campaigning and playing politics! That is what is statement to the Standard is all about.
Dirty Politics Rules:
5. If you're going to look bad, turn the situation around - make your opponent look bad.
a. Throw some mud on them -- it doesn't need to be the truth. Lies work just as well as people don't take the time to learn the truth and some don't want it.
b. Hint that it is their followers, backers who are the real trouble makers, and therefore, your opponent is a trouble maker, trying to discredit you.
Godfrey should try to focus on the issues of this mayoral race: 1) The most debt Ogden has ever incurred has been under his administration; 2. He still plans to have an ugly gondola gliding above Ogden's streets. He has said that it wouldn't be with taxpayer dollars, but that is what he said of the Solamon Center; 3. Ogden's practically non-existent water lines and sewer systems which he has ignored his entire eight years in office; 4. His unwillingness to be open and work with the Council; 5. His clandestine agreement with UTA for a $247,000. gondola study, while telling the Council that he and his staff would develop a transit plan for Ogden. Is it going to be the gondola which the majority of Ogden residents has rejected over and over again?
No, Godfrey won't address the issues! He can't! He wouldn't be elected! He will use the lawsuit as an excuse that he can't trust his opponent.
You can bet Godfrey will turn the lawsuit around so that it benefits him.
Glad to see that Kent Jorgenson has come over from the dark side.
It's time now for Lee Carter to do the same.
Hopefully he'll give Kent a call, to get the whole lowdown.
This VH endorsement is a pretty smart move on Jorgenson's part. Whether Godfrey wins or not I think it is obvious the Godfreyite movement is dead and has no more real political traction in Ogden. I would rather suspect that the former councilman agrees, and has his eye on future office and is now beginning a purification process.
One thing that doesn't change with this political switcheroo however. That is Jorgansen's fingerprints are still all over some of the biggest double crosses of the citizens in Ogden's history. He shares full responsibility with Godfrey, Filiaga, Safsten, Burdett, and Stevenson for the mega million dollar Mall double cross and now budding fiasco. He shares full credit for giving over all city property ownership matters to Godfrey from the council - a horrid and dangerous situation that still exists, incidentally.
There is also a pretty long laundry list of other rotten eggs this guy has left for the future generations to clean up.
If you want to see what Jorgensen has done for Ogden just go down to our $20 to $40 million dollar Rec center any time, any day of the week except Friday afternoon and Saturday, wander around and marvel at the mausoleum atmosphere and the pure business genius demonstrated therein - thanks to Kent Jorgensen and the late and lame council that he was a ring leader and chief Godfrey sycophant on.
Kent has a million more steps in front of him if he is ever to make up for the plague he helped spread over Ogden. I do like his endorsement of VH. I hope it is sincere. We all love a reformed sinner, even ones who have transgressed to the extremes of Jorgensen.
Actually Mz. Van Hooser and Mz. Littrell are one and the same person.
This is a masquerade that she has been successfully pulling off for over 40 years now.
To show the proof of that I would like to point out that at no time in the last forty years has any one ever been able to put the two in the same place at the same time? Think about it; have you ever seen them together?
It is no coincidence that when Littrell was at her CPA office no one can prove that Van Hooser was in the classroom at that same exact time - and of course visa versa.
She is a master of disguises, she carries two wigs at all times and has a very fast breakaway suit that she can switch in an instant.
With all my worldly integrity I can swear that Dorothy is Susie and Susie is Dorothy and I have seen with my own eyes her changing the wig in the middle of a personage transfiguration.
Van Hooser is fully responsible for this muck racking law suit against your savior and no amount of trying to twist the facts will change that.
I notice that a lot of people have thier opinion of what is a serious violation of the law and what is not. Some are saying that this suit is over a technicality. It is about breaking the law, period. Yes, he failed to list a name for his committee, a seemingly minor violation of a rule. Yes, he failed to report almost $45,000 in campaign contributions and carryovers. Not quite as minor. In fact it is fraudulent, given he had the chance to correct the problem. That is a serious violation of the law. Some would put an amount as a guage to the seriousness, but a dollar or 100,000 dollars, it is fraud. All Ms. Littrell wants is for Ogden government to be honest, forthright, accountable and show integrity, something this country is becoming way short on. For years she has fought Godfrey on many fronts, and I'm sorry to say, has done so with few supporters. She has had many tell her they support her and then when the heat turns up run away with their tails between their legs. Few have stuck with her the whole way. Just for information's sake, she has had to endure harassment from the likes of the Geiger's, has received mean spirited emails probably from the same. The latest she has dealt with came yesterday. She had a plant delivered with a note attached. The note was written on a DEX map showing directions to the address. The note stated that the plant was from The Jeanne Godfrey family and had been delivered by Jason Godfrey. It was a plant that came from the Mayor's father's funeral and was offered as a token of freindship. Was it a statement by Godfrey? Who is to know. A strange occurance anyway that a plant from the Mayor's father's funeral be delivered to Ms. Littrell as a gesture.
