ELECTION: Unofficial Results – CHCRG helps Angela Johnson win Council seat!

Written By: admin - Nov• 04•15

Congratulations to Angela Johnson winning a seat on the CH Council.  This adds another conservative voice to help Councilman Rob Crawley serve CH families and protect their tax dollars.   (See CH's preliminary Utah County election totals below.)  

Thanks to CH Voters from CHCRG  20151104_115104


Angela's win will help the voice of the citizens be heard, especially as the Citizen's Initiative Petition next year to finally bring the future of the golf course to a vote of the citizens — which Rees and Geddes are against.  Despite the Mayor's "unbiased" Golf Finance Committee's questionable last-minute "conclusions" against Councilman Crawley's golf finance & options research, CHCRG successfully promoted ideas held by many in the community, that helped Angela to her breakthrough win! Congratulations to Angela, her campaign, her family, and all the CHCRG supporters time, resources and efforts in her behalf.

NOTE:  The questionable claims and political tactics used by city insiders during the election will be documented and explored on this website at a later time.  Their efforts did not surprise CHCRG.  We anticipated their public ambush of Councilman Crawley's golf research results, and for this reason announced over two weeks before the final day of the Nov. 3rd election, that CHCRG would be forming a committee to draft the Initiative Petition for a vote on the future of the golf course.  (see… http://www.cedarhillscitizens.org/citizens-initiative-petition-drafting-committee-being-formed-proposing-vote-on-future-of-golf-course/ )


Utah County Votes "Against Tax Increase"

Also, the County voted "Against Tax Increase" of Prop #1.  The state-wide results will determine the fate of Prop #1.  This tax increase was actively supported by Mayor Gygi, Jenney Rees and Daniel Zappala at the Sept 8th Council Meeting. 


Thanks to Paul Sorensen

CHCRG is proud to have endorsed two excellent candidates in Paul Sorensen and Angela Johnson. (Note:  Paul & Angela did not seek CHCRG endorsements.)  Paul ran an honest, principle-based campaign, having knocked on hundreds of doors in CH to talk with the people.  As Paul's campaign mailer wrote, "[I] asked for your opinions", adding: 

While generally pleased with the direction of the city, I learned of some common concerns:

  • The vast majority is unhappy with heavy taxpayer subsidies for the golf course
  • CH residents still do not have promised parks, pools and other recreation opportunities
  • Mothers of young children expressed disappointment in lack of playgrounds & shade trees
  • CH residents are annoyed that road maintenance is delayed, when so much taxpayer $$ subsidizes the golf course
  • Many are concerned that the current Council didn’t protect CH’s small-town atmosphere zoning, which is now threatened by a high-density housing proposal south of Wal-Mart

Paul's key focus was to selflessly help residents learn important information about their city and to promote that the will of the people be heard.  With the forth-coming Citizens Initiative Petition drive for a vote on the future of the golf course, his efforts will pay off next year.  Thank you Paul & Diane!


Unofficial County Results

The following results are not final, but are unlikely to change with the late mail-in ballot and provisional ballot tabulations.  

Utah County ELECTION preliminary results 2015


Utah Co Prop #1 resultsfor all Utah County results please see…  http://www.utahcounty.gov/Dept/ClerkAud/Elections/Electrslts/2015General/Summary.pdf



Citizens Initiative Petition Drafting Committee being formed proposing vote on future of golf course

Written By: admin - Oct• 14•15

After years of controversy regarding the profitability and benefit of the golf course, a fully-informed VOTE by the citizens of Cedar Hills on the future of the Golf Course is now proposed.

Cedar Hills Citizens for Responsible Government (CHCRG) has long sought to help inform citizens regarding important and valuable information city officials appeared unwilling to provide its residents at our website www.CedarHillsCitizens.org .

Most recently, Councilman Rob Crawley — a CFO financial expert, who has by his own admission spent four years researching and discussing the city’s audited financials and explored alternative to keeping the golf course operating at $550,000 per year in average losses (taxpayer subsidies).  He requested that the Mayor and Council allow him to publish his findings in the October newsletter, as an alternative view to other Council member golf-related postings, but was refused.  

Crawley decided to courageously take this information to CH residents directly, printing a flyer (with supporting documentation at his blog) with his own money, and distributing it throughout the city.  Some of the highlights from his research include:

–  The original presentation used to promote citizen support for its purchase from the original developer, said that the golf course would cost taxpayers $0 zero.


