From:

To; Date:

Subject:

Attachments:

Paul f'1urphy John@s!vveekly,com 3/17/20093:31 PM Re: shurtleff

City Weekly·Saftas -Word.doc

John,

J have attached my response wilh the nope you can see my answers next to your questions, For some reason I am having a hard time opening the document 50 please let me know if you see a problem. I would be glad to follow up with you on any of this.

Thanks a~Jn for your lime.

Paul ii-

Paul

Nice ;peaking to yOu YEsterday, albeit not under best of circumstances. I've spoken to Eric and there's clearly some otsc.epancy as 10 how these events have pleyed out. For starters, Eric is not "after" the AG, nor is

Ihi5 paper. As well, neither Eric nor anyone else here can recail that we WEre B',ked to print a correction to that story, or to subsequent stories when those stories were first published. If something got lost here, or not passed along, let me know.

J don't know how to respond to the AG's reticence to talk to Eric based on how his quest.ons are said to be phrased as untrue assertions. If the AG thinks Eric is making accusations, all he needs do is set the record

straight with $traight answers, Avoiding him is not a solution. But. then 09ilin, Paul, when you were working in this neld, repcrter s-vyoorself ;n[:ud~d-'were not consider ed as tancentlal aides tQ rurther a politician or movement. It's softball these days asrar as politiCians are concerned. They wanl a compliant press, not an adversarial one,

I found the article you referenced that J wrote on October 9 about Shurtletf, You SU9g~sted I wrote that eructe in response to some memo or response from the AG to (ity Weekly, and that my column was a retort of sorts. f,5 J told you, I S8W no such document, and still haven't, The article is clear about why I wrote what J did. The AG went on record+not with us--accusing Jean Welch Hill ot planting rne story about his connections to the lawfirm of Siegfried & Jensen, and the $35,000 received from that firm. I said then and now Ihat Hill did not plant that story and that the AG was fishing. It worked for him to say 50, but his statement is still

untrue··HiII did not give us that story. H the AG pissed someone off enough for lil€rn to contact the media, that's his carelessness at work, not ours.

But, what really got me-vend what motivated the corurnn-was what Shurtleff soid on KUED when that story broke. Recall that 1 saw him just a few weeks prior and we joshed each other il bit. I've said before and oow+plus in the column itself·-that r~ark is a good guy. 50, when he said that the difference between us and a supermarket tabloid was that you have to pay for a t~bloid, all bets were off. J figured he could have told me that to my face at

Aristo's, and not use such a bullsrnt statement publicly to take the heat

off himself. So, I gave it to him back with this: What's the difference

between Mark Shurteff and and honest politician? You can buy Mark Shurtleff,

It's up to politicians to keep the public trust Not us to keep it for them.

My best (0 you, Good luck on the diet. Let's have thai beer. Please tell Hark tc talk to eric.

John

John,

Thanks for inking my call and please take a chance to let me respond to what you have written I have leH your remarks in bold, previous letter s are in italics and my remarks are in plain font.

Paul

Nice speaking 10 you yesterday, albeit no! under best of circumstances. I've spoken to Eric and there's clearly some discrepancy as to how these events have played out. For starters, Eric is not "after" the AG, nor is this paper. As well, neither Eric nor anyone else here can recall that we were asked to print a correction 10 that story, or to subsequent stories when those stories were first published. If something got lost here, or not passed along, let me know.

I don't know how to respond to the AG's reticence to talk to Eric based on how his questions are said to be phrased as untrue assertions. If the AG thinks Eric is making accusations, ali he needs do is set the record

straight with straight answers. Avoiding him is not a solution. But, then again, Paul, when you were working in this field, reporters--yourself included--were not considered as tangential aides to further a politician or movement. It's s oftball thes e days as far as politicians are concerned. They want a compliant press, not an adversarial one.

There is some confusion over different stories. Let me lay each one out:

(1) The first issue is over Eric's story about IWorks. I asked one of our attorneys to pass a correction along to Eric but the attorney never did because he figured it would just stir things up. This was our faul! but I did send the following information to Eric last week:

On June 19, 2008 the Salt Lake City Weekly published a story written by you, entitled "The $50,000 Question: Utah's aNorney general explains campaign donations received from company his office investigated for fraud." The story al/eges that "several attorneys at the attorney general's office" had been investigating fraud af/egations against a company called IWorks, of which Jeremy Johnson is president. It alleges that in July 2007 Johnson was served with citetlons from the Utah Division of Consumer Protection, charging a total of 55 counts of violations of consumer protection laws. The article alleges that the charges "were argued on behalf of the state by Jeffrey Buckner of the Utah Attorney General's Commercia! Enforcement Division." It alleges that "court documents" alleged lworks offered a service se/fing a kind of "how-to" program for people seeking government grants. It alleges thai "ttie atlorneygenerai's office made the case that salesmen misrepresented facts and made false guarantees to customers about their eligibility for government grants." It alleges that "[t}he case saw motions 17ying back and forth between tworks' attorneys and the ettotney general's office throughout the summer and up till December of 2007." It al/eges that the case was subsequently dismissed.

