WSU's Millner opposes Ogden's rebirth
Text 
By BOB GEIGER
Guest commentary
In response to Weber State University Provost Michael Vaughan's positive Top of Utah Voices column ("Pausing to consider how others see Junction City," Aug. 29), I reviewed the type of media coverage noted by him, and the first article found was a May 16, 2005, USA Today article, "Snowbasin revives proposal for Ogden-To-Ski Resort Tram." The next article was a New York Times article, published in September 2006. Both articles focused on Chris Petersen's ownership of Malan's Basin. A Wall Street Journal article from March 3, 2007, said, "Perhaps even more critical to the future of the town is that these companies could become allies ... (for) ... the gondola ... ."
A New York Times piece published June 22, 2007, covered many of the high-adventure points that Mayor Godfrey has championed, including a gondola to Petersen's Malan's Basin. The article noted the skepticism of Dan Schroeder, a professor at WSU: "Nothing about this makes sense from a common sense perspective." A March 2008 New York Times article, "Packed Powder as a Corporate Amenity," noted the gondola, too.
What was WSU doing during this surge in Ogden's reputation? On Sept. 27, 2005, shortly after the USA Today article, the Standard-Examiner published an article headlined: "Gondola opponents band together." The only opponent quoted in the article was a WSU professor. On Oct. 3, 2005, the Weber Area Council of Governments voted on a "Resolution for the gondola system." WSU professors attended the meeting to voice disdain. Professor Gene Sessions proclaimed, "The deafening sounds that you hear from President (Ann) Millner is because she has said to me and others repeatedly that WSU is not interested in being part of this project ... ." The local officials voted 15-2 in favor of the resolution, and discussion began within Ogden regarding President Millner's lack of objectivity or control over her professors.
Just days later, a guest commentary by President Millner was published in the Standard-Examiner. In it, she wrote: "We've had preliminary discussions with Chris Petersen and are committed to continuing those conversations ... ." After all, it is important for a university president to at least appear objective.
Then on Nov. 11, 2006, Jim Wood, director of the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Utah, announced in the Standard-Examiner that a study of WSU land use was being undertaken by his bureau at Weber State University's request. On Dec. 14, 2006, as part of his bureau's analysis, Jim Wood sent an e-mail to Michael Vaughan regarding WSU's inflated estimates of its future east bench land use as a way to block Chris Petersen. Jim Wood wrote, "since your future expansion requires 25 acres, we choose to use that estimate ... , the reason for using 25 acres is tied to your future expansion needs.
Using replacement estimates considerably beyond your needs, 50 acres, may raise issues of study credibility and obstructionism ... ." Jim Wood commented on WSU's inflated land value estimates as an additional block to Chris Petersen: "... a $40 million replacement figure is very high given the land's estimated market value of $10 million, which is probably close to the appraised value ... ." Michael Vaughan forwarded Jim Wood's e-mail to President Millner and Norm Tarbox noting, "Just in case you needed something to get your blood pressure up I now have more serious doubts about our ability to work with the University of Utah ... ."
While this was happening, the business community tried to engage WSU, including the business department. Professor Caldwell asked his students to consider the economic impact of a gondola. Shortly after his engagement with Ogden businesses, Professor Caldwell withdrew, noting his ability to attain tenure was threatened by WSU leadership. I have e-mails substantiating Caldwell's claims.
Newly arrived business presidents and CEOs wanted to meet with President Millner. After several months of no interest by WSU, the business leaders paid WSU $2,500 for a meeting. When they asked Millner about the topic most important to them -- the gondola -- her response was, "I like Ogden just the way it is."
When Vaughan recognizes the wonderful press enjoyed by Ogden, one must wonder if this is just another public display by Millner to curb the now fully rooted understanding that she has opposed Ogden's rebirth from the start. When Vaughan writes, "take a moment to ... enjoy the city's ... well-deserved praise," please remember, President Millner liked Ogden just the way it was before all the praise -- boarded-up windows and all.
Millner hasn't engaged Ogden in cooperative, objective dialogue about the things that generated the current praise for our city.
Geiger is chairman of Lift Ogden, and chief operating officer of Ogden-based Descente North America.
Reader Comments
By: Read a Book @ 08/06/2008, 9:13 AM
What is going on here. We all knew that Ann Millner would resist the gondola from day one. These accusations are very believable because that was the attitude all over the campus during those months. No one would dare be vocal about supporting the gondola. I agree that the public should see what was going on behind the president's doors. The University and the City will regret the decisions that were made. This will be Ann Millner greatest negative contribution: STOP THE GONDOLA. Come on, Bob Geiger, print those documents. Certainly you are not pulling our leg at this point. Are you?
What is going on here. We all knew that Ann Millner would resist the gondola from day one. These accusations are very believable because that was the attitude all over the campus during those months. No one would dare be vocal about supporting the gondola. I agree that the public should see what was going on behind the president's doors. The University and the City will regret the decisions that were made. This will be Ann Millner greatest negative contribution: STOP THE GONDOLA. Come on, Bob Geiger, print those documents. Certainly you are not pulling our leg at this point. Are you?
By: 29th Street Echo @ 08/05/2008, 10:33 PM
I am not 50 any longer, but my nose is good enough to smell a rat. Last year, I attended a series of meetings to develop goals. The purpose for every meeting was not to write a plan unless the plan made sure the gondola had no chance. There was a lawyer in our group who said that the group had to be very careful to be sure there would be no way the gondola would fit into the community plan. Suddenly the college decided the gondola would not work on the campus and they needed all their land. My sister and I could not figure out why all the hatred when it sounded reasonable to us to study and see where the city was going with their interesting idea. When the college made a decision, really without explaining their position except they were going to keep their land, I smelled a rat. But, suddenly it was all over. I felt robbed because I thought it sounded very interesting. My grandfather knew old man Malan who had a hotel up on Malans. He said people from all over used to come to Ogden by train and he would take them up the mountain. It was big medicine. My grandfather's brother Arthur Fairways came to Ogden one summer and drove the wagon to Malan's for Mr. Malan. When I read Mr. Geiger's thoughts in the newspaper, I thought there was something to what he was saying. I felt uncomfortable listening to the leaders in the Community Plan meetings, and I equally felt uncomfortable about the college's review of the gondola. Actually, I felt robbed by both. I think maybe we out to know the workings here.
I am not 50 any longer, but my nose is good enough to smell a rat. Last year, I attended a series of meetings to develop goals. The purpose for every meeting was not to write a plan unless the plan made sure the gondola had no chance. There was a lawyer in our group who said that the group had to be very careful to be sure there would be no way the gondola would fit into the community plan. Suddenly the college decided the gondola would not work on the campus and they needed all their land. My sister and I could not figure out why all the hatred when it sounded reasonable to us to study and see where the city was going with their interesting idea. When the college made a decision, really without explaining their position except they were going to keep their land, I smelled a rat. But, suddenly it was all over. I felt robbed because I thought it sounded very interesting. My grandfather knew old man Malan who had a hotel up on Malans. He said people from all over used to come to Ogden by train and he would take them up the mountain. It was big medicine. My grandfather's brother Arthur Fairways came to Ogden one summer and drove the wagon to Malan's for Mr. Malan. When I read Mr. Geiger's thoughts in the newspaper, I thought there was something to what he was saying. I felt uncomfortable listening to the leaders in the Community Plan meetings, and I equally felt uncomfortable about the college's review of the gondola. Actually, I felt robbed by both. I think maybe we out to know the workings here.
By: Susan Smith @ 08/05/2008, 1:27 PM
I don't know if this is actually a discussion about the gondola, but I would like to see the information Bob Geiger is referring to. The gondola project, in my eyes, never got a fair shot because it was all tied up in the re-election of the Mayor. When I figured out what this project might mean to the city of Ogden, I thought it deserved a fair airing. To, me all it got was anti-Mayor groups, the confusing positon of the University, and my area neighborhood planning meetings ganging up against a project I felt should be carefully studied and given a good study. If Bob Geiger's exposures are true, I would conclude that we did not have a chance to really understand what was being offered. My neighborhood was a buzz with the most anti-mayor and anti-gondola harangues. If in fact the college does not need all the land, if the University tampered with appraisals, if the University threatened staff, if the president of the University prejudged the project and tampered with information, and if Bob Geiger has all this proof, THEN, I would say the gondola issue has not gone away, and we should see the maneuvers of Weber State administrators. If it takes the paper to do an investigation, then they should do it. They are the instrument in this town which reaches the largest number of people. Mr. Geiger, turn over the information. NOW if you have more and more, the public deserves to see it. If you don't have it, please shut up and go away before the fray begins again. Geiger's accusations are serious. If they in fact prove to explain fowl play, let's get back to the drawing boards and see if this project can work for the town. Yikes
I don't know if this is actually a discussion about the gondola, but I would like to see the information Bob Geiger is referring to. The gondola project, in my eyes, never got a fair shot because it was all tied up in the re-election of the Mayor. When I figured out what this project might mean to the city of Ogden, I thought it deserved a fair airing. To, me all it got was anti-Mayor groups, the confusing positon of the University, and my area neighborhood planning meetings ganging up against a project I felt should be carefully studied and given a good study. If Bob Geiger's exposures are true, I would conclude that we did not have a chance to really understand what was being offered. My neighborhood was a buzz with the most anti-mayor and anti-gondola harangues. If in fact the college does not need all the land, if the University tampered with appraisals, if the University threatened staff, if the president of the University prejudged the project and tampered with information, and if Bob Geiger has all this proof, THEN, I would say the gondola issue has not gone away, and we should see the maneuvers of Weber State administrators. If it takes the paper to do an investigation, then they should do it. They are the instrument in this town which reaches the largest number of people. Mr. Geiger, turn over the information. NOW if you have more and more, the public deserves to see it. If you don't have it, please shut up and go away before the fray begins again. Geiger's accusations are serious. If they in fact prove to explain fowl play, let's get back to the drawing boards and see if this project can work for the town. Yikes
By: Copelia @ 08/05/2008, 10:35 AM
I never understood the Gondola proposal. I couldn't figure out what was fact and what was fiction. It seemed to be a contest in who could win public opinion, diverting from the real facts. When I read Bob Gieger's article, I had a strong feeling that I wanted to know how Weber State University came to its conclusion. If Mr. Gieger's remarks are accurate, this would be the first chance I and others would have to SEE what the university was doing to turn the Gondola project away. If the university would do this to this project, I wonder if this is the way the university deals with all issues. Intimidate a professor? I think the paper ought to know.
I never understood the Gondola proposal. I couldn't figure out what was fact and what was fiction. It seemed to be a contest in who could win public opinion, diverting from the real facts. When I read Bob Gieger's article, I had a strong feeling that I wanted to know how Weber State University came to its conclusion. If Mr. Gieger's remarks are accurate, this would be the first chance I and others would have to SEE what the university was doing to turn the Gondola project away. If the university would do this to this project, I wonder if this is the way the university deals with all issues. Intimidate a professor? I think the paper ought to know.
