Envision Ogden Records Show Corruption, Fraud, Political Pressure

To investigators, the case was a “hot potato”.
By Dan Schroeder
The Utah State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) has recently released all of its records from the Envision Ogden investigation, opened in April 2009 and closed in March 2011. The records provide a vivid look into Envision Ogden’s fundraising efforts and into the investigation itself.

Envision Ogden was a local political action committee, formed in early 2007, that concealed its political nature from most or all of its contributors. It sponsored a fundraising dinner at the Ben Lomond Hotel in February 2007, and a grand opening event at the city-owned Salomon Center in June 2007. After covering expenses for these events, Envision Ogden directed most of the remaining proceeds to political candidates and campaign activity, including expenditures that helped Mayor Godfrey’s reelection campaign in fall 2007. Godfrey told reporters last November that he had been responsible for the bulk of Envision Ogden’s fundraising.

Among the revelations contained in the newly released records are the following:

• Both of Weber County’s hospitals contributed to Envision Ogden in order to curry favor with Mayor Godfrey, who personally solicited their contributions. A January 2007 email from McKay-Dee CEO Tim Pehrson states that his hospital’s contribution may give its affiliated health plan, Select Health, “a better shake the next time it bids on city employees.” Similarly, minutes from a meeting of Ogden Regional Medical Center administrators explain its $5,000 contribution by saying that CEO Mark Adams “has a good relationship with the mayor, good to keep it that way.”
• Records provided to investigators by UBS Financial Services show how Envision Ogden and the Ben Lomond Hotel fabricated an invoice, months after the fact, to make it look as if the $6,047 contribution from UBS to Envision Ogden was really going to the hotel as a direct reimbursement of fundraising dinner expenses. Earlier correspondence shows that those expenses had already been paid and in any case, Envision Ogden deposited the check and never passed the money on to the hotel.
• An April 2009 email from investigator Jim Vaughn to his supervisor, Major Jeff Carr, explains that he was trying to get federal authorities to take on the Envision Ogden investigation, because it was a “hot State potato”. After the FBI declined to take the case, Vaughn and investigator Scott Hansen proceeded with the investigation despite this. Vaughn has since retired and Hansen has also left the SBI.
• After the initial phase of the investigation in Spring 2009, there was a lengthy delay while the Utah Attorney General’s Office was supposedly trying to obtain Envision Ogden’s bank records. A subpoena for these records was finally prepared in February 2010 and signed by Judge Denise Lindberg on February 9. Apparently, however, the Attorney General’s Office never served the subpoena on Wells Fargo Bank. The investigation therefore stalled once again, until a new subpoena was finally prepared and served in late 2010.
• An undated entry in the investigation report, probably from late 2009, states that during a meeting with Assistant Attorney General Scott Reed, “It was determined that with only misdemeanors being evident that the case would be closed....” Although the case actually was not closed at that time, this comment underscores how Envision Ogden’s activities fell through the cracks in the criminal justice system. Misdemeanor offenses would have to be prosecuted by the city attorney (who reports to the mayor) or the county attorney (who also treated the case like a hot potato). The statute of limitations for misdemeanor prosecutions expired in 2009 in any case. State investigators were interested only in potential felony charges such as communications fraud and money laundering, but the Attorney General’s Office ultimately decided not to bring these charges either, for reasons that remain unclear.

The Attorney General’s Office took over the Envision Ogden investigation, using its own investigators, in September 2010. It then closed the investigation without filing charges on March 4, after the statute of limitations had expired for any crimes associated with Envision Ogden’s February 2007 fundraising dinner.

Some of the Attorney General’s records of the investigation have also been released, but the office is withholding other records including Envision Ogden’s financial records which were finally obtained from Wells Fargo Bank. Among those records should be the five canceled checks, totaling over $20,000, that Envision Ogden wrote to Friends of Northern Utah Real Estate—the intermediary that passed the funds on to city council candidates Blain Johnson and Royal Eccles. The endorsement signature on those canceled checks should show conclusively who controlled FNURE. I have appealed the withholding of these records to the Utah State Records Committee, which will hold a hearing on the matter on July 14.

Criminal Wrongdoing in the 2007 Ogden City Council Campaign - Updated

Even in Emerald City, laundering campaign contributions is illegal

By Dan Schroeder

During the 2007 Ogden municipal election campaign, an entity called Friends of Northern Utah Real Estate accepted over $20,000 in contributions from Envision Ogden and immediately passed this money on to two city council candidates, Blain Johnson and Royal Eccles. This activity violated Ogden's campaign finance disclosure ordinance, which prohibits campaign contributions made by one person in the name of another. The violation is a class B misdemeanor. If Mr. Johnson is convicted as a knowing participant in this activity, he will be disqualified from holding office as a city council member.

Evidence

The receipt of funds from Friends of Northern Utah Real Estate (FNURE) is detailed on the financial disclosure statements filed with the Ogden City Recorder by candidates Blain Johnson and Royal Eccles on October 26, November 28, and November 30, 2007. Johnson received a total of $10,990 in four installments from FNURE, while Eccles received $9700 in two installments. For each candidate this amount constituted more than half of the total contributions received during the campaign cycle--and substantially more than the total contributions received by the candidate's opponent. Johnson's disclosure statements give the address of FNURE as "4723 Harrison, Ogden," which is the same building as his law office. Eccles gave no address for FNURE on his statement.

No entity by the name of Friends of Northern Utah Real Estate, or anything similar, is registered as a business in Utah or as a 527 political organization with the IRS.

Meanwhile, Envision Ogden was organized in early 2007 and conducted various fundraising activities during the first half of that year, including the "Sneak Peek" grand opening of the city-owned Salomon Center on June 15. The organization made a direct contribution of $1500 to Johnson's campaign on September 7, 2007, as disclosed on Johnson's October 26 statement.

However, by early September, Envision Ogden was coming under increasing scrutiny. One citizen asked the Lieutenant Governor's office to inquire into the organization's status. A second citizen submitted a records request to Ogden City, asking for documentation of the arrangement under which Envision Ogden was permitted to use the Salomon Center for its fundraising event. A third citizen called the leader of Envision Ogden and asked about the organization's purpose and how it had been able to use the Salomon Center.

Envision Ogden notified the IRS of its Section 527 status (using the required Form 8871) on March 3, 2008. The form names realtor Abraham Shreve as the chairman and only officer, and Jeff Lucas as the custodian of records. Its 2007 year-end Report of Contributions and Expenditures (Form 8872) was submitted on May 12, 2008. That report lists the direct $1500 contribution to Blain Johnson plus five later contributions, totaling $20,700, to "Northern Utah Friends of Real Estate." The purpose of these contributions is stated to be "city council campaign support." The total amount is just $10 more than the total amount of the six contributions from FNURE reported by Johnson and Eccles. The dates and amounts of the individual contribution installments also correspond to an extent.

In conclusion, it would appear that FNURE simply forwarded political contributions from Envision Ogden to candidates Johnson and Eccles. This effectively concealed the true source of these contributions from voters, both before the election and for more than six months after the election.

Relevant law

Section 1-8-3C of the Ogden City Code prohibits campaign contributions made by one person in the name of another:

C. In Name Of Another: No person shall make a contribution in the name of another person or make a contribution with another person's funds in his or her own name, and no candidate, member of a personal campaign committee, or political campaign committee shall knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another person or made by one person with the funds of another person.

Section 1-8-1 defines "person" very broadly to include organizations and committees. Section 1-8-7 makes violation of the disclosure ordinance a class B misdemeanor, and states that a person convicted of such a violation may not hold the office to which the person was elected, if any.

