Yet Another Ogden Election Scandal
by Dan Schroeder
How would you feel if you contributed to a "nonprofit" organization -- only to learn afterwards that it's actually a political action committee, channeling your contribution to candidates?
How would you feel if this organization had used government resources to hold a fundraising event?
And how would you feel if the news media had no interest whatsoever in reporting these facts?
Welcome to Ogden City and the Envisiongate Scandal.
Remember Envision Ogden? They're the group that organized last February, supposedly to "push the idea of high-adventure recreation" in Ogden. They held a big fundraising dinner in February, announced their formation in a front-page article in the Standard-Examiner, and set up a web site. Then, as a second fundraiser, they put on the big "Sneak Peek" event at the Salomon Center on June 15.
Oh, and on September 7 they contributed $1500 to Blain Johnson's campaign for Ogden City Council.
That's right: Envision Ogden is a political action committee (PAC). More precisely, it's a political organization subject to Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Just who is Envision Ogden? The head of the organization seems to be realtor Abe Shreve.
Shreve has "declined to identify" Envision Ogden's other members, but there's also a connection to Amer Sports, and to Cindy Patterson (wife of Ogden CAO John Patterson), who works for Amer. Mayor Godfrey seems to be quite familiar with the organization.
Because Envision Ogden contributes only to local candidates, it isn't required to file any financial disclosure statements with the state or federal government. And the city's ordinances require financial disclosure only from candidates, not from PACs. So if you want to contribute anonymously to a local candidate, you can easily do so by laundering the money through a PAC.
And as far as I know, there's no legal requirement that a local PAC disclose its purpose to contributors. So although you could raise ethical questions about Envision Ogden's deceptive fundraising solicitations, the organization probably hasn't broken any laws.
Ogden City, however, probably did break the law by allowing Envision Ogden to use the Salomon Center for a fundraising event. According to Municipal Code 2-6-13(c)(2), it's illegal for any officer or employee to "use, or allow to be used, any city equipment while engaged in any political activity". (Ironically, this is the same ordinance that the city attorney accused Van Hooser of violating when her campaign sent emails into city-owned computers.) Other laws may have been violated as well.
When asked about this impropriety, both the city and Envision Ogden have claimed that it was the tenants of the Salomon Center (Gold's and Fat Cats) who allowed their facility to be used for the event, and the city played no role. The only problem with this explanation is that the tenants did not legally take possession of the property until three days later, on June 18.
All of the facts above are thoroughly documented, and I'll gladly provide the documentation to anyone who asks. Several different people dug up these facts and brought them to my attention. I then passed the information on to both the Standard-Examiner and the Salt Lake Tribune, but neither was interested. At first the excuse was that we didn't have any evidence that Envision Ogden was actually giving money to candidates. We found the smoking gun--the Envison Ogden contribution listed on Johnson's October 26 disclosure statement--only a few days ago.
But as far as I can tell, the newspapers still intend to ignore this story.
So many scandals . . . so little time.
We link here an appendix to this article, which lays out the facts chronologically, for those who want to see this level of detail.
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
28 comments:
Nice work, Dan.
So many scandals. So little time....
These days politicians and government in general enjoy free reign when they bombard us with violations. The sheer volume of inappropriate activity prevents oversight. The publics' attention span is taxed already and we are simply exhausted keeping up on our own lives to bother. The newspapers and their rookie journalists should be ashamed. So many scandals...
Thanks to whomever finally figured the puzzle of Envision Ogden out.
Please, please get this information to Judge West of the Grand Jury Panel.
Better yet, why not take this information to Weber County Attorney deCaria as this is definite proof of wrongdoing?
Make him tell you why he won't do anything about it if he says it is a civil law violation and he can't help you.
And why wouldn't the IRS or the FBI be interested?
sic 'em,
I think I can answer your last question. As far as I know, there has been no violation of tax laws and indeed, no violation of any federal laws.
I'm not sure whether any state laws have been violated. The most clearly applicable law that I'm aware of is the Ogden City ordinance that I quoted.
If anyone can think of other specific laws that might have been violated, I'm all ears.
curm and nero,
I played very little role in digging up these facts. My role was really just organizing the information, trying to get the newspapers' attention, and finally writing up this article.