By: Dutch @ 08/05/2008, 10:07 AM
Put the personalities and character attacks aside. If Bob Geiger has evidence for the accusations he puts forth in his article, the Standard Examiner should request them and publish the findings. Sour grapes? Let's see the proof and let the community decide. Why shouldn't the community see the workings behind the scene of its city and University. Hm!
Put the personalities and character attacks aside. If Bob Geiger has evidence for the accusations he puts forth in his article, the Standard Examiner should request them and publish the findings. Sour grapes? Let's see the proof and let the community decide. Why shouldn't the community see the workings behind the scene of its city and University. Hm!
By: Curt Geiger @ 08/05/2008, 9:44 AM
I was there the evening President Milner made the statement "I like Ogden and I like WSU just the way it is".
It came after then Salomon President Tom Berry asked her why she was reluctant to engage with the City of Ogden in trying to find common ground regarding the gondola project. Mr Berry told her that the Gondola was the deciding factor in moving AMER to Ogden and that the project was very important to AMER.
President Milner paused, and then stated. "I may regret making this statement but I just have to do so. I like Ogden and WSU just the way it is".
Keep in mind. This was before the Salomon Center was completed. This was before the the Mayor took the golf course off the table. This statement was made at a time that Ogden was still a boarded up shell of a city. This statement was made at a time when she was publically stating that she "must appear to have an opne mind".
I was there the evening President Milner made the statement "I like Ogden and I like WSU just the way it is".
It came after then Salomon President Tom Berry asked her why she was reluctant to engage with the City of Ogden in trying to find common ground regarding the gondola project. Mr Berry told her that the Gondola was the deciding factor in moving AMER to Ogden and that the project was very important to AMER.
President Milner paused, and then stated. "I may regret making this statement but I just have to do so. I like Ogden and WSU just the way it is".
Keep in mind. This was before the Salomon Center was completed. This was before the the Mayor took the golf course off the table. This statement was made at a time that Ogden was still a boarded up shell of a city. This statement was made at a time when she was publically stating that she "must appear to have an opne mind".
By: Greg II @ 08/05/2008, 9:17 AM
Tom Feeney, head of the Weber County Forum and Champion of Curmudgeon and Flatlander, has a public record that can be verified. Again, these are facts--verifiable. People in the community are aware of Mr. Feeney's record, and they should be as Mr. Feeney and his anonymous friends work diligently to dishonestly attack the character of Ogden citizens and to dismiss any and all truth and facts that support the Gondola project, the successful efforts of Mayor Godfrey and any person associated with furthering the rebirth of Ogden. Below are the FACTS:
Case #2
In or about June of 1998, you were employed by Ronald Elvidge to represent him…
You requested and received $750.00 as advanced attorney’s fees.
On or about June 27, 1988, you caused to be filed a complaint for damages in the civil matter entitled Ronald P. Elvidge V. Kenneth Brown, et al.,
On March 2, 1989, the Cour Dismissed your client’s complaint for your failure to file a Joint At-Issue Memorandum, your failure to appear at tow Order to Show Cause hearings, and your failure to pay sanctions as ordered. You failed to competently perform the legal services for which you were employed.
You failed to keep your client reasonable informed about significant developments relating to his case and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
You withdrew from employment prior to taking reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the rights of your client. You failed to promptly refund any part of the fee paid in advance that had not been earned.
You committed the above-referenced acts in willful violation of your oath and duties as an attorney…
Case #3
On or about July 28, 1990, you were employed by Emily Johnson to represent here in a criminal matter…
You requested and received a total of $725.00 as advanced attorney’s fees.
Thereafter, you failed to make scheduled court appearances on your client’s behalf and failed to file documentation in support of your motion to suppress evidence. As a result of your failure to appear in court on October 3, 1990, Ms. Johnson entered a plea and was sentenced without benefit of counsel.
You failed to promptly respond to reasonable status inquiries…keep your client reasonably informed of significant developments….promptly refund that portion of the advanced attorney’s fees that you had not earned.
You committed the above-referenced acts in willful violation of your oath and duties as an attorney….
Case #4
In or about January 1988, you were employed as the attorney for Sue Elvidge for the purpose of opening and maintaining a trust account on her behalf….
In or about February 1988, you opened a trust account….under the fictitius name of “Susan Samula Trust Fund account, c/o Law Office of Thomas L. Feeny…”
On or about May 5, 1988, you deposited $4,500.00 of your own funds into the trust account, thereby commingling your funds with those of your client. Subseqent to May 5, 1988, you made other deposits of your funds into the trust account, further commingling client trust funds with those of your own.
In or about December 1988, you caused the name of the trust account to be changed to “Law Office of Thomas L. Feeny,” without advising Ms. Elvidge.
Throughout the course of your relationships and representation of Ms. Elvidge, she turned over to you the approximate sum of $42,000.00 for deposit into the Susan Samuel Trust Fund Account. Beginning in or about January 1989 and thereafter, you made numerous withdrawls from the trust account without the knowledge, consent or authorization of Ms. Elvidge. You misappropriated or otherwise applied to your own use and purpose of said monies. You breeched your fiduciary duties to Ms. Elvidge…
You have failed to account for any portion of the funds entrusted to you.
You committed the above referenced acts in willful violation of your oath and duties as an attorney…
Case #5
…An investigator from the State Bar of California wrote to you requesting your response to allegations contained in Counts One, Two, Three and Four. Said letters were mailed to your official membership records address and were not returned to the State Bar as undeliverable. You failed to respond..and otherwise cooperate and participate with the…investigation.
You committed the above referenced acts in willful violation of your oath and duties…
Set #2___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Case #1
In or about April 1992, you were employed by Joseph Plant to represent him in two separate criminal matters. You were paid the sum of $1,250.00 as advanced attorney’s fees.
Effective April 16, 1992, through June 11, 1992, you were suspended from the practice of law in the State of California for failing to take and pass the Professional Responsibility Examination as ordered….
…On April 24, 1992, you appeared in court on behalf of your client in People v. Joseph M. Plant,… You practiced law while suspended….
….Further, you failed to notify the Court of your suspension, thereby misrepresenting to the Court that you were an active member of the State Bar….
…You committed the above, described acts in willful violation of your oath and duties as an attorney at law under disciplinary case law…..
Case #2
Each and every allegation count one of this notice to show cause is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.
The aforementioned matter, an investigator from the State Bar of California wrote to you on August 19, 1992 and September 2, 1992, requesting your response to the allegations contained in Count One. Said letters were returned to the office of Investigations as undeliverable.
You failed to maintain your current office address or address to be used for Stat Bar purposes on the official membership records of the State Bar of California….
You committed the above-described acts in willful violation of your oath and duties as an attorney at law….
Set #3__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In early 1987, Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) was arrested and thereafter charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (California Vehicle Code….) (a) and driving with a blood alcohol level in excess of .10 percent…(b). On June 1, 1987 Respondent pled guilty to a violation of the former offense (the latter charge was dismissed) and was sentenced to 48 hours county jail, fined $674, and placed on court probation for a period of three years.
On December 14, 1989, during he probationary period for the first offense, Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) was arrested again. IN summary, Respondent had been drinking at a local bar and was sleeping in his car in the parking lot. A police officer approached Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) and, upon smelling a moderate odor of alcohol, offered to give him a ride home. Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) instead agreed to take a taxi home, but the taxi returned with Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) a short time later. Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) told the police officer that he was going to withdraw some money from the automated teller machine and call his girlfriend. The police officer then advised Respondent that his drivers license was suspended and that he was too intoxicated to drive. Although Respondent assured the police officer he would not drive, a coule minutes later, Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) got into his car and attempted to drive home. Based on Respondent’s driving pattern, the police officer pulled Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) to the side of the road and administered various field sobriety tests. Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) was unable to successfully perform the tests and was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol…
….On June 27, 1990, Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) pled no contest….
….On July 20, 1990, Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) was sentenced to 10 days jail, fined $1060 dollars, and placed on formal probation fof four years….
SET #4_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Case #1
On or about January 30, 1986, Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) was employed by Rober Van Voorhis to represent him in an action for fraud arising from the purchase of real property. Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) was paid the sum of $1,000.00 as advanced attorney’s fees.
Between February, 1986 and December 1986, Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) failed to communicate with Mr. Van Voorhis or to respond to Mr. Van Voorhis’ telephone calls regarding the status of the matter, save to send Mr. Van Voohris his original file, which Repondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) had copied, on July 24, 1986.
Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) received a letter from Mr. Van Voorhis dated December 19, 1986, requesting a status report on his matter. Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) responded to that letter by Telephone.
On December 31, 1986, Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) filed a lawsuit on behalf of Mr. Van Voorhis in Superior Court….
Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) failed to serve the lawsuit which he filed on behalf of Mr. Van Voorhis, or otherwise prosecute the matter to a conclusion. The three-year statute of limitations (THREE YEARS LATER!) for service of the lawsuit expired on December 31, 1989. Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) did not withdraw from the representation of Mr. Van Voohris in the action and remains as counsel of record therein.
Respondent received a letter from Mr. Van Voorhis dated June 25, 1987, demanding that the Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) prosecute the lawsuit and return Mr. Van Voorhis’ many telephone calls, and advise him regarding the status of the matter. Respondent did not respond to the letter or return Mr. Van Voorhis’ telephone calls.
Respondent did not perform the work for which he was employed… Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) has not returned to Mr. Van Voorhis the advanced attorney’s fees, although he has not earned any part of the advanced fees.
By his actions…Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) willfully
1) Violated his oath and duties as an attorney at law…
2) Failed to communicate with his client and failed to complete the performance of his tudies, in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m)…
3) Improperly withdrew from representation of Mr. Van Voorhis in the action filed on his behalf, without having notified his client or taken reasonable steps to avoid prejudice to his client’s interests and without having refunded the unearned advanced attorney’s fees…
Case #2
On or about August 2, 1988, Respondent was employed by Paul Jester to represent him in a wrongful discharge action. Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) was paid the sum of $500.00 as advanced attorney’s fees.
Thereafter, Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) failed to perform any work on Mr. Jester’s matter….
Mr. Jester and his wife…placed numerous telephone calls to Respondent requesting the status of the matter. Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) did not return these calls unless the Jesters left a message that they would terminate Respondent’s employment. On those occasions when Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) returned the calls, he assured the Jesters that he would commence work on the case. Respondent failed to commence work on the case.
…On August 3, 1989, the Jesters sent a letter to Respondents by certified mail, return receipt requested, demanding that the Respondent either perform the work on the case or return the file and unearned advanced fees. Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) failed to puck up the letter from the post office and it was returned to the Jesters.
…Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) did not perform the work for which he was employed by Mr. Jester. Respondent had not returned to Mr. Jester the advanced attorney’s fees, although he has not earned any part of the advanced fees.