–  They also forecasted $150,000 in profits in year #1, with $400,000 in annual profits by year #10.


–  Ten+ years later, the results are in.  According to financial expert and Councilman Rob Crawley's research of the City's audited financial, the golf course to date has cost every household in Cedar Hills an average of  $4,739.


–  Crawley's research has also shown the golf course has cost Cedar Hills taxpayers $12.3 million in subsidies.

He believes, and we agree, that it’s time for the Voters of Cedar Hills to be fully informed and given a voice in the future of the golf course.  We trust you and support your voice!
Last night the Mayor’s so-called “unbiased” Golf Finance Committee voted on final touches to a document it will be publishing countering Rob Crawley’s findings.  

Therefore, after much consideration, and patient observation, we, a few of your fellow residents, from Cedar Hills Citizens for Responsible Government are announcing plans to create a Citizens Initiative Petition Drafting Committee, being formed to draft legal language that via the Initiative that will require the city to fully inform citizens on various viable golf course alternative options (including new parks, trails, soccer fields, etc.) and require a citywide vote on future of golf course.  

This proposed Initiative Petition requiring a citizen vote will require time to formulate, and will NOT affect this November's City Council election.  However, we feel it important to inform the public of this Initiative Petition Drafting Committee so residents can also be aware of three NEW City Council candidates (non-incumbents) we believe most likely to support a successful Initiative Petition that will genuinely promote your being FULLY-informed and have the opportunity to VOTE citywide on the future of the golf course, so that this issue can be settled once and for all.  

The candidates we can highly recommend for your voting consideration are:

Paul Sorensen

Angela CC Johnson

Ben Bailey

(Note:  None of the candidates sought CHCRG’s endorsement.)

These candidates are selected over the incumbent Council member and avid golf supporter Mike Geddes, and Council member (city public information officer) Jenney Rees, both of whom have refused numerous request to fully inform the public of the year-by-year golf course losses (taxpayer subsidies) and Rob Crawley’s golf financial research and proposed options to the golf course.  Despite their request for our votes, have simultaneously stated that they are unwilling to promote a vote by the citizens on the future of our golf course.

The Initiative Petition Drafting Committee plans to hold its first meeting within 10 days, and will be comprised of invitees that may include candidates for Council, members of the Golf Finance Committee, CHCRG members and other interested parties that are genuinely willing to promote a fully-informed citizen vote on the future of the golf course.

For further developments, please regularly visit www.CedarHillsCitizens.org





Councilman Crawley: Delivers Flyer with Info City won’t provide CH Voters

Written By: admin - Oct• 10•15

Councilman Rob Crawley is a financial professional.  Crawley states that he has been analyzing the city finances, as he promised in his campaign which got him elected for four years now, hoping to report his result to the Citizens of Cedar Hills..

Crawley’s research has focused on the controversial golf course and it’s $550,000 avg./yr. losses (taxpayer subsidies), and the long term trends.  He provided a report to the entire City Council (including incumbent candidates Jenney Rees and Mike Geddes) and Mayor in the hopes of gaining support to publish the information in the city newsletter to educate CH voters before the election.  He was refused.

Instead, Mayor Gygi decided to reconvene a golf finance committee which he claims is un-biased.  With time running out before the election, with no final results available, and Mayor Gygi refusing the information to be published, Councilman Crawley decided to take matters into his own hands in order to reach the people who elected him.

Crawley published a flyer with financial facts, and a “Option B” as a possible alternative to the golf course, printed it with his own money, and personally deliver many of the flyers door-to-door throughout the community from Oct. 7-10.

The following PDF is a copy of Crawley’s flyer, provide by him at CHCRG’s request for out readers…

PDF…  CH Councilman Rob Crawley Resident Letter 10-6-15 delivered citywide

In addition to the research and financial analysis provided on the flyer, Crawley invited readers to visit his blog where he posted pages of additional support documentation.


Could the Crawley Flyer Effect the Election?

The mail-in ballots have now been distributed citywide and sit in the hands of voters since Wednesday October 7th.

The impact of the Crawley flyer is unknown yet. For example, candidates who addressed the final question, “Are you in favor of a fully informed vote by the citizens of the future of the golf course?”, didn’t have the benefit of Crawley’s final financials analysis & “Option B”.  So, their comments were not yet fully informed.