Implications

Whoever operated FNURE clearly violated Ogden's ordinance and is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. At this time we do not know the identity of that person or persons. However, the address that Johnson gave for FNURE suggests that the entity was operated either by Johnson himself, or by someone else at his law firm, or by someone else in the same building. In any case, it should be easy for a prosecutor to subpoena the bank records and determine who was signing the checks.

Even if someone else signed the checks, Johnson and Eccles would still be guilty of violating the ordinance if they were aware that the FNURE contributions originally came from Envision Ogden.

It seems probable that Envision Ogden violated Ogden's disclosure ordinance by contributing funds through FNURE. It may also have violated another provision of the ordinance by making $4684 in direct expenditures for the 2007 campaign. In addition, Envision Ogden appears to have violated federal tax laws by filing Form 8871 more than a year after it began accepting contributions, by failing to file a mid-year disclosure report, and by filing its year-end disclosure report more than three months after the January 31 deadline. Envision Ogden may have also violated state laws by soliciting contributions while holding itself out to be a charitable organization, and by contributing $2000 to a legislative candidate in 2008 without properly registering with the state or filing its disclosure statement on time.

Finally, Ogden City officials may have violated the law by allowing Envision Ogden to use a city-owned building for a political fundraising event.

Update 3/4/09 8:18 a.m. MT: Dan has just now transmitted to us a new supporting document, for those readers who might be interested in a detailed Envision Ogden event timeline. We are accordingly pleased to present Dan's newly-submitted Envision Ogden Chronology here.

Campaign Finance Reform Needed Right Here in Ogden

A Guest Commentary that the Standard-Examiner refused to print

By Dan Schroeder

I was pleasantly startled by the Standard-Examiner's recent editorial advocating campaign finance reform for Utah legislators ("Too much insider cash", February 17).

Of course I was pleased, because the editorial was absolutely right. We need to put limits on corporate contributions, and the public has a right to know where contributions are coming from.

But why was I startled? Because I naively assumed that the Standard-Examiner would have the same attitude toward the legislature that it has toward local elected officials. Let me explain.

Utah's campaign finance disclosure statute applies only to state-level races and school boards--not to county and municipal elections. Cities and counties can pass their own disclosure ordinances, but most of these ordinances are even weaker than the state-level requirements.

For example, Ogden City's ordinance shares all the weaknesses of the state statute, and adds several more:

• It requires no disclosures from incumbent office holders between election cycles;
• It contains an ambiguity that has been interpreted to exempt all political action committees (PACs) from filing disclosure statements;
• It doesn't require that disclosure statements be posted on a web site, so citizens must visit the City Recorder's office and pay 25 cents per page to obtain copies;
• Its enforcement is left up to the City Recorder and City Attorney, who serve at the pleasure of the mayor and thus have a conflict of interest when the incumbent mayor is a candidate.

These weaknesses could perhaps be forgiven if the amount of money involved were negligible. But Ogden's last mayoral campaign cost well over $200,000, while the contested city council races cost over $20,000 each. When office holders have to raise that kind of money, it's too easy for them to become beholden to the contributors.

And who are the contributors? For our incumbent mayor, the pattern is striking. His disclosure statements read like a who's-who of companies and individuals doing business with the city: Gadi Leshem, $10,000; R & O Construction, $10,000; Staker Parson, $10,000; Boyer Company, $9000; Larry Myler, $9000; and on down the list. The conflicts of interest are obvious, but they're completely legal under Ogden's ordinance.

Meanwhile, two of the 2007 city council candidates took advantage of Ogden's loophole for PACs. By receiving most of their contributions through PACs, they were able to hide the origin of these contributions until months after the election.

During the first half of 2007, an organization called Envision Ogden conducted various fundraising activities, including the "Sneak Peek" opening of the Salomon Center. A few citizens became curious and eventually learned that Envision Ogden intended to register as a political action committee with the IRS. Its first political contribution appeared on a candidate's disclosure statement on October 26, but the full picture wasn't clear until the following May, when it filed the required disclosure statement with the IRS (several months late). According to that statement, Envision Ogden 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.

Yet in all of its extensive coverage of Ogden's 2007 campaign, the Standard-Examiner showed almost no interest in following the money. It did run a perfunctory article after each set of disclosure statements was filed, informing readers of the total amounts raised and the names of a few of the donors. But it never looked at the big picture, or mentioned the large PAC contributions, or raised any ethics concerns. Citizens repeatedly tried to alert the Standard-Examiner to the suspicious activities of Envision Ogden, and were repeatedly told that the matter was not newsworthy.

So again, I'm pleased that the Standard-Examiner is taking a strong stand for ethics and disclosure in the Utah Legislature. I look forward to the day when the newspaper will show a similar interest in what's happening right here in Ogden.

Dan Schroeder has been commenting on Ogden politics for over 15 years, and frequently writes for the Weber County Forum blog site (under his real name). His contributions to Ogden political candidates are listed on their disclosure statements, available at the City Recorder's office.

Added note: This commentary was submitted to the Standard-Examiner on Friday, February 20. The following Monday, the author received the following response from Executive Editor Andy Howell:

Sorry Dan.

We run guest columns in response to editorials when the author was the subject, or connected to the subject, of the editorial. You are free to cut this down to 300 words or less and submit it as a letter to the editor, or attach it to the comments to the editorial online.

Thanks,

Andy

Reader comments are invited as always.

Ogden Crime Statistics... Without the Godfrey Distortions

The article the Standard-Examiner should have written

By Dan Schroeder

After complaining loudly about the recent Standard-Examiner article on crime statistics, I think I owe it to readers to show what a competent handling of the statistics might look like.

Crime statistics for 2008 are not yet officially published, and it's impossible to interpret the bits and pieces provided in the recent news article. However, as reported a couple of months ago, we now have published data for all of 2007.

So I've added this to the earlier data that was analyzed on this blog last year, and produced some new graphs.

Both graphs show data from three sources: the FBI web site, the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification web site, and the Godfrey administration.

The first graph shows the total number of violent crimes (homicides, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults) reported in Ogden each year:

Assuming that the new data are accurate, Ogden saw more violent crimes in 2007 than in any year for which data are readily available (back to 1992). The new data add a third year to the disturbing upward trend since 2004.

The second graph shows the total number of crimes reported in Ogden each year that fall under the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) categories. These include the four categories of violent crimes plus burglary, larceny, auto theft, and arson:


Here the BCI data again show a disturbing upward trend for the last two years, while the FBI data indicate almost no change since 1999.

For those interested in the details, there's plenty more to say...

• These statistics don't include all crimes. Notably absent are simple assaults, fraud, forgery, drug offenses, traffic violations, and a number of less common types of crimes. However, for historical reasons, the eight UCR crime categories are the ones for which the best data are available.

• These graphs simply show the number of crimes--not the crime rate, which is the number of crimes per person. I've done this because you can't calculate the crime rate unless you have accurate population data, and there seems to be no agreement on how Ogden's population has changed between census years.

If we assume that Ogden's population has increased gradually over the time period shown, then graphs of the crime rates would be tipped somewhat more downward (or less upward).

• The graphs that the city (and the Godfrey campaign) published last year were of the crime rates. But these graphs used the 1990 census figure (about 63,900) for Ogden's population through 1999, then used the 2000 census figure (about 77,200) for the population thereafter. Unless you believe that Ogden's population increased by 21% in a single year, this trick created an apparent, but mostly artificial, 21% drop in the crime rates between 1999 and 2000. Conveniently, 2000 was the year that Mayor Godfrey took office.

• The three data sets for the number of UCR crimes (violent or total) should all agree with each other, because they ultimately come from the same source. The Ogden City Police Department collects the data and transmits it to the Utah BCI, which in turn transmits it to the FBI. It's therefore puzzling to see significant differences between the three data sets in recent years.

