Some things to consider:
1. Ms. Lythgoe was ready to recuse herself, on her own, prior to the meeting of October 23. I personally reminded her that neither her critics nor she herself were the one(s) to make that decision, and that for her to have done so would no doubt have raised a chorus of “I TOLD you so!” from her detractors without there ever having been an impartial decision on the allegations.
2. Sadly, Weber County has no Ethics Commission which could have heard this and other problems like it; the only body close to qualified was the remainder of the Planning Commission itself. If she made full disclosure to it, which she did, the Commission, not she, would make the decision. To accuse the entire remainder of the Commission of being “drinking ducks,” blindly nodding their heads affirmatively, is an affront to all of them, and is an accusation that I, for one, am not willing to make.
3. The question before the Commission is not whether Powder Mountain will develop or not; the question is at what density it will develop. Powder Mountain will develop whether or not the pending rezone is granted. The ownership of contiguous property, condos, etc. is therefore a red herring, irrelevant to the question before the Commission, and incapable of causing a conflict or even the appearance of a conflict in someone who understands the issue. Indeed, a case could be made that doubling the density could have an adverse effect on the value of the contiguous properties—a theme, I believe, often correctly espoused by the VCRD itself!
4. The question of the Cobabe family’s retention of ownership in the project is somewhat thornier, but has yet to be resolved at this writing. What is important is that Ms. Lythgoe’s disclosure, for those who listened, was that a) she learned of its possibility only that day; b) that she was told by her grandfather that he wasn’t sure what it was, and that he had seen no evidence of it; c) that her aunt could not be reached for further information; and d) that it did not exceed ½ of 1% of whatever it was, in any event. Subsequent investigation has revealed that the interest is NOT in the property or in the development entity, and that in whatever entity it is, the entity does not even exist. There may well be more disclosure due when details become available, but at this time, the Cobabe family owns a ½ of 1% interest in nothing.
5. The fact the Ms. Lythgoe might be an heir some time in the future to the estates of those persons who sold Powder Mountain, or to the estates of the heirs of those persons, is too tenuous a hook on which to hang the accusation of conflict. She also might not be an heir. The estates may have been depleted by the time she stood to inherit, if she ever did. She might be disinherited. Wills and trusts can be changed at any time. And she likely does not even know whether she is included in anyone’s will or trust, or not. They are private, personal documents, and for anyone to insist that someone disclose the contents of someone else’s will or trust, even if they are proven to know them, is unwarranted.
6. The Conflict provision of the Planning Procedures state that the prohibited benefit, gain, or advantage must be distinct and material which, although imprecise, allows for rational judgment concerning it. So think about it: ½ of 1% of the purchase price of the entire Powder Mountain property--1/2 of 1% of anything—isn’t very much when you consider that those who hold it also hold 100% of the purchase price itself! In other words, if the property sold for, say, ten million dollars, the “interest” is worth fifty thousand. Would I turn away $50,000? No. Would it be material to me if I were sitting on ten MILLION dollars? I doubt it.
7. Like it or not, conflicts of interest—perceived, apparent, or direct—are waivable, unless the governing rules say that they aren’t, which these rules don’t. Having made full disclosure of all facts known to her at the time, to those who were in a position to make the decision, Jamie Lythgoe in this instance did everything she should have done, and left the decision to others. Whether the rest of the Commissioners found that there was no conflict, or found that there may have been but that it was immaterial, or found that there was a conflict but that they were willing to waive it for the sake of her experience and expertise on the issues, they approved of her continuing in the mix.
So cool it with the blood lust, folks, at least on this issue. Put away the pitchforks and the torches. When, as, and if Commissioner Lythgoe evidences disregard for her ethical obligations, I will lead the charge for her removal from office. Until that happens, however—if it ever does—it seems to me that she’s trying to do the right thing. There are easier targets in this arena, including a certain County Commissioner who shall remain nameless.
Frank Cumberland
Huntsville, Utah
Click here to return to the Ogden Valley Forum