By his actions…Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) willfully:
1) Violated his oath and duties as an attorney at law as set forth in sections 6068(a)…
2) Failed to perform the service for which he was employed and failed to communicate with his client, in violation ofo former Rule of Professional Conduct 6-101(a)…
3) Failed to return unearned advanced fees…
Case #3
On November 6, 1989, Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) met with an investigator for the State Bar of California regarding the matters alleged in Count One herein. The investigator told Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) to submit a written response with regard to the count one matters. Responded failed to do so.
On December 11, 1989, and January 3, 1990, the State Bar investigator wrote to Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) regarding the m atters alleged in Count One. Responded (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) failed to respond to either letter…
At the November 6, 1989, meeting with Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) the State Bar investigator told Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) that the investigator expected to receive a complaint regarding the matters alleged herein in Count Two. The investigator told Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) that when the complaint was received, Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) would receive a letter…requesting written response regarding Count Two.
….Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) failed to respond to either letter.
Tom Feeney, head of the Weber County Forum and Champion of Curmudgeon and Flatlander, has a public record that can be verified. Again, these are facts--verifiable. People in the community are aware of Mr. Feeney's record, and they should be as Mr. Feeney and his anonymous friends work diligently to dishonestly attack the character of Ogden citizens and to dismiss any and all truth and facts that support the Gondola project, the successful efforts of Mayor Godfrey and any person associated with furthering the rebirth of Ogden. Below are the FACTS:
Case #2
In or about June of 1998, you were employed by Ronald Elvidge to represent him…
You requested and received $750.00 as advanced attorney’s fees.
On or about June 27, 1988, you caused to be filed a complaint for damages in the civil matter entitled Ronald P. Elvidge V. Kenneth Brown, et al.,
On March 2, 1989, the Cour Dismissed your client’s complaint for your failure to file a Joint At-Issue Memorandum, your failure to appear at tow Order to Show Cause hearings, and your failure to pay sanctions as ordered. You failed to competently perform the legal services for which you were employed.
You failed to keep your client reasonable informed about significant developments relating to his case and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
You withdrew from employment prior to taking reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the rights of your client. You failed to promptly refund any part of the fee paid in advance that had not been earned.
You committed the above-referenced acts in willful violation of your oath and duties as an attorney…
Case #3
On or about July 28, 1990, you were employed by Emily Johnson to represent here in a criminal matter…
You requested and received a total of $725.00 as advanced attorney’s fees.
Thereafter, you failed to make scheduled court appearances on your client’s behalf and failed to file documentation in support of your motion to suppress evidence. As a result of your failure to appear in court on October 3, 1990, Ms. Johnson entered a plea and was sentenced without benefit of counsel.
You failed to promptly respond to reasonable status inquiries…keep your client reasonably informed of significant developments….promptly refund that portion of the advanced attorney’s fees that you had not earned.
You committed the above-referenced acts in willful violation of your oath and duties as an attorney….
Case #4
In or about January 1988, you were employed as the attorney for Sue Elvidge for the purpose of opening and maintaining a trust account on her behalf….
In or about February 1988, you opened a trust account….under the fictitius name of “Susan Samula Trust Fund account, c/o Law Office of Thomas L. Feeny…”
On or about May 5, 1988, you deposited $4,500.00 of your own funds into the trust account, thereby commingling your funds with those of your client. Subseqent to May 5, 1988, you made other deposits of your funds into the trust account, further commingling client trust funds with those of your own.
In or about December 1988, you caused the name of the trust account to be changed to “Law Office of Thomas L. Feeny,” without advising Ms. Elvidge.
Throughout the course of your relationships and representation of Ms. Elvidge, she turned over to you the approximate sum of $42,000.00 for deposit into the Susan Samuel Trust Fund Account. Beginning in or about January 1989 and thereafter, you made numerous withdrawls from the trust account without the knowledge, consent or authorization of Ms. Elvidge. You misappropriated or otherwise applied to your own use and purpose of said monies. You breeched your fiduciary duties to Ms. Elvidge…
You have failed to account for any portion of the funds entrusted to you.
You committed the above referenced acts in willful violation of your oath and duties as an attorney…
Case #5
…An investigator from the State Bar of California wrote to you requesting your response to allegations contained in Counts One, Two, Three and Four. Said letters were mailed to your official membership records address and were not returned to the State Bar as undeliverable. You failed to respond..and otherwise cooperate and participate with the…investigation.
You committed the above referenced acts in willful violation of your oath and duties…
Set #2___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Case #1
In or about April 1992, you were employed by Joseph Plant to represent him in two separate criminal matters. You were paid the sum of $1,250.00 as advanced attorney’s fees.
Effective April 16, 1992, through June 11, 1992, you were suspended from the practice of law in the State of California for failing to take and pass the Professional Responsibility Examination as ordered….
…On April 24, 1992, you appeared in court on behalf of your client in People v. Joseph M. Plant,… You practiced law while suspended….
….Further, you failed to notify the Court of your suspension, thereby misrepresenting to the Court that you were an active member of the State Bar….
…You committed the above, described acts in willful violation of your oath and duties as an attorney at law under disciplinary case law…..
Case #2
Each and every allegation count one of this notice to show cause is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.
The aforementioned matter, an investigator from the State Bar of California wrote to you on August 19, 1992 and September 2, 1992, requesting your response to the allegations contained in Count One. Said letters were returned to the office of Investigations as undeliverable.
You failed to maintain your current office address or address to be used for Stat Bar purposes on the official membership records of the State Bar of California….
You committed the above-described acts in willful violation of your oath and duties as an attorney at law….
Set #3__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In early 1987, Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) was arrested and thereafter charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (California Vehicle Code….) (a) and driving with a blood alcohol level in excess of .10 percent…(b). On June 1, 1987 Respondent pled guilty to a violation of the former offense (the latter charge was dismissed) and was sentenced to 48 hours county jail, fined $674, and placed on court probation for a period of three years.
On December 14, 1989, during he probationary period for the first offense, Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) was arrested again. IN summary, Respondent had been drinking at a local bar and was sleeping in his car in the parking lot. A police officer approached Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) and, upon smelling a moderate odor of alcohol, offered to give him a ride home. Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) instead agreed to take a taxi home, but the taxi returned with Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) a short time later. Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) told the police officer that he was going to withdraw some money from the automated teller machine and call his girlfriend. The police officer then advised Respondent that his drivers license was suspended and that he was too intoxicated to drive. Although Respondent assured the police officer he would not drive, a coule minutes later, Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) got into his car and attempted to drive home. Based on Respondent’s driving pattern, the police officer pulled Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) to the side of the road and administered various field sobriety tests. Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) was unable to successfully perform the tests and was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol…
….On June 27, 1990, Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) pled no contest….
….On July 20, 1990, Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) was sentenced to 10 days jail, fined $1060 dollars, and placed on formal probation fof four years….
SET #4_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Case #1
On or about January 30, 1986, Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) was employed by Rober Van Voorhis to represent him in an action for fraud arising from the purchase of real property. Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) was paid the sum of $1,000.00 as advanced attorney’s fees.
Between February, 1986 and December 1986, Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) failed to communicate with Mr. Van Voorhis or to respond to Mr. Van Voorhis’ telephone calls regarding the status of the matter, save to send Mr. Van Voohris his original file, which Repondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) had copied, on July 24, 1986.
Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) received a letter from Mr. Van Voorhis dated December 19, 1986, requesting a status report on his matter. Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) responded to that letter by Telephone.
On December 31, 1986, Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) filed a lawsuit on behalf of Mr. Van Voorhis in Superior Court….
Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) failed to serve the lawsuit which he filed on behalf of Mr. Van Voorhis, or otherwise prosecute the matter to a conclusion. The three-year statute of limitations (THREE YEARS LATER!) for service of the lawsuit expired on December 31, 1989. Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) did not withdraw from the representation of Mr. Van Voohris in the action and remains as counsel of record therein.
Respondent received a letter from Mr. Van Voorhis dated June 25, 1987, demanding that the Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) prosecute the lawsuit and return Mr. Van Voorhis’ many telephone calls, and advise him regarding the status of the matter. Respondent did not respond to the letter or return Mr. Van Voorhis’ telephone calls.
Respondent did not perform the work for which he was employed… Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) has not returned to Mr. Van Voorhis the advanced attorney’s fees, although he has not earned any part of the advanced fees.
By his actions…Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) willfully
1) Violated his oath and duties as an attorney at law…
2) Failed to communicate with his client and failed to complete the performance of his tudies, in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m)…
3) Improperly withdrew from representation of Mr. Van Voorhis in the action filed on his behalf, without having notified his client or taken reasonable steps to avoid prejudice to his client’s interests and without having refunded the unearned advanced attorney’s fees…
Case #2
On or about August 2, 1988, Respondent was employed by Paul Jester to represent him in a wrongful discharge action. Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) was paid the sum of $500.00 as advanced attorney’s fees.
Thereafter, Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) failed to perform any work on Mr. Jester’s matter….
Mr. Jester and his wife…placed numerous telephone calls to Respondent requesting the status of the matter. Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) did not return these calls unless the Jesters left a message that they would terminate Respondent’s employment. On those occasions when Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) returned the calls, he assured the Jesters that he would commence work on the case. Respondent failed to commence work on the case.
…On August 3, 1989, the Jesters sent a letter to Respondents by certified mail, return receipt requested, demanding that the Respondent either perform the work on the case or return the file and unearned advanced fees. Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) failed to puck up the letter from the post office and it was returned to the Jesters.
…Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) did not perform the work for which he was employed by Mr. Jester. Respondent had not returned to Mr. Jester the advanced attorney’s fees, although he has not earned any part of the advanced fees.
By his actions…Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) willfully:
1) Violated his oath and duties as an attorney at law as set forth in sections 6068(a)…
2) Failed to perform the service for which he was employed and failed to communicate with his client, in violation ofo former Rule of Professional Conduct 6-101(a)…
3) Failed to return unearned advanced fees…
Case #3
On November 6, 1989, Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) met with an investigator for the State Bar of California regarding the matters alleged in Count One herein. The investigator told Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) to submit a written response with regard to the count one matters. Responded failed to do so.
On December 11, 1989, and January 3, 1990, the State Bar investigator wrote to Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) regarding the m atters alleged in Count One. Responded (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) failed to respond to either letter…
At the November 6, 1989, meeting with Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) the State Bar investigator told Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) that the investigator expected to receive a complaint regarding the matters alleged herein in Count Two. The investigator told Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) that when the complaint was received, Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) would receive a letter…requesting written response regarding Count Two.
….Respondent (Thomas Feeney, Weber County Forum) failed to respond to either letter.
By: Greg @ 08/05/2008, 9:06 AM
Tom Feeney,
The reason that Curmudgeon and your crew think you all sound so smart, is because you only talk amongst one another in anonymous blog rooms where differing points of view are dismissed and deleted by you.
You create your own world so that you can live in it.
You don't come out in the light of day, under your own name and face, to make your comments and to engage the community.
The discussions on your site do not count and are not credible.
Mr. Geiger's article warrants further discussion and investigation in the real world.
Tom Feeney,
The reason that Curmudgeon and your crew think you all sound so smart, is because you only talk amongst one another in anonymous blog rooms where differing points of view are dismissed and deleted by you.
You create your own world so that you can live in it.
