New Developments from FollowtheMoneyProvo.com. A MUST READ!

My thanks goes out to Dave Knecht for staying on top of the current race and providing rock-solid information about the finances of this race. I'm going to borrow some of his information that he has just in case you do not check his site regularly.

The first piece of information is a voicemail left by John Curtis on Dave's phone about BCR Political (the organization Brian Chapman, John's campaign manager, is associated with) funding the StopCindy.com campaign. Please follow the link below to listen to the conversation yourself. I found it very interesting that Mr. Curtis would say to Dave "not to trust what the Daily Herald has to say." Also, the usually clear talking Curtis seems very unorganized and clearly doesn't have confidence in what he is saying:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MollfVsj29M&feature=player_embedded

The other piece of information from FollowtheMoneyProvo.com is an interesting picture taken from a StopCindy.com event held this morning (October 31st). Taylor Oldroyd's van is decked out to show his absolute hatred of Cindy Richards, but what is a surprise is the man in the white hat (whom I have surrounded with a red box). Who is this man, and why should you care? The man in this picture is Dave Cabanilla, husband of Laura Cabanilla who is running for a City Council seat against Coy Porter. And who is helping to fund Mrs. Cabanilla's race against Coy Porter? The Utah County Association of Realtors AND Taylor Oldroyd, who are the creators of the StopCindy.com campaign. But this is not all, because all of the parties involved are also ardent supporters of John Curtis' campaign for mayor.



Stop buying the lie that Curtis is trying to sell when he states he is not involved with some of the most dirty politics Provo has EVER seen. Special interest is trying to buy your City, so make sure on November 3rd you send a strong message that our City, schools, and neighborhoods are NOT FOR SALE!

Curtis’ Last-Ditch Rhetorical Attempt at Political Salvation, Part III: Unity

Unity: How will I promote the motto “In unity there is strength”? (And sadly, once again, ladies and gentlemen, apparently Mr. Curtis doesn’t realize that in order to have unity, it calls for the simple word ‘we’ rather than the letter ‘I’.)

Involvement and Teamwork will be brought back to Provo City issues.

I have discussed this piece of rhetoric already in the blog post Amplitudo Epitome, under Mr. Curtis’ expectation that he will “find common ground to bridge that which divides us.” [1] There is a great amount of teamwork and involvement in Provo City; not only amongst employees and citizens, but almost amongst elected officials. There are, however, some very well-known feuds between certain Council members, and Mayor Billings has, over time, shown little patience from some elected officials, city employees, and citizens alike. Yet, when we take a step back and look at the entire situation, we can say for a political realm, our problems really are not that bad. Could there be more teamwork? Yes. Could we have more involvement in civic matters from the citizenry and elected officials alike? Most definitely. Can Mr. Curtis come in and magically make everyone work together? Absolutely not. Mr. Curtis can be an example to others, but he cannot force people to become involved or to work in teams. For him to say these attributes “will be brought back into Provo City issues” is, once again, an empty promise that may possibly never come to fruition. Mr. Curtis and this community should realize, more than any other people, that people have their individual agency to act as they please, and there is nothing Mr. Curtis can do to change that. People of Provo, he CANNOT promise you that involvement and teamwork will be at the center of issues in our City, only individuals can bring these attributes to the table.

Treat all 38 neighborhoods with respect giving each the time and tools they need to succeed.

I find this statement not only confusing by highly ambiguous. Who is saying that we are not treating our neighborhoods with ‘respect’? Maybe Mr. Curtis is considering neighborhoods where he deems the big, bad City is implementing zoning restrictions in order to save deteriorating neighborhoods from ruin. Yet I am not opposed at the City giving ‘time’ to the neighborhoods, because that is why the City is present in the first place: to take care of the citizenry. Yet what type of ‘tools’ is Mr. Curtis talking about? This is yet another ambiguous talking point that could easily equate to placing more financial pressure on our very weak budget. The current state of our budget, including its long-term revenue sources, will not stand up to the pressures of increased services, training, equipment, and ‘tools’ that Mr. Curtis seeks to implement. It would be similar to having a 1,000 pound sumo wrestler standing on the shoulders of a 90-year old woman with osteoporosis. Our budget cannot tolerate the high financial weight of his ambitious and ambiguous plans.