Un-informed Candidate comments Oct. 1, YouTube available at…  http://www.cedarhillscitizens.org/youtube-meet-the-candidates-highlight/

What remains to be seen is if the candidates will now fully read his flyer and supporting documentation, understand it, and reconsider their positions.

Stay tuned!



YOUTUBE: Meet the Candidates – Highlight

Written By: admin - Oct• 09•15

On Oct. 1, 2015 a Meet the Candidates event was sponsored by the PTA at Cedar Ridge Elementary School.

The last question of the night was the most interesting highlight to share. The candidates respond to the following QUESTION:

“Are you in favor of a fully informed vote by the citizens on the future of the golf course?”

Responses were varied, and this highlight helped define key differences in the Candidates, and is worth VOTER attention.  Check out the YouTube at…


NOTICE –  October 10 update:

Related posting at… http://www.cedarhillscitizens.org/councilman-crawley-delivers-flyer-with-info-city-wont-provide-ch-voters/



Introducing CH Council Candidates – in their own words

Written By: admin - Oct• 05•15

Mail-in ballots will be showing up in the mail boxes any day.  The voting will then be open through November 3, 2015, with walk in voting at the City office until 8 p.m.

The Primary election, and recount narrowed the field of nine (originally 11) down to six.  (see… http://www.cedarhillscitizens.org/ch-vote-recounts-changed-results-again-again-and-again/ )  There are three open Council seats, and voters will have up to three votes.  More than three votes will void the ballot.

CH voters can have he following candidates will be on the ballot with their flyers.  Here they are reaching out to you in their own words:

Introducing Paul Sorensen

2015 Election flyer – Paul Sorensen pg 1

2015 Election flyer – Paul Sorensen pg 2

Introducing Angela Johnson

2015 Election flyer – Angela Johnson

Introducing Ben Bailey

2015 Election flyer – Ben Bailey

Introducing Mike Geddes (incumbent)

2015 Election flyer – Mike Geddes

Introducing Jenney Rees (incumbent)

2015 Election flyer – Jenney Rees

Brian Miller – no flyer provided.

Please thoroughly investigate the candidates, their positions, and what it means to you and your family.  Then exercise your right to VOTE!



City’s GRAMA response: Oops, sorry! The Free Golf records were destroyed!

