Ogden Water Consultants Recommend $20 Million in New Bonds and a 60% Rate Increase Over the Next 10 Years - Updated

If further water infrastructure needs remain unaddressed, they should be funded from BDO revenues, wethinks

To kickstart this morning's WCF discussion, we'll put the focus on last night's Ogden City Council Work Session, where issues relating to Ogden City's water system were broadly reviewed. Briefly, we've excised the following segment from last night's council packet, which describes the range of last night's council discussion. Not only did the Council discuss the currently pending water rates study, but it examined the City's water system projected infrastructure needs well into the future:

DISCUSSION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 2012 UTILITY RATES STUDY
PURPOSE OF WORK SESSION:

• To review status of the Utility Rates Study
• To review the financial obligations of maintaining a quality water utility system

____________________________________________

Background

The purpose of the work session is to provide a status update regarding the Utility Rates Study and to begin the discussion of what will be required financially to maintain a quality water utility system as the City moves forward. The discussion will include reviewing financial implications of the major capital projects identified in the Capital Improvements Plan and the City’s master plans, to review the financial conditions necessary for potential future bonding and to maintain the highest bond rating, and to review requirements for operation and maintenance of the utility system.

Laura Lewis and Cody Deeter from Lewis, Young, Robertson and Burningham will be leading the discussion and will be presenting the information to the Council. Ms. Lewis and Mr. Deeter will be presenting several financial scenarios to allow the Council to better understand the financial obligations the City may have and to review the potential options for funding a quality water utility system. The focus of the discussion will not be on changes to the rates structure but rather on the financial obligations of maintaining the level of service the Council feels is appropriate. Discussion on specific rates and how the costs may be shared among users will be the focus of future meetings beginning with the March 6, 2012 fact finding work session.[Emphasis added].

Upon our earlier examination in advance of last night's meeting, we'd expected this meeting to be something of a "snoozer." Unfortunately this was not the case at all, as we learned last night in one of our lower comments sections, wherein one alert WCF Reader (who else but Dan Schroeder?) who'd sat in on last night's meeting, provided this sobering heads up:

Breaking news: Water consultants are telling city council to issue additional bonds for capital improvements and repay the debt with significant rate increases in coming years. The scenario that's being shown now would involve $20 million in new bonds and a 60% rate increase over the next 10 years. Keep in mind that Ogden's water rates are already higher than those of virtually all other northern Utah cities.

...Slight correction: Looks like the eventual rate increase would be only 55%.

Gentle reader Dan is right, of course. As we reported on WCF last week, Ogden's water rates are already higher than those of virtually all other northern Utah cities.

Hoping that the Standard-Examiner would flesh out a few more facts on this topic, we checked out this morning's S-E article, which was unfortunately no help at all on this new water rates issue:

• Ogden administration presents five-year plan

Alas, S-E reporter Mitch Shaw missed this issue entirely, possibly because he ducked out on the council work session before the water rates discussion came up.

As a consequence, we've done a little additional fact gathering this morning, and here's some additional info, obtained through reliable sources close to city hall, although the underlying facts still remain a trifle thin:

The $20M new bonding for water system improvements, repaid by increasing rates about 55% over the next 10 years, would consist of improvements which would be mostly for the water treatment plant and flow/pressure upgrades.

That's right, folks, despite the last wave of water system bonding, ($49.1 million, to be exact, which occurred only in 2008), our local bureaucrats already seem to be getting in gear to pile on more public debt, with a new scheme to hit the rate payers with higher and higher fees.

We dunno, folks. Wouldn't it make more sense to start tapping the Business Depot Ogden Cash Cow to fund these incessant infrastructure improvements? Wasn't it the original intent of Glen Mechem's mayoral administration in obtaining the BDO federal "land grant" to use the revenues derived therefrom to fund Ogden City's infrastructure needs?

Under Boss Godfrey's administration we got into the bad habit of allowing Godfrey's "A" Team to use BDO revenue to fund every half-baked Boss Godfrey plan, scam or money-losing project under the sun.

It's time for the Caldwell Administration to do an abrupt about-face, no?

If further water infrastructure needs remain unaddressed, they should be funded from BDO revenues, wethinks.

One thing's definitely sure... we'll be turning our attention to council developments for the upcoming "March 6, 2012 meeting", where the council will further "discuss and review the implications of the financial approach determined on February 21, 2012 on the base rate and tiered structure."

Update 2/23/12 8:00 a.m.: One of readers has transmitted to us the following spreadsheet and graphs, showing what the consultants proposed to the council on Tuesday night:

• Water Utility Fund - Comprehensive Financial Sustainability Plan Spreadsheet
• Water Utility Fund - Comprehensive Financial Sustainability Plan Graphs

For some reason the spreadsheet doesn't show all the rows that are in the original hard-copy printout. The hidden rows show more detail on the revenue and debt service, and then itemize the proposed capital projects. For the next 5 years, the capital projects would be:

• $13.13 million for the water treatment plant
• $1.05 million for storage projects
• $12.26 million for distribution fire flow and pressure projects
• $2.5 million for pipe replacement
• $9 million for canyon pipeline rehab project
• $3.03 million for meter replacement

Comments, anyone?

Standard-Examiner: Ogden Hopes Plan Change Will Aid Small Businesses

Is your blogmeister the only one who's troubled that even under a new mayoral administration, Ogden City Government continues to lurch at top speed upon the course of unrestrained borrowing and spending?

To kick off the morning discussion we'll refer to a story which appeared in yesterday's Standard-Examiner, reporting that, in addition to getting into the student scholarship business, Ogden City Big Government Planners are also setting the stage to get into the loan business. Here's the lede:

OGDEN -- The city is proposing a change to its five-year plan that includes an amendment to help new small-business owners.

The city's five-year consolidated plan includes a proposal to create a Community Development Block Grant-funded "loan loss" program aimed at promoting business development by leveraging grants to secure loans from larger loan pools that could then be given to small businesses.

City officials say the loan program is needed to provide otherwise viable small businesses with loan options when traditional loan and investment opportunities aren't available.

Read the full story here:

• Ogden hopes plan change will aid small businesses

The gist of it? Even in these tight economic times, when beleaguered Ogden taxpayers are pinching their pennies to manage their own personal expenses, the BIG SPENDING SCHEMERS at Ogden City Hall are now forming up a whole new raft of shell entities and unleashing a brand new wave of "leveraged" public borrowing:

The new program would use block grant loans to secure loans that would be issued by Ogden Reinvestment Corporation. An initial amount of $305,000 would come from the sale of six CDBG-funded small-business loans.

The funds would be used to provide a 10 percent security backing for loans issued by ORC to small businesses. The loan pool available to ORC contains $3 million and comes from the Ogden Industrial Development Corporation.

The goal of the program is to take the $305,000 initial investment and leverage that money to secure $3 million in loans that would then be available to the business community.

Yesiree, folks, although the ever-energetic Big Government schemer Boss Godfrey is now gone, it appears that the spirit of aggressive Big Government intervention in all endeavors (those which do NOT fit within the framework of the "proper role" of municipal government) remains alive and well, probably due, at least in part, to the continuing influence of Godfrey's Business Development Department "A" Team, who are obviously still ramming Godfrey's old programs forward.