I find it ironic that everyone is so bent out of shape because Patterson allegedly tried to lean on a public official for a elction purpose. It seems you have forgotten about Neil Hansen using his official position to order the audit of the city to embarass the mayor during the election. Or. have you forgotten about the bogus lawsuit brought by Sharon Beech and others in bad faith to affect the election. Or, the complaint to the attorney general by Dorothy Littrell.
Corruption is so easy allege against the other guys, isn't it.
To Wait a Minute,
There's a big difference between trying to prove wrong doing and doing wrong doing. It's the difference of catching a thief and being a thief.
Those individuals that you mentioned were all trying to have Godfrey held accountable to standards that most of us live by, where as Godfrey and Patterson are regularly coming up with ways to circumvent those standards.
I've also witnessed Godfrey and Patterson expect people to live by the standards; standards that they themselves feel do not apply to them.
There's a big difference but I wouldn't expect you to know the difference.
wait a minute,
Perhaps you should check your personal definition of CORRUPTION. There is a huge difference between an individual having their personal job or livelyhood threatened by a person (or persons) in a position of power vs. citizens in a public forum excercising their legal right to protest, ask questions, and file lawsuits.
How would you feel if your boss told you that you would lose your job if you spoke out about any particular political issue?
wait a minute ---
There is a big difference here. Private citizens have a right to ask for answers.
John Patterson is the chief executive officer for Ogden City. He used that official position to pressure UTA to fire Kent Jorgenson if he helped Patterson's boss's opponent in the mayoral race.
Do not try comparing apples to oranges. They don't smell the same.
Oh, by the way, you have your facts wrong. Dorothy Littrell did not file a complaint with the Utah Attorney General. From what I know of Dorothy she distrusts the Attorney General as much as she does the rest of the rat pack.
The citizens you mentioned were not pressuring for anyone to be fired but they wanted answers to legitimate questions. Which have still not all been answered.
Their law suit was not done in bad faith nor a bogus suit. It was based on legitimate requests of the City Recorder and City Attorney which were never complied with.
Wait a minute:
OK, let's take them one by one. (a) There is nothing wrong with a state legislator, or anyone else, requesting that the State Auditor or another authorized state investigative office, look into a matter. Which is what Rep. Hansen did. What Mr. Patterson did was use his official position to silence a citizen who opposed the Mayor's re-election by threatening that the City would not in the future be cooperative with UTA if the man was not silenced. I find it difficult to believe that even the most partisan of Godfrey advocates would or could honestly equate the two situations. And we ought to note, at least, that when the state dud look into the Ogden Foundation matter, it found the Godfrey Administration claiming, wrongly in the state's view, that the Foundation was a private rather than a public body. The request that the matter be looked at, therefor, seems on the evidence not to have been wholly without merit.
(b) Ms. Littrell and the other litigants are not public officials. They are as free as any other citizen to bring a suit against the city or any government employees. The suit did not succeed, as many of us, myself included, predicted it would not. The litigants are thus out the money they posted to file it and hire representation. And possibly more if the judge assigns the defendants' costs to those who brought the suit. I see no abuse of government authority in any of that. Nor, I suspect, do you.
(c) Ms. Littrell... any citizen... is free to complain to the AG about anything they wish to complain about. And the AG is free to act on those complaints or not as he chooses. Once again, no abuse of government authority seems involved at all.
Mr. Patterson, however, used his public office to threaten UTA with withholding city cooperation in the future unless UTA silenced its employee who was opposing the Mayor's re-election. That does involve the abuse of Mr. Patterson's authority, which makes it different from all of the incidents you likened it to above.
Now, that aside, it seems Mr. Patterson tried to silence one of the Mayor's opponents by threatening his job if he did not keep quiet. Unless your sense of decency has become totally atrophied by close association with the Mayor and his henchmen, even you must recognize that as a low and despicable act. Mr. Patterson was free to take on Mr. Jorgensen's comments about the election in the public prints, in a press release, or from a campaign podium, if he thought Mr. Jorgensen's view not convincing. He didn't do that. He tried to coerce his silence instead. No fair minded person, I think, can look upon that attempt as acceptable conduct for a public official. Not even you.