You left out the best part, which was at the bottom of the "note." (I've also heard about this.)
"We know where you live," (or something to that effect.)
Let's see now:
1) Delivering "used" funeral flowers secretly to a political opponent;
2) Reminding the recipient "We know where you Live."
Intimidation?
Stalking?
Violation of the Patriot Act?
Food for thought.
Good eye Food for Thought
Sigh...
On the SE's coverage of the lawsuit matter, which it seems some think is not something the SE should have covered, beyond announcing that the suit had been filed: nonsense. The story is news and if I were the publisher of a mullet-wrapper, and my news staff covered the suit with nothing more than a brief notice, they'd be up-dating their resumes before the sun set.
The SE and Mr. Schwebke were perfectly within bounds calling some of the people whose names are on the suit. Perfectly within bounds seeking, and printing, responses from the Mayor and from Councilwoman Van Hooser. They've dropped the ball on other stories. They have not dropped it on this one.
I get the distinct impression that some critics of the SE here would be happy with it only if the SE limited itself to stories that reflected badly on the Mayor. If it did do that, it wouldn't be worth the price if they gave it away free.
The filing of the suit was news. The reaction of the Mayor to the filing was news. Councilwoman Van Hooser's calling for it to be withdrawn was news. The claims of some/at least one of the signers that they were misled when they signed it is news. Regardless of which candidate each of those items reflects on, favorably or un-.
curmudgeon,
please give date that the SE ever printed anything negative about Godfrey.
Musta been a special edition.
Well Tetris,
The fundamental bottom line that you and others on this site seem unable to grasp is that Mr. Godfrey IS THE LAW in the land of Oz. He is the wizard behind the curtain that pulls the levers that give us peace, stability, prosperity and our nightly grape.
In Oz, there are laws for the hoi polloi and flying monkeys and assorted nay sayers, and then there is the law unto himself, the puller of levers, the little lord master. Hoi Polloi and Monkey laws do not apply to him. He is the giver of Monkey Law, not the getter.
So Dorothy, the wicked witch of the west, can just jump back on her broom stick and fly back to that dark place of democracy and freedom from whence she came.
Laws indeed Dorothy, what more foolishness will she try to plaque our Lord Mayor and savior with?
Oh Shuddup, Curm!
Time to shut up and get back to the friggin'campaign.
That's what Susie said in her message on the subject:
Per Susie: "I suggest that Ogden’s citizens, the media, and Mayor Godfrey direct their attention away from this ill-considered lawsuit and back to the real issues.”
Sounds like good advice to me.
And you're probably the only soul in Emerald City who still won't recognize the Standard-Examiner bias.
(I'll betcha 500 bucks the Std-Ex endorses Godfrey. Wanna take me up on that bet?)
Curmudgeon
It seemed to me the Standard's reporting on it was slightly misleading when it dealt with the misled. The implications were that there were at least several if not more, while only one has said he didn't want his name on the suit. The others "misled" when contacted reaffirmed their desire to be plaintiffs.
Seems the Standard should have been more clear on this but instead chose to further the false impression with their sub headline.
Fine line? sure, but it is my impression that the Standard does this sort of thing frequently and always so that it favors the mayor. Just one more indication of their bias.
On balance however I thought it a pretty good report on the whole affair. I'm pretty impressed with the VH response and the Standard's printing it.
Rudi:
You wrote: (I'll betcha 500 bucks the Std-Ex endorses Godfrey. Wanna take me up on that bet?)
Not being a wallowing-in-lucre Republican but merely a common hard-working Democrat who rides the city bus to work, I can't afford to wager such sums. I have no idea who the SE will endorse at this point. But if it does endorse Hizzonah, well, that is the point of editorial pages: to state opinions. I don't have to agree with them, and I often do not. But the SE's taking an editorial stance opposite from the one I would recommend it take on the Mayor's race does not retroactively mean the paper's news coverage has been biased all along. [I can assure you, that if the SE endorses Councilwoman Van Hooser, Godfrey Retainers will take it as proof positive that the SE has been against him all along and using its news columns to sink him.]
