There is a fascinating article on the front page of this morning's Standard-Examiner, under the eye-popping headline: "Suit seeks to kick Godfrey off ballot." We incorporate the pertinent paragraphs below:
"OGDEN -- Sixty-one plaintiffs have signed on to a lawsuit that seeks to have Mayor Matthew Godfrey's name removed from November's general election ballot because they contend he has failed to register his personal campaign committee with the city....Godfrey of course reportedly contends the lawsuit is entirely without merit, and just dirty politics. And City Attorney Gary Williams makes an interesting point:
"The lawsuit asks the court to declare that Godfrey has violated city code because he has solicited, received and personally spent contributions without registering his personal campaign committee that uses the name People to Re-Elect Matthew Godfrey.
In addition, Mansell has failed to request an examination of all records related to Godfrey's campaign committee as required by municipal statute, the suit says.
The suit also requests an injunction against Mansell, ordering her to remove Godfrey's name from the ballot."
"Neither (mayoral candidate) Van Hooser nor candidates for three city council seats have provided names for their personal committees on financial disclosure forms filed with the city, Williams said.We'll hold off with our own analysis of this development until we've had a chance to thoroughly examine the pleadings, which we just uploaded to our storage site moments ago.
If Godfrey is disqualified based on [this] complaint, all of the other candidates should be disqualified as well."
Those gentle readers who'd also like to peruse the court pleadings and other legal papers, can find the main court documents here.
We're also informed that a supplementary demand has been delivered to City Recorder Mansell, a copy of which can be viewed here.
Climb aboard the WCF-train, gentle readers, and let us know what you think about all this.
66 comments:
The claim of the suit, filed by [among others] "Dorothy Littrell, Rulon Yorgenson and Basil and Sharon Beech," described [accurately] by Mr. Schwebke, as "vocal critics of Godfrey," alleges that the Mayor "failed to register his personal campaign committee with the city."
Counmcilwoman Susan Van Hooser, who is running for Mayor in the November election, the story reports, was unaware of the suit and "and isn't involved in the complaint."
This lawsuit is, seems to me, ill-advised. First, historically, the courts are very reluctant --- as well they should be --- to either overturn the will of the voters, or to limit their choices on the ballot, because of what are usually called "technical violations" of campaign laws. Which is precisely what seems to be involved here.
Second, the voters decided in the primary that they wanted Mayor Godfrey and Councilwoman Van Hooser on the final ballot for Ogden's next Mayor in the November election. The will of the voters was clear, and their decision at the polls should be allowed to stand. And the will of the voters should decided in November which of the two will be Ogden's next mayor.
We decide such matters here by asking the people to tell us what they want at the ballot box. Its the voters who determine, and who should determine, who they wish to be the next Mayor. We should let the election proceed unencumbered by lawsuits to limit the voters' choices.
It's how we do things here, how we settle disagreements about who should govern and what the focus of the city's administration, over the next four years, ought to be. And it's how we should decide such things.
A bare-bones very brief version of the law suit story is up on the SL Trib website. Link here. Mr. Schwebke's story in the SE is far more detailed. It is however sadly still not up on the SE digital website.
Curmudgeon
Was it not the highest court in our country that decided who the next president should be and Al Gore won the popular vote. I guess that is a reason why we have the courts. The law was broken and that is where this dispute should be decided and that is how our government works. get real.
Should you want the copy of the law that was broken. I can post it here.
Since the laws are on the books and if the laws have been broken, shouldn't the courts decide the outcome? Otherwise why have laws, I can do what I want and no one will do anything type of mentality, which is what we have in Ogden right now anyway. So let the anarchy continue!
Just Watch:
Let the voters decide is a very good standard for deciding such matters. It is in fact the American standard. [Remember, what the Supreme Court did in Florida was prevent a recount that would have determined what the voters had actually decided.] Letting the voters decide was the standard that should have been applied in Florida seven years ago. It is the standard that should be applied in Ogden City in November.
The law suit to take that choice out of the voters' hands based on some technical violation of complex election laws is a bad idea. The election should turn on what people do at the polling places, not on whether the right person signed his or her name on the right line of a registration document months earlier.
The voters of Ogden made clear the choice they wanted to have: Godfrey vs. Van Hooser. They wanted a choice in November between four more years of Godfreyism on the one hand and a new direction for Ogden City on the other. They wanted a choice between continued growth of Ogden's public debt for the benefit of private investors and the Mayor's associates on the one hand, or a new commitment to fiscal responsibility on the other. They wanted a choice between an administration that thinks the answer to every problem facing Ogden is "Let's build a gondola!" and an administration willing to tackle the complex problems that Ogden faces with innovative, sustainable reforms based on sound research and thoughtful consideration of a wide range of possible solutions. The voters wanted a choice between an administration that ignored Ogden's rising gang violence problem until an approaching election made it imperitive for the Mayor to notice it, and a new mayor committed to dealing with the city's problems for the whole four years of her term, whether an election is on the immediate horizon or not. They wanted a choice between an administration pathologically committed to acting in secret and denying the voters, the press and the Council information about what is up to, and a new mayor committed to open government and public disclosure as a matter of principle and as the basis of good government.