• The discrepancies between the FBI and BCI data sets may have something to do with the timing of their reports, and the fact that the city can provide updates and corrections to the data as much as a year after it is first transmitted. Last fall I contacted the BCI directly and learned that their latest data for 2006 were in agreement with the FBI's lower numbers, even though the report on the BCI web site contained (and still contains) the higher numbers. It should also be mentioned that the 2007 BCI data are still labeled "preliminary"; their final report won't be published until next month.

• The Godfrey administration's still-lower numbers for 2005 and 2006 also beg for explanation. Some possible clues can be found in the administration's breakdown by specific crime categories, which shows a precipitous decline from 107 robberies in 2004 to only 35 in 2005, and a decline from 849 burglaries in 2004 to only 520 in 2005. Both of these declines seem implausible because there were no such dramatic fluctuations in the previous 12 years, and because neither decline is reflected in the BCI or FBI data. However, the headings in the administration's table are "Robbery/Weapon" and "Burglary/Residential", which may indicate that "strong arm" robberies and nonresidential burglaries are excluded. Such exclusions would be in clear violation of the FBI's UCR standards, and it would be especially misleading to include these crimes up to 2004 but exclude them from 2005 on. Still, although it's impossible to be certain, I'm guessing that this is what the Godfrey administration has done.

• It should be noted that the table on the Ogden City site was posted there on 23 October 2007, the same day that a guest commentary by Jim Hutchins on this subject was printed in the Standard-Examiner. However, graphs and summaries of the same data had already been published in a city-sponsored newspaper ad, in a utility bill insert, and on Mayor Godfrey's campaign web site. The city has been asked (via written GRAMA request) to provide an even more detailed breakdown of the data for recent years, but has refused.

• During his campaign last year, Mayor Godfrey repeatedly claimed credit for reducing Ogden's total crime rate by 23%, and for reducing Ogden's violent crime rate by 43%. The truth is that both the total crime rate and the violent crime rate have been approximately flat since Godfrey first took office. After the errors in the administration's methodology have been corrected, any remaining changes since 1999 are small compared to the uncertainties due to differing data sets, the lack of good population data, and the random fluctuations that one would expect from year to year.

• The July 25 Standard-Examiner article was deficient in several ways. The text of the article reported that robberies and aggravated assaults increased by 19% from 2006 to 2007, even though the raw data (provided in an accompanying table) indicate an increase of 24%. More importantly, the text of the article failed to point out that this increase fell on top of similar increases in violent crime during the previous two years, resulting in a total violent crime increase of 64% since 2004 (according to the BCI data). This article was based entirely on the BCI data, with no indication that other sources (the FBI and the Godfrey administration) might differ. The graph accompanying the article didn't even include the new 2007 data, presumably because the preliminary BCI report didn't provide a population figure from which one could compute the crime rate. And finally, the article quoted Mayor Godfrey saying he actually knew the 2007 crime statistics would be higher and "attempted to communicate [this] to everyone a year ago," with no attempt (on the part of the newspaper) to verify whether there ever was such a communication and no mention of the multiple communications that the Godfrey administration and campaign sent out last year, claiming that the crime rates had dropped by large percentages.

• The September 15 Standard-Examiner article was even worse, because it labeled the data in a way that's impossible to interpret, and because the newspaper obviously allowed the city to cherry-pick the exact data (from a particular neighborhood, during a particular time period) that it wanted released.

• Ultimately, none of this data is any better than the methodology used to collect it. Even those of us who have never attended a crime conference can easily imagine that minor differences in protocol and classification of crimes might create noticeable differences in the statistics. There could also be inconsistencies from year to year in the fraction of crimes that get reported to police. And finally, as was pointed out by Professor Wadman in the recent news article, the underlying causes behind rising and falling crime statistics are extremely complex. So in the end, Ogden's crime statistics don't show any discernible trends that can reasonably be blamed on (or credited to) Mayor Godfrey or anyone else.

It's quite clear, however, that the mayor has made a practice of distorting and politicizing crime statistics for his personal benefit.

Powder Mountain Update: Open Letter to the Weber County Commission

An enlightening graphic comparison of Utah ski area access roads

We received some informative material from gentle reader Dan S. this morning, something which we believe will be of interest to those of you who are closely following the Powder Mountain Development situation. We incorporate below a letter sent by Professor Schroeder to the Weber County Commission, on behalf of the Ogden Sierra Club:

-oOo-
To: Weber County Commission
From: Dan Schroeder, Conservation Chair, Ogden Sierra Club
Re: Powder Mountain road
Date: 11 July 2008

Dear Commissioners:

At Tuesday’s public hearing regarding the proposed Powder Mountain rezone, a couple of speakers made comparisons between the Powder Mountain access road and the roads leading to some of Utah’s other ski areas, specifically the Cottonwood Canyons and Brian Head. So you won’t have to rely on qualitative impressions, I’ve plotted the elevation of each of these four roads vs. horizontal distance:

As you can see, none of the other three roads is as steep as the Powder Mountain road, whether one compares grades over long stretches or shorter segments. For example, the steepest 1000-foot-vertical portion of the Powder Mountain road has an average grade of approximately 14.0%, while the steepest 1000-foot-vertical portions of the other roads are approximately 7.0% for Big Cottonwood Canyon, 9.4% for Little Cottonwood Canyon, and 10.6% for Brian Head. The comparison for 2000-foot segments or 500-foot segments is similar: Powder Mountain always “wins” by a substantial margin. Therefore it is invalid for proponents to imply that the Powder Mountain road would present no more access and safety problems than these others.
I obtained this data from rasterized copies of the standard USGS 7.5-minute topographic maps, sampled at each point where the road in question crossed a 40-foot contour line. This method over-estimates all the slopes very slightly, but is more than accurate enough for making these types of comparisons. The graph above, of course, uses a great deal of vertical exaggeration in order to fit all the data in a convenient space—but again this does not affect the comparison of one road to another.

In case you would like to check my work or calculate other average slopes, I have attached a spreadsheet of the raw data and all my calculations. I’m sure that your GIS Department could also verify the raw data itself, by starting with the maps and going through a similar process.
-----
As an added bonus, we hereby unveil the latest Powder Mountain illustration, from the highly talented Devon Hoxer.

Do you see those kids, downhill from a careening truck, with failing brakes, on a "kid killing" general trajectory?

This topical political cartoon, we believe, provides the ideal finishing touch to Dan's most excellent submission:



And what say our gentle readers about all this?

"Stand By Your Tram"

More innovative and entertaining stuff from the Standard-Examiner

We really have to hand it to Don Porter and the rest of the crew at the Standard-Examiner. With the newspaper's recent foray into online multimedia, these guys and gals are proving themselves to be imaginative, resourceful and downright entertaining. In an era when most of the print media remain, shall we say, stodgy, and seemingly unable (or unwilling) to adapt to the realities of a web-based media marketplace, the folks at the Std-Ex have demonstrated an encouraging propensity to experiment and innovate, and in the process have managed to produce some online material which is quite worthy of note.

For example, in April, we highlighted a hard-hitting Don Porter video editorial, for which we offered our rave review. More recently Mr. Porter gave us a heads-up on a series of online Boss Godfrey audio interview snippets, which served as the foundation for another WCF article and provocative reader discussion.

This morning we'll highlight still another notable Std-Ex online offering, a highly-humorous music video parody on a topic that's near and dear to our Weber County Forum hearts, featuring, as an added bonus, the multi-talented Don Porter on vocals.

Before we provide the link however, this morning's Don Porter commentary provides the setup.

And without further ado... the video: Stand by Your Tram:

According to this morning's commentary, Don is seeking reader input. Don's email addy is here: dporter@standard.net We don't know about the rest of you, but we intend to write in and give Don, Mark, Bryan, et alia a very hearty thumbs-up.