Also, I’m sure Mr. Curtis would fire back that he believes we shouldn’t be giving all of our attention to select neighborhoods. He stated during a debate that he felt we needed to give the same time and attention to all neighborhoods, not just some select few that are currently receiving a high amount of attention. Some may nod their head in approval to this statement, but I consider it quite hilarious. Neighborhoods are, in many ways, like people. They are living, breathing appendages of our community; when one is not working correctly or has societal ills within it, the rest of the neighborhoods suffer as a result. Steve Clark sums up this point very well when he has stated: We are only as strong as our weakest neighborhood. Yet Mr. Curtis seems to think that we need to give all the neighborhoods the same amount of attention (as if they could become jealous and throw a temper tantrum). Mr. Curtis’ plan would be similar to a doctor giving the same amount of attention to a perfectly healthy patient as he does to a patient with terminal cancer. The fact of the matter is that some neighborhoods need more attention than others; some neighborhoods are old while others are new, and the older neighborhoods generally have more infrastructure, social, and financial troubles than new, bustling neighborhoods. There is no EOE when it comes to neighborhoods: you find the problems, gather the information needed, and then triage the problem until it is gone.

Promote a Partnership with BYU and others to find win-win solutions for parking and student housing.

Mr. Curtis really does not get it when BYU is thrown into the mix. The current situation with parking and student housing is NOT an issue that the City of Provo can fix without considerable trouble from both school administration and the student body. This is because the situation was created by BYU, NOT the City of Provo. The slight oversight Mr. Curtis has when it comes to BYU is that the current 2-mile radius of approved housing was a policy implemented by BYU without consultation or approval from the City of Provo. In fact, BYU has not revisited this policy to make necessary changes to some very large holes in their initial plan. BYU is the key player in this issue, and if BYU doesn’t want to make any changes to their current methods and system of approved housing, then the City of Provo is simply along for the ride. The City could implement stricter zoning codes and regulations within the 2-mile radius, but this would only cause further contention between the student body and the City.

Mr. Curtis wants you to think that he will be able to sit down with BYU officials and find “win-win” solutions to the entire housing/parking debacle that has plagued this City for decades. What he doesn’t realize is that we have two very different entities (the City of Provo and BYU) with two very different missions (Provo wants stable, family-friendly neighborhoods; BYU wants housing for their students in any way, shape, or form, as long as it is ‘approved’). The likelihood of these two entities meeting on common ground is not very likely, as the easiest way for this situation to come to an amiable conclusion is for BYU to take the initiative to provide more ground rules on housing quality. Since the neighborhoods affected by the 2-mile radius will continue to have disproportionate amounts of students when compared to owner-occupants, thereby detracting from the single-family neighborhood, there really never can be a true “win-win” situation. Mr. Curtis may try to tell you that he will establish a SCAMP development, but since multiple attempts have failed, using nearly every methodology imaginable, his promises will likely fall flat.

[1] http://whoisjohncurtis.blogspot.com/2009/10/amplitudo-epitome.html

Curtis’ Last-Ditch Rhetorical Attempt at Political Salvation, Part II: Prosperity

Prosperity: How will I build a strong financial foundation for Provo City? (Once again, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Curtis CANNOT build a strong financial foundation for our community alone. He will need the help of every citizen in our community and the backing of our Municipal Council.)

Commit to economic transparency – keeping economic policy open, simple, and transparent.