You wrote: And you're probably the only soul in Emerald City who still won't recognize the Standard-Examiner bias. I am tempted to propose a wager on that claim by you, but it would not be ethical for me to do that, since I've seen recent letters by Godfrey Retainers charging the SE with blatant, scandalous continuing bias against the Mayor. So I know your claim to be unsustainable. The author seemed to think that the SE should publish only pro-Godfrey stories about as strongly as some here think it should publish only anti-Godfrey stories.
As for "getting back" to the campaign: I never stopped campaigning, Rudi. Not for a moment. In the columns of the WCF and elsewhere. Nor will I until the matter is decided. In November. By the voters. As it should be.
It was news when Geiger was caught by Hansen stealing Hansen's signs. Was THAT covered by the SE? NOOOOOO.
It was news when Wicks CAUGHT Geiger with her sign! Was THAT covered by the SE? NOOOOO!
It was news when over 100 of Jeske's signs were vandalized. Was THAT covered by the SE? NOOOOO!
They appear to do very selective 'news reporting'. But, they are on the ball to make the mayor look good.
I'm with you, Rudi...they'll endorse the little crook. Oh, they'll make a few disclaimers, probably blame any missteps on his youth, but he'll get their endorsement in the end.
They've given him their endorsement all along.
Have you see that Tijuana festival banner on the Municipal bldg? The one proclaiming the new crime reporting number? So tacky.
Susie was not in town, not involved in any way with the lawsuit, and should have just said that and let the whole thing alone.
Godfrey, Geigers and Ed Allen are the most mean spirited and vicious people to reside in Ogden in a lonnng time. Truth is not important to them. Only scurrilous remarks and unsubstantiated stories about their "enemies".
One could argue that the Godfrey family made a peace gesture to Dorothy with the funeral flowers, but if that was the real intention, then why not send fresh flowers from the florist?
Curious and little spooky.
curm i respect you but i get so sick of you riding the fence for the standard, please make a decision for or against, it has become old for you to continue to balance the issues, your friend dr honeydew
Rudi:
Yes, the abomidable, editorially prostrate, pee-stained, pussy assbag Stand-Ex -- guided by the shaky hand of its bonafide member of Wayne Peterson's famed Squirrel Patrol, Lee Carter -- will "recommend" Lying Little Matty Gondola Godfrey to its readers.
In fact, keep this on file, because it will closely parallel what Don Porter (you sellout jerkoff, and you know what I mean, you hack) will give his readers in the weeks to follow. Here goes:
WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD
Sometimes, in politics, it takes constant abrasiveness to scratch a surface.
Certainly, this is what Ogden Mayor Matthew Godfrey has done over the last eight years.
His sometimes abrasive manner is never without its criticims, but the results speak for themselves:
What was under Ogden's surface -- our potential -- has been scratched, and it is being brought to life thanks to the tireless efforts of Mayor Godfrey.
Yes, there have been some missteps along the way, but Mayor Godfrey has been determined -- and successful -- in rebranding Ogden as the state's high-adventure outdoors mecca.
In real fiscal terms, what does this mean? Moving Amer jobs to Ogden; opening the Salomon Center; bringing over eight ski companies to town.
While we might disagree with some of the manner in which Godfrey and his administration has conducted itself, we can't argue with the results.
To change course now would stop the momentum our mayor has engendered and championed.
Let's keep up with the revitalization.
--
Of course, that's better than these:
"We are children, women and men of a renaissance."
Short-deck Geiger, September of 2007
"The precious character of this young man."
Dr. Ed Allen, father-in-law to Lying Little Matty Gondola Godfrey, October 2007
Does that "precious character" include spousal abuse?
Choke on it. Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger
Susie made a bad faux-pas in calling the suit filed by Littrell as being "ill-considered".
Makes her sound like a third grade teacher instead of a Mayoral candidate.
Awesome post, Jason.
Thanks!
Yes, we do believe this is how the Std-Ed editors will "frame" their sellout of the citizens of Emerald City.
Jest Wonderin:
As I recall, the SE did report the first item on your list.
No, Good Old (?) Curmudgeon, it was referenced in a bad column. It was never reported. I'd be happy to enroll you in my next journalism webinar, entitled: "How a Squirrel Patroller publisher capitulates to a Geiger." Interesting stuff, that.