In the recent primary, the voters spoke very clearly that that was the choice they wanted before them in November. And so they put Godfrey and Van Hooser on the final ballot.
Let the voters decide.
Most of the voters in Ogden have no idea of the history of the chicanery, dirty dealings, cronyism and other acts of perfidy comitted by Godfrey and his minions.
Dorothy's suit just brings to light another of his shady and illegal actions.
What happened to the $7500. Godfrey didn't report?
And to think he put his wife's name on his latest solicitation for more money! The man has no shame.
curmudgeon - Be thou not too hasty to take a position on this matter.
You do not have all the facts if you are going by two newspaper articles for your information.
curmudgeon -
This case is about the two-term Mayor lying on his financial reports claiming that he wasn't aware of the Ogden Municipal Code. My Oh My!.
He had the opportunity to correct the original report but still failed to include the $10,000.00 donation from R&O Construction as $10,000.00 instead of the $2,500.00 he did list.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse even for a two-term Mayor.
BTW, we ran into a man who is acquainted with my husband. "Saw your name in the paper....", he intoned with a quizzical look. And then he displayed the mentality of so many Godfrey supporters.
"My daughter is friends with him".
So there! That's a good enuf reason to support him, eh?
My daughter knows him, my neighbor kids go to school with his kids".....Is that what we've bcome?
Getting to touch someone who KNOWS the sainted?
Well, I have been in the Allen's home! Now, what should I do? Vote for Godfrey because they are his in-laws and I know them??
Get real. The majority of voters in Ogden have no clue about Godfrey's 7 years of chicanery. They surely wouldn't be apprised of such by the SE...IF they even read it.
Most say, "I don't want to be involved"....but then point fingers at those of us who are involved. Every VOTING citizen has the right and responsibility to be involved, to speak out, to be informed, and work for change when change is warranted.
Whether or not you agree with Dorothy, we owe her our thanks for all the digging she's done and the dirty machinations she's uncovered.
She's a dynamo......perhaps we should give her a ticker tape parade?!
Sharon, while I agree that Dorothy L has done lots to shine the light on Godfrey's "dirty machinations," I have to agree with Curm on this one and not just because elections SHOULD be decided by voters, but also because this lawsuit gives Godfrey the opportunity to say exactly what he said in the paper this morning - "my opponents don't want to address the issues" - knowing full well that Van Hooser (his opponent in this race) isn't behind the lawsuit. But he can present himself as the victim (not saying that he is) which plays well with voters. I worry of the impact of this lawsuit news on the psyche of the average voter ...
Well, Cato, if Schwebke could get a clue about Godfrey and write what has really gone on, then we'd have informed voters, wouldn't we?
The SE is so pro-Godfrey it is sickening. Once in a great while, they print something about him, but then before the article is over, they exonerate him!
Schwebke, I know that you and your editors read this blog every day. Stop being a lazy uniformed reporter. A few times you've shown that you can write and do a little digging. "Ask that follow-up question", I keep admonishing you, and a few times you have. Too often, tho, you just use file notes or perhaps let your editors give you their version of facts.
Call Dorothy. Ask to spend an afternoon with her. Let her show you EVERYTHING she's uncovered about Godfrey and his dealings. Take a bib...you'll drool when your mouth drops open. Get the facts for a change. Learn what is going on under your nose. Then be an "ace" reporter armed with facts.
A lazy reporter just writes what Godfrey says....you seldom go to any other person and really ask questions. I don't think you have a clue what has been going on here for 7 years. Don't you think you have a responsibility to your readers to understand and then impart that knowledge?
The SE does too. But they shirk their responsiblilty. Their Godfrey bias is blatant. Printing his 'crime fighting' plan on the eve of the Primary! Making sure his name and his big visions were headlined for the voters to see. But, he only rec'd 40% of the vote! Maybe the voters aren't so dumb after all.
Dorothy awaits your call, Scott. Take a sharp pencil.
Here's the Std Ex Schwebke story
Curm....
And anyone else who would read this...