The etticte juxtaposes these allegations with a/fegations tbet three months later Attorney General Mark Shurtleff met with Jeremy Johnson and received $50,000 in campaign contributions from him, and includes allegatlolls by Jean Hill of impropriety on the part

of the Attorney General. The article does state that the At/orney General denies having had any knowledge of the ef/eged investigation and proceedings against !Works.

First, there has been no investigation of IWorl,s by the Attorney Genera/'s Ciiice. Rather, fWorks has been investigated during the past few years by the Division of c,onsumer Protection, a state agency that is completely independent from Ihe Attorney General's Office. Three assistant attorneys general have been involved in representing the Division in matters relating to that investigation, but their role ties always been as legal counsel, nol as participants in any investigation. The statement that "several attorneys at the Attorney General's Office" have "been investigating" IWorks for more than a year is false.

Second, the Division's proceedings against IWorks have been administrative, and have not reached the courts. IWorks did file a judicia! appeal of the denial of a GRAMA request for Division records, but the! was a separate matter and was later dismissed pursuant to stipulation. The three Assistant Attorneys General had involvement in that proceeding. Jeff Buckner has provided representation to the Division in the' administrative proceedings when called upon by the Division, but his involvement has always been as counsel for the Division, not in any kind of independent Attorney General's Office role.

Third, the Division's citations against IWorks ',','ere dismissed by the agency in December 2007, but that was done without the involvement of the Attorney General's Office.

1/ should be noted that none ofthe three assistant attorneys general have any recollection of communicetinq with Attorney General Shurtleff about IWorks. AI! three state thet there had has been no effort on the Attorney Generals's part to influence us in their work in the matter. Since your story ran the Attorney Genera! made one inquiry to find out if another company had a connection to lworks and he learned ttiet it did not.

2) Stephen Dark did a story about a woman who stalked Kirk Torgensen in our office for several years. This woman's actions caused a considerable amount of damage ·to Kirk in his profession and his family. I told Stephen that we could talk about the case until after it was adjudicated. He said he was going to still pursue the story and we did our best to provide information even though we were limited because of the pending

trial date. Everyone was shocked that the story was told from the sympathetic view of the stalker. But my biggest beef was that many of the facts presented in the story were wrong and Kirk Torgensen spent a considerable amount of time ialking to Stephen about the misrepresentations in the story. Stephen told me he would run a correction but when I asked him about it a month later he said no correction was ever printed. City Weekly also did not follow Lip and print the fact that even though prosecutors did not ask

for any jail time for the stalker the judge gave her a considerable sentence because he r.ecognized that (he crimes were serious. This woman still continues to make threats against Kirk Torgensen. This suggests to me that City Weekly is not interested in being accountable when mistakes are made.

3) This is the correction that was sent concerning the Seigfried and Jensen article:

Dear Editor:

I guess I should thank City \A,leekly for pointing out how the Utah Attorney General's Office saved taxpayers millions of dollars but that message was buried in the cover story "Drug Deal."

The Attorney General's Office conducted the same competitive process that it has always used when considering hiring outside counsel. I sought bids and resumes from a number of law firms to try and recoup Medicaid money. Garretson and Steele offered to handle the case to recoup mil/ions for the slate of Utah for a 15% contingency fee. Most firms ask for 25-33% of the recovery fee. Garretson and Sleele also offered 10 cover up to $1 million cost in expert witness fees and the costs related to building the damage mooel=- an amount tile firm would have to cover even it doesn 't recover any money. They simply offered the greatest return 10 Utah taxpayers at the lowest cost.

The author of the eriicle wants it bolh ways: either Mr. Sbunlett's daughter was hired by Seigfried and Jensen as a reward for the contract or the law firm got the contract because it employed the Attorney General's daughter. These innuendos are not true and not supported by facts since I did not Imow the Attorney General's daughter worked at the firm. II was a cheap and butttul accusation against a public servant's daughter who held an entry level job (or six months before leaving to give birth to her first child.

Siegfried and Jensen, like other law firms and corporations, have contributed to Mr. Shurlleff's campaign during his annual May Law Day event and the Fall Trap Shooiinq iundreiser. Political campaigns cost a considerabfe amount of money which can be a real challenge for everyone except those who are independently wealthy. Attorney General Shurlleff is grateful for the people who support him but he has also shown that he is willing to disagree, sue and even file criminal charges against those who have contributed to his cempeiqris.