You don't come out in the light of day, under your own name and face, to make your comments and to engage the community.
The discussions on your site do not count and are not credible.
Mr. Geiger's article warrants further discussion and investigation in the real world.
By: Truth Seeker @ 08/05/2008, 8:58 AM
Tom...I mean Tom Feeney...head of the Weber County Forum....
It surprises me that you use even your first name. You normally skulk around in the darkness more than that.
Tom...I mean Tom Feeney...head of the Weber County Forum....
It surprises me that you use even your first name. You normally skulk around in the darkness more than that.
By: Greg II @ 08/05/2008, 8:56 AM
I'm glad you did your research Greg. Flatlander apparently did not. He simply throws comments out there to make it appear as though Mr. Geiger's claims have already been discussed and studied:
"And secondly, to note that much of what he (Mr. Geiger) put in his op ed piece was part of the argument he and others raised in favor of the Peterson Project proposals over a year ago, which matters were discussed on the campus, off the campus, on public policy websites, and in the print media [Standard Examiner and campus paper] more than a year ago." - Flatlander
But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Geiger's claims in his Op Ed have not been discussed and analyzed by the media. To say that because something has been butchered in the Weber County Forum, that it has had its day in the court of public discussion, is ludicrous. The Weber County Form is a horrible place. Most of the animals there butcher one another over their own outlandish comments.
What needs to happen here is a discussion among level-headed citizens rather than the kind of discusting comments made in the Weber County Forum where every other comment is made under the influence.
I'm glad you did your research Greg. Flatlander apparently did not. He simply throws comments out there to make it appear as though Mr. Geiger's claims have already been discussed and studied:
"And secondly, to note that much of what he (Mr. Geiger) put in his op ed piece was part of the argument he and others raised in favor of the Peterson Project proposals over a year ago, which matters were discussed on the campus, off the campus, on public policy websites, and in the print media [Standard Examiner and campus paper] more than a year ago." - Flatlander
But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Geiger's claims in his Op Ed have not been discussed and analyzed by the media. To say that because something has been butchered in the Weber County Forum, that it has had its day in the court of public discussion, is ludicrous. The Weber County Form is a horrible place. Most of the animals there butcher one another over their own outlandish comments.
What needs to happen here is a discussion among level-headed citizens rather than the kind of discusting comments made in the Weber County Forum where every other comment is made under the influence.
By: tom @ 08/03/2008, 3:58 PM
Anon to anon -
Curmudgeon has been copping Flatlanders style and logic for several years around here. I can see how you would suspect they are one and the same.
They both are profound thinkers and excellent writers. I have never seen the time where either one of them ranted or showed scorn toward the Gondolistas. Granted there are a number of rantists on the Weber Forum, however Mr. Curmudgeon is definately not one of them. For you to completely write off his extremely well written and logical arguments concerning Mr. Geiger because of the rantings of people that post on the same blog as he is pretty bush league stuff. I can only surmise that you too have been sipping the Lift Ogden Koolaide as you are for sure exibiting Lift Ogden Logic in your post.
Congratulations on the masterful detective work vis-a-vis Flatlander/Curmudgeon. Pure genius.
I am amazed at others in the community, and here on this blog thread, who think it prudent to waste any more time on these foolish and mean spirited accusations by the obviously disturbed Bobby Geiger. He, and the whole Peterson/Godfrey/Geiger cabal have been pretty much discredited by the community on this Gondola scam and related Mount Ogden Golf course attempted land grab.
Anon to anon -
Curmudgeon has been copping Flatlanders style and logic for several years around here. I can see how you would suspect they are one and the same.
They both are profound thinkers and excellent writers. I have never seen the time where either one of them ranted or showed scorn toward the Gondolistas. Granted there are a number of rantists on the Weber Forum, however Mr. Curmudgeon is definately not one of them. For you to completely write off his extremely well written and logical arguments concerning Mr. Geiger because of the rantings of people that post on the same blog as he is pretty bush league stuff. I can only surmise that you too have been sipping the Lift Ogden Koolaide as you are for sure exibiting Lift Ogden Logic in your post.
Congratulations on the masterful detective work vis-a-vis Flatlander/Curmudgeon. Pure genius.
I am amazed at others in the community, and here on this blog thread, who think it prudent to waste any more time on these foolish and mean spirited accusations by the obviously disturbed Bobby Geiger. He, and the whole Peterson/Godfrey/Geiger cabal have been pretty much discredited by the community on this Gondola scam and related Mount Ogden Golf course attempted land grab.
By: anon to anon @ 08/03/2008, 12:29 PM
Delighted to learn that you are a regular reader of both the Standard Examiner [everyone in Ogden should subscribe] and Weber County Forum. And happy you are such an avid reader of the "Curmudgeon" posts there. I hope you will continue to be a faithful follower of them.
As for WCF vs SE comments: seems to me blogsites, like WCF, provide for, often, a more vigorous form of discussion than would be appropriate for the comments section of a general circulation newspaper. Hardly surprising, then, to find a different tone to the discussion in the two places. I will grant you, however, that some of the comments on WCF do not seem to me appropriate [in tone or language] for either forum. But I think none of Curmudgeon's fit that description.
Delighted to learn that you are a regular reader of both the Standard Examiner [everyone in Ogden should subscribe] and Weber County Forum. And happy you are such an avid reader of the "Curmudgeon" posts there. I hope you will continue to be a faithful follower of them.
As for WCF vs SE comments: seems to me blogsites, like WCF, provide for, often, a more vigorous form of discussion than would be appropriate for the comments section of a general circulation newspaper. Hardly surprising, then, to find a different tone to the discussion in the two places. I will grant you, however, that some of the comments on WCF do not seem to me appropriate [in tone or language] for either forum. But I think none of Curmudgeon's fit that description.
By: Greg: @ 08/03/2008, 12:23 PM
I searched too, and found SE articles reporting the Regents decision not to sell, which included land use results and recommendations from the UU study. I did not find any articles in the SE dealing with back-channel challenges to the WSU figures. I still have to search "The Signpost." Will let you know what I find, if anything.
As for the tenure matter: I found a mass-mailed email from Mr. Geiger, which includes email from the professor involved, archived on Weber County Forum. WCF posted the Geiger email including the professor's verbatim. I don't know how do a link on this SE site, but the documents were put up on WCF [a public site] when they were received, and have been available there since. You can read the emails involved there and draw your own conclusions. When Mr. Geiger's email went out mass-mailed, mostly to Lift Ogden members, and was posted on WCF, it engendered a great deal of discussion, on and off campus. But not, you are right, in the Standard Examiner.
Just as an added fillip: the Geiger email leads by attacking the Standard Examiner for refusing to report the story.
Still looking for more, and will let you know what I turn up. Would search the SLTrib [which used to do gondola/gondola coverage], but it wants cash for its archives, so I'm afraid I'll have to pass on that one.
I searched too, and found SE articles reporting the Regents decision not to sell, which included land use results and recommendations from the UU study. I did not find any articles in the SE dealing with back-channel challenges to the WSU figures. I still have to search "The Signpost." Will let you know what I find, if anything.
As for the tenure matter: I found a mass-mailed email from Mr. Geiger, which includes email from the professor involved, archived on Weber County Forum. WCF posted the Geiger email including the professor's verbatim. I don't know how do a link on this SE site, but the documents were put up on WCF [a public site] when they were received, and have been available there since. You can read the emails involved there and draw your own conclusions. When Mr. Geiger's email went out mass-mailed, mostly to Lift Ogden members, and was posted on WCF, it engendered a great deal of discussion, on and off campus. But not, you are right, in the Standard Examiner.
Just as an added fillip: the Geiger email leads by attacking the Standard Examiner for refusing to report the story.
Still looking for more, and will let you know what I turn up. Would search the SLTrib [which used to do gondola/gondola coverage], but it wants cash for its archives, so I'm afraid I'll have to pass on that one.
By: Anonymity to Anonymity @ 08/02/2008, 11:45 PM
Curmudgeon of the Weber County Forum...OOPS...Flatlander...Please consider that blogging here is not as easy as it is in Mr. Feeney's Weber County Forum. (To understand better Flatlander/Curmudgeon and the point of view from which he hales, consider googling "Weber County Forum,
Delightful Gondolist Rant on Today's Std-Ex Editorial Page", then read Curmudgeon/Flatlander's comments and the comments of his fellow bloggers. You will get a quick understanding of "elective affinity" and how it can distort the judgement and objectivity.
Curmudgeon/Flatlander, and his fellow bloggers show their true colors. You will find quickly that the claims of Flatlander/Curmudgeon should not be regarded as the comments of an objective, level headed citizen.
Certainly, after viewing Curmudgeon/Flatlander's comments, and the comments of his friends on the Weber County Forum, you would not site the Flatlander's comments here as legitimate arguement for the quick and unquestioned dismissal of Mr. Geiger's claims.
In fact, you will likely become more convinced that Mr. Geiger's claims may be 100% true and factual.
(Read Flatlander's comments and then read Curmudgeon's comments -- They are the same person.)
Curmudgeon of the Weber County Forum...OOPS...Flatlander...Please consider that blogging here is not as easy as it is in Mr. Feeney's Weber County Forum. (To understand better Flatlander/Curmudgeon and the point of view from which he hales, consider googling "Weber County Forum,
Delightful Gondolist Rant on Today's Std-Ex Editorial Page", then read Curmudgeon/Flatlander's comments and the comments of his fellow bloggers. You will get a quick understanding of "elective affinity" and how it can distort the judgement and objectivity.
Curmudgeon/Flatlander, and his fellow bloggers show their true colors. You will find quickly that the claims of Flatlander/Curmudgeon should not be regarded as the comments of an objective, level headed citizen.
Certainly, after viewing Curmudgeon/Flatlander's comments, and the comments of his friends on the Weber County Forum, you would not site the Flatlander's comments here as legitimate arguement for the quick and unquestioned dismissal of Mr. Geiger's claims.
In fact, you will likely become more convinced that Mr. Geiger's claims may be 100% true and factual.
(Read Flatlander's comments and then read Curmudgeon's comments -- They are the same person.)
By: Greg @ 08/02/2008, 11:21 PM
Flatlander,
Can you provide a link to a Standard Examiner news article that discusses the issues raised by Mr. Geiger regarding land value inflation, land use inflation and threats to deny tenure? I did a google search and have found not discussion of such issues in any print media. Maybe you could inform me?
I don't think these issues have been studied.
Flatlander,
Can you provide a link to a Standard Examiner news article that discusses the issues raised by Mr. Geiger regarding land value inflation, land use inflation and threats to deny tenure? I did a google search and have found not discussion of such issues in any print media. Maybe you could inform me?
I don't think these issues have been studied.