When I go vote, I want to vote for someone that when they take that oath of office, that they will honor, obey and sustain the laws, that our legislative bodies have written for us to live by. Weather is be the state leg. or the city council, those laws are laws. This is what integrity is all about. With Dorothy bringing this out, we don't need a mayor who brags about how great is integrity is by saying "mine is the highest in all the room". Let his action show us. After all is it not, action that speak louder than words? So Curm. I think that you should rethink just what is the issue here. Is it let the voters decide or is it all about, lets have someone in office who will up hold the integrity of the office to which he has been elected. After all who owns this office? Is it not the taxpayers? To which Dorothy is one, all she is doing is calling for accountability of that to which he has taken a oath of office to be honest,trustworthy and to be public servant.
He is not honest when he does everything in secret behind closed doors and questions any one that ask for accountability of his stewardship.
Once again when I vote that is what I expect out of the candidates that I will be voting for. And Godfrey is fails to stand that test.
You Know IT and I Know IT.
If you have forgotten all that the mayor has done I'm sure that Ozboy can remind every one again. Why after all did Sen. Craig say that he would resign. Is it not all about his lying and there for his integrity has been compromised.
I have to agree that Godfrey's integrity is in SERIOUS question here. He is not showing that he has the highest integrity in the room. Integrity means (to me) the guts to stand up and take responsibility for your actions. Not blame others for mistakes made. Lets face it, Godfrey will likely blame some other city employee for the mistake of not reporting the right amount of money. But is not Godfrey responsible for hiring whomever he is about to blame for this incident? Where is the integrity in that? He has blamed others in the past, why not now?
He has no integrity.
It's Integrity...
You wrote: Curm. I think that you should rethink just what is the issue here. Is it let the voters decide or is it all about, lets have someone in office who will up hold the integrity of the office to which he has been elected.... He is not honest when he does everything in secret behind closed doors and questions any one that ask for accountability of his stewardship. Once again when I vote that is what I expect out of the candidates that I will be voting for. And Godfrey is fails to stand that test.
I wouldn't, and don't, disagree with anything you've written above. The solution to the problem is at the ballot box. And the appeal to make is to the voters. My main objection to the lawsuit is that the remedy it proposes is that Godfrey be removed from the ballot. No. It's the voters who put him on that ballot, in the primary. Just as it's the voters who put Councilwoman Van Hooser on that ballot, in the primary. It's the voters who can, and I hope will, remove him from office in November and make her Ogden's new mayor. But it's the voters who get to make the decision.
The usual penalty for the kinds of violation of election laws the suit charges [if proven] is a fine. The court I think will not overturn the decision of the voters that they wanted a choice between Matthew Godfrey and Susan Van Hooser on the ballot before them in November. Nor should it.
Curm, I won't argue one way or the other , except to point out that the remedy, redress, Dorothy is seeking is written right in the law. According to the law,if he failed to comply, his name will be removed from the ballot.
I do believe the initial complaint can be seem as maybe a lessor infraction, but the failure to accurately report campain donations is a serious matter.
P.S. I have a copy of the bill, and right on the front Mr. Brad Dee is credited for it's success.
So any quasi conservatives out there, one more example of, we only abide by laws that suit our objectives.
Curm...
This is the law and then tell me if Dorothy is off her rocker.
When she just wants compliance with the law.
She is not asking for anything more than what the law states.
It is that easy.
Please read this law and more importantly the section B and then
1-8-6: UNLAWFUL ACTS DESIGNATED:
and then look at,
the Penalty that is found in the same section 1-8-7
1-8-5: FAILURE TO FILE; INACCURATE OR INCOMPLETE:
A. Inspection; Written Notice: The City Recorder shall inspect all financial statements within two (2) days after the same are filed. If it appears that any candidate or personal campaign committee has failed to file a statement as required by law or if it appears that the statement does not conform to law or upon complaint in writing by a candidate or by a voter that a statement filed does not conform to law, the City Recorder shall notify the delinquent personal campaign committee or candidate, in writing, requesting compliance with this Chapter. Written notice as required herein, may be given in the following manner:
1. Delivery, in person, to the candidate or the secretary of the personal campaign committee;
2. Delivery to a person of suitable age and discretion at the address of the candidate or the address of the secretary of the personal campaign committee, as indicated in registration form for the personal campaign committee as required under subsection 1-8-2D of this Chapter; or
3. By certified mail, mailed to the candidate or the secretary of the personal campaign committee at the address as indicated in the registration form for the personal campaign committee as required under subsection 1-8-2D of this Chapter.
B. Examination Of Books And Records: Upon the failure of any personal campaign committee or candidate to file a statement, within two (2) days after first receiving written notice under subsection A of this Section, or, if in the exercise of reasonable discretion, the City Recorder questions the accuracy or completeness of such statement, the City Recorder shall request an examination of all books and records of such committee or person. Such books and records shall be produced by the candidate or personal campaign committee for inspection by the City Recorder within one day after request for examination is received.