Who the *&%$%^&*% are you, Wait?
I haven't filed a lawsuit against anyone! Are you the letter writer for the Lift Ogden crowd that meets Tu, Th and Sat's?
Corruption is very easy to allege when it hits us in the face every day as it drops out the windows of the 9th floor of the municipal bldg.
Godfrey seems to be the most crooked, divisive, slimy liar to harm Ogden that I've ever heard of.
I'm not surprised the newspapers turned you down, Dan.
It seems to me that those who could do good things for the public lost their moral compass....maybe gondolaing over Malan's?
I have a sick feeling every time I think of another 4 years of Godfrey. I feel sorry for our public servants who would have to watch every word and step because of the vengeful acts of this little man.
Playing footsie with an indicted tile maker from CA doesn't bother this twerp one bit. Having Gadi buy several lots along the riverfront is very disconcerting...along with all the other sleazy deals Godfrey and his A Team have put together.
Work hard tomorrow and TU calling everyone you know and they then could be doing the same.
Call the talk shows tomorrow also.
KNRS 730 am....between 5:30 and 8:30 AM and the Doug Wright show on KSL. We can educate many people who will never get the truth from our paper.
Why would you go to DiCaria? He wouldn't get off his behind in the Matt Jones sordid affair...and when he finally got around to writing an opinion...the good ol' boys were exonerated. DiCaria didn't censure Godfrey and Greiner for stepping all over Jones' free speech rights.
Thanx again, Dan and friends. Keep on this story. If Godfrey wins, we can hope he'll be kicked out of office.
Now "Wait"....that's a lawsuit I'd be happy to file!
We live in a gulag.
wait a minute,
You'd better work harder on your analogies. Those are some real stretchers.
Sharon Beech and Dorothy Littrell are not public officials. They are ordinary citizens, and as such, they have every right to file complaints with the attorney general or the courts. There's nothing even remotely illegal about that. And while you may believe that the lawsuit was brought in bad faith, I believe you're wrong. They sincerely thought a law had been violated. Filing the lawsuit was unwise, but it wasn't unethical.
Hansen is a public official so your analogy to his audit request looks better--at first. But he made the request openly, and again I'm not aware that there was anything illegal about his doing so. Was he motivated by a desire to improve his chances in the election? Perhaps. But at worst, I would put this in the same category as Godfrey using the city's utility bill inserts to convey his campaign talking points. It's a perk of the office he holds that gives him an unfair advantage in the campaign.
The use of personal threats to influence an election is in a completely different category. If you don't understand why, then you need a civics lesson.
Hey, wait a minute, Hansen's audit request was in no way corrupt. If you think the Riverside Tech/ Ogden community Foundation/ Amcan thing is over you're sorely mistaken.
Lying little matty will still have some real explaining to do yet. Most likely to a big bad Judge that could care less 'bout his position. In all likelyhood his true nature will come thru and of course he'll lie his ass off, and the big bad Judge will put an end to the saga of lying little matty.
As for Envision Ogden, there are some monitary restrictions with 527s, these could have also been violated. Perhaps we'll find out when they file their tax info.
We wouldn't be too suprized to find money going to lying little matty and the rest, acknowleged after 10/26/07. The last reporting deadline.
It's also interesting that Envision Ogden started out as one type of organization, for their first event, then under some pressure changed into a different one. Maybe the filing dates will be made available to us down the road. Corruption at every corner, it's just become the norm with lying little matty, I'm getting so tired.
Have you heard this one. I got an email today that said Neil Hansen hangs out LOSERS. It was by this Guy Named J R Eccles. Is he Royals dad? I guess that Neil Hansen will not be voting for Godfrey just like the Eccles guy, because I heard Eccles lives outside of Ogden. Isn't that a hoot that Hansen is the looser when in fact he is the winner because he gets to vote against Godfrey and Eccles can't even vote for the Ogden mayor race.
Ha Ha Ha Ha.