It would also be interesting to know where newly elected Mayor Mike Caldwell stands on all this. So far however he's saying nada, zero, and zip. While his laid-back style does definitely differ considerably from Godfrey's annoyingly flamboyant approach, it is beginning to become clear wethinks, reading between the lines, that with respect to the aggressive accumulation of public debt, and the subsidizing of the private business sector, Caldwell's doing nothing to apply the brakes.

So what about it, O gentle Ones? Is your blogmeister the only one who's troubled that even under a new mayoral administration, Ogden City Government continues to lurch at top speed upon the course of unrestrained Godfreyite borrowing and spending?

Is it possible that the below-linked tune soon will become Ogden taxpayers' new theme song?

• Meet the New Boss Same as the Old Boss (Won't get Fooled Again)

So what about it folks?

Standard-Examiner: One of Stewart's Attorneys Files Motion Opposing Request for Gag Order

Sodden question: Where are the prosecution's appointed defense council, Ryan Bushell and William Albright with respect to this issue?

As a followup to Saturday's story, the Standard-Examiner reports this morning that defense lawyer Randy Richards has filed additional moving papers in the 1/14/12 shooting matter, i.e., papers opposing the prosecution's motion for a gag order in the case:

• One of Stewart's attorneys files motion opposing request for gag order

This morning's story helpfully provides some of the text from these most recently filed papers:

“While defense counsel recognizes the importance of not trying this case in the press, there are some concerns regarding a blanket gag order, given the magnitude of the case and some of the misinformation that has already been disseminated to the press,” Randy Richards wrote in the motion.

In the motion, Richards wrote he opposes the gag order as it would hinder “correcting erroneous or adverse publicity.”

As it only would apply to the lawyers involved, “other individuals may release information to the press that could potentially be contrary to the goal of a fair and impartial jury.”

The motion also claims that information has already been released about Stewart that is “potentially misleading and factually prejudicial,” but gave no examples.

“Furthermore, due to the often confusing nature of legal filings, arguments, and orders, occasionally the press gets it wrong,” Richards wrote.

This is of course the very type of argument that justice-minded lumpencitizens should expect of a zealous defense attorney in a case of this magnitude, especially in a public atmosphere where the local jury pool may already have been tainted by the publication of substantial misinformation which prejudices (and may preclude) a fair trial in this matter.

Mr. Richards is Stewart's originally retained private attorney in this case, who is now apparently working pro bono publico in this matter, notwithstanding the prosecution's earlier request that Richards withdraw from the case.

Sodden question: Where are the prosecution's appointed "public" defense council, Ryan Bushell and William Albright with respect to this issue? Will they be joining Mr. Richards in his opposition to a gag order, or will they continue to remain silent throughout this important early pre-trial phase?

Supplementary question: If you or a loved one were charged with a serious crime in Utah, who would you prefer to have defending your interests? The obviously zealous Mr. Richards, or the prosecution's own personally selected public defense lawyers?

Huffington Post : 15 Hilarious President Impressions

Presidents Day Special: A little something special for your holiday celebration, linked from that constant source of merriment and mirth, the Huffington Post

In honor of the 2012 President's Day Holiday, we'll offer our WCF readers a little something special for your holiday celebration, linked from that constant source of merriment and mirth, the Huffington Post.

Here's the setup:

In honor of Presidents Day, we decided to take a look at the funniest president impressions of all time. There were the obvious choices of Ferrell, Carvey, and Hammond, but we also couldn't forget about great impersonations from the likes of Harry Shearer, Trey Parker, and Jon Stewart.

So in order for you to commemorate George Washington's birthday this weekend, be sure to watch some amazing and hilarious impressions of America's leaders.

Click the link below to navigate and rate the videos in sequence (Caution: a couple of these are a mite "salty," language-wise):

• Presidents Day: 15 Hilarious President Impressions (VIDEO)

Don't forget to vote on your favorite!

Chalk it up to a sl-o-o-o-w news day, folks, although most of this material IS pretty danged funny..

Ogden Valley Forum: Rumors Abound Over Possible Sale of Powder Mountain

If these rumors are true, it is a victory for the Valley citizens who stood up against the phony town

Interesting scuttlebutt circulating around Ogden Valley this week, concerning the possible sale of Powder Mountain Resort to a group of "young (under 30), wealthy entrepreneurs are interested in purchasing Powder Mountain as a site for a retreat":

Here are a few tantalizing tidbits from our friends at Ogden Valley Forum:

The word on the street is that a group of young (under 30), wealthy entrepreneurs are interested in purchasing Powder Mountain as a site for a retreat. A place where they can gather, share ideas, and do great things. Apparently these investors care about communities, give millions to charity and believe in partnering to do good things to protect the environment.

The rumor goes on to state that the group has been in the valley the past few weeks and have put down a very large sum of money on the property and has submitted a letter of intent to purchase the property. Supposedly, their desire is to build a few homes (substantially less than the 5,000 or so that was approved), construct a retreat or convention center, and keep the rest of the mountain relatively status quo. In other words, preserve the land.

This sounds like a potential win for Ogden Valley, and we are crossing our fingers (and a couple of toes) in hopes that at least part of the rumor is true - especially the part about preserving the land.

Read the interesting and newly-updated Ogden Valley Forum writeup here:

• Rumors abound over possible sale of Powder Mountain

One savvy OVF reader lodged this commentary in the OVF article comments section:

If these rumors are true, it is a victory for the Valley citizens that stood up against the phony town. Large homes are an improvement [over] a turkey town and a resort that would add at least 5,000 to our density numbers. Thanks to all that stood firm long enough to change the results. This is a big defeat for the spineless County Commissioners as well.

Having devoted endless hours and "electronic ink" toward battling the greed-head current Powder Mountain developers over the course of several years ourselves, we gotta say that we at Weber County Forum couldn't be more in agreement.

Keep your fingers (and toes) crossed too, folks.

Andy Howell Column: Day Cops Reporter Plugs Into His Social Media Tools

An interesting story, particularly in re: how the competition for readers has spread well beyond the print pages to YouTube, Twitter, Facebook et al.

By: Bob Becker

The SE has interesting column up this morning by Andy Howell discussing how reporters at the SE are using social media to both gather information, tips, etc. and to publicize and spread, in fact, to market their own stories. He offers Mr. Schwebke as an example of a full-on "pojo" --- print on line journalist ---[Mr. Howell really likes that term, but then, he insisted on re-dubbing the Newsroom at the SE the "Content Center" so maybe his judgment on naming things is not as sound as one might hope.]

Andy Howell's column is here:

• Day cops reporter plugs in to his social media tools

It is an interesting story, particularly in re: how the competition for readers has spread well beyond the print pages to You Tube, Twitter, Facebook et al. [alas, the NY Times is peddling it's paper edition these days as the "crinkle" edition. Sigh....] .

Things have indeed changed. Jon Talton [long time reporter, columnist for the Phoenix Sun and now the Settle Times] and crime novelist recently published "Deadline Man," a mystery with an old time print guy working for a dying Seattle daily as its protagonist. Kind of interesting how the novel describes the newspaper biz these days. From Talton's novel:

Newsrooms are quiet now. It gives me the creeps. If typewriters and teletypes are long gone, so are most of the loud, profane, eccentric characters that used them, yelled 'copy!' to summon the gofer copy boys and girls, and didn't necessarily play well with others, particularly their bosses. The best of them had high-octane talent and taught me much. As a young reporter, I missed deadline by eleven minutes, prompting a screaming tirade from the city editor, who somehow was able to accomplish this bit of mentoring without ever removing the cigar from his mouth. I never missed deadline again. Now shouting is frowned upon,much less smoking. Shout and they'll send you to HR for a talking-to, or maybe they'll Meyers-Briggs you, so you know what an inappropriate, extroverted, cynical bastard you really are, and how it's offensive, especially to women.