C. Violation; Notification To City Attorney: If a personal campaign committee or candidate fails to file a statement within two (2) days after receiving notice under subsection A of this Section, or, if any statement filed discloses a violation of this Chapter, or, if the inspection of records discloses a violation of this Chapter, the City Recorder shall notify the City Attorney and shall furnish the City Attorney copies of all papers in the City Recorder's possession relating thereto, and the City Attorney, on such complaint or the complaint of any other person, shall enter forthwith the same in a docket kept for that purpose in his or her office and within ten (10) days thereafter shall examine every case. If the evidence is deemed sufficient by the City Attorney, he or she shall institute such civil or criminal proceedings, as may be appropriate.
D. Registered Voter May Institute Proceedings: In the event the City Recorder or the City Attorney refuses to take the actions provided by this Section, any registered voter in the City may institute appropriate proceedings for an extraordinary writ.
(1979 Code § 1.20.090; Ord. 95-53, 7-18-1995)
1-8-6: UNLAWFUL ACTS DESIGNATED:
A. Name On Ballot Prior To Filing Statement: The name of a candidate shall not be printed on, or if already printed shall be removed from, the official ballot for the ensuing election unless the statements of contributions and expenditures relating to the candidate have been filed by the candidate or the candidate's personal campaign committee as required by this Chapter.
B. Oath Of Office Prior To Filing Statement: It is unlawful to administer the oath of office, or to issue a certificate of election to any candidate for the offices of Mayor or Councilmember until the candidate's personal campaign committee has filed the financial disclosure statements as required by this Chapter, or its successor, which statements shall be complete upon their face and show compliance to the provisions of this Chapter, and no person shall enter upon the duties of the office until the personal campaign committee has filed the required statements, nor shall any salary or fees be received by that person for a period prior to filing of the statements.
(1979 Code § 1.20.100A, 1.20.100B; Ord. 95-53, 7-18-1995)
1-8-7: PENALTY:
Any person violating any provision of this Chapter is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor, punishable under Chapter 4 of this Title, and no person convicted thereof shall be permitted to take or hold the office to which the person was elected, if any, or receive the emoluments thereof.
(1979 Code § 1.20.100C; Ord. 95-53, 7-18-1995)
OK, I've read it. Now, where in this law is the requirement that the "name" of a campaign committee be registered at the city?
This Godfrey quote was particularly Godfreyesque:
"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 opponents part to avoid public debate and dialogue by, this time, creating bogus claims in an effort to remove me from the ballot,” he said.
Poor Boss Godfrey.
Nobody want to play with him. They're all a buch of meanies.
Boo-hoo-hoo.
Pass the little man a kleenex.
Kleenex?
Bring on the Roach spray!
I believe the article also says that Van Hooser and several city council candidates also did not comply with the ordinance. Shall we then take them all off the ballot?
Before getting carried away, the only monetary reporting infraction has been lying little matty. The most veteran of the candidates.
As I said previously, financial dislosure, is a much more serious issue.
We highlighted this in the main article, former anonymous.
Try to keep up.
Gotta admit though, Mr. Williams may have a good point.
What if all the candidates for all offices are in breach of this rule? Although we've consistently argued for smaller government here at Weber County Forum... we're not sure Emerald City could deal with NO government after January 1, 2008.
One other thing, former anonymous... read our posting policy and avoid posting under the anonymous ID.
We love having rational Godfreyites posting here, although we do admit that first clause has some internal inconsistencies.
We reposted your deleted post... but that was a one-time freebie.
Get with the drill, Gondola Boy!
;-)
Hey--
Kick off the ballot any candidate who has not complied with the law.
Then we will have Council Chair Garcia running the City.
At least he has had umpteen years of experience on the City Council.
Might be a pretty good choice!
nota bad idea -
you've got a winner!
It's Integrity:
You wrote: This is the law and then tell me if Dorothy is off her rocker.
You keep reading things into my posts that are not there. At no time did I suggest Ms. Litrell is "off her rocker." I just said I don't think the law suit was a good idea, because I don't think any candidate who has been put on the ballot by the voters should be removed for technical violations of the campaign ordinances. That's all.
Let the voters decide.
Dang, Curmudgeon! You're starting to sound like some of my GOP buddies up on the hill and at the Utah AG's office.
"You have to solve your local political problems 'at the ballot-box,'" is what they all say -- one of the dumber cliches we've heard repeated in a state and nation that's supposed to be governed by the "rule of law." Criminal law doesn't apply to Utah politicians, is what these Utah politicians say, esoterically.