Dr. Honeydew:
Well, your request presumes that the SE is either a shill for Godfrey or a shill for Van Hooser, and that its readers should adopt one view or the other. I don't think it's been either, in its news columns or on its editorial pages. And so my view is, we need thump 'em when they drop the ball [and I've done a lot of that over the past two years], and applaud them when they do something particularly good [and I've done that, though less often], and kind of give 'em a pass when they fall, as most papers do most of the time on most matters, someplace in between.
No, it's not a Pulitzer Prize contending paper. Never said it was. But it isn't Provo's embarrassing excuse for a daily either, or --- much worse --- it isn't a blood-and-gore tabloid like the San Antonio Light or the New York Mirror.
I find it interesting that I'm getting so much flak for describing the SE as, not a great paper, but a reasonably decent [C+/B-]mid-sized city daily. Interesting that there is so much group think developing demanding that it be denounced at Godfreyista trash. I hope you know that Godfrey family retainers and assorted hangers on consider the SE as hopelessly biased against the Mayor and determined to unseat him.
Yes, Dr., they do. And they tell the SE that. In writing.
Jason:
OK. I stand corrected on that. A column, not a story.
And I'm in your debt. You've given me a new word: "webinar." One I wish had been strangled in its cradle, along with "prioritize." But a new word none the less. They're always fun to come across.
Yeah, Good Old (?) Curmudgeon, you should see the shit (incentivize) I come across.
THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE
I do not understand how a broken law can be perceived as a mere "technicality". No matter how petty it may seem to some, A LAW IS A LAW!!!
Van Hooser is for "Open, Honest, Government"?
If this is true, how could she suggest that the complaint be dropped? If Godfrey is not the only individual guilty of the charges that have been made in the lawsuit, then any individual guilty of the same charges should be dealt with in the same manner.
Mayor Godfrey, however, as the incumbent and "experienced" official, should have known better. The fact that he reported only $2,500 of a $10,000 donation from R&O Construction (and failed to correct it on his AMENDED " paperwork [finanacial statement])is VERY interesting.
NOBODY is above the law. Kudos to people like Dorothy Littrell for their tireless efforts in keeping our government in check!!!
Curmudgeon claims to be of Italian descent, but his behavior shows he's probably French.
Lying little matty's nose
every time he lies it grows
destractions cause your mind to flinch
last week it grew another inch
John Spencer:
Careful. The French had an election recently, and a conservative [or at least what passes for one in France] was elected, and the Hon. [?] G. Bush is now playing diplomatic kissy face with the new regime in Paris. Better buy a new scorecard, JS. Hard to keep track of all the players in Bushworld without one. [But I can help keep you up to date in one regard: this week, Iceland, which the Hon. [?] G. Bush listed among the "coalition of the willing" bravely supplying troops in Iraq, recalled its one --- that's right, count 'em one --- soldier from Iraq. Not, it seems, in the coalition any more.]
And of course I take particular pleasure in the fact that that braying Republican yahoo from Ohio, Congressman Ney, who moved to have "French Fries" on the House cafeteria menu officially changed to "Freedom Fries" is now a guest of the public in a federal penitentiary, having pled guilty to bribery and corruption.
Not to mention that the French fought as our allies in the American Revolution [there were more French military on the battlefield at Yorktown when Cornwallis surrendered, ending the Revolutionary War, than American military], and as our allies in WWI and WWII. Not a bad thing, being accused of being of French descent. Not a bad thing at all.
Not as good as being Italian, of course. But then, nothing is. Ciao, paisan.
Curm....pls give the date and particulars of Geiger stealing Hansen's signs and just where that appeared in the SE.
Thank you.
Is this part of the law that Dorothy is referring to and this is the technicality to which the candidate Van Hooser is referring to:
1-8-2: PERSONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE:
A. Required: No person or persons shall receive any contributions on behalf of a candidate for elected office of the City or make any expenditures for political purposes for the candidate either directly or indirectly other than through a personal campaign committee, whose authority to act shall be filed as provided by this Chapter.
Did the mayor's wife send out letters asking for donations?
The law says person or persons.
It does not say, except for the mayors wife.
Once again the law is the law.
Last night the on Fox Channel 13 the mayor said and I Quote "There is no form to register your campaign committee, there is no place to do it.
The Question I have is, Is Godfrey the Man in charge of making sure that the laws of the city are carried out? So is he in misfeasance's of office by not having his administration construct the form that needs to be filed?
So does this not show his incompetency?
In the SE this show how Susie is just as bad as Godfrey.
I wonder how Hansen would have responded to this if they had asked him, seeing that he is a law maker.
Either way this shows the Mayor does not know how to run this city by the book!