The difficulty with this statement is that you will need to find a way to make economic policy “open” AND “simple” for everyone to understand. The economics behind municipal financing is not an easy subject to understand; there is a lot more at play than simply balancing your checkbook. There are different funds, bonds, revenues sources, and expenses than we have to deal with in the private sector or in our own homes. It is true that the City Council and Mayor should be forthright with our current economic decisions and make open suggestions to the people of how to rectify problems before voting. However, our Council and Mayor already do all of this. Our current problem in Provo is the apathy of people in our City to municipal processes. If more people would come to Council Meetings; talk to their elected leaders OUTSIDE of an election year; and demand responsiveness and accountability from both elected and employed personnel of the City this would never be an issue. This is, once again, a mute point that Mr. Curtis is trying to remake into his own brainchild.

Measure and identify every dollar spent with a commitment to live within our means.

This is a very sneaky way of saying that Mr. Curtis is going to micromanage everything in the City of Provo. But Mr. Curtis doesn’t want to say micromanage because it has a very negative connotation to it, as it should. When you micromanage a City, department, or personnel, you are simply attempting to “manage or control with excessive attention to minor details.” [1] Very few individuals work well under the pressure that every detail of their work, even the minor attributes of their position (like the time you take to use the bathroom) are monitored to ensure that every penny is being spent in a ‘measureable’ and ‘productive’ manner. And you know what they say, when you are so focused on the small things, you generally miss out on the big picture. Mr. Curtis has openly stated that he will ensure, under his careful watch, that there is no waste within the City, but how does he expect to do that unless he micromanages every aspect of City operations? Also, the latter part of this campaign statement, to “live within our means” is a mute point. The City Budget, by law, needs to be balanced per State Law. The Municipal Council continually, throughout the fiscal year, addressed the budget and various department heads give reports to the Mayor’s Office who, in turn, gives the updates financials to the Council. The rules and playbook are already in place to “live within our means,” unless Mr. Curtis is talking about either cutting City services that cost too much or raising taxes to meet the current financial need of our City.

Long term planning to better ensure the right type of growth, recruit good businesses, and help our current businesses prosper.

I’m honestly surprised that Mr. Curtis didn’t place his desire for a ’20-year vision’ here. For reasons I believe his 20-year vision is simply a talking point and not a real plan, please read my post John Curtis: Neither Good nor Great. [2] However, the issue that Mr. Curtis never wants to face is the FACT that the City already has measures in place for long-term planning, and his desire to speed up the processes around long-term planning show his lack of knowledge concerning the issue. You see, Mr. Curtis looks at everything in government through the eyes of a businessman, which is dangerous for the people of Provo. A city is not a business, and it never will be. A city takes the opinions, desires, and needs of an entire PEOPLE, whereas a business will start operations in a market in order to deliver a specific service or product to a specific type of consumer. A city and government, however, does not have the luxury. The City of Provo needs to deliver all services to all people of Provo in an equal and concise manner; hence the presence of a bureaucracy to ensure that rules and structure are followed to usurp attempts to the contrary.

Mr. Curtis can and will, if he is mayor, seek to recruit various types of businesses to our community. He could also make the process of starting a business here in Provo easier and assist current businesses either through changes to the administrative processes of the City or suggesting new legislation to the Council. He cannot, however, make a long-term vision or plan for the City without consent of the people or four votes from the Council. In order to do this, he would need to define what he means by “right type of growth” and how this fits into his personal vision. Want to hear about it now? You won’t have much luck, since he wants to keep you thinking of the changes you want in our City, and then he will seek to implement the changes he wants (similar to a certain candidate who extolled ‘hope’ and ‘change’, which meant a million different things to a million different people). Don’t believe me? What did Mr. Curtis state at the very beginning of this blog and how we can build a strong financial foundation in Provo? The answer: only through him.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/micromanage

[2] http://whoisjohncurtis.blogspot.com/2009/10/john-curtis-neither-good-nor-great.html

Curtis’ Last-Ditch Rhetorical Attempt at Political Salvation, Part I: Safety

I have in my possession one of Curtis’ door hangers that is going throughout the entire City of Provo this weekend as the final blitzkrieg of campaign activity is well underway. I want to address each of Curtis’ issues on this document, and I suggest reading a previous post titled Amplitudo Epitome which covered very similar subjects early on in the campaign. [1] This documents, which is broken up into Curtis’ three favorite words (Safety, Prosperity, and Unity), revisits some old points and addresses some new, unheard points. This post will be split into three separate posts, due to length.