Most of our readers today are right in their instincts: If we have an Ogden City Code that requires certain types of conduct, and provides legal penalties for the breach of such rules, then these rules ought to be regularly and equally enforced with the same prescribed penalties as are provided in the codes.
If we are to be a nation of laws, Curmudgeon, it's imperative that standing laws be regularly enforced, dont'cha think?
We hear you constantly complaining about the gutlessness of the local (Weber County & Utah) Democratic parties, who stick their fingers in the wind, and bend in favor of whatever political wind is blowing.
Isn't that the same thing that you do, when you downplay the importance of this latest citizen attempt to enforce the Ogden city code, financed at the sole expense of the sixty-one citizens who filed the complaint?
Dr. Curmudgeon... heal thyself!
curmudgeon-
Candidates should not be running for office if they haven't read the rules.
This is no game. This is taxpayers' money and the future of our City is at stake.
Whatever the laws provide that is what candidates must do.
You can't pick and choose which ones to abide by and you can't decide that the law applies to one person but not the next person.
That is Godfrey's MO.
I read with interest that Chamber of Commerce President Dave Hardman, right after the mayor said he was not going to sell the golf course, was telling people that the mayor was a liar and was indeed intending to do it after the election. This was substantiated by two separate posts yesterday. One of those posts also said that Stuart Ried and the Geigers were saying the same thing.
So tell me, Godfrey supporters, are you all liars? If Godfrey is lying and you are privy to that and helping him do it, then you are liars. If you are saying Godfrey is lying, and he isn't, then you are liars. Either way, you are liars.
So lets impress people with Ogden by having these liars all lying. Come to Ogden, where the Chamber of Commerce and the mayor's associates are liars.
Just when you think these people have hit rock bottom, you realize there is no bottom.
Tell me Godfrey supporters: Do these people follow the God you worship? Is this how the God of Abraham does business?
Rudi:
Well, Rudi, I am not only a Democrat but a democrat. I think we have to respect the voters' decisions. and the voters decided they wanted a choice in November between Godfrey and Van Hooser. I think we should permit them to make that choice.
Of course laws need to be obeyed. But as anyone can tell you who's ever waded around in them, the election laws and campaign finance laws are complex and difficult to follow, even when they are drafted by well-informed, intelligent, fair-minded and ethical men. Then imagine what such laws written by majorities in the Utah legislature must be like.
For serious and proven skullduggery, like ballot box stuffing and vote stealing and such like, I would, if I were a judge, overturn the will of the voters. But for technical violations of very complex often amended election laws that, so far as I can tell had, and are likely to have no significant impact on the poll, no.
If the Mayor has failed to dot every i and cross every t, if he has [more seriously] mis-stated campaign contributions and spending deliberately, I have no problems with a citizen, or sixty one of them, filing suit to bring such matters to light. None whatever.
But the remedy sought should not be to strip the voters of their votes in the primary and their clear desire, expressed at the ballot box, to have Godfrey and Van Hooser face each other on the November ballot. I cannot reconcile that with my democratic [small d] beliefs.
However, Sir, when you write that I'm starting to sound like some of your "GOP buddies," you go too far. Such slanderous defamatory mudslinging cannot be borne in silence, Sir. My seconds shall call upon yours directly.
Isn't it something should the judge implement the law. That how many of these here voters in Ogden city would say WHAT HAPPENED AND WHY? This law has been on the books for some time now and it was the city council that put them into force, so I believe that the mayor should read the rules that he should be governed by. Is he above the law. I don't think so! Instead he makes the rules as he goes and then when he is caught, he then says why are my opponents doing this to me. wa wa wa wa.
I Just realized that Godfrey should not be elected for one reason and one reason only. He said that the only thing that was going to revive this city was the gondola and now that he himself said that it was not a prudent idea then why should we re-elect this Guy when he doesn't have any other ideas to revive the city. What then is his plan to bring the business back into the city except to keeping thowing our tax dallors at them.
DONE AND COOKED, STICK A FORK IN HIM AND THROW THE BUM OUT!
Curm,
Did you learn any details with regards to the two ordinance amendments being proposed tonight at the planning commisssion meeting?
Went to the Salomon Center today about 2:00 PM this afternoon. Only one word to describe it "DEAD".
No one on the climbing wall, no one in the wind tunnel, wave rider was shut off, no one bowling, no one shooting pool, no one playing minature golf, bar was closed, nobody in the pizza or hamburger joint. Only 8 people in the mexican food place, about 10 people in the chuchy cheese area of which 4 were spending money and 6 were watching, Gold's gym had about 12 people in there at max. Employees looked bored out of their minds.
As they say in Texas, this dog don't hunt!