If the candidates look at this as a technicality, we may as well disband all the law making bodies and go live with the commies, I thought this is the land of democracies and that this is the land of law and Order, not do as I say and kiss my ring because I'm the king.
Dorothy, you are right on this and the courts should show that something is wrong here.
Thanks Dorothy.
Dorothy had the right as a voter to file an extraordinary writ, as her challenge to Godfrey’s filing was not answered by the candidate, his representatives, the city clerk or the city attorney as is required by our city law. I am also not surprised by the city attorney’s position that there was no law broken as he also did not perform his duties of office and is trying to cover his tracks. All this is documented. Godfrey could have easily complied and he wouldn’t be where he is today.
This is what is called a complaint based filing, in that if no one challenges the filing then there is no consequence. But if a challenge is filed, you as the candidate must comply. It’s city law. As I see, it none of the other candidates are in his shoes as I believe no one has challenged their filings. If their filings are challenged they simply have to comply with in the allotted time and they meet the requirements of the law.
I question why he simply didn’t comply? Was it that he didn’t want to show the size of his war chest and if he loses he plans to pocket a large amount of the funding or was it that he didn’t want to show the public who his major contributors were for fear that the public would see how much the companies that he has been very generous to are now being generous to him? I don’t know but it sure makes you wonder as it should have been such a minor effort to comply with city law.
I have a lot of respect for Dorothy and the efforts that she puts forward to insist that our city government function within the letter of the law. It just too bad that we need an individual like Dorothy to keep our leadership in line. I’m sure that she would rather be doing something different but her sense of obligation to our community is too strong to let the administration take advantage of the people and for that I am very grateful.
I also feel that Godfrey doesn’t grasp the magnitude of the discontent within the community for the way that he is running the city. When he suggests that Susie VanHooser is behind this independent action of Dorothy’s, he doesn’t really think that most people believe him, does he? It’s a known fact that Dorothy and Godfrey have been locking horns with one another for a long time, a long time before Susie even came on the scene. His effort to associate the two individuals (Susie and Dorothy) must be based partially on his misinformed thinking that there’s only a small group of discontents in the community that are picking on him. From what I’ve witnessed his problem is much bigger than he thinks.
By the way, when is the next date that the candidates are to report their contributions?
Rudi,
Thank you for providing me with the proof that I should learn to read something before I sign it. Having been a professional bureaucrat, I will sign anything. Which obviously I did. Instead of taking time to read it, I trusted the person asking me to sign it. He described it as "a petition". Apparently I was not the only one who listened and did not look. HAD I read it, I would not have signed it. As much as I disapprove of Godfrey and his dictatorship, I strongly believe that elections should be decided at the ballot box. If Godfrey is to be held accountable to election requirements, then everyone should be. This type of dirty trick only lowers the entire playing field down to little Mattie's level. I made a mistake, I owned up to it and will not make one like again.
While most people who live in Utah hate to hear this, The Californication of Zion has begun! It will not be to many years down the road before the "Good little boys" and their backroom politics have the doors ripped off their secret meeting rooms. Godfreys' problem will be that he simply cannot lay claim to a "wide stance". AND SO RECORDED!
There is no "technical" violation. Both Godfrey and Van Hooser registered their campaign committees. Neither registered a "name" for their committee, because a name registration is not required by the Ordinance.
Neither Van Hooser or Godfrey are in violation, "technical" or otherwise. Simple stuff.
tec johnson:
You’re wrong once again.
The republicans want the government to tell you who to marry; but they don't want the government to protect you from Republican Senators while you use the public toilet....
Jimmy Carter when he went into the office, the debt was 4 trillion.
When he left office the debt was 2 trillion dollars.
Under Regan and Bush Sr the debt went up to 6 trillion dollars.
Bill Clinton’s debt when he gained power was 6 trillion dollars.
Bill Clinton when left office, the debt was 3 trillion dollars.
George Bush's debt is now over 9 trillion dollars!!!!!
Your REBUBLICAN LESS GOVERNMENT is BULL SHIT.
Next reporting date is October 12.
By now Godfrey knows without a doubt that Susie VanHooser had nothing to do with Dorothy's filing.
Yet he continues to try to make the associations and dodge the fact that he and only he did not comply with the law when compelled to.
This is not just about the filing of paper work, this is also about the accounting of your funding. Godfrey is most worried about the later.
And Godfrey knows that Susie's name was never at risk of coming off the ballot as she has done nothing wrong. He is just mud slinging and I'm disappointed in the paper for not being able to know the diffence.