How many of you were at the Ogden high meeting when the Senator chief Greiner, the whiner, Said that if someone witness a law being broken that he would sign right next to theirs to make a citizens arrest.
Now that we know that Godfrey has broken so many laws how many would like the police chief to go and arrest his boss? Wouldn't that be the ultimate justice. Lets get er done!!!
Hey Ed Allen or should I say, Wait A minute...
How do you feel about the great son in law that has slapped your daughter.
What is the truth on that story?
Curmudgeon,
Here is the law that I was thinking of regarding Patterson and Godfrey misusing their position. I'll keep looking, I think that there is one about using position to intimidate, etc.
-7-3: PROHIBITED ACTS DESIGNATED:
No appointed or elected officer or employee shall:
A. Improper Disclosure: Improperly disclose private, controlled or protected information acquired by reason of the officer's official position or in the course of official duties in order to further substantially the officer's or employee's personal economic interest or improperly use such information to secure special privileges or exemptions for the officer or others.
B. Use Position For Privileges: Use or attempt to use the officer's official position to further substantially the officer's or employee's personal economic interest or secure special privileges for the officer or others.
(1979 Code § 3.50.030; Ord. 94-56, 11-1-1994; amd. Ord. 97-82, 10-30-1997)
2-7-10: TRANSACTION OR CONTRACT VOIDABLE:
Any contract or transaction which was the subject of governmental action by the City in which there is an interest prohibited by this Chapter or which involved the violation of a provision of this Chapter, shall be voidable, at the option of the City.
(1979 Code § 3.50.120; Ord. 94-56, 11-1-1994)
2-7-11: PENALTY:
Any person who knowingly and intentionally violates the provisions of this Chapter may be subject to the criminal penalties provided under State law. A violation of any provision of this Chapter, which is prosecuted by the City or which is not a criminal violation under Utah Code Annotated section 10-3-1310, is a Class B misdemeanor, punishable as set forth in Title 1, Chapter 4 of this Code. Any officer or employee who knowingly and intentionally violates this Chapter may be dismissed from employment or removed from office, as provided by law.
(1979 Code § 3.50.130; Ord. 94-56, 11-1-1994; amd. 1999 Code)
The Cable Guy:
You wrote: Now that we know that Godfrey has broken so many laws how many would like the police chief to go and arrest his boss? Wouldn't that be the ultimate justice. Lets get er done!!!
Once again, so far, no one has demonstrated that the Mayor has broken any laws in the conduct of his office, much less "so many laws." Behaved unethically, often, yes. Broken "many laws" --- doubtful and certainly not even close to something "we know."
I'm still laughing, Gary Neilson's far reaching letter this morning.
Amy the naysayer. What did say to? Oh yeh, the city bonding to build a stupid gym right in the heart of the junction. The purpose of which was nothing more than to publicly finance the relocation and consolidation of Neilson's two other gyms. The public being totally on the hook. I would have to think even a neocon should be insensed by this form of idiotic corporate welfare.
By the way, Neilson signed his letter as "owner" of the I-fly and Flow rider, I thought those things were paid for by the people of Ogden?
Knows the Law:
Thanks for posting the ordinance. But paragraphs A and B [which define the prohibited acts] seem like a stretch to me to cover what Patterson did. The first deals with the disclosure or use of "private, controlled or protected information" for the city employees economic benefit. I don't see how that applies. The second deals with using the powers of office to further the employee's economic interest or that of others. I guess, at a stretch, that might cover using his official position to help re-elect the elected official who appointed him to office, but it would be a stretch, I think. However, he did say that the city's cooperation with UTA in the future would depend on UTA's silencing a citizen and one of its employees. That might, barely, fit under the definition, since that clearly involved Mr. Patterson's official position and powers. [The only thing that gave his threat credibility was his public office as the Mayor's CAO.]
If there is an ordinance directly addressing the use of official position to coerce, that might better fit what Mr. Patterson is said to have done. Please post if you find it.