Anyone but Godfrey.
concerned:
No. And won't for a bit. Lots on the table through the weekend. I'll track it down, though.
greiner:
You wrote: I Just realized that Godfrey should not be elected for one reason and one reason only. He said that the only thing that was going to revive this city was the gondola and now that he himself said that it was not a prudent idea...
Just for the record, the Mayor has not backed off the idea of building a flatland gondola from downtown to WSU. Not in the least. All he backed off was selling the park and adjacent city lands to pay for it. But he has never taken the gondola itself off the table. Never. It's still a viable project for him. Hell, he just signed a contract with UTA to spend a quarter of a million dollars of taxpayers money on yet another gondola "study." He'll keep on spending money on study after study after study, I expect, if he's returned to office, until he can find a consultant who will produce the results he wants.
Hey, guess who I saw pulling out of short deck geiger's driveway this evening? Not Wolfgang Puck, Joseph Paul Franklin or Warren Jeffs, but close. Lying little matty gondola godfree himslf.
Better check your yard signs, and make sure your firewall is working, so your e-mails don't get hacked.
One comment about the main story today.
It has been suggested that the other candidates for office have not filed their paper work. I don't know if this is true or not.
But after reading the law, it appears to me that it only becomes an issue to the candidate if a voter challenges the candidate’s paper work to the City Recorder and then asks the City Recorder to verify the specific candidate's paper work. If the candidate is then questioned by the City Recorder and does not respond in the appropriate time frame to the City Recorder’s inquiry, then the candidate is in violation of the law. The law then clearly states that if the candidate is guilty of violating the law (a Class B misdemeanor) then the candidate is not eligible to take office. If he is not eligible to hold office, then his name should not appear on the ballot.
Additionally if the City Recorder does not act on a request from a voter to review a candidate’s paperwork, the voter may file an extraordinary writ. In this case the City Recorded did not act on the votes request for review and the City Attorney also did not act on the request but rather dismissed to claim. The voter acted fully within the voter’s right per the law. The candidate knew of the request for the review and could have easily complied but chose not to, thus opening himself up for this action. The candidate should have known the risks that he was taking (considering that this wasn’t his first run for office) and took the risk for some strategic or political reason. The risk that he took and the consequences of his actions are spelled out in the law should he be challenged and chooses not to comply. The voter is fully within the voter’s right to ask that the candidate’s name be removed from the ballot.
The voter has thus asked the courts to review the evidence that the voter has provided the court that the law was not carried out by the candidate or by the City Recorder or the City Attorney. The court will then determine based on the evidence whether the voter’s challenge has merit and if such a determination is made that the voter’s claim is accurate, the candidate will be determined to be in violation of the law and guilty of a Class B misdemeanor and thus not eligible for office.
With regards to the other candidates, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever questioned the other candidate’s paperwork to the City Recorder and as such there is no violation of the law by the other candidates. If the other candidates are asked or should be asked by the City Recorder to comply and they then respond to the City Recorder in the time allotted then they are still OK.
Problem for Godfrey is that he was asked for verification of his paper work (it is documented) and that he still did not comply in the allotted time frame (this is documented as well). Additionally the City Clerk and the City Attorney did not act in accordance with the law (this is documented). The voter was within the voter’s right to then ask for the court to review the evidence once the City Recorder and the City Attorney failed to properly act under the law. The law is pretty clear at this point that if the court finds the candidate in violation of city law then the candidate should not be permitted to run for or hold the office for which he is elected if the court decision is rendered after the election. If this determination is made prior to the election then the candidates name should be removed from the ballot. Hopefully this matter will quickly be resolved by the courts.
I guess when you think that you are above the law then the law doesn't apply to you.
Has anyone noticed that Bob Gieger's truck looks like it part of the Truely Nolan pest control fleet?
That's funny -
A pest driving around in a
pest control truck!
Less Government means "less oversight."
Less Government means "take from the poor and give to your business buddies."
Less Government means " Less Taxes" but, its o k, because our children will pay off the big debt."
Less Government means "kiss my ring because I'm KING."
Rudi:
What you said to crum is right on the money.
Crum quiet weining!!!!!
Its a great start.
Thanks Dorty and the others.
Sorry Dorthy.
I missed spelled your name. You can call me "little george." Just once though.
No really, God Bless ya Dorthy and the 60 others.
Your doing your civic duty.
Cudos to VH for her statement in the SE this morning. And to those behind the lawsuit to get Godfrey off the ballot. Really? You misled people into thinking they were signing a petition? Doesn't do much for your cause.
Nov 6th can't come soon enough.
Vote for change.
Vote for a woman.
democrat,
Your fear of "less government" has me laughing. Have you considered that more government means more of these shenanigans. Democrats have used that justification to build the horrendously ponderous government we have today and the republicans have played along for decades.