As stated in previous posts, the risk is when you are asked to comply with an inquiry and fail to comply within a specific time frame or in Godfrey's case, ever. In other words it's a complaint based requirement, none of the other candidates have had any filings made against them.
Anyone but Godfrey
October 12 filing of the candidate's financial contributions should be interesting.
Let's see how much of Godfrey's campaign money comes from those that he has enriched the most.
Of course we'll have to filter out the individuals making contributions in their personal name for the benefit of their enriched companies.
Bet you the residents make up a very small portion of his reciepts, if he shows his actual reciepts.
I forgot.. Godfrey does have less government. Take away a few cops that back mouth him... Take away a few firefughter that back mouth...
31 cops and firefighters that are no longer on the book or to keep the city safe. Now thats less government.
Now we can take that money and create new cronie possition for my buddies and create r d a.
That program will tax the poor and give to my rich business buddies,
Now were on easy street.
The gang units? whats them. we dont need them.
Thats big government.
Ogden now has a new gang problem, the white collar gangs.
The keep ripping off the residents.
Neither the citizens groups or the police can touch them so long as their leader is our mayor.
Go Susie!
I wish to clarify one thing given the recent articles in the SE. I, the person who have signed posts as Cato, am not the Cato mentioned in the articles, the r.h. cato who posted last evening. My choice of the name Cato was as an historical referent. Apologies to the real Mr. R. H. Cato if folks have assumed I was you.
democrat,
Nowhere did I mention I was republican. Those who hang their hat on either party line are deceived into thinking we have a two party system.
I only want less government, not politicians who use that line to get votes. Less government may require us to ignore the government or deny them legitimacy.
Get real about it and demand less of your government instead of more.
There ought NOT to be a law. We can govern ourselves.
democrat,
Nowhere did I mention I was republican. Those who hang their hat on either party line are deceived into thinking we have a two party system.
I only want less government, not politicians who use that line to get votes. Less government may require us to ignore the government or deny them legitimacy.
Get real about it and demand less of your government instead of more.
There ought NOT to be a law. We can govern ourselves.
Open Letter to Susie-
You need to start playing practical politics.
Practical poltics would have kept you from making the statement attributed to you by the SE that you want the Littrell suit withdrawn because it is a black mark against Ogden City.
Matt Godfrey is the black mark against Ogden City and not the 60 people that are involved in trying to do something about him.
If I were one of those plaintiffs that you want to deprive of demanding their day in court I would leave you in the dust, lady.
democrat,
I acknowledge that clinton and carter reduced the debt, or rather, the republicans expanded it.
neither clinton or carter took drug law reform or health care seriously. Those are key issues that seem to not arouse attention of those more concerned with budget. Have you considered how the War on Terror/Drugs has spanned several administrations and has a life of it's own. It is this monster alone that is breaking our budgets and our spirit.
You say I am wrong again, about what? I will debate you anytime on the merits of ending prohibition and on the connection between the international narcotics distribution and the war on terror.
For those of us that want a change in Ogden politics we better look at the advisers behind van Hooser.
We know Godfrey's history. Susie has yet to make hers.
At this point she is off to a stumbling start. If she doesn't give me some concrete planks in her platform I will continue to assume she is an idealist but not a realist.
Maybe she should reconsider some of the advice she is getting from the old line Republicans in Weber County like Camille Cain, ex-County Commissioner and Dick Richards, ex- National Republican Chairman.
We don't want a Republican Mayor nor do we want a Democrat mayor - we want a PEOPLE MAYOR.
We are on your side, Susie, but better re-assess the situation.
You are not coming across as being for the average Jose.
By and large, I think people have respected the mayor during his period of mourning, but his smarmy, puerile, and idiotic slurs against SVH in today's S-E are a clear signal that the bell signaling Round Two has clanged, at his behest.
I generally applaud Ms. Littrell's citizen activism, but I believe this lawsuit is ill-advised and ill-timed. It is clearly distracting some of our more wishy-washy citizens from the core issues of the campaign. What, after all, would be the better result -- a Pyrrhic and token victory in this suit, or having Ogden's voters throw Godfrey out of office? The latter option ought to be our collective focus.
J-Dub: your Don Porter parody is a tour-de-force. Touchez!