IF ANY OF YOU BIRD DOGS ARE ON HERE AND BRAVE ENUF...CALL 570 5677 AND HOPE YOU CAN GET A LINE OR TWO IN ABOUT GODFREY..I.TRIED TO TELL ABOUT JORGENSON, AND GOT IT IN THAT PATTERSON HAD CALLED INGLISH...AND KENT CAN'T CAMPAIGN ANYMORE OR LOSE HIS JOB...AND THEN I WAS CUT OFF....PLS TRY
LET YOUR OPENING LINE BE THAT GODFREY IS VINDICTIVE OR CROOKED OR WHATEVER....BEFORE YOU, TOO, ARE CUT OFF. CALL SOME OTHERS TO DO THE SAME
Here is a regulation that is found in the Ogden City Employee manual.The manual can be found on the internet at this location.
http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/UT/Ogden%20Policy/index.htm
7-14: RESPONDING TO THREATS AND VIOLENCE:
The city maintains a zero tolerance policy toward any act of workplace violence, or threats of violence, by any of its employees or the general public.
A. Workplace Violence Defined: Workplace violence may include, but is not limited to, verbal harassment or intimidation, threats to inflict physical harm, unwarranted physical contact, vandalism, or any other act that creates a hostile, abusive or intimidating work environment. Possession of dangerous weapons or materials, such as firearms or explosives, except as required or authorized within the employee's scope of employment, may also constitute workplace violence. Workplace violence does not include reasonable force in the defense of property, self or others.
B. Prohibited Conduct: Examples of prohibited conduct include, but are not limited to:
1. Hitting, shoving, or physically restraining an individual.
2. Threatening to harm an individual or his/her family, friends, associates, or property.
3. Making or sending harassing or threatening telephone calls, letters, e-mails, or other forms of written or electronic communication.
4. Intimidating or attempting to coerce an employee to do wrongful acts or acts that are contrary to the best interests of the city.
5. Harassing surveillance, stalking, and the wilful, malicious, and repeated following of another person while making a credible threat with the intent to place the other person in reasonable fear of his/her safety.
6. Making a suggestion or otherwise intimating that an act to injure persons or property is appropriate.
7. Bizarre or offensive comments regarding violent events or behavior.
8. Unauthorized possession or inappropriate use of firearms, weapons, or any other dangerous devices on city property.
C. Prevention Of Workplace Violence: The city is committed to providing a safe work environment for its employees, which is free from intimidation, threats, or violent acts. Prevention efforts include, but are not limited to, advising employees of this policy through its inclusion in the employee manual, informing employees of the sanctions for violating this policy, providing a means to report incidents of violence without fear of reprisal, and developing a procedure for investigating and enforcing this policy.
D. Reporting Workplace Violence:
1. Any city employee who is subjected to any of the behaviors listed above or who observes or has knowledge of any violation of this policy shall immediately report the incident to his/her supervisor or any management member of the city administration. The employee should be prepared to identify (or describe) the parties involved and disclose any information regarding the event or situation without fear of reprisal. An employee should contact proper law enforcement authorities directly and immediately if he/she believes that there is a serious threat to her/her own safety or the safety of others.
2. Any supervisor or management member of the city administration who becomes aware of a possible violation of this policy, whether firsthand or through a subordinate, shall promptly advise the management services director or his/her designee.
3. Notwithstanding the above, employees and supervisors are encouraged to identify and defuse problems and conflicts as they arise in the workplace, treating individuals with honesty and respect, utilizing open communication and other techniques, as deemed appropriate under each particular circumstance.
E. Investigation Of Threats And Violent Incidents:
1. Complaints about city employees will be promptly investigated under the direction of the management services director.
2. Investigations of criminal acts, whether perpetuated by city employees or the general public, will be conducted by appropriate law enforcement personnel.
3. In addition to ascertaining the actions of each involved party to determine the appropriateness of disciplinary action or criminal prosecution, the investigating authority shall also evaluate the response by city employees and recommend security measures to prevent similar incidents in the future.
F. Penalties: If an employee is found to have violated this policy, disciplinary action, up to and including termination, may be taken. See section 9-3 of this manual for more information about the disciplinary process. (Adm. Order 99-6, 9-21-1999)
Wow, and Dan S. once ran a stop sign and I saw him on his bike once at night without a light.
Criminals everywhere !!!!!!!