2007 Ogden City General Election Voter Guide

E-Z "no brainer" solutions to the candidate selection process (Parody)

Dear Friends,

I’ve been feeling pretty good lately, and I would like to express my appreciation to you for the primary election results. As you probably know, the mayor trounced both his opponents: Neil Hansen by a whopping 2:1 margin, and Susan VanHooser by a blistering 241 votes. All told, he won a cool 40% of the vote.

Now that some time has passed from the mayor's landslide victory, I thought I might use this forum to offer a little advice to my preferred city council candidates, and briefly mention the others.

Council Seat A

Vote for: Blain Johnson. Some of you who’ve seen Blain’s campaign flyers might feel you’ve seen him somewhere before. Well, Blain is a lawyer and is rumored have a twin brother named Roger who works at the San Diego aquarium. This may account for why he is so sensitive about lawyer jokes. But if you look closely at the smiles, and especially at the eyes, you can see why people think they’ve seen Blain somewhere before. Blain is also a board member of my Ogden Community Foundation, where we make real estate transactions for the city. For instance, my foundation took the AmCan building off the city’s hands, and then sold it to John Peddie for $3 million. Then, Peddie came right back to the city for $1.6 million in tax increment subsidies. Guess who their attorney was? That’s right! It was Blain Johnson! Does this guy know how to cover both ends of a deal or what? Just think, if you elect him to the city council he’ll have that end covered too! Blain and “Roger the shark” definitely have at least one thing in common: When something drifts by them, they both know how to sink in their teeth and tear off a nice chunk for themselves!

Don’t vote for: Shiela Aardema. She’s the wife of Ralph Aardema, who used to be principal of Ben Lomond High School and a Stake President. Sheila has a long list of public service she has performed, and she says she wants to be honest and open in government, and form consensus. Sounds naïve, doesn’t she?

Council Seat C

Vote for: Royal Eccles. I know you’re all glad to hear that the mayor is taking the sale of the golf course and surrounding land “off the table” for this election, which leaves my man Eccles feeling a little unbalanced. You see, he signed his name to a petition that would have led to the golf course being sold to Chris Peterson, even before Chris asked for it! You can see his name listed alphabetically on the petition, by clicking here. He even built an upcoming campaign flyer around his support for selling the golf course as you can see in the photo. You people who were worried about what would happen after Chris Peterson bulldozed all that land and the canyon winds hit it, should have realized that “Dusty” Eccles had a plan all ready for you! But for some reason, in the primary results, he didn’t carry his own neighborhood. It seems a majority of the people who know Eccles best didn’t vote for him. Of course, it’s a little embarrassing for him now that the mayor has changed his golf course position, but think of it this way: Where else can I find a man who makes snap, imprudent decisions with absolutely no information, and signs his name to it? Well, that’s the kind of knee jerk obedience I can use on the city council! And while some may think he’s rich, he’s not. He comes from the poorer side of the Eccles family. But if you’ve seen all his campaign signs, you can tell he still knows how throw money around like it grows on trees. Who does that remind you of? His proven track record of freehanded spending is just another in a list of reasons why Dusty Eccles will be perfect on the city council.

Don’t vote for: Amy Wicks. She is running on a platform of hard work, experience on the council, and a track record of listening to the public. Whoa, Nellie! Get out the honey glaze! She’s done!

Municipal Ward 4

Vote for: Kent Petersen. Kent is another visionary who urged the city to sell the golf course, even before Chris Peterson submitted a plan, or even asked for it! Click here. This deep thinker is one of the most famous people in Ogden. Everyone remembers him from various “roles” he has played over the years. And focusing on Kent’s present helps us to forget his past, like how he was bilked by con man Wayne Ogden. Kent, who once owned Petersen Motors, is now reduced to donning a captain’s hat and running a boat store. But now that he’s also running for city council, I suggest we forget his mistakes and focus on a cheerful campaign slogan like, “Keep your chin up, Skipper!” I’d love to see this yes-man doing the mayor's bidding on the council. But Kent, when you get on the council I’d appreciate it if you’d quit calling the mayor your “little buddy.”

Don’t vote for: Caitlin Gochnour. She’s a marathon runner with a long resume of public service. She says she wants to save open space, repair infrastructure, and reduce crime, which shows her inexperience in government. Caitlin doesn’t see the value of Ogden’s weekly killings, shootings, and gunplay, all while people are paying good money to see shootouts in places like Tombstone, Arizona and Knotts Berry Farm! Earth to Caitlin: Think tourism!

Mayor’s Race.

Vote for: Mayor Godfrey. If you haven’t learned by now how hard he's been working for you, click here and have a look at page 124. (I mean the page with “124” written on the actual page. Look at the table entitled “Ogden City Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type”. ) Take a look at the column marked “Total Primary Government,” and you will see we’ve gone from $55 million in debt in 2003, to $93 million in 2006. If you want to know how to make things in a city look good, this is how. You have to spend a lot of borrowed money, fast, and that takes HARD WORK! And those figures don’t even include the final cost for the Salomon Center! Now that’s momentum!

Don’t vote for: Susan VanHooser. She has a lifelong record of public service and leadership in a variety of areas. She says she wants to find common ground and bring common sense back to government. Susan, when you have your dinner tonight, try dishing yourself a few less helpings of BORING.

In Summary:

So on the one hand is ther mayor's team of MEN – good herd followers and lapdogs that Mayor Godfrey can count on to do his bidding without thinking. So I say to all my fellow men out there: Do what I tell you, and get out there and vote for your own kind – a bunch of other MEN – with good, American-sounding names:

Matt Godfrey
Blain “Gills” Johnson,
Royal “Dusty” Eccles, and
Kent “Skipper” Petersen.

And then go home and tell your womenfolk to vote the same way (or tell them to stay home), before they vote for a bunch of WOMEN candidates, who will waste time asking for opinions, weighing issues, and using their judgment like women always do. I’m talking about VanHooser, Aardema, Wicks, and Gochnour. (What kind of names are those anyway?)


It should be easy enough for you to decide. The election is November 6.

Mayor, You Lied

Third Article in a Series Demolishing Boss Godfrey's Bogus Crime-fighter Theme

By Monotreme

Thanks to a tip from reporter Lee Davidson at the Deseret News, I’ve finally managed to find a reliable source for crime statistics for Ogden City from the year 2006.

As you might recall, this datapoint was important in order to critically examine Mayor Godfrey’s repeated claim, in both his campaign literature and in his taxpayer-funded advertisement in the Thursday, August 30, 2007 Standard-Examiner, that

“Crime has dropped more than 23% since Matthew Godfrey became Mayor, including a drop in violent crimes of 43% compared with an increase of 21% during the 7 years before he took office.” [http://www.votematthew.com/about.html]

“[V]iolent crimes recorded in 1999 were 6.7 compared to 3.8 reported last year — in other words, violent crime in Ogden is down by 43 percent.” [Advertising supplement, Ogden (Utah) Standard-Examiner, Weber Plus section, p. 9D]

These statements are not misinterpretations. They are both, in fact, blatant lies. Mayor Matthew Godfrey is a liar.

I am not making an unsupported allegation. Rather, I’m basing my statement on the facts. Here are the sources of my information:

1) An undated report signed by Chief Greiner, apparently from 2004, available as an Acrobat version of a Powerpoint presentation on the Ogden City website. Click on the “12-Year Crime Report” link. (Greiner 2004).

2) The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Report, published annually with data breakdowns for all cities, states and regions (FBI UCR).

3) Mayor Godfrey’s personal advertising space, under the guise of an Ogden City communication with its citizens, published in the Thursday, August 30, 2007 Standard-Examiner (Godfrey 2007).