On another unrelated subject,
surely no one give a darn about poison in our environment...
as I drove past Mt Ogden Park yesterday morning the maintenance crew were spraying weed n feed, a pretty name for 2-4-D or Agent Orange, as Vietnam era observers might know it. No where are there warnings that the grass is freshly treated. Of course by late afternoon there are hundreds of children playing soccer with moms and babes cuddling close to the newly poisoned lawn. Kids barely walking are in close contact with the most insidious of domestic carcinogens.
Some of you like government regulation yet this one escapes attention and leaves you open to contamination. Think you like a government that promises to protect you. Big joke. They only protect the corporations right to sell poisons for profit and deregulate the things that profit them the most. Your children's right to a poison free park lawn is not protected. Your right to a poison and fragrance free atmosphere is not protected. Notice the weird smell around a laundramat, that is laundry fragrance and it is killing you and your kids and everyone unfortunate enough to be around you or anyone who uses this shit.
Your government is failing you today and everyday that this stuff remains unbregulated.
Yes, I will accept some government regulation, on corporations and the chemicals and adulterated foods they distribute as safe. Instead they force themselves into our private lives and regulate our right to self medication and refuse us universal healthcare. Welcome to the dying empire of the USA.
Mansell and Williams are charged with seeing that candidates are in compliance with election laws. So, they are culpable also.
This is Godfey's THIRD run...he knows the ropes.
SVH should just shut up! She keeps fanning the flames....the poster above got it straight: Godfrey is the black mark. Leave it alone. Thinking people know Susie is in no way involved in this suit.
Her talking keeps her connected!
So, R H Cato, was it a mistake on your part or a dirty trick? Seems to me you are trying to displace responsibility for your own actions. The wording at the topo of the page was very clear and not in miniscule print. You should have known what you signed. Seems odd that once the press contacted you you decided to high tail it a take another position in the matter.
Fence jumper.
Simpleton, you miss the point. The issue is campaign fraud. MONEY is involved and a good sum. Not just a name for a committee. If $45,000 is simply a technicality, then lets get rid of the IRS as well.
After seeing lying little matty and his wife leaving the driveway of his personal henchman, short deck, no conscience geiger wednesday evening, and hearing about the funeral flowers and note on ms. Littrell's porch one must wonder if the dots are now connected.
Many have commented on how nice the mayors wife seems to be, but if she is a party to this behavior, well?
If, as Curmudgen so rightfully advocates, this suit is now legitimate news, and we know it has nothing to do with Van Hooser, it's lying little matty vs. Litrell et al.
Why then since it's obvious that the funeral flowers and dirty note came from the lying little matty camp(call the florist) hasn't the paper noted any of this twist of events?
This story has nothing to do with Van Hooser, and everything to do with lying little matty, and the Standard and pinnocio are well aware of this.
So Schwebke, if your on a story, stay on the story. Don't morph it into something it clearly is not.
Bill:
You wrote: Why then since it's obvious that the funeral flowers and dirty note came from the lying little matty camp(call the florist) hasn't the paper noted any of this twist of events?
Sorry. Not nearly significant enough a matter to be worth news coverage. Maybe for Doctor Phil and Oprah to kick around. No more than that. And would if it were covered, simply divert public attention and discussion from the substantive election issues even more.
We may disagree on this, but I don't think Ogden will gain much by, less than four weeks from election day, having folks discussing "who sent the flowers" or "where did the note come from?" Just more distraction, seems to me.
The Lawsuit that Dorothy filed has to be done at this time in any election because of how the law was set up. It is interesting how every one has an opinion but none one looks at the real issue of whole picture.
I wonder how many of you "lawsuit advocates" have even read the municiple election rules? I have, and Idon't recall anywhere that demands the signature of BOTH the candidate ANDthe campaign manager. It's and "either/or" proposition.
Another thing: Dorothy Littrell doesn't even vote in Ogden. She bought a small, dirt lot West of Wall in order to have avlice in the protest of a future Wal Mart that was to be located in that area. Now, she's leading the parader to get the Mayor off the ballot, yet is not an Ogden voter. Kind of takes the wind out of her sails, I feel.
And what about the other 3 or 4 candidates who have done the same? Isn't Van Hooser one of them. Maybe ya'll could write in Neil Hansen if Dorothy is successful.
But I really doubt if a judge will take the election out of the hands of the people because of Dorothy's constant tirades. She's becoming a bore with her windmill jousts, which have begoing on for years. And, unfortunately, there are 50 some people who follow her (a mere pitance when compared to the big picture).
Sheep and the sheep herder. Broke Back City....could be quite a movie. And wouldmake about as much sense.
Let the people speak and enough of these personal tirades.
To enough,
If you were half the person that Dorothy is I probably listen more to what you are trying to say.