Deep Throat,
Sounds like the slimy dictator and his henchman have violated several of the workplace 'protections', doesn't it?
As citizens, several who are outraged could file a suit against Godfrey and Patterson, and anyone else who was a party to threatening Jorgenson with loss of employment.
Hey...just rec'd a phone dialer message from Eccles...."I'll vote for progress, lower taxes," and I can't remember the third promise.
Call the Doug Wright show on KSL today, and try to get in a couple good lines before he, too, cuts you off, as Lonsberry did to me this morning on KNRS.....a few thousand people hearing several people giving examples of Godfrey's unethical, and possibly, criminal behavior, will surely educate some voters up here.
Deep Throat:
The portion of the city employee's manual you clipped above seems to apply to violence to persons or property. Not sure, as a matter of law, if that could be extended to cover what Patterson did. Have to stretch "violence" pretty far to make it fit.
But I did find in the employee's code this [I-9-C4]:
4. Having a personal interest or investment which creates a conflict between the employee's personal interests and his/her public duties.
Now that, it seems to me, could apply directly to Patterson's call to UTA's chief. He's reported to have threatened that Ogden's City's "positive relationship" with UTA might not continue unless the UTA employee was silenced.
Let's think about that for a minute, what it could have meant. A project UTA wants to do in the city comes along. UTA solicits Ogden City's support for it, and its cooperation in making it happen. Now, this project is either [from the Administration's POV] a good idea for Ogden or it's not. Let's say the Administration considers it a good idea, and so would like to cooperate. But Mr. Patterson has told UTA that if it doesn't silence the Mayor's opponent, the City may not continue its "positive relationship" with UTA, and so presumably not cooperate on a project like this even if it considers the project beneficial. And being the Mayor's COA, that threat is credible.
So, Mr. Patterson has said to UTA that what will determine whether the city's "positive relationship" with UTA continues not whether that positive relationship is in the Administration's judgment in the best interests of the city, but whether UTA has silenced its employee. And Mr. Patterson gave as his reason for making the threat, that he wanted to keep his job as Godfrey CAO. This seems to me to involve a conflict of interest for Mr. Patterson, as the code puts it, between the employee's personal interests and his/her public duties. His personal interest is to keep his job, and in pursuit of that end, he implies to Mr. Inglish that he's willing to recommend refusing city cooperation with UTA even when such cooperation is in the city's interest. [That is the only context in which Mr. Patterson's threat to Mr. Inglish and UTA makes sense.]
The penalty for violating this provision of the city employee's code is this [I-9-F]: Violation: Conduct found in violation of these provisions shall subject the employee to termination and/or criminal penalties. Employees desiring more information about state law or the city ordinances, or who have questions about conflicts of interest, may request further information from the personnel office or the city attorney's office. (Eff. 6-1-1996)
Might be interesting to ask the city attorney for an opinion on this. After all, the Godfrey administration went streaking into the City Attorney's office when some city employees inadvertently received emails from the Van Hooser campaign. Seeking his opinion on such matters seems to be the in thing to do these days. Wonder what he'd have to say about the content of the Patterson phone calls in re: the city employees code I-9-C4.
Go to the Ogden Municipal Code 2-6-13: POLITICAL ACTIVITY
Go down to C. RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES: No officer or employee of the city shall:
1. Engage in any political activity during working hours, or while in a city uniform or city vehicle: or while at this or her place of employment within the city........
John Patterson was certainly conducting Ogden City business by calling UTA to put pressure on them to muzzle their own employee, Kent Jorgenson.
I wonder if he can prove he made the call after hours on a cell phone in the middle of a street?
That won't fly if he did because this was all about politics to keep Kent from endorsing Godfrey's political opponent.
He is Ogden's Chief Operating Officer and not a rookie employee.
'Course he could be after this boo-boo!
lol,
I plead guilty: I sometimes run stop signs on my bike when there's nobody coming. (And if there is somebody coming, and they get there first, they always expect me to ride through and I confuse the heck out of 'em by stopping.)
The headlight usually works but sometimes the battery runs out of juice in the middle of my commute.
Well be safe out there Mr., I will make sure I stop for you.
Post a Comment