So here are some facts we do know to be true. A campaign member of the Democratic candidate for Attorney Genera} acknowledged pfanting negative stories about Mr. Shurtleff with City Weekly. Also, City Weekly Editor Holly Mullen has given money to Democratic candidates. Most journalists would shudder at making a political donation for fear it woufd taint their {mage of neutrality Perhaps those facts are just a bad coincidence?

Ray Hintze

Chief Deputy Attorney General

Our office followed the same protocol that Jan Graham used for hiring outside counsel, Our attorneys chose Garretson and Steele, the most qualified firm at the lowest price, These attorneys had no idea Mark's daughter worked at Seigfried and Jensen nor did they know that firm had contributed to Mark's campaign in the past. I don't think there is a connection there nor do I think City Weekly did the story because Holly or her

husband made a donation to Jean Hill, They are simply two sets of facts that are not connected.

A month before Eric asked his first question we learned from a staff member on Jean Hill's campaign that they planned to leak information about Seigfried and Jensen to City Weekly, I have no idea which channels eventually brought that information to Eric and truthfully I don't care, As a reporter I received tips from political opponents all the time and I told Eric as much. However, you should be aware that Jean Hill and her staffers v!ere distributing City Weekly at the debates,

4) Eric continues to send questions that assert facts that he already knows are not true, I'm not a lawyer but this could be considered evidence of malice despite assertions to

the contrary.' '

This question from last week for example:

But since then I· Works owner Jeremy Johnson took you by private jet to New Orleans for the BCS bowl game, now since I informed you of the conflict YO(1( office had with the individual, you still chose to accept this gift from Johnson, tell me why?

Eric had already been told earlier that the Attorney General did not take a trip on a private jet yet he again asserts this as a fact. Or consider this question:

Why did the Attorney General's office decide to dismiss all charges and fines against Mentoring of America when the 2006 settlement agreement explicitly stated that the company was in a probation type period and that any violation of the agreement would bring a non-negotiable $53,000 fine against the company. Yet they still paid no fines, why not?

The Attorney General's Office did not make any decision nor was it involved in any discussions concerning Mentoring of America. Eric should know at this point that these decisions would be made by Consumer Protection. I am working with all of the attorneys who represent Consumer Protection 10 provide all of the answers for Eric. As I mentioned before our office spent countless hours providing information to Eric for the last story and the end result was an article that was not accurate or fair. We have not avoided Eric but we have been hesitant to talk to him because he has been so reckless with the truth.

I found the article you referenced that I wrote on October 9 about Shurtleff. You suggested I wrote that article in response to some memo or response from the AG to City Weekly, and that my column was a retort of sorts. As I told you, I saw

no such document, and still haven't, The article is clear about why I wrote what I did. The AG went on record-riot with us-vaccus inq Jean Welch Hill of pJanting the story about his connections to the lawfirm of Siegfried & Jensen, and the $35,000 received from that firm. I said then and now that Hill did not plant thai story and that the AG was fishing. It worked for him to say so, but his statement is still untrue-Hill did not give us that story. If the AG pissed someone off enough for them to contact the media, that's his carelessness at work, not ours.

But, what really got rne-vand what motivated the column-was what Shurtleff said on KUED when that story broke. Recall that r saw him just a few weeks prior and we joshed each other a bit. I've said before and now-plus in the column itself-that Mark is a good guy. So, when he said thaI the difference between us and a supermarket tabloid was that you have to pay for a tabloid, all bets were off. I figured he could have told me that to my face at Aristo's, and not use such a

bulls hit statement publicly to take the heat off himself. So, I gave it to him back with this: What's the difference between Mark Shurteff and and honest politician? You can buy Mark Shurtleff.

Mark was hurt by the unfair accusations by City Weekly and provided a harsh remark during a debate. You responded in kind. Fair enough. However, I did actually did go on the record with Eric before the story was writ1en about the source of the accusations. Again, the source isn't the issue. The issue is accuracy, fairness and accountability. However, Holly wrote two additional columns attacking Mark and the office. It is difficult to correct a newspaper if it will only leads to further attacks.

It's up to politicians to keep the public trust. Not us to keep it for them. My best to you. Good luck on the diet. Let's have that beer. Please tell Mark to talk to Eric.

You know the old saying: Trick me once shame one you. Trick me twice shame on me. At what point do we keep providing information to the City Weekly with any assurance that the story will be accurate or fair or that you will take responsibilrty when you get it wrong. I am still concerned that bringing this problem to your attention now because I fear it will only increase the division between us.

The diet is killing me and I do look forward to a beer-it may need to be a light beer.

Paul