We need far less government to get government out of our lives.
Less government will eliminate war including the failed Wars on Poverty, Drugs, Terrorism and the WAR ON US
If the last half centruy is any indication it is the U.S.government that has the U.S. and the rest of the world in such a shambles. Poverty, Drugs, Over-consumption of Natural resources for our cars and poisonous swill for the gullets of hungry americans.
Your government does nothing for any of us.
Ogden Voter:
Yup. What the law suite 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.
Councilwoman Van Hooser made a good effort to get the discussion back on track, and to spike one of a desperate Mayor's attempts to shift the topic off his record, by calling for Ms. Littrel and the others involved in the law suit to withdraw it. Watch. Hizzonah and his retainers will do everything in their power to keep press and public attention focused on Ms. Littrel, the alleged mis-representation used to induce people to sign onto the lawsuit, and so on. In his position, having posted only 40 percent of the vote as an incumbent in a primary, I'd be trying to do the same.
To repeat, the voters of Ogden made clear the choice they wanted to have: Godfrey vs. Van Hooser. They wanted a choice in November between four more years of Godfreyism on the one hand and a new direction for Ogden City on the other. They wanted a choice between continued growth of Ogden's public debt for the benefit of private investors and the Mayor's associates on the one hand, or a new commitment to fiscal responsibility on the other. They wanted a choice between an administration that thinks the answer to every problem facing Ogden is "Let's build a gondola!" and an administration willing to tackle the complex problems that Ogden faces with innovative, sustainable reforms based on sound research and thoughtful consideration of a wide range of possible solutions. The voters wanted a choice between an administration that ignored Ogden's rising gang violence problem until an approaching election made it imperitive for the Mayor to notice it, and a new mayor committed to dealing with the city's problems for the whole four years of her term, whether an election is on the immediate horizon or not. They wanted a choice between an administration pathologically committed to acting in secret and denying the voters, the press and the Council information about what is up to, and a new mayor committed to open government and public disclosure as a matter of principle and as the basis of good government.
I hope Ms. Littrel and the others who signed on to the suit will honor the will of the voters expressed in the primary, and withdraw their suit.
This morning's story in the SE can be found here.
So Curmudgeon, we should let murderers and rapists off on technicalities. We do and it is because those in charge have failed to do their job. Maybe it is a technicality but the laws are still in place. We can't go to the people to decide if a person is guilty of a crime. Somtimes we just have to stick to the laws and enforce them. I personally don't like living in a world where things are not illegal unles you get caught. Too many people have not done there job and made sure that everyone had done what was necessary. After all do you think Godfrey wouldn't use this tactic if he had known the candidates have to register their committees? It's funny how depending which side of the fence a person is on, his perspective of right and wrong seem to morph.
Yes remove them all from the ballot. Evidently they are all dopes and shouldn't be leading a city.
As far a campain issue, it only is for lying little matty. It has nothing to do with Van Hooser.
Her statement has been made, the Standard should respect that and stick to covering all the issues. This is something that will play out for some time and should not interupt the campain, only for lying little matty. Van Hooser should respond to Schwebke and others with a simple no comment. She said her bit all ready.
If Schwebke and the paper continue to focus solely on this, they are showing their institutional mentality to be the bootum feeding illogical equivilant of one short deck geiger. geiger geiger geiger.
curm,
The suit is not going away and it is not going to be withdrawn so tell the van Hooser people to quit trying to get signed Plaintiffs off the list by asking the Plaintiffs to claim they didn't know what they were signing.
van Hooser should get on with her own campaign and let us do our suit without interference.
Right and Wrong:
You wrote: So Curmudgeon, we should let murderers and rapists off on technicalities.
I suggested nothing of the kind. What's at stake here are not murders and rapes, but a candidate's allegedly not filing the proper documents with the proper signatures at the proper times. To liken those matters to setting murderers and rapists loose on technicalities is ridiculous, and it trivializes the discussion over the law suit as well.
signed plaintiff,
I'm sure Van Hooser is getting on with her campaign. All you are doing is adding momentum to Godfrey's campaign, if that is one of your desired results, congrat's. You're not going to get him off the ballot. I care as much about transparent and open government as anybody, but I can tell you I could care less about this minor technicality--same with the rest of the residents in Ogden. This is the type of pettiness behavior that most people in Ogden want to see brought to an end. We have had enough. When will the people of this town (in favor of Godfrey or not) start having true meaningful conversations?
Signed Plaintiff:
Sorry, Signed, but the law suit has, inevitably, now injected itself into the campaign. [Note the Mayor's attempt to blame the lawsuit on Van Hooser supporters, etc.] Councilwoman Van Hooser is as entitled to her view on the matter as you are, and hers is that the lawsuit is ill-advised, that it inevitably will take public and press attention away from what she thinks should be the issues in the campaign, and that it would serve Ogden best to have it withdrawn. And she said so.