4) The State of Utah Bureau of Criminal Investigation’s Crime in Utah annual report, available online (Utah BCI). Thanks to Lee Davidson of the Deseret News for this link.

Two independent editorial sources have also published articles that directly or indirectly refute Mayor Godfrey’s claims and directly support the claims made in my present article. Mr. Davidson and Pat Reavy of the Deseret News wrote an excellent article, “Prime for Crime?” published in the August 26 2007 Deseret News. I recommend this article for its discussion of the pitfalls of the type of crime analysis we’re engaging in here.

“South Salt Lake, a city with a relatively small population but a big industrial area, suffers the highest per-person crime rates — by far — in many categories.
In the period analyzed, the city had an average annual rate of 86 violent crimes per 10,000 residents.

That is three times higher than the state average — and even 17 percent higher than second-place Salt Lake City, and 46 percent higher than third-place Ogden.” [Davidson and Reavy, Deseret News, August 26, 2007]

(If my math is correct, this gives an average of 5.9 violent crimes per thousand in Ogden for the period under analysis, 2002 to 2006. My analysis gives 5.2 violent crimes per thousand. Mayor Godfrey says it’s 4.4 in his recent agitprop. More about this later.)

Over at the Salt Lake Tribune, Kristen Moulton provides the corrected figures for the “precipitous decline” [Matthew Godfrey, Salt Lake Tribune, August 8, 2007] in Ogden’s crime: 12.8 percent in total crime (less than the drop in the state as a whole) and a whopping, precipitous 5.1 percent in violent crime.

Mayor Godfrey must read the papers. (I’ll remain silent on the issue of whether he reads WCF.) He must know that his figures are wrong. Yet, he has not corrected them. Therefore, he’s a liar.

Here is a graph comparing violent crime rates (per 1000 citizens) for the years 1995 to 2006, updated to include the Utah Bureau of Criminal Investigation figures:


Note that three of the four sources of data are in good general agreement: the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report (last year available, 2005); Chief Greiner’s undated report, presumed to be from 2004; and the Utah BCI reports.

The only data source that seems to be completely faulty, to the point of being fabricated from whole cloth, is Mayor Godfrey’s published numbers on which he bases his “precipitous 43% drop” claim.

In fact, the Mayor has artificially inflated his pre-Louis XV baseline (“Avant moi, le déluge”, says our own not-so-Sunny King). He actually reported 2000 and 2001 statistics accurately, and he’s pretty close on 2003 and 2004. He replicates Greiner’s erroneous 2002, artificially low numbers.

But where he really goes to town with the falsehoods is in the 2005 and 2006 statistics. He has dropped both numbers by more than a third in order to substantiate his false claim of a “precipitous 43% drop” in violent crime.

The 2005 violent crime rate per thousand people is 3.2 according to Matthew Godfrey and 4.9 according to the State of Utah. The 2006 violent crime rate per thousand people is 3.8 according to Mayor Godfrey and 6.0 according to the State of Utah. Who’re you gonna believe?

In fact, according to last year’s State of Utah BCI statistics, violent crime rates in the last year of Godfrey’s reign (6.0 per thousand) are above those of his first year in office (5.7 per thousand). Using his own faulty math skills (especially unforgiveable in a Master of Accounting) and hyperbolic phrasing, violent crime has suffered a precipitous increase during Mayor Godfrey’s administration.

The lies he tells about total crime are small only in comparison to the Big Lie (“To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed…”, Orwell G, 1984).


Once again, the pre-Godfrey 1999 number is mysteriously inflated, and the 2006 number is artificially deflated. This makes the drop seem more “precipitous” than it actually is, and as has been noted earlier by Kristen Moulton and by me, the drop is still smaller than for the state of Utah as a whole over the same time period.

In fact, once again borrowing his phrasing, total crime is up precipitously from the first year of Mayor Godfrey’s administration to the last.

For those of you who have made it this far, some methodological notes. First, while reviewing my previous articles for accuracy, I was troubled by a discrepancy between sources in the 2000 data. I found a faulty population statistic in the FBI Uniform Crime Report data for 2000; they had used a previous census estimate rather than the official 2000 census figure for that year. As you can see in these graphs, when I corrected the denominator, all four data sources were in perfect agreement.

A second methodological note: the 2006 Utah Bureau of Criminal Investigation data are clearly marked as “preliminary”. However, it’s hard for me to imagine that the number of crimes reported in Ogden in 2006 will be revised downward from 474 crimes (two homicides, 42 forcible rapes, 132 robberies, and 298 aggravated assaults) to 301, which would be the number required to achieve Mayor Godfrey’s stated rate of 3.8 per thousand. (A total of 301 violent crimes divided by 79 thousand people gives 3.8 per thousand. A total of 474 violent crimes divided by 79 thousand people gives 6.0 per thousand.)

Third, I’ve had to estimate Ogden’s population for 2006. The US Census bureau estimates only run to July 2005: they have a population of 78,309. From 2000 to 2003, the population of Ogden rose by 1.4%. I applied the same rate of growth to 2003 to 2006 to get an estimated population of 79,389, even though Ogden’s estimated population peaked at 78,510 in 2002, according to the Census Bureau.

Using the larger population is favorable to Mayor Godfrey, and I’m a fair, albeit spiny, echidna.

Using the higher population estimate produces a violent crime rate of 5.97 per thousand citizens, as opposed to 6.05 per thousand with the official 2005 population estimate. Again, note that Ogden’s population would have to increase to 124,736 — catapulting Ogden’s population, currently seventh in the state, well above West Valley City and Provo, and making it second in size only to Salt Lake City in Utah — in order to get 474 violent crimes divided by 125 thousand population, or 3.8 violent crimes per thousand as Mayor Godfrey claims. Readers should also note that Provo's rate of violent crime is 1.4 per thousand for a city slightly larger than Ogden. (Source: Davidson and Reavy, DesNews article previously cited.) If Ogden could match Provo's violent crime rate, that would indeed be a "precipitous" drop in violent crime.

Or, as Occam’s Razor tells us, the simplest explanation is the most likely: Mayor Godfrey is a liar.

Printer-friendly version

It's a Crime

Second article in a series demolishing Boss Godfrey's bogus crime-fighter theme

By Monotreme

Mayor Godfrey has made his effectiveness as a crimefighter a centerpiece of his mayoral re-election campaign. Yesterday, our household received a glossy mailing that touted his crimefighting skills, his fecundity and his ability to read bedtime stories to his daughter. All good qualities for a mayor, I suppose, but personally I find the only relevant or useful part of the mailing to be his claims regarding his crimefighting skills.

An earlier WCF article examined the problems with this claim, including his unprovoked mugging of the rules of logic and argument (the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy) and some chicanery with numbers.

In Mayor Godfrey’s latest fusillade against logic and reason, he finally reveals the “raw” data underlying his startling campaign claims: a 23 percent reduction in overall crimes from 1999 to 2006, and a 43 percent reduction in violent crimes over the same period.

Let’s set aside for a moment the questionable ethics of using taxpayer money to buy a full-page ad in the Ogden Standard-Examiner for what is essentially a campaign document. We’ll also not beat a dead horse on the post hoc logical fallacy, even though it still casts doubt on his claims of crimefighting prowess.

What I want to talk about today is the fact that he is guilty of depraved indifference to the truth. Either he has negligently failed to check the data underlying his claim, or he is a liar who fabricated numbers to make himself look good.

There are three sources of data which I’ve used for this analysis.

1) An undated report signed by Chief Greiner, apparently from 2004, available as an Acrobat version of a Powerpoint presentation on the Ogden City website. Click on the “12-Year Crime Report” link. (Greiner 2004).