It's not a particularly good mystery, but is interesting for its protagonist's asides about newspapers, their decline and the reasons therefor. Mostly, he said, in cost cutting the papers abandoned quality [by which he means abandoned investigative reporting and went instead with simply rephrasing press releases.] Since we talk a lot about the SE at WCF, thought some might find Talton's novelistic grumbling interesting.

Deseret News: Family of Man Charged with Killing Ogden Officer Asks for Help to Pay for Defense

Regardless of how you may feel about the merits of the case, O Gentle Ones, fair-minded lumpencitizens who'd like to level the playing field a little bit just might want to navigate on over to Mr. Stewart's support website and cough up a few bucks

The Deseret News is front and center in reporting on the 1/4/12 Ogden Shootout Story again this morning, with an Emily Morgan writeup, delivering the news that the family of Defendant Matthew Stewart has established a defense support and informational website seeking donations to be applied to Mr. Stewart's defense, among other things. Here's the lede:

OGDEN — The family of a man charged with killing an Ogden police officer is asking for help in raising $70,000 that they feel is needed to mount a defense.

The family of Matthew David Stewart has set up a website, www.helpmatthewstewart.org, where they are asking for donations. On the website, they say prosecutors are refusing to turn evidence over to Matthew Stewart's defense attorney.

Read the full D-News story here:

• Family of man charged with killing Ogden officer asks for help to pay for defense

The Standard-Examiner also carries a similar story this morning, too:

• Website seeks to raise funds for Stewart defense

As regular Weber County Forum readers are already aware, WCF "broke" this story earlier this week; but it's nice to see the Utah print media however belatedly following suit.

Remember folks, according to yesterdays D-News story, Stewart's defense team is already operating at a mind-numbing disadvantage in this matter:

Richards is also asking that private investigator Kris Cantil be appointed to the case, pointing out that prosecutors have 52 investigating police officers, two private county attorney investigators, state and county crime scene investigators and several other agencies "providing investigation of this case for prosecution and potential execution of Matthew Stewart."

Prosecutors would not appoint Cantil, saying instead that they would only appoint an investigator to assist their "selected defense indigent counsel" and decided on Carl Hurst.

Regardless of how you may feel about the merits of the case, O Gentle Ones, fair-minded lumpencitizens who'd like to help level the playing field a little bit just might want to navigate on over to Mr. Stewart's support website and cough up a few bucks... or so it seems to us.

For those folks who'd like to know a little more about Mr. Stewart's website, and the possible implications and repurcussions of sending a generous donation, please check this out:

• About the cause

Comments, anyone?

Deseret News: Embattled Attorney Says Prosecutors Refuse to Work with Him in Ogden Shooting Case

Sadly, the facts surrounding this case are plainly swirling into the realm of the surreal and bizarre

The Deseret News is all over the 1/4/12 Ogden Shootings story this morning, with a brand new article, expanding on the material we published yesterday on this topic:

• Embattled attorney says prosecutors refuse to work with him in Ogden shooting case

Check out this telling Randy Richards quote, excised from the moving papers which Attorney Richards filed on Tuesday:

The prosecution continues to ignore defense counsel of choice's repeated requests for discovery material based on the fact that they do not recognize Randall W. Richards as the defendant's privately retained counsel," Richards wrote. "This refusal to recognize counsel of choice is hampering defense efforts and may cause a reversible prejudice to the defense's case.

Richards suggests that County prosecutors are already seriously bungling this case; and we believe Mr. Richards is right.

Ask yourselves, people. Why is the prosecution adamant about refusing to acknowledge Mr. Richards' legal representation in this case?

And where are appointed counsel Ryan Bushell and William Albright? Have they filed any motions on their own? Have they requested their own discovery? Are they coordinating whatever efforts they're expending with their co-counsel, Mr. Richards? Have they even so much as opened up their own case files in this matter?

Sadly, the facts surrounding this case are plainly swirling into the realm of the surreal and bizarre. This folks, is a public prosecution that's spinning completely out of control, wethinks, all to the legal detriment of the party who has the highest stakes in this matter... the Defendant Matthew Stewart, that is.

So what "thinks" our Gentle WCF Readers about all this?

The floor's open for your ever-savvy comments, folks.

Friday Morning Weber County Forum News Roundup

Feel free to chime in and address any of the lower topics, or start up a discussion topic all your own

We'll highlight four more interesting items we stumbled upon this morning whilst Googling:

1) Top notch editorial in this morning's Standard-Examiner, giving a strong thumbs-up to Gov. Gary Herbert's effort to support the Legislature in providing $500,000 to the Utah Defense Alliance, to advocate Hill Air Force Bases's "importance for U.S. defense in the 21st century" as the latest BRAC base closing process moves forward:

• OUR VIEW: Fund Utah's BRAC investment

Unfortunate as it is that Utah taxpayers will be forced to cough up the funds to save HAFB during the current round of U.S. defense cutbacks, the economic stakes for Utah are direly important, and despite HAFB's obvious logistical "defense-related advantages over other states" you can bet your boots that other competing states will be investing boatloads of cash to save their own federal military boondoggles. That's just how the system operates, folks.

2) Despite our earlier warning that "[p]ickin' a court fight with the feds on this issue is an expensive battle that Utah taxpayers are bound to lose," the Salt Lake Tribune reports this morning that "Utah lawmakers gave a quick green light to a bill proposing to let cities and counties take over federal land, despite strong warnings from legislative attorneys that it is almost certainly unconstitutional." Specifically, "[t]he Legislature’s lawyers said that cities and counties have no standing to exercise eminent domain over federal land and the law would violate a string of Supreme Court precedents and the Property Clause of the Constitution":

• Utah House panel OKs bill to let cities seize fed land

"When it comes to public lands, I consider it a badge of honor to have a constitutional note," said [constitutional scofflaw] Rep. Ken Sumsion, R-American Fork, referring to the note from lawyers cautioning about the bill’s legality."

Notably Rep. Sumison will be running for governor this year. Mindless pre-election message bill, anyone?

3) The Tribune reports positive news on the federal regulatory front this morning, with the following story reporting that "[t]he National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on Thursday proposed voluntary guidelines for manufacturers, including a recommendation that they design dashboards so that distracting devices are automatically disabled unless the vehicle is stopped and the transmission is in park":

• Feds ask carmakers to curb dashboard technology

In the midst of a robust national public discussion about the dangers of texting while driving, regulations which would prevent drivers from fiddling with their dash-mounted GPS mapping devices seems to us to be a sensible approach. Our only reservation... will mere voluntary guidelines be sufficient to stop the "technology race" between auto manufacturers, who've been scrambling to one-up each other to plant high tech gizmos under the noses of auto buyers who are enthralled by 24-7, nonstop electronic input? Somehow we don't think so.