Fifty people, what about the 60 that signed her call for justice?
Read some of the posts and you'd realize that some of the readers have actually read the municipal election codes but you're not one of them or maybe you don't have the mental capacity to understand it.
As for your call to Neil to run or suggest that people vote for him as a write in, that isn't going to happen either as Neil knows he wouldn't get elected in that format and the resident that voted for Neil would much rather have Van Hooser than Godfrey.
Enough,
Sorry (like hell) to take the wind out of your sails, but Ms. Littrell does have a residence in Ogden as well as her home in North Ogden.
You Geigers and followers of the "Little Weasel" need to check your stories before trying to pass them off as facts. You'll always be caught (just like your leader).
to enough is enough -
Why don't you take a trip to the County Clerk's Office and look up for yourself where Littrell votes.
Every time you make a false statement your credibility loses some of its shine.
Anyone that questioned where the Standard Examiner's allegiance is in this election doesn't have to speculate anymore.
Just read today's editorial. They don't care who is Mayor but they do want to run Dorothy Littrell out of town.
They are all for maligning any citizen for their decision to exercise their constitutional rights to speak out and go to court.
Today's editorial in the local rag that passes as our newspaper can't even get their facts correct for an editorial.
I am impressed that Littrell's suit has the Standard's editorial board showing their true colors.
Of course, we had always suspected but now we know.
To disgusting isn't it,
I agree with you. I find two things interesting with the SE editorial.
One, they apparently didn't do any research before they published the editorial in order to understand the law and the facts in the case, something that they constantly use as an excuse as to why they will not publish letters to the editor until they have done their own research on the submitted letter (which means it gets buried never to reappear or comes out when the timing of the letter has no meaning).
Secondly they clearly want to marginalize Dorothy and her call that all people including politicians follow the laws on the city books. When a politician illegally hides close to 50% of his contributions from big business in order to appear as though he has support within the community and the paper doesn't want to report it, I can come to only one conclusion. They're trying to appeal to people’s emotional side by suggesting that Dorothy's suit is a distraction from the big picture and just represents repulsive mudslinging that people should ignore or use to justify supporting the politician that it’s directed at rather than use their logical and ethical side to see that this is indicative of the character of the politician. If a politician is doing illegal activities to get elected this is big news as it speaks volumes as to what he will do if re-elected.
For these reasons, I find the SE to be biased and unethical in this editorial and others in the past that they have presented to the residents. It disappoints me that the SE, which tries to appeal to the residents sense of right and wrong do not use the same standard when they publish their editorials.
Sorry to be so slow to pick up the thread.
Curm, your efforts to appear impartial have progressed to the point of becoming ridiculous.......
you said - "well, that is the point of editorial pages: to state opinions. I don't have to agree with them and often do not."
___________________________________
Here is my question for you, Curm.
On those "frequent" occasions when you do not agree with an opinion stated by an SE editor what recourse do you have? Do you mutter dark thoughts to yourself, rant at a family member, or simply kick the dog? Perhaps if your lucky and it has been quite a while since you sent a letter or commentary to the SE you can seek that outlet. Come to think of it though, it isn't that often that I see your opinions on the editorial pages of the local "mullet wrapper" and since you aren't an editor at the SE you don't have unrestricted access to those pages.
No surprise there. Obviously, the "Sandusky suit" editors are entitled to their opinions and nothing says they cannot be consistantly supportive of the mayor. Moreover, where does it say that they have to provide equal opportunity for the expression of opposing views? In fact, they don't even have to observe those good old American principles of fair play or community and social responsibility. As amatter of fact, if we don't like it their way we can always subscribe to the other local paper, right?
Old Guy:
Well, since you asked, I've sent letters to the editor and had them published. I've had an op-ed piece printed in the SE. And of course, thanks to Rudi, WCF is available for people to post opinions that differ from the SE's.
But no, I don't have a "right" to have my opinions appear in the paper. Nor do you. Nor does anybody. The SE can choose to print no letters at all if it wants to. The paper belongs to the publisher. He can do with it what he pleases.
You wrote: As amatter of fact, if we don't like it their way we can always subscribe to the other local paper, right?
Nobody laments the loss of two-newspaper towns more than I do. Has happened in nearly all mid-sized cities, and is not a good thing for democracy.
ON the other hand, the burgeoning of the web, and blogs, has provided another outlet for divergent opinions that bids fair to more than make up for the loss of a second paper in mid-sized American cities. Too soon to know.
Post a Comment