2) The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Report, published annually with data breakdowns for all cities, states and regions (FBI UCR).

3) Mayor Godfrey’s personal advertising space, under the guise of an Ogden City communication with its citizens, published in the Thursday, August 30, 2007 Standard-Examiner (Godfrey 2007).

The Ogden City advertisement repeats exactly, almost verbatim, the claims contained in Mayor Godfrey’s campaign material:

“Over the last eight years, since Matthew Godfrey became mayor, Ogden has hired 18 new police officers and crime has dropped more than 23% — including a drop in violent crimes of 43%. That’s no coincidence.” [Campaign mailing, paid for by the People to Re-elect Matthew Godfrey]

“According to statistics from the Ogden Police Department, the overall crime rate in Ogden has dropped by 23 percent in the last eight years. Non-violent crimes are down by 21 percent, and data on violent crimes proves even more significant.

“In a report calculating incidents based upon crimes per thousand population, violent crimes recorded in 1999 were 6.7 compared to 3.8 reported last year — in other words, violent crime in Ogden is down by 43 percent.

…“[There is a] remarkable drop in crime that is already evident in Ogden” [Ogden City advertisement, paid for by the People who May or May Not Want to Re-elect Matthew Godfrey But Who Must, By Law, Pay Taxes to Publish This Unadulterated Nonsense]

I’ve taken the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report statistics and converted them to the same basis used in the Greiner and Godfrey reports (crimes per 1,000 population): I divided by 100 the FBI metric (number of crimes per 100,000). I dropped the 2003 data from the Greiner report because it was marked “projected” and therefore I did not think that Chief Greiner should be held accountable for its veracity.

The Godfrey and Greiner numbers (red and blue) are in general agreement, except for a troubling increase in 1999 crime in Godfrey’s data which is not shown in Greiner’s data. The Godfrey and FBI UCR data are also in good general agreement, except for that same spike in 1999 which Godfrey claims (and which he uses as a baseline for his “23% drop” claim) but which is not reflected in the federal reports.

I’ve already discussed in my previous article why the apparent drop in total crime is not so startling, since total crimes in Utah dropped at an greater rate over the same period, probably due to demographic changes.

Here’s a comparison for the “remarkable” drop in violent crime during Mayor Godfrey’s administration:


Evidence of data manipulation is manifest here. The 1999 number is far higher than we’d expect from either the FBI Uniform Crime Report or from the Ogden City Police Department’s own published report, and the 2005 number is far lower. The 2002 spike in the FBI data for violent crimes is inexplicably absent in both Greiner’s and Godfrey’s data. The 2000, 2003 and 2004 data are in good general agreement, and the 2001 number is identical in all three reports. The 2002 spike is probably a statistical aberration, as is the 2001 dip, since they both lie away from the trend line. Still, Godfrey’s and Greiner’s data preserve the artificially low 2001 figure but “shave off” the artificially high 2002 figure.

As far as I’m aware, the Ogden City Police Department is legally obligated to provide accurate data to the FBI for their Uniform Crime Report. They seem to have done a good job doing so; there are minor discrepancies in the data which may be explained by methodological differences (such as different population estimates, different types of crimes included, and the like).

But how in the world can we possibly explain an artificially inflated total crime rate in 1999, before Mayor Godfrey was elected?

How can we possibly explain an artificially inflated violent crime rate in 1999, and an artificially low violent crime rate in 2002 and in 2005, the last year for which we can compare publicly available data? Isn’t it odd that the “43% drop in violent crime” claim simply reflects a comparison of two faulty datapoints (1999 and 2005)? How odd that the faulty data is in exactly the direction that makes Mayor Godfrey look more effective at reducing crime than he actually is.

(A full version, including city-by-city breakdown, of the 2006 FBI UCR data has not been released yet, so I did not include the Mayor’s claim for 2006 data of a rate of 3.8 violent crimes per 1000 population. His “43% drop” claim is apparently based on comparison of the bogus 1999 datapoint, 6.7 per 1000, versus the unverifiable 2006 datapoint, 3.8 per 1000. 3.8/6.7 is 57%, and 100% minus 57% is a drop of 43%.)

The real drop, using real, verifiable statistics, is 13%, as I’ve argued earlier. There is a lot of year-to-year fluctuation, so I took the average of the pre-Godfrey years for which FBI UCR data were available (1995-1999) and compared them to the average of the Godfrey years (2000-2005). I think it’s disingenuous to use only two favorable datapoints in making comparisons when you have yearly data for an eight-year mayoral administration.

To get a 43% drop in violent crime, the author of these statistics had to artificially inflate the 1999 number and artificially deflate the 2005 number.

Last year Mayor Godfrey explained to me that we were in a Republic, not a Democracy. This year, based on the letters generated by his toadies, it appears we are employees (or maybe stockholders, I’m not sure) of the Ogden City Corporation, which like all corporations is looking out for the commonweal, like water and sewer and parkland and police services.

It seems to me that the CEO of a $120 million corporation, a Captain of Industry, what Tom Wolfe would have called a Master of the Universe, would want to have accurate data in order to make his Important Corporate Decisions that we mere mortals could not possibly understand.

It seems to me that the CEO of a $120 million corporation would be tarred and feathered by either his board or the stockholders if he were found to have fabricated accounting data in order to make it appear the corporation was more successful than it actually was.

Was this done by Mayor Godfrey, or was it done by one of his employees?

Will the theft of lawn signs be included in next year’s statistics?

Update 9/1/07 11:09 a.m. MT: At the request of one of our readers, we have created a printer-friendly page for readers who would like a hard-copy printout of this article. The page can be found here. Simply navigate to the page, and send the document to your printer.

Mayor Matthew Godfrey: Ogden’s Answer to Commissioner Gordon?

One gentle reader examines Boss Godfrey's "crime-fighter" claim

By Monotreme

Is Ogden Mayor Matthew Godfrey responsible for a sharp reduction in Ogden’s crime rate? His campaign webpage says he is:

Crime has dropped more than 23% since Matthew Godfrey became Mayor, including a drop in violent crimes of 43% compared with an increase of 21% during the 7 years before he took office. Moreover, the Mayor has put in place a zero-tolerance policy for gang-related crimes. He’s even asked for more immigration officers to come to Ogden to deport criminals that are caught here illegally. Without a doubt, Mayor Matthew Godfrey is tough on crime.

“I’m thrilled with the 23% reduction in crime but I know we can achieve more. And as your mayor, I will continue to work hard to make your neighborhood even safer.” – Matthew Godfrey

Source: Ogden Police Department, Uniform Crime Report Statistics measured in crimes per 1,000 residents

Mayor Godfrey has claimed this reduction in crime during his administration several other places as well. For example, in the August 8, 2007 Standard-Examiner, announcing his gang crime measures, he’s quoted as saying, “We’ve had a precipitous decline in crime for the last eight years, and we’re not giving that up.”

There are several problems with this claim.

The first, and most obvious, is an example of the logical fallacy called, in Latin, post hoc ergo propter hoc — in English, “it happened, so (insert explanation here) must have caused it to happen”. Another way of saying this is the famous statistician’s phrase: “correlation doesn’t imply causality”.

Just because two things happen at the same time (in this case, Mayor Godfrey’s administration and a reduction in Ogden’s crime rate) doesn’t mean one led to the other.

Many students of criminal justice have argued that the crime rate has a lot more to do with demographic trends than with crime-fighting efforts. For example, the crime rate rises and falls with the number of males age 14 to 24 in the population, since almost all crimes are committed by males in that age group.

Did Mayor Godfrey’s efforts reduce crime in Ogden? One way of asking this question is, “did the reduction in crime fit the pattern of change in a different or larger population?” How does the crime rate in Ogden compare to the crime rate in the entire state of Utah?