4) Yesterday's Standard-Examiner carried another guest commentary from Ogden Captain Of Industry Alan Hall, touting the advantages of a well laid out business plan in achieving success in a startup business venture. Lo and behold, here's a real-life case study, illustrating how a carefully and finely tuned business planning and execution can intricately enmesh:

• Customer at Vegas’ Heart Attack Grill suffers heart attack

There's one instance where a customer won't be complaining he didn't get his money's worth, we'll guess! Chalk it up as another business success, straight out of Mr. Hall's playbook.

That's it for now, O Gentle Ones.

Feel free to chime in and address any of the above topics, or start up a discussion topic all your own.

Standard-Examiner: Stewart's Lawyer Keeps on Attack

There are more significant technical developments in the 1/4/12 Ogden Shootings Story, thanks to the latest Tim Gurrister story which popped up on The Standard-Examiner's online edition just a few hours ago:

• Stewart's lawyer keeps on attack

Although Mr. Gurrister's story is a mite disjointed and disorganized, we'll do our best to clear it up, and put it all in a more readable context:

1) According to Mr. Gurrister, three motions "will be 'aired' at the next status conference, set for March 19 before Judge Hyde."

Translation: That's when all pending motions will be "argued."

And here are the motions which will be reportedly argued on that date:

a) Richards Defense Motion: Renewed motion for a restraining order "to prevent destruction of evidence" by the prosecution;
b) Richards Defense Motion: Third discovery motion complaining that discovery materials have not been supplied to Stewart's Attorney of Record, and also alleging that prosecutors would release them only to his newly-appointed public defender team;
c) Prosecution Motion: the earlier-discussed "gag order" remains pending.

2) Here's the essential fact timeline to date:

• Within a few short days of the tragic 1/4/12 Ogden Shooting incident, the Stewart family retains Mr. Richards to defend Defendant Matthew Stewart;
• Between 1/4/12 and February 11, 2012 Attorney Richards files a series of discovery motions.

2/11/2012:

• Attorney Richards files a notice of indigency on behalf of defendant Stewart, declaring that his client's funds are "depleted," and requests appointment as a Rule 8 public defender to defend.
• Deputy Weber County Attorney Chris Allred, a non-prosecutor who oversees the county's contracts for public defenders (and yet also works for the same Weber County Attorney's office which employs the prosecution team), tells Judge Hyde, the 2d District Court Judge assigned to this case, that "We will not be offering a contract to Mr. Richards." Notably, no explanation is offered by Mr. Allred in re why The Weber County Attorney's Office would like to suddenly "boot" the heretore defense attorney (Richards) in this case.
• Judge Hyde appoints a couple of "nobodies," Ryan Bushell and William Albright, to defend Stewart, despite the fact that Attorney Richards is URCP Rule 8 qualified and regularly serves as a public defender in Weber County public defender cases.
• Somebody (Mr. Gurrister's story doesn't tell us "who") asks Attorney Richards to withdraw from the case.

3) There are also several curious, seemingly out-of-context but nevertheless troubling story elements and unsourced quotes which Mr. Gurrister inexplicably (but helpfully) "drops into" this morning's S-E story:

"Randy [Richards] made a comment several years ago about how he is against the death penalty and is going to do all in his power to make it expensive for the county ... the county was steamed about that," said one official close to the proceedings. The comment was reported in the media, he said, and made relations hostile."

"The same prosecutors and Richards butted heads over Riqo Perea and Jacob Ethridge, from 2007 through 2010, both potential death penalty cases where Richards strung things out with voluminous motions."

"Perea and Ethridge were both accused of double homicide, and the cases featured motions from Richards for a year or more before trial. Prosecutors eventually dropped the execution option without comment for both, in Perea's case on the eve of trial."

"Smith and Richard were law partners before Smith became county attorney."

Read between the lines, folks.

What should be obvious here is that there's been some kind of underlying beef simmering between Weber County Attorney Dee Smith's office and Ogden's possibly most zealous and successful criminal defense attorney (Randy Richards), which raises some all-to-obvious questions:

Has the Weber County Attorney's Office used its misguided power to appoint "prosecution friendly" public defender defense counsel in this case? Is Dee Smith still reeling from attorney Randy Richards' successes in the Riqo Perea and Jacob Ethridge cases? Is the deck already stacked? Has the prosecutor leaked the incriminating "facts" to the media and yet refused to let the defense know the exculpatory "facts"? Is there any way that Matthew Stewart will get a fair trial in Weber County? Are there unresolved issues between Dee Smith and his former private law firm which might operate to explain his "bloodthisty tactics" in this case? Did Dee Smith leave a lucrative position in his former private law firm to "serve the Weber County Community"? Or was he just another lawyer who tuned to the public sector for steady, well paid employment, "when he couldn't quite 'cut it' in private practice as a private attorney"? Is attorney Richards far too effective to be appointed to battle Dee Smith's "weak" prosecution drones? Is Dee Smith promoting his career, rather than seeking a true "just" outcome in this matter?

So many questions... so few answers.

Inquiring minds need to know.

Just axin'.

Deseret News: Senate Majority Leader Scott Jenkins Rails Against Property Tax Exemption for Utah Soldiers

Does Weber County's own fiscally tight-fisted State Senator Jenkins deserve a stern rebuke, or a pat on the back?

"Soldiers know what they're getting into when they enlist and already receive lots and lots and lots of advantages.
We give them all kinds of breaks. We pay for their clothing. We allow them to shop at the PX. And now you're forcing me, your bleeding heart is saying, 'OK, Sen. Jenkins, we want you now to pay for their taxes.' Well, I'm saying enough."

Senator Scott Jenkins
Senate Majority Leader Scott Jenkins rails against property tax exemption for Utah soldiers
February 15, 2012

"Hill Air Force Base is adjacent to Jenkins’ district. These men and women are his constituents.
Sen. Jenkins talked about our soldiers like they’re gaming the system. It was an attack on our American heroes, who protect our freedoms, day in and day out, on battlefields around the world."

Retired Army General Peter S. Cooke
Senate Majority Leader Scott Jenkins rails against property tax exemption for Utah soldiers
February 15, 2012

The Deseret News reports on a fascinating squabble which broke out on Utah's Capitol Hill yesterday, as Senate Majority Leader Scott Jenkins reportedly "went off for the second day in a row over a proposed property tax exemption for members of the military called to active duty, saying they don't need any more breaks."

• Senate Majority Leader Scott Jenkins rails against property tax exemption for Utah soldiers

As an added bonus, the D-News also carries this Youtube video, documenting Jenkins' Senate argument in opposition to legislation which, if enacted, would add a whopping $1.o3 to the average Utah residential property owner's annual property tax bill:


Notwithstanding Jenkins' strenuous opposition, the Senate on Wednesday ultimately voted 24-4 in favor of both a bill, SB116, and a resolution to allow the tax waiver. The resolution, SJR8, calls for an amendment to the state constitution for the exemption, which voters would have to approve in November, according to the Deseret News.

On Wednesday, retired Army general (and 2012 Utah gubernatorial candidate) Peter S. Cooke also called on Gov. Gary Herbert as commander-in-chief of the Utah National Guard to denounce Jenkins' "shocking diatribe," the Deseret News also reports.

So what about it, Weber County Forum readers, does Weber County's own fiscally uber-tight-fisted State Senator Jenkins deserve a stern gubernatorial rebuke, as retired Army general Cooke suggests; or should Jenkins instead be entitled to a pat on the back for keeping a close eye on the Utah public purse, right down to the very last taxpayer buck?