Safety: How will I make our neighborhoods safe? (On a side note, ladies and gentlemen, Curtis cannot make our neighborhoods safe by himself. Only WE can make them safe.)

No Gangs in Provo Plan: through Prevention, Suppression, and Rehabilitation. Do not, I repeat, DO NOT be sucked in by this absolute half-truth. The three-step plan IS NOT Curtis’ unique idea of how to fight gang activity, but is a commonly and currently used method of law enforcement all around the world. For Curtis to grandstand the ideal that there can be ‘no gangs in Provo’ is, sadly, not realistic. In the society we currently live in, there will always be individuals who prey on others through drugs, violence, and criminal activity; even if people were equal in all things, people would still try to cheat and steal in order to get more than their neighbor. This doesn’t mean we have to succumb to individuals who finance their lives on the suffering of others, but to believe that there can be no gangs in Provo is a wishy-washy fairytale conjured up by John Curtis and his campaign strategists. He wants you to feel safe under his plan, but the REALITY of the matter is that no elected official, not even the police, can promise you that any plan they implement can eliminate gangs from our community. The methods we take may reduce gang activity, but there will always be people present who will attempt to usurp law and order. Mr. Curtis does not have the capacity, knowledge, or expertise to even begin a plan to eliminate gangs in our community, and I submit there is no individual on the world that can eliminate gangs from society. If you are wondering why, that is because if there was a sure plan or individual who could eliminate gangs, then gangs would have been gone a long time ago.

Stop Increasing Trend of Drug Use: Equipping our police with the proper tools – Narcotics K-9 Unit, Technology, and Training. For some background on this subject matter, please read the story on my blog titled Gentleman in a Green Sweater makes Curtis Sweat. [2] I will be the first to admit that I would love our police officers to never want for anything; just as I would like to see the same with our schools, recreational outlets, non-profit organizations, and a whole host of other institutions and organizations. However, in the real world, we all have to live within something called a budget. This simple word causes Mr. Curtis to immediately enter a state of frustration and anger, because a budget limits his ability to blow pixie dust into the brains of Provo citizens. What Mr. Curtis is talking about here (i.e. developing a narcotics K-9 unit, including necessary training and technology for all Provo police officers to fight drug use in our community) will literally cost the City of Provo, meaning the taxpayers, MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. Do not believe that our current budget can sustain changes that Mr. Curtis wants to implement, because it cannot; and no matter how much Mr. Curtis will want to tell you he can simply run the government like a business, he cannot because the laws and ordinances which create the Mayor’s position will stop him from making risky investments like he would in the business world. If you think Mr. Curtis can provide this step in his plan without taxing you, raising utility rates, or cutting City services, then you are very wrong.

Unite Neighborhoods through Mobile Watch to fight gateway crimes like graffiti and keep our families safe. This idea, to Mr. Curtis’ credit, is a great start, but does have an inherent flaw that cannot make it a reliable part of a mayoral plan. For those of you who do not know about Mobile Watch, you really should read up about it, and I have provided a link to their main website for your convenience. [3] The same aspect that makes this organization great also makes it not realistic for a solid municipal plan, that being this “aggressive crime prevention program” relies solely upon volunteers. Most of these volunteers patrol their neighborhoods on Friday and Saturday night (when most crimes take place), and will scan their neighborhoods for suspicious activity. Special patrols can also intervene during any time of the day to ensure the neighborhoods are safe. However, crimes do not occur only on the weekends, and criminals, like viruses, can adapt to meet the difficulties of their host. It is important that individual citizens take an active role in the safety of their communities, but you cannot force them to play the part. Curtis would need to somehow convince citizens, who work 9-5 and have families to tend to during the weekend, to give up four hours of their evening to watch for suspicious activity in their neighborhoods. It is not impossible, but it would be difficult. However, to say we will unite neighborhoods through this program is assuming that each neighborhood will automatically endorse and fully support it. Now that, ladies and gentlemen, may be impossible.