By: Matt @ 08/02/2008, 6:23 PM
Flatlander,
Simply because, one year ago, no one was willing to delve into the matters discussed by Mr. Geiger, does not mean that those matters should not have been discussed more thoroughly. There was a lot of heavy politics and conflict within the community at the time, and some may have felt at the time that an investigation of WSU or Ann Millner was too much for the community to handle. Or, they could have concluded that it was not worth pushing Mr. Geiger's claims too hard because they may have believed that it was best to keep a door open so that President Millner had a place to go. Further, there may be more evidence of Mr. Geiger's claims today than there was one year ago. My question still remains...has anyone gone to Mr. Geiger to see the documents that he says validate his claims.
As to the issue of land valuations. That one is simple, would the land appraise at $40 million as noted by President Millner, or would it appraise at $10 million as noted by the University of Utah? Certainly there is an objective way of confirming the value of the land. Also, as to the issue of "land use" figures. Consider for a moment that many in the community have claimed that the land in that area is "unbuildable". If that is the case, then of what value is the land to WSU for expansion? Why would WSU not then sell that "unbuildable" land? At this point, the issue isn't a matter of Chris Petersen, but rather the manner in which WSU considers new ideas, investments and proposals that impact the whole community. Was their analysis objective? Were they trying to inflate figures drastically above their true value. Were they in one breath claiming that the land is unbuildanble, and then in the next breath saying they need all the land for building? None of this makes sense. And, we're not talking about private property here. We're talking about public land held by a publicly funded institution. Land valuation and land use isn't a private, subjective matter. It is a public, objective matter.
It is true that President Millner's job is to evaluate proposals as to their contribution or damage to the best interest of WSU. The question Mr. Geiger poses is the validity, objectivity and sincerity of President Millner's evaluation. There are some serious issues there.
You are very correct about this issue of "elective affinity", and it is nice to hear you note that you acknowledge that the principle applies to your own self. But, the issue also applies to President Ann Millner as well. And Mr. Geiger's claims seem to indicate that here "elective affinity" may have affect the methodology and activities of the University in ways that warrant further investigation and consideration. Was President Millner's "elective affinity" disclosed by Professor Sessions well in advance of any understanding of Mr. Petersen's proposal? Mr. Geiger's article indicates that this may be so, and that President Millner's "elective affinity" drove them to discard 3rd party analysis, objectivity and fairness when dealing with professors, and oppenness when dealing with the community of Ogden as a whole.
See, the issue here Flatlander, is that you don't like Mr. Geiger's article. You would prefer it be dismissed without further discussion and investigation under the justification that Mr. Geiger's claims have been discussed within some circles in a cursory manner and because you see Mr. Geiger's claims as being the juice of sour grapes.
As to the issue of Mayor Godfrey's activities and decisions regarding the Golf Course. Consider for a moment that fact that WSU's decisions affected the conclusion of Mayor Godfrey regarding the golf course sale. You can't say that Mayor Godfrey's decision was not influened by the analysis, or lack of objective analysis, by WSU.
I've never seen a full fledged vetting of Mr. Geiger's claims. There has never been an inestigative new article by the print media, there has never been a formal inquiry, and many in the community have just become aware of these issues.
I still say these issue should be investigated. There is evidence that the President of our University may not be able to overcome her "elective affinity" and dispassionately evaluate matters. The key word in the previous sentence is evidence.
Mr. Geiger's claims need to be vetted in a public manner.
Flatlander,
Simply because, one year ago, no one was willing to delve into the matters discussed by Mr. Geiger, does not mean that those matters should not have been discussed more thoroughly. There was a lot of heavy politics and conflict within the community at the time, and some may have felt at the time that an investigation of WSU or Ann Millner was too much for the community to handle. Or, they could have concluded that it was not worth pushing Mr. Geiger's claims too hard because they may have believed that it was best to keep a door open so that President Millner had a place to go. Further, there may be more evidence of Mr. Geiger's claims today than there was one year ago. My question still remains...has anyone gone to Mr. Geiger to see the documents that he says validate his claims.
As to the issue of land valuations. That one is simple, would the land appraise at $40 million as noted by President Millner, or would it appraise at $10 million as noted by the University of Utah? Certainly there is an objective way of confirming the value of the land. Also, as to the issue of "land use" figures. Consider for a moment that many in the community have claimed that the land in that area is "unbuildable". If that is the case, then of what value is the land to WSU for expansion? Why would WSU not then sell that "unbuildable" land? At this point, the issue isn't a matter of Chris Petersen, but rather the manner in which WSU considers new ideas, investments and proposals that impact the whole community. Was their analysis objective? Were they trying to inflate figures drastically above their true value. Were they in one breath claiming that the land is unbuildanble, and then in the next breath saying they need all the land for building? None of this makes sense. And, we're not talking about private property here. We're talking about public land held by a publicly funded institution. Land valuation and land use isn't a private, subjective matter. It is a public, objective matter.
It is true that President Millner's job is to evaluate proposals as to their contribution or damage to the best interest of WSU. The question Mr. Geiger poses is the validity, objectivity and sincerity of President Millner's evaluation. There are some serious issues there.
You are very correct about this issue of "elective affinity", and it is nice to hear you note that you acknowledge that the principle applies to your own self. But, the issue also applies to President Ann Millner as well. And Mr. Geiger's claims seem to indicate that here "elective affinity" may have affect the methodology and activities of the University in ways that warrant further investigation and consideration. Was President Millner's "elective affinity" disclosed by Professor Sessions well in advance of any understanding of Mr. Petersen's proposal? Mr. Geiger's article indicates that this may be so, and that President Millner's "elective affinity" drove them to discard 3rd party analysis, objectivity and fairness when dealing with professors, and oppenness when dealing with the community of Ogden as a whole.
See, the issue here Flatlander, is that you don't like Mr. Geiger's article. You would prefer it be dismissed without further discussion and investigation under the justification that Mr. Geiger's claims have been discussed within some circles in a cursory manner and because you see Mr. Geiger's claims as being the juice of sour grapes.
As to the issue of Mayor Godfrey's activities and decisions regarding the Golf Course. Consider for a moment that fact that WSU's decisions affected the conclusion of Mayor Godfrey regarding the golf course sale. You can't say that Mayor Godfrey's decision was not influened by the analysis, or lack of objective analysis, by WSU.
I've never seen a full fledged vetting of Mr. Geiger's claims. There has never been an inestigative new article by the print media, there has never been a formal inquiry, and many in the community have just become aware of these issues.
I still say these issue should be investigated. There is evidence that the President of our University may not be able to overcome her "elective affinity" and dispassionately evaluate matters. The key word in the previous sentence is evidence.
Mr. Geiger's claims need to be vetted in a public manner.
By: Flatlander100 @ 08/02/2008, 9:00 AM
Matt:
You wrote, quoting me: "whether the quotes are accurate [i.e. whether Mr. Geiger reproduced them faithfully] does not necessarily bear on the matter of whether the statements quoted are true."
And you commented: "This is true. But, whether the quotes are accurate [i.e. whether Mr. Geiger reproduced them faithfully] does not necessarily bear on the matter of whether the statements quoted are false."
No argument. My point was, and on this we agree, that it would not be wise to jump to conclusions on the basis of the claims [unverified] in Mr. Geiger's op ed piece. And secondly, to note that much of what he put in his op ed piece was part of the argument he and others raised in favor of the Peterson Project proposals over a year ago, which matters were discussed on the campus, off the campus, on public policy websites, and in the print media [Standard Examiner and campus paper] more than a year ago. I don't see a whole lot of point to going through them all over again, now that the gondola/gondola proposals have been laid to rest by the Mayor's pulling the sale of the golf course off the table during the late stages of his election campaign, and by the University's decision that it would not be in its best interests to sell its land to Mr. Peterson. Seemed to me, still does, that Mr. Geiger's hauling out the charges he made a year ago when the gondola/gondola proposals were still in play was mostly sour grapes.
As for the valuing the land matter: people in appraisals tell me it's as much an art as it is a science, and the the assumptions you make going in and the definitions you use can significantly affect the conclusions you reach coming out. If you read the Standard Examiner regularly, you'll recall many stories involving disputed appraisals and valuations of land by government and by private owners, at the state, county and municipal level. The SL Trib regularly carries such stories too. Disagreement about such valuations is not necessarily evidence of skullduggery. It's evidence of a disagreement.
Finally, President Millner's responsibility, seems to me, and that of the evaluating committee, was to decide whether the proposed sale was, all things considered, in the best interests of the University. They concluded it was not. There are faculty members who agreed with that conclusion... I am one of them... and there are faculty members who disagreed. No one seemed at the time, so far as I can recall, the least bit reticent about speaking out on the matter when asked. On both sides. On campus and off.
Finally, as to Mr. Geiger's complaint that the University reached it conclusions by illegitimate means: the Historian Gordon Wood once noted that there seemed to be an "elective affinity" between peoples ideas and interests, that we tend to find most compelling those ideas which serve our interests best. I think that's true. Certainly is for me. And, clearly, for Mr. Geiger.
He and those who think as he did about the gondola/gondola Peterson plan believe they reached their conclusions by fairly and dispassionately evaluating the facts. They tend to believe, therefor, that any one who reached different conclusions necessarily must have done so by some illegitimate means, because, if they'd looked at the matter fairly and properly, they would have reached the same conclusions they did. [This is a very common tendency which I'm prone to sometimes myself. I think probably now and then all of us are.]
What seems to me is going on here is this: Mr. Geiger fought hard for the gondola/gondola Peterson Proposal. He and he allies lost that fight when the Mayor pulled the Mt. Ogden Park sale off the table during the election because, the Mayor told the Standard Examiner at the time, the project had never been feasible because the land was too steep to develop as Mr. Peterson had wanted to develop it anyway. [I notice Mr. Geiger did not attack the Mayor for pulling selling Mt. Ogden Park to Peterson off the table, thus making the Peterson project impossible. Curious.] And too when the University decided it was not in its best interest, all things considered, to sell its east bench lands to Mr. Peterson for private development. Disappointed that he'd lost what he'd fought so hard for, he lashed out in the op ed piece, claiming he'd not been fairly beaten, that those who'd reached different conclusions than he had had done so unfairly and illegitimately.
Understandable, but, in my view, not particularly admirable.
Matt:
You wrote, quoting me: "whether the quotes are accurate [i.e. whether Mr. Geiger reproduced them faithfully] does not necessarily bear on the matter of whether the statements quoted are true."
And you commented: "This is true. But, whether the quotes are accurate [i.e. whether Mr. Geiger reproduced them faithfully] does not necessarily bear on the matter of whether the statements quoted are false."
No argument. My point was, and on this we agree, that it would not be wise to jump to conclusions on the basis of the claims [unverified] in Mr. Geiger's op ed piece. And secondly, to note that much of what he put in his op ed piece was part of the argument he and others raised in favor of the Peterson Project proposals over a year ago, which matters were discussed on the campus, off the campus, on public policy websites, and in the print media [Standard Examiner and campus paper] more than a year ago. I don't see a whole lot of point to going through them all over again, now that the gondola/gondola proposals have been laid to rest by the Mayor's pulling the sale of the golf course off the table during the late stages of his election campaign, and by the University's decision that it would not be in its best interests to sell its land to Mr. Peterson. Seemed to me, still does, that Mr. Geiger's hauling out the charges he made a year ago when the gondola/gondola proposals were still in play was mostly sour grapes.