Update 2/16/12 5:54 a.m.: We just now learn that the Standard-Examiner is also carrying its own version of this story too, along its own link to the above-embedded video:

• Plain City legislator: Deployed soldiers get enough aid

Don't let the cat get your tongues...

Wednesday Morning Weber County Forum News Roundup

Three interesting items from this morning's Standard-Examiner

To kick start this morning's discussion we'll highlight three interesting items from this morning's Standard-Examiner:

1) Here's a fine editorial from the SE editorial board, panning Ogden City Council policy analyst Janene Eller-Smith's Big Government Idea to "implement an opt-out utility bill round up increase to fund scholarships for local high school students":

• OUR VIEW: Opt out of tax round up

As to this proposal we'll agree with one S-E reader who says, "The bigger question is why is a business unit of the city involved in social programs at all? Their goal should be to provide customers the best quality lowest cost possible product, not fund scholarships."

2) Although the story linked below speaks of gender neutrality, we'll chalk this up as a major step in the right direction for men's parental rights:

• Grandparents overjoyed with House passage of 'Aubree Jo's law'

A Weber County Forum Tip O' the Hat goes out to Rep. Ryan Wilcox, R-Ogden, who sponsored this bill and ushered it through the State House. We'll be keeping our fingers crossed that Rep. Wilcox can muster up similar juice in the State Senate.

3) And speaking of awards, here's a heads-up about a bill which deserves our newly-minted Weber County Forum Don Quixote Tilting at Windmills Prize, about which Republican Rep. Ken Sumsion of American Fork says "could have a committee hearing this week would allow counties and cities to condemn federal lands through eminent domain":

• Utah lawmakers challenges feds on land control

Pickin' a court fight with the feds on this issue is an expensive battle that Utah taxpayers are bound to lose, we believe, which is something for our gentle readers to deeply contemplate the next time somebody mentions that Utah is the best managed state in the nation, if you know what we mean, and we think you do.

"Utah baby, where logic goes to die."

That's it for now, O Gentle Ones.

Who'll be the first to chime in on these riveting issues?

Weber County Forum Housekeeping Note

An alert for our readers to a brand new feature which we've added to the blog sidebar

We've been out of the office all day; and lacking any real red-meat news in today's snoozer of a news cycle, we'd like to alert our readers to a brand new feature which we've added to the blog. We've been following, and will continue to follow developments in the still fast developing 1/4/12 Ogden Shootings case, in which connection we'll make note of our new "People v Stewart" sidebar module which so far includes these links:

• WCF Article Collection

We've put this one up for quick reference so our readers can quickly and conveniently check all significant past WCF stories, and those which will arise as this case develops. We anticipate that this will be one of the biggest local stories of the decade; so we want all important developments in this story to be right there, at our readers' fingertips.

• Help Matthew Stewart Website

We received this link from friends of the defendant, Matthew Stewart. It includes, among other things, a link to Mr. Stewart's Facebook "support" page, other interesting info designed to humanize the defendant in this case and also a link to a PayPal donation button, for those fair minded readers who'd like to kick in a few bucks, just to make sure that Mr. Stewart gets a fair trial in this case. We invite our readers to wade in and check it out.

We'd like to also solicit our readers to submit their own links for this module. We anticipate that this story will be a major discussion item for some significant time in the future, so please, O Gentle Ones... submit your links.

Have at it, WCF political wonks.

Comments, anyone?

Sheriff Terry Thompson: A Plan to Improve Fairness and Eficiency in Weber County Sheriff's Office Contract Services

Entering into ethical city contracts that are reasonable, rational, sound, justifiable, consistent, legal, and transparent is the right thing to do

By: Terry Thompson,
Weber County Sheriff

Introduction

Early in 2011, subsequent to my election as the new sheriff, I met with the Weber County Commission and the Weber County Attorney’s office in a cooperative effort to re-evaluate our existing city contracts. We had several concerns regarding the structure of the current city contracts, including the rationale and legalities of the contracts. We were also very concerned about the ethical responsibility to provide openness and transparency in county operations and negotiations.

We embarked on a detailed study and review of the Weber County Sheriff’s Office (WCSO) budget, its abilities and the scope of its services. This included a review of the unincorporated areas of the county as well as the contractual relationships with the eight cities where the Sheriff’s Office provides contractual law enforcement services. This effort was in response to several factors. First, the legality regarding Weber County citizens who live in cities with municipal police departments, paying in part for county law enforcement services with minimal benefit from those services. Second, the county has recently experienced financial challenges, primarily due to economic factors that are out of our control. This has created a need to look carefully at the WCSO organization and operations. Third, each city contract is uniquely crafted and negotiated between the county and that city. There is concern among some contract city officials regarding the equity and fairness of one city’s contract when compared to another. Ultimately, my goal is to make whatever changes are needed to treat all taxpayers fairly while managing a more efficient and effective law enforcement agency.

We determined that the proper approach to find a reasonable solution was to bring all of the stake holders together to form a board to discuss and attempt to find a resolution. We met together researching and evaluating various criteria. Representatives of each contract city would continue to serve on this law enforcement services board in the future to provide on-going input between the Sheriff’s Office and the cities.

At the board’s initial meeting we developed the following objectives:

1) Identify ethical and equitable law enforcement contract services criteria across the board - services criteria that are reasonable, rational, sound, justifiable, consistent, and legal;

2) Develop flexible (buildable) services to meet the individual needs of each city;

3) Conduct open and transparent contracts for services among all cities;

4) Define rationale for the deputy unit cost.

After months of meetings with representatives from each city and many hundreds of hours of studies, analysis and discussion, several primary conclusions have emerged:

• Fair and Equitable – All property tax payers pay a county property tax. That tax is divided up among several county departments to provide county-wide services to all residents of the county. Currently those taxpayers who live in cities that have their own police departments also help to fund the WCSO Law Enforcement Division. This is because they pay both a county tax and city tax. County (unincorporated) tax payers and those in one of our eight contract cities only pay for WCSO law enforcement services. In short, some taxpayers pay for two police departments – one they use frequently (their city PD) and another (the WCSO) that they use much less, – while other taxpayers pay only for WCSO law enforcement services which is their only police department. This is not equitable and probably not legal. Under state law, only those services that the WCSO provides to all residents should be paid for by all taxpayers. Patrol and detective services that are used primarily by only a portion of the county residents MUST be paid for by those county residents (unincorporated areas and cities that contract with the county) that are the primary consumers of those services.
• Efficient and Effective – Over the last couple of years the WCSO has downsized through attrition by ten-percent (10%) – 41 positions! Every staff position, every program and every service is under constant scrutiny as to its cost and benefit. So far, the WCSO has been able to maintain, and in some aspects even increase its quality and volume of services, through these critical and on-going evaluations. This has helped to maintain public safety while becoming more fiscally responsible yet continuing to provide a premium service.
• More local control – One of the concerns for cities who must choose between contracting for a municipal service (county or other) and/or employing that service themselves, is the issue of local control. Under the current precinct plan, commanders and deputies are assigned to a specific area and answer not only to the WCSO but also to the contracting city. This is similar to private business contracts in which contractors and employees answer to clients as well as to their employer. By shifting the financial burden for law enforcement services from the county as a whole to the contract cities, the contract cities should, and will, gain more control over how their money is spent.