As Mayor Godfrey’s web page indicates, these data are compiled in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report (UCR), issued annually. They’re available online at www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm. The last year with full data available is 2005.

The FBI breaks down these statistics into violent crimes (murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault) and property crimes (burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson). In Ogden, and in Utah, as in the rest of the country, the overwhelming majority of crimes committed are property crimes.

Obviously, many more crimes are committed when lots of people are around. So, the UCR system levels this data for different places of different sizes by calculating the number of crimes per 100,000 population. (Not, as Mayor Godfrey’s web page asserts, per 1,000 population, but that’s a minor quibble.) To get the crime rate per 100,000 people, we simply divide the number of crimes by the population and multiply by 100,000. For example, for 1995, there were 422 violent crimes in Ogden and 69,290 people. 422 / 69,290 = 0.00609. 0.00609 x 100,000 = 609.0, the rate of violent crimes per 100,000 people.

The table below presents these data for the period 1995-2005:


Now, here’s the analysis of the data.

I can’t seem to reproduce Mayor Godfrey’s assertion that crime has been reduced in Ogden by 23% during his administration. In fact, comparing the years for which data are available (1995-1999, five years before Matthew Godfrey was mayor vs. 2000-2005, six years during which Godfrey was mayor), there appears to be a 28.5% reduction in the total crime rate (comparing the average of 8939.2, 9058.1, 9007.9, 8908.7, and 7989.9 vs. the average of 7726.6, 6678.4, 6656.8, 6488.3, 6911.9 and 6547.1). By this estimate, Mayor Godfrey is being modest.

However, for the entire state, there is a 31.7% reduction in crime comparing the same range of years. Ogden’s crime rate has dropped slightly more slowly than that for the entire state while Matthew Godfrey has been mayor.

Here’s the data as a graph:


Note that the crime rate for Ogden is higher than for the state as a whole. That’s expected, because Ogden is an urban area and much of the state is rural. It’s well known that crime rates are higher in urban areas.

What about that 43% drop in violent crimes?


It’s difficult to see any support for Mayor Godfrey’s assertion of a 43% drop in violent crime during his administration. There appears to be a slight reduction, 13% by my calculation, when comparing 1995-1999 data to 2000-2005 data. The comparable drop for the State of Utah over the same period is 24%.

There are several possible interpretations of the data shown here.

1. As he asserts on his campaign web page, Mayor Matthew Godfrey’s election reduced crime in Ogden.

2. Mayor Matthew Godfrey’s crimefighting skills are so strong, his election as Mayor of Ogden City didn’t just reduce crime in Ogden, but in the entire State of Utah.

3. The reduction in the number of crimes in Ogden had nothing to do with Mayor Godfrey’s administration.

Other, alternative, explanations are possible. I invite you to supply your own.

Mayor Matthew Godfrey may be “tough on crime”, as his web page asserts, but the data don’t support (or refute) that conclusion.

A Family Frolic at the Salomon Center

Gentle Reader Danny gives us the lowdown on "Sal's Place" - from the family point of view

By Dannie Donner

My wife Donna and I, together with our obedient children Denny, Dessa, and Deena loaded up the family minivan, together with our friends Dinty and Dottie Dingledine, and we all took a ride down to the Salomon Center this week. I thought I might relate some observations.

The parking garage looked great. The new paint really brightened the place. But then again, the Donner family has always loved parking garages. You haven’t lived until you’ve taken a rental car, locked the parking brake, and drug the back wheels screeching down three levels of a slick-floored big city parking garage.

While walking from the garage to the Salomon Center (or Sal’s Place as we called it,) we were in the company of numerous groups of excited youths – a good sign. As we peeked into Costa Vida Mexican Grill, I couldn’t help but remember that trendsetter of fresh Mexican grill restaurants: La Salsa, out in Riverdale. That restaurant presaged the coming of dozens of copycat “Fresh Mex” places, each of which lasted about two years before going belly up. Perhaps it’s harder than it looks to make a living wrapping black beans and rice in a flour tortilla, but hey, best wishes to Costa Vida.

Next, was the Flowrider. Dinty’s first comment was, “How do I get one of these in my backyard?” but the kid at the ticket booth couldn’t answer his question. There are currently only fifty of these worldwide, and I suppose, for good reason. Rather than pay $20 an hour for thirty feet of surf, why not just take a Southwest flight to So Cal for the day?

Next was the climbing wall. It costs $10 for adults for all day, or $60 a month. But do we not have the real thing around here for free? The most interesting feature was the benches made out of skis that you could sit on while watching the climbers. Outside the climbing center were those sandstone benches we’ve all heard about – basically a bunch of cubes – some with water coming out of them. I guess this is what $500,000 of illegally diverted highway money gets you, what, about twenty grand for each cube? Or maybe it was the under-market-value sale of the Wall Avenue property to the mayor’s crony that paid for the cubes, I can’t remember. But hey, if someone asks, “Got cubes?” we can say, “You betcha we got cubes, a half a million dollars worth of cubes!” There was a nice stainless steel sculpture there too – for me much more interesting than the climbing wall itself.

Next, we came to the i-fly. It costs $49 for two minutes for beginners, and $39 for two minutes after that. Dinty’s comment was the equipment looked reassembled – like it got taken apart in some other city and moved here. On the walls of the i-fly lobby were videos of a much nicer and larger wind tunnel facility. It appears here in Ogden we got the discount model – much smaller and cheaper looking. A crowd collected and sat down on the small row of bleachers near the i-fly, and the suspense was palpable as two guys suited up for a ride. As they climbed in and took off, a rush of excitement swept through the spectators. For the first 30 seconds, I determined that I HAD to try this MYSELF! In the next 30 seconds I decided I could probably live without it. And then, during the next minute or so, the crowd pretty much left while the two guys were still flying.

Gold’s Gym was the next stop. At the Ogden Athletic Club in South Ogden they’ve divided the place into sections, so you can feel a sense of privacy while exercising. At Gold’s, at the Sal Center, there were no partitions whatsoever, and it was packed with equipment. The last time I saw a field of that much twisted metal it was an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie. Gold’s was an eerie, empty expanse of mechanization with a person here and there – as if silently waiting for the cyborgs to come and finish of the few remaining humans. It appears the Donner family will not be moving our exercise spa membership after all.

Next was the arcade, where the most interesting thing was the number of casino gambling devices present – one of which was a coin pusher I swear came right off the floor at Caesar’s. It appears that in Utah it’s illegal to gamble for “chips,” but it’s okay if you’re gambling for “tokens.” Send your kids to Sal’s Place, Mom and Dad, where they can gamble the carefree afternoons away. As far as the bumper cars – they moved so slowly and had so little room to maneuver they should have called the ride “Little Cindy’s Bumper Snails.” The mini golf cost $5 a person and was smaller and looked less fun than the one they have at Spare Time in Roy.

Next to the bowling alley there’s an enclosed booze bench for anybody who needs to get lit while visiting Sal’s. As far as the bowling, as I stood there watching the few lanes that were being bowled I noticed a smell. I wondered how, given it was brand new, that somebody could have already vomited in the place. I turned around, and there was a girl just passing behind me with a pizza. Hmmm, now that was some real smelly novelty cheese on that pizza. Bowling was about $4-5 bucks plus another $2-3 bucks for shoes, which seemed a little steep. You can find passes around town where six can bowl and get a pizza for $50 at Sal’s, which still seemed a little stiff to me.

The most interesting thing in the whole place was the virtual roller coaster. You sat in a flight simulator capsule while watching a computer monitor that was showing a roller coaster ride in outer space, or whatever. All the while, the thing tipped and turned you upside down and all around. One kid standing next to me commented on what the ride would probably make him do if he rode it. I had wondered myself how long it would take before this ride started smelling like the house pizza.