[1] http://whoisjohncurtis.blogspot.com/2009/10/amplitudo-epitome.html

[2] http://whoisjohncurtis.blogspot.com/2009/10/gentleman-in-green-sweater-makes-curtis.html

[3] http://www.policevolunteers.org/programs/index.cfm?fa=dis_pro_detail&id=2358

Gentleman in a Green Sweater makes Curtis Sweat

On Mr. Curtis’ campaign website under the Rumors section, there is an interesting note directed towards a “gentleman in the green sweater.” [1] The note states the following:

“Last night I responded poorly to your question. In hindsight I was harsh and unfairly critical of your question. I hope you will accept my apology and give me another chance to answer your question.” [1]

Since this was posted on Friday, October 30, I looked to see what campaign events were present that Mr. Curtis was speaking at. Last night in the Grandview Neighborhood, both John Curtis and Steve Clark were speaking at the Westridge Elementary School at a debate moderated by Quin Monson, Assistant Professor of Political Science at BYU. Since I was not at this event, I tried to call some friends, family, and associates in the area to see if they had attended the debate. Through the grapevine, I found out a little more about this story and am surprised about what happened.

As the debate was ending, Dr. Monson opened the floor to the audience to ask questions of the candidates. Only a few questions were asked, but the very last question was asked by a young man, probably in his early to mid-20s, wearing a green hooded sweater. The question he asked was directed towards Mr. Curtis and it was concerning the current budget situation of Provo. From those I talked with, they said the question was in regards to how John planned to pay for increased police training, increased recreational activities provided by the City, and additional training for City employees. This young man also gave some background information about Provo’s budget, such as the nearly $3 million deficit the City is currently operating and how 45% of the General Fund is funded through a now negative Sales Tax revenue.

The manner in which Mr. Curtis responded to this question shocked the people I talked with, as they said John immediately began to badger the young man with questions of “where did you hear I was going to increase the size of the police?” and “where have I said that I’m going to spend money on recreational activities?” I don't know if these are the direct quotes, since I was not present, but I am told that the young man quoted lines from Mr. Curtis’ website, gave figures about start-up costs to fund additional police officers, and reiterated his question of how Mr. Curtis was going to pay for the changes he had talked about throughout the campaign. Those present told me that John raised his voice and adopted a very angry demeanor, criticizing the young man stating that he was not going to increase the size of government in Provo. John did agree that the Sale Tax revenue source was poor, but offered no suggestion of how to solve the current situation. The young man, relating from an earlier statement from Mr. Curtis that he was going to reduce waste, then asked how John expected to micromanage from department-to-department in order to cut waste to fund his projects, and asked how this would provide the funds to take Provo into a better future. This is where my informants stated that John became very angry and nearly yelled the following:

“You see, it doesn’t take money to make a better future for Provo! In my business, we have made huge decisions which didn’t cost any money, and it made our future much better, and I’m going to do the same thing for the City!”

After this, Mr. Curtis sat down and the debate ended. Some then told me that John’s wife, Sue, approached the young man and tried to clarify John’s positions about the budget. The young man, apparently, then told Sue that he was shocked by John’s lack of professionalism and that he would even dare to attack someone who had asked him a straightforward question during a debate.

Obviously Mr. Curtis had some time to reflect on the manner in which he spoke to this young man who simply asked a relevant question concerning the fiscal state of our City. Is this what we are to expect of Mr. Curtis if he is Mayor, that he will heckle any individual who begins to ask hard, straightforward questions of him? I find it convenient that Mr. Curtis is hoping that this young man will read his website and take him up on an offer to talk about the issues in private, when he could have easily pulled the young man aside AFTER the debate and made amends. This event only shows what I’ve been trying to say all along, that Mr. Curtis is neither a professional nor a leader. When approached with hard questions or facts that contradict his campaign opinions, he becomes angry or blames an elaborate smear campaign against his good name. Guess what, Mr. Curtis? You SMEARED a young man who was simply asking you a question, and I hope the young man doesn’t take you up on your apology. Hopefully many Provo citizens will see him going door-to-door for Steve Clark to tell as many people as possible what kind of ‘leader’ you really are. You said it yourself: “ask people what kind of person I am.” I’m sure this young man’s opinion of you is not going to reflect the mountain you’ve attempted to build out of a molehill.