I think she right on all counts. You, clearly, do not. But it would be foolish of her, and unrealistic of you, to pretend now, that the lawsuit has not [unfortunatly] become an issue in the election campaign. That is now, sadly, beyond denying, as the stories in yesterday's and today's paper establish beyond question. I expect Mayor Godfrey will do his level best to keep it an issue in the press and with the public from now until election day.
Mayor Matthew Godfrey could settle the lawsuit in one day if he would turn over his financial records to the City Recorder to audit as the lawsuit requests.
The first financial statement he filed showed around $80,000.00 left from current donations of $100,000.00.
He failed to list $38,000.00 from his last campaign as being on hand or having been spent. He just can't ignore $38,000.00 although that is what he has done.
He also can't ignore the fact that R&O contributed $10,000.00 to his campaign instead of the $2,500.00 he lists as being received.
This is $45,000.00 more that he has to acount for than he listed on his candidate's report the first time around.
For those of you into math, that is over 50% more than he listed on the first signed financial report he filed.
That figure does not include any funds collected by PEOPLE TO ELECT MAYOR MATTHEW GODFREY of an unknown amount which he filed no report on at all.
So how come people on this blog don't care about an accounting of funds which there will not be if the Littrell suit is dropped.
I say it needs to be heard out. Voters have a right to know the truth.
Do I understand that some of you are actually suggesting that the lawsuit against candidate Matthew Godfrey be dropped because it has become an ISSUE?
Matthew Godfrey would come up with another issue to detract from himself if he didn't have this one because he has the Standard Examiner in his back pocket.
Quit blaming Littrel for doing what her conscience demanded and put the blame where it belongs which is on Godfrey. He is the one who is playing games with the Municipal Code.
Littrel is just exercising her consitutional right for her day in court.
Well, clearly one thing comes accross loud and clear. When it comes to the discussion of dollars, lying little matty gondola godfree can't help but not ever be truthfull.
If you desire true dollar amounts from your government, you have to ask, ANYBODY BUT GODFREE!!!!!!!!!!
Nit:
No. I at least think it should be dropped because the clearly expressed will of the voters is a powerful matter in a free country, and it should not be set aside for relatively minor violations of campaign procedural regulations. The voters put Godfrey and Van Hooser on the final ballot. Their wishes, expressed at the polls, should be respected. That's why.
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!! He is the lowest of the low! Get 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."
If that isn't saying that Van Hooser is involved, then I don't know what is! She should sue him for slander! Who is "mudslinging" and making "bogus claims?" Godfrey isn't a man -- He's a SNAKE!! He is as repulsive as they come! He tries to bring everyone down to his level by making false accusations! Ms. Van Hooser knew nothing of the pending lawsuit, but if you believed that lying Godfrey, she is the one who filed it!
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!
curmudgeon
Any violation of the law must be addressed. That is the Court's job .
curmudgeon:
Just what are your legal qualifications for determining what is a minor violation?
Are you a lawyer masquerading as a professor or whatever it is that you are?
It seems Mrs. van Hooser thinks that the 61 person lawsuit will hurt her run for mayor.
That disturbs me a lil bit.
Who can explain why the suit hurts her?
Late to the party, do you think it could be because that nasty, lying little Godfrey is saying that she's behind it? Duh!
What Makes You:
No, I am not an attorney. But the question we are discussing is not a legal one. At no point did I suggest that Ms. Littrel and her co-signers had no right to file the suit. At no time did I suggest that the courts had no right to receive or hear it. Nor did I suggest the courts have no right to rule on it.
I said the suit was ill-advised. A bad idea. Not a good thing for Ogden, because the remedy sought would eliminate from the ballot in November one of the two candidates the voters put on that ballot in the primary. Being a resident of Ogden, I'm completely qualified to make a judgment like that. So are you. So is anyone else in the city. I think it was a bad idea for Ogden because it seeks to overthrow the judgment of the voters, and to deprive them of the chance to choose in November between Van Hooser and Godfrey. Still think it was a bad idea for that reason.
Late to the party:
You wrote; It seems Mrs. van Hooser thinks that the 61 person lawsuit will hurt her run for mayor.
The Councilwoman said she thought the suit was a ill-advised and not a good thing for Ogden and so asked for it to be withdrawn. She's right about all of that. She did not say it was a problem for her campaign, but a problem for the city insofar as it diverts public attention from the election and the issues important in it.
Pretty plain statement, I thought, and a pretty accurate one.
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.
Post a Comment