Steps: Analysis – Proposal – Implementation

1. Analysis of Budget – The current WCSO law enforcement annual budget amount is about $9.5 million. This amount funds all law enforcement operations to include patrol, detectives and other related and support services. This amount does not include jail, civil process and court operations which are county wide services. A detailed analysis report is available but in short, the communities that the WCSO serves (including contract cities) consume roughly half of the WCSO law enforcement services and resources (patrol and investigations primarily) while providing only a quarter of the funding. In relation to individual communities, the ratio varies with some communities paying a larger portion than others on a per taxpayer or per-capita basis. The objective of this reevaluation is to reapportion the costs so that those same communities pay roughly half of the law enforcement costs and that the per-capita amounts would be comparable from one community to the next.
2. Proposal of Cost Formula -- Based on the recommendations made by contract city officials, a costing formula has been developed that is based on each community’s population and history of police calls. In this way each city is treated the same. This provides a basis for all contract negotiations and makes the process more objective and equitable when comparing one city to another. Each city must decide whether to contract with the WCSO or to make other arrangements by March 31, 2012 as all current contracts with the WCSO are re-negotiated each fiscal year.
3. Implementation of Shift in Taxes – It would not make sense for the county to pass on more of the costs of WCSO law enforcement to contract cities and unincorporated communities, while maintaining the current tax rates and collecting the same amount of revenue from all county residents. As the burden of these costs is passed on to contract cities and unincorporated communities, the burden to the county and the general fund is lessened. Part of this proposal is that the contract cities and unincorporated county will be required to pay more for law enforcement services, and as a result the county will take less in property taxes from these cities and all county residents. This offset “tax shift” will mean that some taxpayers will see both an increase in local or city taxes and an offsetting decrease in county property taxes. On the other hand, other county taxpayers, since they live in cities that already have a city police department, will see a reduction in the county property tax and a net decrease in taxes overall. This cost formula will result in a “tax shift” to those who primarily benefit from the sheriff’s office law enforcement services making contracts fair, equitable, and legal.
4. Evaluation of Law Enforcement Services – One of the hallmarks of our current sheriff’s office administration is that nothing is beyond scrutiny and everything is subject to a cost v. benefit analysis. Public money is at a premium and we want to do as much as possible with as few dollars as possible. These contracts are no exception. Under this proposal, contract law enforcement remains flexible and tailorable to the community’s desires and needs. Regular evaluation by WCSO officials, county officials, and contract city officials will be required to ensure that law enforcement services continue to be both efficient and effective.

Summary

The impact of these changes will be felt by every tax payer. Some will experience an overall reduction in taxes. Others will see a reduction in one area and a likely increase in another area with a potential increase in a city tax or municipal fund assessment. The coordination and cooperation of county and city officials means that the overall impact will be kept to a minimum for those who may have to pay a little more overall. The ultimate goal is that communities become more self-reliant and taxpayers only pay for those municipal services that they benefit from and not be taxed inequitably for services they do not receive.

Final Notes

Contracting with the Sheriff’s Office indemnifies a city from liability stemming from a law enforcement incident. Moreover, city insurance is lessened due to the indemnity for further cost savings to the city.

Doing the right thing for the right reasons is seldom the easy thing to do – entering into ethical city contracts that are reasonable, rational, sound, justifiable, consistent, legal, and transparent is the right thing to do.

Editor's Note. This article submission comes in response to Sunday's 2/12/12 Standard-Examiner story, wherein Mr. Schwebke reported that "Officials in eight Weber County cities have until March 31 to decide if they will pay more to the Weber County Sheriff's Office for police services or find an alternative."

Update 2/13/12 11:24 a.m.: The Standard also has Sheriff Thompson's above linked article posted to its SE-Live site, for the benefit of those who'd like to mosey on over and lodge a comment:

• Discussing county protection plans for Weber County

Don't let the cat get your tongues, O Gentle Ones.

Standard-Examiner: Gag Order Sought in Stewart Case

Putting the lid on any further public statements in this matter could be tantamoint to "shutting the barn door after the livestock have already escaped," don'tcha think?

More breaking news in re the 1/14/12 Ogden Shootings matter. As we mentioned in an earlier WCF article, "[a]fter over a month of watching the Weber County Prosecutors' Office spill out a steady stream of innuendo and other "evidence" which tends to taint the local jury pool and incriminate Defendant Stewart, "Get this"... County prosecutor Dee Smith suddenly moves for a "gag order."

In this context, the Standard-Examiner reports that Weber County prosecutors are still aggressively pressing this issue in Judge Hyde's Second District Court:

• Gag order sought in Stewart case

One savvy Standard-Examiner reader lodges this comment in the S-E comments section (caution folks, the language gets a mite "salty." Readers who object to common "street vernacular" are forewarned to avert their eyes from this point downward):

The water has already been tainted, pissed in, and had a dead cat stewing in it for quite some time.

Remember "terrorist", "bomb", "and every threat, press conference, and parading of alleged evidence/hearsay?

Lapsed has it correct. The fix is in. The prosecutor wants only THEIR public prejudicial statements to stand.

All-in all, we believe the above comment pretty much gets it right. Putting the lid on any further public statements in this matter could be tantamoint to "shutting the barn door after the livestock have already escaped," don'tcha think?

Don't get us wrong on this. We're not choosing sides; but we would like to see Stewart get a fair trial this matter, even in the wake of the torrent of highly prejudicial information which flowed out of the Weber County Attorney's Office in the initial weeks following this tragic incident.

As we've consistently opined from the earliest days of this story, "our view here at Weber County Forum? If the Weber County Attorney is intent to release information regarding this case, they should release ALL of it, or alternatively, nothing at all." Unfortunately at this late juncture, it seems to us that we're now well past the point of no return, and it's a wee bit late in the game to apply the latter of those two earlier-available alternatives.

It'll definitely be interesting to see how Stewart's defense team formally responds to this, now that the damage has already been done.

That's it for now.

Don't let the cat get your tongues, O Gentle Ones.

Standard-Examiner: Ogden Marriott Up for Auction

Notwithstanding the still pending sheriff's sale, the hotel will reportedly continue to be a Marriott and will operate as usual under a franchise license agreement

As a followup to Tuesday's Weber County Forum story, The Standard-Examiner carries this informative morning story, which fattens out the facts and seems to spell good news for Ogden City's downtown business district:

• Ogden Marriott up for auction

The good news? "There will be no changes locally" "No one will know the difference," according to Ogden/Weber Convention & Visitors Bureau President Sara Toliver.

The bad news? Nobody seems willing to divulge what sparked this legal action in the first place. Was it just another typical internecine squabble between the various co-partners in this hotel venture, as Ms. Toliver seems to suggest, or does the still-pending Sheriff's levy signal revenue problems within our downtown hotel community, due to overbuilding in the Ogden hotel market?

So many questions... so few answers.

We'll continue to monitor this very interesting story, folks.