As for the valuing the land matter: people in appraisals tell me it's as much an art as it is a science, and the the assumptions you make going in and the definitions you use can significantly affect the conclusions you reach coming out. If you read the Standard Examiner regularly, you'll recall many stories involving disputed appraisals and valuations of land by government and by private owners, at the state, county and municipal level. The SL Trib regularly carries such stories too. Disagreement about such valuations is not necessarily evidence of skullduggery. It's evidence of a disagreement.
Finally, President Millner's responsibility, seems to me, and that of the evaluating committee, was to decide whether the proposed sale was, all things considered, in the best interests of the University. They concluded it was not. There are faculty members who agreed with that conclusion... I am one of them... and there are faculty members who disagreed. No one seemed at the time, so far as I can recall, the least bit reticent about speaking out on the matter when asked. On both sides. On campus and off.
Finally, as to Mr. Geiger's complaint that the University reached it conclusions by illegitimate means: the Historian Gordon Wood once noted that there seemed to be an "elective affinity" between peoples ideas and interests, that we tend to find most compelling those ideas which serve our interests best. I think that's true. Certainly is for me. And, clearly, for Mr. Geiger.
He and those who think as he did about the gondola/gondola Peterson plan believe they reached their conclusions by fairly and dispassionately evaluating the facts. They tend to believe, therefor, that any one who reached different conclusions necessarily must have done so by some illegitimate means, because, if they'd looked at the matter fairly and properly, they would have reached the same conclusions they did. [This is a very common tendency which I'm prone to sometimes myself. I think probably now and then all of us are.]
What seems to me is going on here is this: Mr. Geiger fought hard for the gondola/gondola Peterson Proposal. He and he allies lost that fight when the Mayor pulled the Mt. Ogden Park sale off the table during the election because, the Mayor told the Standard Examiner at the time, the project had never been feasible because the land was too steep to develop as Mr. Peterson had wanted to develop it anyway. [I notice Mr. Geiger did not attack the Mayor for pulling selling Mt. Ogden Park to Peterson off the table, thus making the Peterson project impossible. Curious.] And too when the University decided it was not in its best interest, all things considered, to sell its east bench lands to Mr. Peterson for private development. Disappointed that he'd lost what he'd fought so hard for, he lashed out in the op ed piece, claiming he'd not been fairly beaten, that those who'd reached different conclusions than he had had done so unfairly and illegitimately.
Understandable, but, in my view, not particularly admirable.
By: Matt @ 08/02/2008, 12:28 AM
"whether the quotes are accurate [i.e. whether Mr. Geiger reproduced them faithfully] does not necessarily bear on the matter of whether the statements quoted are true."
This is true. But, whether the quotes are accurate [i.e. whether Mr. Geiger reproduced them faithfully] does not necessarily bear on the matter of whether the statements quoted are false.
Given the gravity of the claims, it seems reasonable that the truth of the quotes should be investigated.
For instance, is there back up information at WSU or in Mr. Geiger's posession taht speak to the truth of the matter. Certainly a simple claim by a professor, passed on as truth, should not be considered fact. And doing so, without corrobarating information would be irresponsibl on Mr. Geiger's part. If I read the article correctly, Mr. Geiger noted that he had e-mails that varified Mr. Caldwell's claims. Does Mr. Geiger actually have those e-mails? If so, when did he get the information? This should be investigated.
Also, the information about the inflated figures regarding land valuations and land use projections doesn't seem to be a faithful transmission of a misunderstood situation Mr. Geiger on Mr. Geiger's part. Clearly Jim Wood, of the U of U, disagreed with WSU's figures and sited specified land values and land use requirements that Mr. Wood stated as fact. Mr. Wood got his specified figures from somewhere. Mr. Wood's Bureau was commissioned to analyze WSU's land use, and clearly the WSU adminisration didn't like his analysis. Because they didn't like his analysis doesn't mean that his analysis was wrong.
Mr. Geiger's discussion of the statements of Gene Sessions was very interesting as well. As noted below, Mr. Sessions was speaking on behalf of Ann Millner and WSU. He was not expressing his own oppinions. He was clearly stating the position of WSU. Either he was correct, and President Millner had dismissed Petersen's collasal project without taking the time to give the project any consideration, or President Millner's professors feel comfortable speaking inaccurately on her behalf. It could be even more dubious than that. Maybe President Millner sends her professors to make comments on her behalf in an effort do affect the vote of public officials so that she can later move left or right depending on how the statements of her professors were received.
These matters are serious matters. They speak to the competency, objectivity and leadership of President Millner. These matters should be vetted.
Mr. Geiger should be accountable for his statements. Mr. Geiger should be required to show proof. President Millner should be considered innocent should there be no proof. President Millner should be held to task should there be proof.
"whether the quotes are accurate [i.e. whether Mr. Geiger reproduced them faithfully] does not necessarily bear on the matter of whether the statements quoted are true."
This is true. But, whether the quotes are accurate [i.e. whether Mr. Geiger reproduced them faithfully] does not necessarily bear on the matter of whether the statements quoted are false.
Given the gravity of the claims, it seems reasonable that the truth of the quotes should be investigated.
For instance, is there back up information at WSU or in Mr. Geiger's posession taht speak to the truth of the matter. Certainly a simple claim by a professor, passed on as truth, should not be considered fact. And doing so, without corrobarating information would be irresponsibl on Mr. Geiger's part. If I read the article correctly, Mr. Geiger noted that he had e-mails that varified Mr. Caldwell's claims. Does Mr. Geiger actually have those e-mails? If so, when did he get the information? This should be investigated.
Also, the information about the inflated figures regarding land valuations and land use projections doesn't seem to be a faithful transmission of a misunderstood situation Mr. Geiger on Mr. Geiger's part. Clearly Jim Wood, of the U of U, disagreed with WSU's figures and sited specified land values and land use requirements that Mr. Wood stated as fact. Mr. Wood got his specified figures from somewhere. Mr. Wood's Bureau was commissioned to analyze WSU's land use, and clearly the WSU adminisration didn't like his analysis. Because they didn't like his analysis doesn't mean that his analysis was wrong.
Mr. Geiger's discussion of the statements of Gene Sessions was very interesting as well. As noted below, Mr. Sessions was speaking on behalf of Ann Millner and WSU. He was not expressing his own oppinions. He was clearly stating the position of WSU. Either he was correct, and President Millner had dismissed Petersen's collasal project without taking the time to give the project any consideration, or President Millner's professors feel comfortable speaking inaccurately on her behalf. It could be even more dubious than that. Maybe President Millner sends her professors to make comments on her behalf in an effort do affect the vote of public officials so that she can later move left or right depending on how the statements of her professors were received.
These matters are serious matters. They speak to the competency, objectivity and leadership of President Millner. These matters should be vetted.
Mr. Geiger should be accountable for his statements. Mr. Geiger should be required to show proof. President Millner should be considered innocent should there be no proof. President Millner should be held to task should there be proof.
By: Flatlander: @ 08/01/2008, 11:48 PM
Gregg:
Most of what Mr. Geiger included in his recent op-ed piece first appeared long ago when the gondola/gondola plan still seemed achievable and its advocates, including Mr. Geiger, were fighting for it. The SE covered much of it and a search of the SE archives should easily turn up the articles involved. He made some of his allegations by circulating [mass mailings] emails, which are available I think on the WC Forum archives so you can read them directly.
One point: whether the quotes are accurate [i.e. whether Mr. Geiger reproduced them faithfully] does not necessarily bear on the matter of whether the statements quoted are true. I would be particularly careful of accepting, at face value, claims from interested parties regarding tenure matters. Mr. Geiger's allegations in that regard were raised, by him, before and there was much discussion of them at the time.
I know nothing about the particulars of the individual making the claims passed on by Mr. Geiger. But in general, in 40 years in various universities in three states, including for my sins a term as chair of a faculty grievance committee at an ESU [Enormous State University], I can tell you that it is not infrequently the case that people worried about tenure, or about to be denied it, attribute the denial to all kinds of things... racism, sexism, personal dislikes, political bias, =and so on... as a means of preventing [or reversing] the decision. Please note: I am NOT suggesting that's what happened in this instance. Only pointing out that experience has taught me to be skeptical of claims in these matters by people with a dog in the fight until I know a great deal about the facts of the case --- as I most certainly do not in this instance.
But, again, these are not new allegations from Mr. Geiger, they've been made before, and looked into before. And reported on in the campus paper and by the SE almost a year ago, now, I think.
There are two criticisms of Mr. Geiger's op ed piece that I do share. First, it seems to be an exercise in sour grapes, since the Mayor has pulled sale of the golf course off the table, and Mr. Peterson has said no golf course, no Peterson proposal [and so not Malan's resort and up mountain gondola]. And the University has decided, after a review that did not involve only President Millner, not to sell Mr. Peterson the land he wanted, without which he has said, several times on the record, no University land sale, no Peterson proposal, and so no Malan's development an no gondolas. The issues seems to have been decided some time ago. Given that, Mr. Geiger's piece seems like only a lashing out, a kind of "get even" whine with little point to it.
And I'm sorry that Mr. Geigher saw fit to engage in a personal attack primarily on one person. Sadly, there are many... and you've found some of them I have no doubt on WC Forum... who turn policy disagreements into personal matters. [If you read Mr. Geigher's mass emails you will discover, I think, that he is one of them. His recent op-ed piece provides more evidence of that. And he is not alone.]
Had Mr. Geiger made his op ed piece a discussion of the policy matters he thinks were wrongly decided, rather than a personal attack on a University administrator and panel that had the temerity to think differently than he did about what was in the University's best interests, I'd have a lot fewer problems with his recent piece.
Gregg:
Most of what Mr. Geiger included in his recent op-ed piece first appeared long ago when the gondola/gondola plan still seemed achievable and its advocates, including Mr. Geiger, were fighting for it. The SE covered much of it and a search of the SE archives should easily turn up the articles involved. He made some of his allegations by circulating [mass mailings] emails, which are available I think on the WC Forum archives so you can read them directly.
One point: whether the quotes are accurate [i.e. whether Mr. Geiger reproduced them faithfully] does not necessarily bear on the matter of whether the statements quoted are true. I would be particularly careful of accepting, at face value, claims from interested parties regarding tenure matters. Mr. Geiger's allegations in that regard were raised, by him, before and there was much discussion of them at the time.
I know nothing about the particulars of the individual making the claims passed on by Mr. Geiger. But in general, in 40 years in various universities in three states, including for my sins a term as chair of a faculty grievance committee at an ESU [Enormous State University], I can tell you that it is not infrequently the case that people worried about tenure, or about to be denied it, attribute the denial to all kinds of things... racism, sexism, personal dislikes, political bias, =and so on... as a means of preventing [or reversing] the decision. Please note: I am NOT suggesting that's what happened in this instance. Only pointing out that experience has taught me to be skeptical of claims in these matters by people with a dog in the fight until I know a great deal about the facts of the case --- as I most certainly do not in this instance.