[1] http://www.johncurtis.org/rumors.html

Chicago Politics: Courtesy of John Curtis

Upon deeper searching of John Curtis’ financial disclosures, some interesting names popped up that I did not recognize. The names Bill and James Provencher and Patrick Tovey showed up on Curtis’ financials; no public records linked these individuals to Provo or even the State of Utah, for that matter. Yet they are playing an important financial role in Curtis’ campaign for Mayor, as he gained $15,000 total ($5,000 from each) for his campaign. But if they are not from Provo or Utah, where are they from? For your answer try looking towards Tinley Park, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago.

These three unknown individual run a business known as Carey’s Range Ventilation [1], and deem themselves as “indoor [shooting] range specialists.” [2] The question I have is actually quite simple: how does Mr. Curtis know these individuals and why are they donating such high amounts of money for a mayoral campaign which is not home to their business? Why is John Curtis seeking financial assistance outside of the realm of Provo AND the State of Utah? And why would people in a city notorious for underhanded politics be interesting in our community?

Maybe I could just be overreacting? On Carey’s website, they have a section dedicated to a partnership between this business and Curtis’ business, Action Target, since 2003. [3] Action Target brings the shooting range equipment while Carey’s brings the necessary ventilation equipment. And since they are partners, why not hand over $15,000 as a goodwill gesture towards a business partner, right? Yet the question has yet to be answered where this money was spent on Curtis’ campaign, and the money trail, as it always does, tells a more sinister story worthy of the title Chicago Politics.

Coupled with Carey’s donation of $15,000 and Action Target’s donations of $12,500 ($2,500 from the corporation; $5,000 each from Kyle Bateman and Addison Sovine), making a grand total of $27,500. In the previous article I talked about how Curtis is directly tied to notorious smear campaigns rampant throughout the Provo elections, and these monies show an interesting balance. Curtis’ campaign spent $27,437 on political campaign strategists; individuals like BCR Political, Randy Minson, Nate Rathbun, Orange Soda, and Complete Campaigns. Curtis has tried to sell to the people of Provo that he is running a grassroots campaign, but the money is telling a different story. John Curtis is not opposed to seeking the financial and political backing of individuals outside of Provo and Utah; people and businesses who do not understand our culture, traditions, government, or society. Look at what out-of-state speculators have done to our real estate market and neighborhoods; can you imagine what out-of-state politicians, strategists, and financial backers will do to our community?

As the money trail continues to grow and points towards shadowy figures, organizations, and causes, more and more people in Provo are starting to question whether John Curtis actually has the right path for Provo. Is Mr. Curtis concerned about the individual citizens of our community; their opinions and dreams; and their desires for the future? Or is Mr. Curtis going to throw aside the citizens of Provo in order to compensate those who financed his campaign into the most powerful political office in Utah County? If Mr. Curtis is elected mayor and you see special interests beginning to rule the community, you only have yourself to blame. The facts are before you, because Mr. Curtis certainly will not give you the whole truth.