Last, was Big Larry’s Movie Hall across the plaza. Complete with a food court with four separate vendors, but few patrons, it appeared that the Fatmans’s Midas touch may have turned to lead here in Ogden. The only movie the Donner family wanted to see was showing just twice a day – an hour before noon, and 2 hours before midnight. Nice scheduling, Larry. But we may come back when they have something we want to watch, because we buy some of our cars from Larry (using our Costco discount) and we love Ogden. And the more we – the citizens – spend there, the longer it will take before we – the taxpayers – start having to cover the operating costs, which we will. We might as well get something for the money.

Overall, there were lots of kids everywhere and a sense of dynamism that I haven’t felt downtown since the Ogden City Mall first opened (which by the way, was another a government project that went bust before the bonds that built it were paid off.) And there has been some private development here and there, which hopefully will last longer than the Sal’s Place will before it starts losing money. So things are looking better, now that Godfrey has spent all our money, and while everything is still brand new.

On the other hand, if the Salomon Center were a public company, I’d sell the stock short tomorrow. Here’s some free advice for the mayor and his supporters. Six Flags, Inc. has been running amusement centers since 1961 and they still can’t figure out how to make them turn a profit.

Whether it’s a mall, a fun center, or some other government project: Just because somebody gets elected mayor, how does that make him a business wizard all of a sudden? We’re talking about lots of real money Godfrey has borrowed and spent – money that belonged to people who never gave their permission! You people push for deal after deal downtown and they all end up being taxpayer sink holes from one decade to the next. Please stop doing this! Have a burrito at Costa Vida while it’s still there, and think about it. Or perhaps, it would be best for Godfrey’s supporters to take a trip to the booze booth at the Sal Center bowling alley, get sauced, and try NOT to think about it.

American Government 101 Primer

A free remedial tutorial on the subjects of Civics, Ethics and Logic

By Curmudgeon

Did Bob Geiger, head of Lift Ogden and vocal supporter of the Godfrey administration, cut too many classes in Civics 101? Sadly, that seems to be so, based on the remarkable letter he wrote to the Standard Examiner and which appears in Sunday's paper.

Mr. Geiger is unhappy because Ms. D. Littrell has raised questions about whether Ogden complied with the terms of a $900K development grant it got from the state to convert the American Can building into a High Tech business incubator and educational facility. Ms. Littrell thinks Ogden did not comply and should have to return the money to the state. "Why", Mr. Geiger asks, "would a local resident want to reject nearly $1 million in state funds for our city?"

OK, Mr. Geiger, get out your pencil, listen carefully and take notes this time. There are several points involving basic civics that you should have picked up in high school, and certainly in college, or even along the way as you became a citizen activist yourself.

(a) The grant to Ogden was state money, raised by taxes. If there is a question about whether the money was improperly obtained or used, then any resident of the state is fully entitled to ask those questions. If I discovered that, say, Provo got a million dollar state grant to improve traffic safety in the city and instead used the money to build a public skating rink and marriage gazebo in a downtown park, I'd be pounding out letters to the AG and my state representatives pretty quick. The fact that this particular grant benefited Ogden is not a sound reason to ignore how the grant was used if you suspect it was used improperly. "It may have been improper, but it benefited us so asking questions about it is unwarranted" is hardly a standard of public ethics I'd want to prevail statewide. Nor, Mr. Geiger, would you if you put you partisanship aside for a moment and thought about it.

(b) There is absolutely nothing wrong with a citizen, in this case Ms. Littrell, asking questions about whether the city used a state grant properly. Citizens are supposed to keep an eye on what their government does and to ask questions about government conduct. Yes, truly, Bob. That's what citizens are supposed to do. [Civics 101 yet again.]

So, Ms. Littrell raised a question about the city's use of the money. The agency that gave the city the money then quite properly took her question seriously and investigated the matter. [That's what government entities are supposed to do, Bob, when citizens have questions. Really it is. You could look it up.] The governor's office of economic development then passed what it turned up on to the Attorney General and asked for an opinion about the matter, which he rendered. Damned if I can find anything wrong in that process, Bob... except of course for your apparent belief that Ms. Littrell should not be asking questions about Godfrey administration actions because... well, apparently because she had the temerity to ask questions about policies you liked. But that's they way things are in a democracy, Bob. Americans have a long tradition, reaching back to the 1760s of being, occasionally, downright uppity with respect to their governors, and asking questions, sometimes embarrassing questions, and demanding answers to them. Sorry you'd apparently prefer us to be a nation of sheep, but that's not the way democracy has worked, as a rule, here in the USA. Get used to it.

(c) In his letter, Mr. Geiger identifies a Mr. Tom Owens as "a local obstructionist." Mr. Geiger explains that one of the things that makes Mr. Owens "an obstructionist" is that he "placed a bid on the Bootjack LLC property" which the city sold instead to Godfrey crony Mr. Chris Peterson. Of course, what Mr. Geiger left out of his letter is the fact that Mr. Owen's bid for the property was $30,000 more than Mr. Peterson offered for the property. Mr. Geiger also does not tell his readers that the city sold the land to the Mayor's crony for $30K less than Mr. Owens offered for it. If Mr. Geiger really thinks offering more for city land when it's put up for sale than a politician's crony offers for it constitutes obstructing Ogden's progress, then all I can say is, next time Ogden puts up public property for sale, I hope we get several, in fact dozens, of "obstructionists" offering more for the land than the Mayor's cronies are offering. We should be so lucky.

Finally, Mr. Geiger goes off on a "guilt by association" rant, claiming that Mr. Owens and Ms. Sharon Beech and Mr. Dan Schroeder have said nice things about Dorothy Littrell and [he claims] have "trivialized" Amer Sports decision to move to Ogden. He notes that all appear as supporters of Smart Growth Ogden, and that it's sad that [by implication] SGO is involved in "trivializing Amer Sports as a precursor to cheering the rejection of a $900,000 investment in Ogden."

I wouldn't presume to answer for Mr. Owens, Mr. Schroeder, Ms. Littrell or Ms. Beech, all of whom are fully capable of defending their views. Nor am I authorized to speak for SGO. But I would note that I've been a strong supporter of SGO from its inception, I continue to work with the group now, and to my knowledge, SGO has issued no statement "trivializing" Amer Sports coming to Ogden, nor has it taken a stand on the $900 grant Mr. Littrell asked questions about.

Which leaves Mr. Geiger arguing this: that SGO must approve of everything Ms. Littrell or Mr. Owens or Mr. Schroeder or Ms. Beech does or says on any public matter because they all support SGO on the issues it advocates. SGO defends its views on issues on which it has taken a stand. But to ask it to be responsible for statements it has not made on issues it has not addressed seems more than a little unreasonable. I'm sure Mr. Geiger would find it unreasonable if people insisted he defend statements he had not made on issues he had not addressed.

But just for fun, let's apply Mr. Geiger's logic [politely so called] to his own views. Mr. Geiger apparently thinks it is wrong for a citizen to offer more for city land up for sale than the Mayor's cronies offer for that land, that doing so is "obstructionist." Mr. Geiger is, I'm informed, a veteran of the Marine Corps. From which we can conclude, using his reasoning, that all Marine Corps veterans support selling public land to politicians' cronies for less than others would offer for that land, because Mr. Geiger is a Corps veteran and that's what he thinks.

For the sake of elevating public discussion in the city of Ogden, I strongly suggest Mr. Geiger find a little time to take a basic American government course at WSU. The political science department offers them fairly frequently. If Mr. Geiger wants to apply for a grant to pay his tuition for the course, I'll happily write in support of that. I'd consider it my civic duty.