But, again, these are not new allegations from Mr. Geiger, they've been made before, and looked into before. And reported on in the campus paper and by the SE almost a year ago, now, I think.
There are two criticisms of Mr. Geiger's op ed piece that I do share. First, it seems to be an exercise in sour grapes, since the Mayor has pulled sale of the golf course off the table, and Mr. Peterson has said no golf course, no Peterson proposal [and so not Malan's resort and up mountain gondola]. And the University has decided, after a review that did not involve only President Millner, not to sell Mr. Peterson the land he wanted, without which he has said, several times on the record, no University land sale, no Peterson proposal, and so no Malan's development an no gondolas. The issues seems to have been decided some time ago. Given that, Mr. Geiger's piece seems like only a lashing out, a kind of "get even" whine with little point to it.
And I'm sorry that Mr. Geigher saw fit to engage in a personal attack primarily on one person. Sadly, there are many... and you've found some of them I have no doubt on WC Forum... who turn policy disagreements into personal matters. [If you read Mr. Geigher's mass emails you will discover, I think, that he is one of them. His recent op-ed piece provides more evidence of that. And he is not alone.]
Had Mr. Geiger made his op ed piece a discussion of the policy matters he thinks were wrongly decided, rather than a personal attack on a University administrator and panel that had the temerity to think differently than he did about what was in the University's best interests, I'd have a lot fewer problems with his recent piece.
By: Greg @ 08/01/2008, 6:05 PM
I've witness the vitriolic attacks of our Mayor and Mr. Geiger. I've never witness any hot headed responses from Geiger, although I wouldn't blame him if he did get mad. I've been on the Weber County Forum and read what people say. If comments like those were ever made of me in earshot of me or my family, I'd expect a loud response. Vulgarity, personal attacks, inflamatory language of all varieties.
One simple request
Investigate Mr. Geiger's claims. Let the facts of the matter come out, and then we'll know. Its that simple.
You've got to hand it to Mr. Geiger. He's willing to stand up there and invite the critique.
I say, challenge his viewpoints and demand the proof.
I've witness the vitriolic attacks of our Mayor and Mr. Geiger. I've never witness any hot headed responses from Geiger, although I wouldn't blame him if he did get mad. I've been on the Weber County Forum and read what people say. If comments like those were ever made of me in earshot of me or my family, I'd expect a loud response. Vulgarity, personal attacks, inflamatory language of all varieties.
One simple request
Investigate Mr. Geiger's claims. Let the facts of the matter come out, and then we'll know. Its that simple.
You've got to hand it to Mr. Geiger. He's willing to stand up there and invite the critique.
I say, challenge his viewpoints and demand the proof.
By: Matt @ 08/01/2008, 5:58 PM
Do Dah-
What are you talking about? Mr. Geiger was on Channel 17 4 years ago saying that businesses would flood to Ogden due to the Gondola project. The fact is, businesses have flooded to Ogden, and the leaders of those businesses have all said over and over again in public forums that the Gondola attracted them. The fact that the Gondola isn't built isn't an indication that they would have come otherwise.
Besides, I think it is a mistake to dismiss Mr. Geiger's claims because of the comments of an anonymous blogger.
Mr. Geiger's statements were backed by quotes. What I want to see is if Mr. Geiger made up those quotes or if he has source documents that prove the validity of those quotes.
That would give me a real insight into the crediblity of Zippity Do Dah's commments.
Do Dah-
What are you talking about? Mr. Geiger was on Channel 17 4 years ago saying that businesses would flood to Ogden due to the Gondola project. The fact is, businesses have flooded to Ogden, and the leaders of those businesses have all said over and over again in public forums that the Gondola attracted them. The fact that the Gondola isn't built isn't an indication that they would have come otherwise.
Besides, I think it is a mistake to dismiss Mr. Geiger's claims because of the comments of an anonymous blogger.
Mr. Geiger's statements were backed by quotes. What I want to see is if Mr. Geiger made up those quotes or if he has source documents that prove the validity of those quotes.
That would give me a real insight into the crediblity of Zippity Do Dah's commments.
By: zippity do dah @ 08/01/2008, 3:18 PM
Mr. Geiger is a well known loose cannon who's antics in the past include stealing yard signs and head butting opponents and those who do not agree with him. He is a hot headed delinquent who has absolutely no credibility any where outside the very small circle of Lift Ogden boosters.
If President Millner spent time investigating every goofy idea proposed by every nut job in town she would not have time to run the College.
As to this $500,000,000 idea - well it, like most everything else put forth by the Gondolist crowd, is pure fiction. Peterson doesn't have the money and he obviously can't raise it for this loser deal. That is why he and his buddies Godfrey and the Geiger crowd tried so hard to scam the citizens of Ogden out of the Mount Ogden Golf course. It was an integral part of their proposed pyramid scheme.
Mr. Geiger is a well known loose cannon who's antics in the past include stealing yard signs and head butting opponents and those who do not agree with him. He is a hot headed delinquent who has absolutely no credibility any where outside the very small circle of Lift Ogden boosters.
If President Millner spent time investigating every goofy idea proposed by every nut job in town she would not have time to run the College.
As to this $500,000,000 idea - well it, like most everything else put forth by the Gondolist crowd, is pure fiction. Peterson doesn't have the money and he obviously can't raise it for this loser deal. That is why he and his buddies Godfrey and the Geiger crowd tried so hard to scam the citizens of Ogden out of the Mount Ogden Golf course. It was an integral part of their proposed pyramid scheme.
By: Matt @ 08/01/2008, 10:23 AM
Truth Seeker is right. Gondola or no gondola, the claims noted in Mr. Geiger's article must be vetted.
Truth Seeker is right. Gondola or no gondola, the claims noted in Mr. Geiger's article must be vetted.
By: Truth Seeker @ 08/01/2008, 12:04 AM
Flatlander makes a very good point. The Standard examiner should do an investigative news story about this. Mr. Geiger should have to disclose any proof regarding those serious claims. If Mr. Geiger has no proof, then he should appologize and should never get another word in the Standard Examiner. If he has proof, then WSU has a lot to answer for. Threatening professors, inflating figures, dismissing hundreds of millions of dollars of investment before getting any of the facts, sending professors to disrupt the vote of elected officials -- These are serious allegations Mr. Geiger! Heaven help you if you don't have significant evidence. If you do have evidence, then Heaven Help President Millner. I don't think Mr. Geiger's statements should be accepted without proof. But I also don't think that such serious issues should be dismissed as lies either. There are a lot of "Greg's" out there in the community, and there are a lot of "Flatlanders" out there in the community as well. The truth is out there as well. Either Greg is right or Flatlander is right, or they're both wrong. An investigation should be undertaken to find out.
Flatlander makes a very good point. The Standard examiner should do an investigative news story about this. Mr. Geiger should have to disclose any proof regarding those serious claims. If Mr. Geiger has no proof, then he should appologize and should never get another word in the Standard Examiner. If he has proof, then WSU has a lot to answer for. Threatening professors, inflating figures, dismissing hundreds of millions of dollars of investment before getting any of the facts, sending professors to disrupt the vote of elected officials -- These are serious allegations Mr. Geiger! Heaven help you if you don't have significant evidence. If you do have evidence, then Heaven Help President Millner. I don't think Mr. Geiger's statements should be accepted without proof. But I also don't think that such serious issues should be dismissed as lies either. There are a lot of "Greg's" out there in the community, and there are a lot of "Flatlanders" out there in the community as well. The truth is out there as well. Either Greg is right or Flatlander is right, or they're both wrong. An investigation should be undertaken to find out.
By: flatlander100 @ 07/31/2008, 7:09 PM
Just want to note that Greg, in numerous places, accepts the allegations of Mr. Geiger's rant as proven fact. Handy for his argument, of course, but hardly convincing.
Just want to note that Greg, in numerous places, accepts the allegations of Mr. Geiger's rant as proven fact. Handy for his argument, of course, but hardly convincing.
By: Greg III @ 07/31/2008, 6:25 PM
Think about how quickly Ann Millner dismissed Chris Petersen. Look at the dates in the article. Chris hadn't owned Malan's basin for any time at all before President Millner was turning him away. This is a potential $500,000,000 project for the city. It was worthy of international and national press attention. President Millner gave it no thought. She was not objective. She was willing to twist figures. Her faculty leaders were threatening the jobs of professors who wanted to give Chris Petersen's project any consideration. This isn't good.
Think about how quickly Ann Millner dismissed Chris Petersen. Look at the dates in the article. Chris hadn't owned Malan's basin for any time at all before President Millner was turning him away. This is a potential $500,000,000 project for the city. It was worthy of international and national press attention. President Millner gave it no thought. She was not objective. She was willing to twist figures. Her faculty leaders were threatening the jobs of professors who wanted to give Chris Petersen's project any consideration. This isn't good.
By: Greg II @ 07/31/2008, 6:19 PM
Mark,
Consider for a moment that WSU is doing exactly what you say should not be done. They are crushing dissent.
President Millner's top level administrators threatened tenure and inflate figures. They went to public meetings with government officials to disuade them from voting by professing to speak on behalf of Ann Millner. When the public became concerned about Ann Millner's views after hearing from her professors, she then said that she was open to Chris Petersen. This implied that her professors were out of control...speaking not on their own behalf but on behalf of the University without permission.
More so, Mr. Geiger's article shows some very interesting on-goings at WSU that indicate that Ann Millner dismissed one of the most significant proposals ever brought before the city of Ogden without giving it any due consideration. When her professors showed up only weeks after the announcement of Chris Petersen's purchase of Malan's Basin, and expressed Ann's total dismissal of the idea, they were showing how irresponsible WSU is when dealing with Ogden and opportunties that could be very beneficial to it and the University.
Further, Mr. Gegier's article shows that the University is willing to twist facts and strong arm professors who do not fall in line with Ann Millner, even when her conclusions are contrived without due study and consideration.
Further, Mr. Geiger's article shows that President Millner has not done a very good job of communicating with Ogden leaders and working hand in hand with them to benefit both the city and the university. Business leaders should not have to pay $2500 to meet with the University president.
We need higher expectations. And you are right Mark, we don't want Bejing.
Mark,
Consider for a moment that WSU is doing exactly what you say should not be done. They are crushing dissent.
President Millner's top level administrators threatened tenure and inflate figures. They went to public meetings with government officials to disuade them from voting by professing to speak on behalf of Ann Millner. When the public became concerned about Ann Millner's views after hearing from her professors, she then said that she was open to Chris Petersen. This implied that her professors were out of control...speaking not on their own behalf but on behalf of the University without permission.