[1] http://www.careyscentral.com/home.html

[2] http://www.careyscentral.com/home.html

[3] http://www.careyscentral.com/home.html

Curious Financial Disclosures

In the Daily Herald, an article of interest came up titled PAC files amended financial disclosures. [1] This article talks about how Taylor Oldroyd (CEO of the Utah County Association of Realtors, Chairman of the Utah County Republican Party, and leader of the PAC behind stopcindy.com) changed his financial report “showing fewer donations and no payments to consulting firm BCR Political.” [1] The original statement filed by Taylor Oldroyd showed that “60 percent of the listed expenditures, $3,644, went to BCR, which is also involved in several local races.” [1] What is the big deal about BCR Political being involved with a PAC devoted to unseating a current-seated city council member? Brian Chapman, John Curtis’ high-paid campaign manager ($14,027, to be exact), is an integral part of BCR Political. [2] Even more interesting is the fact that BCR Political also gives support services to Progress Provo, a PAC created by Councilman Steve Turley to unseat Councilwoman Cindy Richards from office. [4] Yet this is not all, Progress Provo who has received assistance from BCR Political and Brian Chapman is also receiving support from John Curtis. Mr. Curtis listed Progress Provo as one of his sponsors, meaning he believes in their cause and endorses them fully. [5]

This mad rush by both Taylor Oldroyd and Brian Chapman to call this debacle an “accounting issue” is no more than an outright lie. [1] From the time stopcindy.com came online and the PAC started operations in Provo City, John Curtis sought to distance himself from his former campaign manager (yes that would be Taylor Oldroyd) by stating he was not a part of the stopcindy.com PAC. In fact, he tried to say people thought he was involved “because some [people] saw the ‘StopCindy.com’ signs near mine.” [3] Actually, Mr. Curtis, it wasn’t your campaign signs that raised people’s eyebrows, it was the fact that you paid Brian Chapman and BCR Political to head your campaign. Even more interesting is that the Utah County Association of Realtors was the “primary funding” for the stopcindy.com campaign [1], which also happens to be directly supporting John Curtis’ campaign for mayor. [2]

The old saying ‘the chickens are coming home to roost’ is becoming a common adage for the Curtis campaign. Nearly one-third of Curtis’ campaign contributions came from outside of Provo City, and the list of special interest groups and PACs is staggering. [2] It is interesting that Mr. Curtis felt that he needed to outspend his opponent 2-to-1 in order to get his name known in the community, mainly through hiring dirty campaign managers who have their thumbs dipped into negative campaigning and PACs. When the pressure became too much for the campaign and efforts to follow the money trail, such as www.followthemoneyprovo.com, started to show interesting alliances forming, Curtis’ campaign is now depending on the deception of an “accounting issue” to save face. Regardless of whether BCR Political and Brian Chapman are not involved with stopcindy.com, they are still providing financial and professional support to Sterling Beck and Laura Cabanilla for council seats. And the cherry on top: both of these candidates are fully supporting John Curtis for Mayor of Provo. However, Mr. Curtis will try to tell you that he is not “running as a ticket” with other candidates, because he just believes “some of the candidates tend to line up with [his] political philosophy.” [3] Or are they harkening to the master’s call, those who are writing the checks, Mr. Curtis?

How many more outright lies can Curtis’ campaign keep feeding the people of Provo? When pressures become high and evidence begins to be laid out, Curtis’ campaign minions begin to espouse the ‘shrugging shoulders’ theory. Yet there is something you should know about municipal government and that is the words you can NEVER trust from elected leaders: “I never heard it; I never knew about it; it’s not my fault.” Brian Chapman, Taylor Oldroyd, BCR Political, Steve Turley, the Utah County Association of Realtors, stopcindy.com PAC, Progress Provo, and John Curtis are all interrelated. They may try to cover up financial disclosures in an attempt to show there isn’t a major push of special interest in our community to get John Curtis elected to mayor (and other council candidates as well), but the truth is out there. John Curtis has surrounded himself not by the people of Provo, but rather the special interest of Provo. If this is your idea of Mr. Curtis being transparent, honest, and forthright about his campaign, then you have set your standards very, very low.

[1] http://heraldextra.com/news/local/central/provo/article_a3e01645-a036-5a07-8e3c-be14660d94fe.html

[2] http://heraldextra.com/news/local/central/provo/article_edce2cf6-61d1-5393-a48c-300d1dffb807.html

[3] http://www.johncurtis.org/rumors.html

[4] http://www.bcrpolitical.com/BCR/Campaigns.html

[5]http://www.heraldextra.com/article_f9b9d59d-e19b-59e9-bca9-8efabfe09f60.html