Standard-Examiner: Weber County Prosecutors Office Puts in "The Fix"

Civil libertarians should be appalled about how this case still "develops"

Disheartening writeups for Utah civil libertarians in the Standard-Examiner and Salt Lake Tribune this morning, in re this still fast-developing 1/4/12 Ogden Shootings Story. It all gets wackier by the minute, fer shure:

• Stewart's lawyer fights to stay on case as judge appoints two replacement defenders
• Ogden shootout suspect appears in court as injured cop watches

And if we consolidate all the important facts from these two stories, what do we wind up with? Here are the most important points, so far:

1) Despite the protests of Defense Lawyer Randy Richards, and notwithstanding his heretofore zealous representation of Defendant Stewart, the County Prosecutor's Office nevertheless somehow convinced this apple-faced 2nd District Judge Noel Hyde, that it would be better to appoint a couple of no-name public defenders, rather than the lawyer of the defendant's choice.

2) Judge Hyde has apparently ignored defendant's demands for timely pretrial discovery. The Standard reports that Defense Council again raised this issue YESTERDAY. A justice-oriented Judge would have made an order to immediately release all evidence to the defense, SUA SPONTE. But yet Judge Hyde Didn't do that!

3) After over a month of watching the Weber County Prosecutors' Office spill out a steady stream of innuendo and other "evidence" which tends to taint the local jury pool and incriminate Defendant Stewart, "Get this"... County prosecutor Dee Smith suddenly moves for a "gag order."

Civil libertarians should be appalled about how this case still "develops".

Civil liberties "skeptics" should register no surprise in saying "The Prosecutorial 'Fix' is in."

Ogden Marriot Hotel On the Auction Block?

We're not going to let ourselves get overly worked up; but we will be keeping a close eye on this situation

Wanna buy a classy downtown Ogden hotel for cheap? We received this interesting email query late last evening, from another sharp-eyed WCF reader. It was broadly interesting enough that we'll share it with our general WCF readership:

Marriot Hotel is on the Auction Block
Did you see the notice in the paper this morning (Monday)? It was different than most notices and I've never seen one that was that big. There was no mention of a debt amount, and a lot of legalese. The thought that the fieldhouse is not dead and about to resurface came to mind. I thought that maybe you could look it over and make some sense of it since you understand legalese.

Yes. This is very interesting, indeed. We searched the S-E digital edition, and did find the notice, although it was a mite too small and faint to make out. We did also find it on the utahlegals.com website however, where it was available in a more readable form:

• NOTICE OF SHERIFF"S SALE

The property in question? "[A]ll that parcel of land situated in Ogden, Weber County, Utah described as follows to-wit: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: REAL PROPERTY Legal description of real property known as the Ogden Marriot, 247 24th Street, Ogden, Utah."

The legal situation? What's happening here folks that a Florida-situated entity, namely BACM 2006-5 24TH STREET LODGING, LLC seems to have perfected a civil judgment against the legal owners of this property, attached the hotel property under a writ of execution and scheduled a sheriff's sale, such sale to occur (barring an interim settlement of the matter), on the Second Judicial District Courts Building front steps on the "23 rd February, 2012, at 2:00 pm o 'clock."

We're not going to let ourselves get overly worked up over this at this point, inasmuch as situations like this usually get resolved short of an actual Sheriff's auction. Nor will we speculate whether this situation may be the result of an overbuilt and stressed out local hotel market. We will be keeping a close eye on this nevertheless, in which connection we offer additional thanks to yet another sharp-eyed and alert WCF reader for providing the timely heads up.

So who wants to throw in their own 2¢?

1/4/12 Ogden Shootings Story Update: Defense Attorney Seeks Funds for Stewart Investigator

Stewart's lawyer: "No more jailhouse interviews"

More significant developments in the 1/4/12 Ogden Shootings matter, via a morning Standard-Examiner story which we link below. Here's the gist:

1) "The defense is asking Weber County to pay $10,000 for an investigator for Matthew David Stewart."

In terms of the price of expert witnesses and investigative resources in this factually complicated case, this first $10k's just the tip of the iceberg, folks.

2) "Stewart's lawyer also plans to tell his client not to do any more jailhouse interviews."

In our last WCF article on this subject we a couple of unanswered queries: "Whether speaking to the press at this still relatively stage of the proceedings is a good idea is anybody's guess." "Whether this interview occurred in the presence and under the supervision of Mr. Stewart's defense lawyer, Mr. Richards, Mr. Carlisle's article doesn't say."

On the basis of the morning response of defense attorney Randy Richards, it appears that the answer is a resounding "No."

Whether the unfortunate Trib interview resulted from a failure of "attorney-client communication" or a breakdown in "client control," it's definitely a problem which the defense team must fix. The old axiom "loose lips sink ships" was never more true than in a capital murder case, folks.

Read this morning's new Scott Schwebke writeup here:

• Defense attorney seeks funds for Stewart investigator

3) In an additional online Associated Press story, the Standard reports that Stewart's case is "set for a scheduling conference in Ogden’s 2nd District Court" this morning:

• Hearing scheduled for Stewart

Notably, this latter article reports that Stewart has yet to enter a plea, in which connection we'll predict that no plea will be entered in this matter at all, until Stewart's defense team has retained and conferred with "psychological experts," a few experts on "ballistics," and many other "experts" from other forensic fields, of course.

That's it for now folks.

"SuperDuperBowl" Sunday Thread - UPDATED

LOL. Your Blogmeister read somewhere that there's a BIG football game coming up today. It's the SuperDuperBowl, as worshippers of Big-Time Teevee Sports might explain it.

For the convenience of our WCF readers who might wanna get in on the action with an American Sports Classic which draws in gazillions of viewers who might not be otherwise interested in American Pro Football, here are a few clues about where you can view, or even belatedly learn about this AMERICAN culturally pivotal 2012 Pro Football Classic game:

• About the 2012 Superbowl

It's "on" on NBC @ 4 pm Mountain Time, according to this morning's Standard-Examiner TV listing, by the way:

• On the Air

Rumor also has it that it's also available online:

• Watch the Super Bowl Live!

So whadda think, folks? Just for fun we've set up a reader poll:

Free Web poll for your Web site - freepolls.com

And for those gamblers amongst us... here are the latest odds from one of our favorite "punter" websites:

• National Sports Advisors

So what about it O Gentle WCF Readers? Is there anyone amongst us who still remains even slightly "un-jazzed up," regarding this afternoon's upcoming Superbowl XLVI?

Update 2/6/12 7:32 a.m.: Giants, 21-17:

• Giants best Patriots in Super Bowl rematch

Update 2/6/12 12:00 p.m.: Hay! Tribune writer Glenn Gamboa was highly critical this morning of Madonna's 12-minute half-time show:

• Halftime show review: Madonna failed to ignite Super Bowl sparks

Here's the full half-time video, for those WCF readers who may have missed it:

• Madonna - Half Time Show (Super Bowl 2012) HD 720p

So whaddaya think O Gentle Ones?

Not half-bad for a 53-year old, we'll say.

So... was the Madonna halftime show totally lame, as Trib editorial writer Gamboa sez? Or is it that it's this SLC based, self-appointed Gamboa "hipster" who doesn't quite get it?'

1/4/12 Ogden Shootings Story Update: Defendant Matthew Stewart Speaks to the Tribune

Added Bonus: A quite "chewy" Bob Sawatzki Op-ed piece

There's significant breaking news in the 1/4/12 Ogden Shootings story this morning, as enterprising Salt Lake Tribune reporter Nate Carlisle reveals the results of a Friday Weber County Jail interview, wherein suspect Matthew Stewart "spoke with a Tribune reporter Friday during one of his two weekly 25-minute visits he’s allowed via a video teleconference system at the jail." The lead paragraphs reveal a fact-set consistent with a theory of self defense in this case:

Ogden • The man accused of killing a police officer and wounding five others said he thought people were breaking into his home to "rob and kill me."