More so, Mr. Geiger's article shows some very interesting on-goings at WSU that indicate that Ann Millner dismissed one of the most significant proposals ever brought before the city of Ogden without giving it any due consideration. When her professors showed up only weeks after the announcement of Chris Petersen's purchase of Malan's Basin, and expressed Ann's total dismissal of the idea, they were showing how irresponsible WSU is when dealing with Ogden and opportunties that could be very beneficial to it and the University.
Further, Mr. Gegier's article shows that the University is willing to twist facts and strong arm professors who do not fall in line with Ann Millner, even when her conclusions are contrived without due study and consideration.
Further, Mr. Geiger's article shows that President Millner has not done a very good job of communicating with Ogden leaders and working hand in hand with them to benefit both the city and the university. Business leaders should not have to pay $2500 to meet with the University president.
We need higher expectations. And you are right Mark, we don't want Bejing.
By: Greg @ 07/31/2008, 6:07 PM
Did you read Mr. Geiger's article? It is one thing for a professor to espouse his own belief, but quite another for him to profess to speak for the university, unless he was given that permission from the President of the school. If President Millner did give permission, then certainly she was taking imprudent action by not being objective and being pro-active in getting facts to help her form an intelligent decision. If she didn't give permission, then the professor was out of control - speaking on behalf of Ann Millner.
Also, it was the University that threatened the Tenure of the professor studing the Gondola. Mr. Geiger was against that. He thought that the professor should be free to investigate and test matters with studies and analysis.
Seems that you are only free to express your views at WSU if you agree with Ann Millner.
This was precisely Mr. Geiger's point.
Did you read Mr. Geiger's article? It is one thing for a professor to espouse his own belief, but quite another for him to profess to speak for the university, unless he was given that permission from the President of the school. If President Millner did give permission, then certainly she was taking imprudent action by not being objective and being pro-active in getting facts to help her form an intelligent decision. If she didn't give permission, then the professor was out of control - speaking on behalf of Ann Millner.
Also, it was the University that threatened the Tenure of the professor studing the Gondola. Mr. Geiger was against that. He thought that the professor should be free to investigate and test matters with studies and analysis.
Seems that you are only free to express your views at WSU if you agree with Ann Millner.
This was precisely Mr. Geiger's point.
By: mark @ 07/31/2008, 5:08 PM
Not related to the gondola, but it's disappointing to hear someone advocating that Millner should be "controlling her professors." Like anyone else, I'm occasionally irritated by the spouting of academic eggheads, but last time I checked, universities were supposed to be places where expression and debate were welcomed. If you want to be able to crush dissent, move to Beijing?
Not related to the gondola, but it's disappointing to hear someone advocating that Millner should be "controlling her professors." Like anyone else, I'm occasionally irritated by the spouting of academic eggheads, but last time I checked, universities were supposed to be places where expression and debate were welcomed. If you want to be able to crush dissent, move to Beijing?
By: flatlander100 @ 07/31/2008, 10:34 AM
DKM:
You wrote: "believe me; a Gondola to Snow Basin would greatly increase the economics, stature, and interest in Ogden as a tourist destination."
Just FYI, none of the gondolas proposed by Mr. Geiger and his supporters would connect Ogden to Snow Basin. The private gondola Mr. Peterson proposed [but apparently is no longer] would go only to the base area of an as-yet un-built mini ski resort in Malan's Basin. And the management of Snow Basin has gone on record, repeatedly, indicating it is not interested in an over-mountain gondola connecting Ogden with Snow Basin. The Snow Basin management's opposition to that has been reported, in the SE, several times.
So, however appealing an Ogden-to-Snow-Basin gondola might seem, no one is currently proposing to build one, nor is Snow Basin willing to permit one should someone propose it.
DKM:
You wrote: "believe me; a Gondola to Snow Basin would greatly increase the economics, stature, and interest in Ogden as a tourist destination."
Just FYI, none of the gondolas proposed by Mr. Geiger and his supporters would connect Ogden to Snow Basin. The private gondola Mr. Peterson proposed [but apparently is no longer] would go only to the base area of an as-yet un-built mini ski resort in Malan's Basin. And the management of Snow Basin has gone on record, repeatedly, indicating it is not interested in an over-mountain gondola connecting Ogden with Snow Basin. The Snow Basin management's opposition to that has been reported, in the SE, several times.
So, however appealing an Ogden-to-Snow-Basin gondola might seem, no one is currently proposing to build one, nor is Snow Basin willing to permit one should someone propose it.
By: dkm1469 @ 07/31/2008, 7:54 AM
Hey Tom,
Ever been out of Utah or the United States?? I've been all over and believe me; a Gondola to Snow Basin would greatly increase the economics, stature, and interest in Ogden as a tourist destination. I lived 2 miles from the Gondola that goes to the top of the Zugspitze (highest mtn. in Germany). It didn't 'spoil the view' and it was a money maker, winter and summer.
That is only one example, I’ve seen many more. They are very popular.
I agree gondolas for downtown transportation is a loopy idea, but one to the top of Mt. Ogden is practically mandatory.
Hey Tom,
Ever been out of Utah or the United States?? I've been all over and believe me; a Gondola to Snow Basin would greatly increase the economics, stature, and interest in Ogden as a tourist destination. I lived 2 miles from the Gondola that goes to the top of the Zugspitze (highest mtn. in Germany). It didn't 'spoil the view' and it was a money maker, winter and summer.
That is only one example, I’ve seen many more. They are very popular.
I agree gondolas for downtown transportation is a loopy idea, but one to the top of Mt. Ogden is practically mandatory.
By: flatlander100 @ 07/31/2008, 7:49 AM
Ah, me. They're at it again. Pretending that what was proposed for Ogden was a gondola, when in fact what Mr. Geiger and Mayor Godfrey were touting was two gondolas, one built by the city [about $45 million], and another to be built privately by Mr. Chris Peterson if he got his hands on Mt. Ogden Park and WSU's east bench lands. Somehow Mr. Geiger didn't mention that in his op-ed temper tantrum this morning.
What has Mr. Geiger upset is that President Millner and others at WSU concluded that it was not in WSU's best interests to sell the University's east bench lands to Mr. Peterson for private real estate development. Mr. Geiger certainly is under no obligation to agree with that decision, as clearly he does not. But neither are President Millner and the WSU's supervisors and others required to agree with Mr. Geiger's opinions on the matter, as clearly they do not.
Finally, Mr. Geiger might consider this: that it is not only possible, but probable, that what's good for WSU is good for Ogden, and that in acting in ways she believes are best for the future of WSU, President Millner is acting in ways that also, inevitably, benefit Ogden City. Mr. Geigher might consider, just for openers, that WSU has brought to Ogden, and will continue to, many many more good paying jobs than the firm he works for ever has or ever will. WSU is an engine of local development and prosperity. And it will, under continued sound management, continue to be for a very long time.
And Mr. Geiger, and the Mayor as well, might consider that those who disagree with them about how to improve Ogden City are not, because they disagree with them, opposed to everything, and that the only choices Ogden has are either the Godfrey/Geigher/Gondola/Gondola platform on the one hand, or nothing but darkness, despair and economic collapse on the other. That is, when you think about it, a pretty childish way for someone who aspires to be a civic leader to approach discussion with those who have other ideas than his own about the city's future.
Ah, me. They're at it again. Pretending that what was proposed for Ogden was a gondola, when in fact what Mr. Geiger and Mayor Godfrey were touting was two gondolas, one built by the city [about $45 million], and another to be built privately by Mr. Chris Peterson if he got his hands on Mt. Ogden Park and WSU's east bench lands. Somehow Mr. Geiger didn't mention that in his op-ed temper tantrum this morning.
What has Mr. Geiger upset is that President Millner and others at WSU concluded that it was not in WSU's best interests to sell the University's east bench lands to Mr. Peterson for private real estate development. Mr. Geiger certainly is under no obligation to agree with that decision, as clearly he does not. But neither are President Millner and the WSU's supervisors and others required to agree with Mr. Geiger's opinions on the matter, as clearly they do not.
Finally, Mr. Geiger might consider this: that it is not only possible, but probable, that what's good for WSU is good for Ogden, and that in acting in ways she believes are best for the future of WSU, President Millner is acting in ways that also, inevitably, benefit Ogden City. Mr. Geigher might consider, just for openers, that WSU has brought to Ogden, and will continue to, many many more good paying jobs than the firm he works for ever has or ever will. WSU is an engine of local development and prosperity. And it will, under continued sound management, continue to be for a very long time.
And Mr. Geiger, and the Mayor as well, might consider that those who disagree with them about how to improve Ogden City are not, because they disagree with them, opposed to everything, and that the only choices Ogden has are either the Godfrey/Geigher/Gondola/Gondola platform on the one hand, or nothing but darkness, despair and economic collapse on the other. That is, when you think about it, a pretty childish way for someone who aspires to be a civic leader to approach discussion with those who have other ideas than his own about the city's future.
By: tom @ 07/31/2008, 1:01 AM
I believe that Mr. Geiger, in his Quixote quest for this ridiculous Gondola scheme, has been very selective and manipulative in cherry picking quotes and events to fit his wild notion that somehow President Millner wants Ogden to be a boarded up slum town. I find it very sad that a person of his professed integrity would malign this fine public servant in this manner.
I for one am very thankful to President Millner, and all of the intelligent and clear thinking professors at Weber State, for seeing this whole Peterson/Godfrey/Geiger gondola scam for what it was.
In my opinion Mr. Geiger is sincere in his wild gondola dreams, however he has played very fast and lose with the truth in the past, and with his nasty and aggressive actions has alienated practically every one, outside the very small circle of gondola affectionatos, that he has ever tried to sell the idea to.
I believe that Mr. Geiger, in his Quixote quest for this ridiculous Gondola scheme, has been very selective and manipulative in cherry picking quotes and events to fit his wild notion that somehow President Millner wants Ogden to be a boarded up slum town. I find it very sad that a person of his professed integrity would malign this fine public servant in this manner.
I for one am very thankful to President Millner, and all of the intelligent and clear thinking professors at Weber State, for seeing this whole Peterson/Godfrey/Geiger gondola scam for what it was.
In my opinion Mr. Geiger is sincere in his wild gondola dreams, however he has played very fast and lose with the truth in the past, and with his nasty and aggressive actions has alienated practically every one, outside the very small circle of gondola affectionatos, that he has ever tried to sell the idea to.
READ A BOOK, I am not sure I agree that the President's behind-doors tactics were common knowledge. It is true there was no sign that she was for it. I think the real discussion here should be the University's relationship with the City. In ten years, there will be no building on the mountainsides; we know it. That is games on the university's part to block the gondola. But what about the college considering the Deseret Gym or other buildings IN TOWN for university expansion? If the University needs to grow as they are in Davis County, they should also consider building sites in the City. Ann Millner's treatment of the gondola will probably be seen again when eventually the University will have to use City land in town for growth. With Ann Millner, the whole feeling of "partnership" is dead. That is the near-future tragedy. The article written by Bob Geiger has brought to light many important matters which could happen again. Weber State and Ogden City are partners. Why is this not happenin? To me, this is the discussion. Will she get away with it again?