The facts aren’t so simple.
By Dan Schroeder
In the aftermath of the
ill-considered Facebook post by Standard-Examiner reporter Scott Schwebke, perhaps now is a good time to review the role that our local newspaper has played in uncovering the
Envision Ogden scandal. How often have Ogden’s professional journalists been
on the ball, and how often have they been
out to lunch? The truth isn’t as simple as some people (on either side) would like to believe. Here is a chronological account...
12 February 2007: The Standard-Examiner
announces the formation of Envision Ogden with a front-page article, four days after the fundraising dinner where EO raised about $50,000. The paper asks a lot of good questions (Who are EO’s leaders? What are you going to do with the money? What’s your position on the Gondola?), but gets few answers (Abraham Shreve and four anonymous “business leaders”; we don’t know yet; we’re not taking a position). Verdict:
On the ball!
24 June 2007: A special “Road to Prosperity” section in the Standard-Examiner features a
puffy article about Envision Ogden, with glowing commentary about EO’s web site, its two fundraisers (the February dinner and the June 15 Salomon Center grand opening), and the prospects of attracting more recreation businesses to Ogden. The article makes no attempt to explain the legal status of Envision Ogden, or to disclose the names of any of its leaders besides Shreve. Verdict:
Out to lunch.
September 2007: The Standard-Examiner receives documentation that Envision Ogden is a 527 political action committee, and that the city had allowed it to use the Salomon Center for the June 15 event before that building was leased to Gold’s Gym and Fat Cats. The Standard-Examiner decides that these facts are not newsworthy. Verdict: Out to lunch.
16 October 2007: The Standard-Examiner
prints a front-page article reporting that City Attorney Gary Williams has written a letter to mayoral candidate Susan Van Hooser, accusing her of violating the prohibition on use of city-owned equipment for political purposes. Her crime? One of her campaign volunteers sent out a mass email to a publicly available list of Chamber of Commerce members, and this list included several Ogden City email addresses. Verdict:
Out to lunch.
Late October 2007: The Standard-Examiner learns that
Envision Ogden has contributed $1500 to city council candidate Blain Johnson, but decides that this isn’t newsworthy, even though this money may have been raised at a city-owned facility (the Salomon Center). When asked why this is different from the Van Hooser email incident, Managing Editor Andy Howell explains that it’s a matter of whether anyone has taken “official action”: Obviously Gary Williams (who reports to Mayor Godfrey) has not taken any official action to challenge the use of the Salomon Center by Envision Ogden. Verdict:
Out to lunch.
23 February 2009: The Standard-Examiner refuses to print a
guest commentary by yours truly, in which it is explained that Envision Ogden actually “spent $26,884 on the 2007 election, including some direct expenditures in support of the mayoral campaign and several large contributions to another entity that immediately forwarded the money to city council candidates.” Howell explains that the commentary is being rejected because it was written partly in response to an editorial, which apparently isn’t permitted except from authors who are the subject of the editorial. Nobody in the news department picks up on the tip that the allegations are documented in publicly available IRS records. Verdict:
Out to lunch.
3 March 2009: Weber County Forum publishes full documentation
showing how FNURE laundered over $20,000 of campaign contributions from Envision Ogden to candidates Johnson and Eccles. WCF also publishes a list of Envision Ogden’s major contributors, which include banks, hospitals, and the State of Utah. The Standard-Examiner takes no notice. Verdict:
Out to lunch.
5 April 2009: The Standard-Examiner
publishes an in-depth article on Envision Ogden, focusing on how several of its contributors were unaware that their donations could be diverted to political candidates. (This is the article that prompted the Attorney General’s office to open a criminal investigation.) Verdict:
On the ball!
20 April 2009: The Standard-Examiner receives an emailed news tip (from yours truly) that the mayor’s office was involved in soliciting contributions for Envision Ogden. The tip is never acknowledged or acted upon. Verdict: Out to lunch.
23 April 2009: In its
fifth article on Envision Ogden in less than a month, the Standard-Examiner reports that according to EO leader Abraham Shreve, “it was always the organization’s intent to support political candidates....” Verdict:
On the ball!
28 April 2009: The Standard-Examiner publishes the
second of two articles on a totally frivolous election complaint by Bob Geiger, intended to divert the public’s attention away from Envision Ogden and toward alleged campaign finance violations by former city council candidate Dirk Youngberg. Then, having trivialized the issue, the Standard-Examiner drops the Envision Ogden story for the next year and a half. Verdict:
Out to lunch.
28 May 2009: When asked (by yours truly) why the Standard-Examiner has never reported on Mayor Godfrey’s connection to Envision Ogden, Executive Editor Andy Howell says he thinks “everybody knows” about the connection already, and therefore it’s not newsworthy. Howell also says he believes that the Envision Ogden story has run its course, so the Standard-Examiner won’t be printing any more articles on it unless there is some further official action. Verdict: Out to lunch.
10 November 2010: After the Salt Lake City Weekly tips them off to the state investigation, the Standard-Examiner
prints a new article on Envision Ogden in which they finally inquire into Godfrey’s role. Godfrey admits that “he raised funds for Envision Ogden that he knew could be given to political candidates....” Verdict:
On the ball!
16 November 2010: After obtaining the state investigation report through an open records request, the Standard Examiner prints
an article summarizing the report and emphasizing that the investigation was “sparked” by the Standard-Examiner article of 5 April 2009. Verdict:
On the ball!
So in summary, the Standard-Examiner deserves credit for printing quite a few articles about Envision Ogden over the last four years. They’ve broken essential new ground in several of these articles, most notably when they interviewed Envision Ogden’s contributors. At other times they’ve been just a short step behind the Salt Lake newspapers.
But on multiple occasions, the Standard-Examiner has refused to follow-through on its own reporting. Its initial article in February 2007 failed to answer the obvious questions about Envision Ogden’s purpose and leadership—yet the Standard-Examiner never asked those questions again. Its uncritical coverage during 2007 undoubtedly played a role in misleading contributors about Envision Ogden's true purpose. The 2009 coverage laid bare the organization's fraudulent activities, and raised the obvious question of how an unknown, unregistered organization was able to raise so much money so quickly—yet the Standard-Examiner never asked contributors who it was that had solicited their contributions. Even this month, rather than looking into the possible felony charges that Envision Ogden’s leaders might face, the Standard-Examiner chose only to ask the Lieutenant Governor’s office about possible minor violations of election laws.
The Standard-Examiner has also been consistent in its refusal to act on the basis of news tips from private citizens, or on the basis of reports on Weber County Forum—no matter how well documented. And now we know that some of their staff even hold us in contempt. Therefore, new developments in this story must apparently include “official action” before the Standard-Examiner considers them newsworthy.
This apparent policy is especially troubling because the Attorney General’s office declined to open any investigation into Envision Ogden until after it saw evidence of fraud in a Standard-Examiner article. If public officials won’t act until something appears in the newspaper, while the newspaper won’t print a story until public officials act, we have a serious chicken-and-egg problem. On more than one occasion, the Envision Ogden story has nearly died because neither the prosecutors nor the press wanted to be the first to stick their necks out.
But the story isn’t dead yet, and neither is the investigation. Whatever happens next, I’m confident that we’ll see further coverage in the Standard-Examiner.