Matthew David Stewart, 37, said he never heard officers identify themselves or announce they were at his home to serve a search warrant. Stewart, in an interview Friday at the Weber County Jail, said his alarm clock woke him, then he heard a crash that sounded like glass breaking.

"Some parts I remember vividly," Stewart said of the Jan. 4 shootout. "Other parts it was like I was running on instinct.

"When you’re convinced that you are getting robbed and most likely killed by a group of armed men, your instincts kick in."

Read the rest of this interesting Trib story here:

• Ogden cop-shooting suspect says he feared for his life

Whether speaking to the press at this still relatively stage of the proceedings is a good idea is anybody's guess. Whether this interview occurred in the presence and under the supervision of Mr. Stewart's defense lawyer, Mr. Richards, Mr. Carlisle's article doesn't say. Nevertheless, we'll venture to opine that the release of this information is probably a positive from a defense point of view, inasmuch as in the midst of the heretofore circus sideshow atmosphere of this case, it demonstrates that there is another possible side to this tragic story, founded upon a perfectly plausible fact set, which could logically appeal to a rational, unbiased jury during the ultimate trial of this matter.

As an added bonus we'll provide a front page link, incorporating a thoughtful and topically related Salt Lake City Weekly opinion piece, lodged in one of our lower comments sections by its author, Gentle Reader Bob Sawatzki, yesterday afternoon:

• Guns & Drugs Don't Mix

It's quite a "chewy" piece, wethinks, and we thank Mr. Sawatzki for bringing it to our attention.

That's it for now folks.

Don't let the cat get your tongues.

Rolly: The Two Faces of Judge Dee Benson

Glad that mandatory sentencing laws are on the books

By: RTCBLC

Following up on previous discussion here regarding Judge Benson's sentencing of the Brigham drug doctor, read Rolly's column today on the many flip/flops of Judge Benson. Here's the link:

• Rolly: The two faces of Judge Dee Benson

I've had mixed feeling on mandatory sentencing laws but given this judge's history I'm glad they are on the books.

Who'll be the first to chime in with their own 2¢?

Godfrey and Reid Cash in With a Brand-new Business

Godfrey and Reid line up to "make hay"

Hey folks! Do you reside in a Utah community with a slightly embarrassing downtown retail area? Are you a small-town city official who's concerned that,"you know what we mean," that your town features some things definitely VERY embarrassing vistas, like a boring Main Street "style retail area" like this?

• Prairie Town

Thanks to a solid tip from yet another sharp-eyed and alert WCF reader, we're now in possession of some truly dynamite-like info about which we're just "champin' at the bit" to reveal...

Okay, here it is. Here's a link to Matthew Godfrey's new Miracle Business Consultation Website, wherein Ogden's little Ogden City Mayoral "shite" tries to cash in on his "lessons learned," whilst having screwed over the citizens of Ogden City for twelve friggin' years:

• Godfrey's American Municipal Consultants

And here's the added bonus if you sign up for Godfrey's "miracle" consultation site:

As night ineluctably follows the day, it seems Godfrey's old pal and mentor, the well-connected and politically powerful Senator Stuart Reid, is officially on Godfrey's payroll, according to Godfrey's website, apparently meaning that Godfrey's saying that "you can get anything you want," including a bought-and-paid-for Utah State Senator like Reid, at Matthew Godfrey's new "political consulting company."

Ogden Shootings Story Update: Stewart Jailed Without Bond; Dispatch Tapes Released

Fascinating to observe how really quickly a GRAMA request can be submitted and filled, ainnit O Gentle Ones, when the government doesn't mendaciously drag its feet?

Three more significant developments in the 1/4/12 Ogden Shootings story:

1) "Matthew David Stewart, who was wounded in a Jan. 4 shootout that killed an Ogden police officer and wounded five other officers, was released Monday from the hospital and booked into Weber County Jail":

• Stewart released from hospital; booked into jail

Stewart is being held without bond, pursuant to Utah Code of Criminal Procedure § 77-20-1.

The story also reports the defendant is likely to be arraigned today.

2) This story continues to develop along the lines of a circus sideshow, as the Standard unveils the 1/4/12 dispatch tapes obtained from the Weber County Attorney's Office through a Standard-Examiner state Government Records Access and Management Act request. Ace reporter Schwebke provides the story:

• Dispatch tapes reveal response to police shootings

In an odd S-E "companion story, Interim Police Chief Wayne Tarwater attempts to justify the release of these dispatch tapes, saying that "he believes the release of police tapes from the Jan. 4 shooting is a good thing":

• Tarwater says release of tapes will benefit public

Whether the release of this rather inflammatory audio information serves the greater public interest of ensuring a fair trial in this matter is an entirely different question, wethinks, a question which will no doubt be soon answered upon the filing by defense council of what we'll expect to be a near certainty in this case, a change of venue motion.

Fascinating to observe how really quickly a GRAMA request can be submitted and filled, ainnit O Gentle Ones, when the government doesn't mendaciously drag its feet?

Update 2/1/12 9:21 a.m.: The Standard now reports that the defendant, Stewart, was arraigned this morning, although the story does not report whether he entered any plea:

• Stewart makes first court appearance

Mr. Gurrister also reports that "Defense attorney Randy Richards told the court he was having trouble getting information he sought as part of his discovery motions," which strikes us as odd, inasmuch as the prosecution seems to still be having no trouble at publicly releasing information which is favorable to the prosecution.

Standard-Examiner: Ogden Seeking Opinions on Water Charges

It's great to actually have a sitting mayor and council who actually want to know what you think, ainnit, O Gentle Ones?

Commendable reporting this morning from the Standard's new Ogden Political Beat reporter Mitch Shaw, regarding an item on the agenda at one of the council's several 1/31/12 meetings.

Specifically, Mr. Shaw reports on one element of the Council's ongoing water rate study, which was again discussed at last night's Council work session:

• Ogden seeking opinions on water charges

Mr. Shaw's story puts the focus on a Council-sponsored Web-based survey designed to gather input from the public:

OGDEN -- The city is in the midst of a comprehensive study on how much it will charge residents for water, and officials want to hear from the public.

The Ogden City Council is in month two of a four-month study that will determine water, storm sewer and sanitary sewer rates for the next five to 10 years.

The city has released a six-question, Web-based survey designed to gather input from the public.

If you haven't yet taken the time to add your own input on this survey, here's the specific link (something which Mr. Shaw's otherwise good story fails to provide):

• Online Water and Sewer Utility Rates Survey

Have at it, Ogden City Lumpencitizens.

It's great to actually have a sitting mayor and council who actually want to know what you think, ainnit, O Gentle Ones?

Update 2/1/12 11:38 a.m.: We just received an email missive from our most-esteemed regular WCF contributor Dan Schroeder, who offers this:

I see that you have a story up about water rates. Perhaps you'd like to upload the attached report and add a link to it. I shared the report with the city council yesterday, in advance of their meeting.

Voila! Dan's request is our command, AFAWC. Here's Dan's timely new contribution, folks:

• Water and Sewer Rates Comparison

Lots think about, WCF readers, don'tcha think?