Written By: admin - Sep• 28•15
The CH golf course is an expensive money losing enterprise being carried on the backs of CH taxpayers since it opened in 2004.  It promised $100K in profits year #1, and $400K per year by year #10.  Yet, it has never made one dollar of profit — in any year of its 10+ years of operation!   Not one dollar in profit!!
Cedar Hills Citizens for Responsible Government has long wanted to understand who, how, what, when and why so many many have been receiving FREE Golf and Free Golf Cart use, — without success.
The City doesn’t deny that it allows all City employees, the Mayor and Counsel to play UNLIMTED free golf, which they have been receiving for years.  But getting at the public documents about it has been impossible.
THREE attempts in five years have failed to produce one record accounting for the FREE golf.  The most recent GRAMA request for 2014 Free Golf was received saying in essence, we had free golf records for 2014, but due to software issues, the records no longer exist.  The only year that had records of free golf is the only year where they disappeared.
See attached GRAMA request & City response PDFs…
How can City Officials, if they are being responsible with the expensive assets they are entrusted, not have records who recieves FREE golf?  How can citizens learn if any members of the “impartial” Golf Course Finance Committee have ever received any FREE GOLF?
Recently, Councilman Crawley discovered that former Mayor Brad Sears has been receiving free golf for years.  And apparently has been using some of the 30 free passes per week that he negotiated to give the original golf course developer Ken Briggs (seller).  (see http://www.cedarhillscitizens.org/facebook-courageous-2001-ch-councilman-pete-cannon-golf-apology/ )   Historical Note:  Most CH residents aren’t aware that the golf course would’ve been there anyway.  If Mayor Sears hadn’t convinced the citizens to vote to buy the golf course from the Developer Mr. Briggs, he would have retained ownership and suffered all the losses.  Instead, CH families have had to cover $550,000 per year in subsidies with their tax dollars to cover the losses.  $12.3 million in taxpayers subsidies!  Not one dollar in profit.  What could we have done with in CH with $12.3 million?
Reportedly, City Manager David Bunker implored the holder of the passes (The Briggs / Nelson group) to STOP allowing former Mayor Sears to use their free passes because he wasn’t part of the Briggs/Nelson group.  Reportedly, Sears had golfed free while Mayor in 2004, and continued to golf free ever since.  Sears had resigned his seat as Mayor early, June 1, 2004 shortly after the much anticipated promised profits, turned into massive losses on the city financial ledger.  Thanks in part to Bunker, after years of free golf from it’s 2004 opening, Sears has not used the Briggs / Nelson free passes yet this 2015 season.
Unfortunately, our revised GRAMA request response from the city for one randomly selected week in August from last year’s 2014 golf season, resulted in the City attorney acknowledging that those records were no longer available, apparently because the city had allowed them to be destroyed due to software changes.   These issues pre-date the new, current attorney David Shaw of Kirton & McConkie.
This is a troubling response for a number of reasons:
1.  When the original GRAMA request of July 2, 2015 was made for ALL Free Golf records for the 2014 golf season, the city responded saying the estimated cost to retrieve the records was $700 because it would take 20 hours to produce the records.  Apparently, as in times past, this arbitrary high cost estimate was provided to discourage CHCRG in hopes that we would abandon our request, either that or, — the City is apparently selectively incompetent at keeping and managing records that may be questionable or controversial.  We, CHCRG,  didn’t blink and simply revised the request down to ask for only one randomly selected week in August of 2014.  Only then, was the City forced to admit that they didn’t have records because the City apparently destroyed them due to a software issue.  Our question is when did the city destroy them?  Who allowed or ordered that to happen?  What does Mayor Gygi, Council members / Candidates Jenney Rees and Mike Geddes know about Free Golf records and their destruction?  Do they know how the records may yet be accessed or rescued?  When were they destroyed?  Before or after our GRAMA request?
2.  About five years ago Ken Cromar (former CH Councilman 1994 to 2000) made the first GRAMA request for ALL records of Free Golf.  The City responded that they didn’t keep records of Free Golf.  The City was encouraged to respect the public’s expensive golf course asset and to begin  accounting for all free golf.  That did not happen.
3.  Approximately 2 years ago, Ken Cromar — while acting as CHCRG’s head researcher — dropped in to the Clubhouse and spoke with the previous Golf Manager Mr. Madsen and asked to see the Free Golf records.  He admitted they didn’t keep the records of Free Golf.  Additionally, he acknowledged that he had no idea how much the taxpayers paid each year to subsidize (keep open) the golf course.  Two weeks later we were surprised to learn that Mr. Madsen had resigned as the CH Golf Club Manager and had taken another job at another golf course.
4.  Mayor Gary Gygi and public information officer Jenney Rees have never published the year-by-year golf course losses on the front page of the City Newsletter OR in the annual State of the City report, to correct the City’s misleading September 2011 Newsletter front page declaration that the golf course “cash flow positive” — just before the election.  This misrepresentation helped Gary Gygi and Jenney Rees get narrowly elected on their 2011 campaign that supported “our successful golf course”.
5.  The City officials, specifically Mayor Gygi and public information officer Jenney Rees, and other Council members have refused to allow CH resident to be armed with golf course financial facts.  They have refused to allow financial professional and accounting expert Councilman Rob Crawley to publish his thorough report on the golf course losses and trends, or to inform the citizens of that potentially less-costly alternatives to the golf course exist — in the Newsletter BEFORE  the Primary this past August, or prior to the forthcoming FALL election.  Why?
The golf course has averaged over $550,000+ / year in losses (taxpayer subsidies), and stole the entire $2.9 million collected to build a “pool & Rec Center”, and instead built a golf clubhouse, golf grill & wedding reception center.  Note: The golf grill closed in June due to lack of business.  See… http://www.cedarhillscitizens.org/clubhouse-grill-elev8-permanently-closed/
Most City Council members have refused to allow the Voters to become FULLY informed on the golf course at its $12.3 million in losses, or in the cost-saving alternatives with corrective publication in the front page of the Newsletter.
Only Councilman Crawley has fought to inform  and promote a citizen VOTE on the future of the financially troubled CH golf course.  He should be thanked for fighting in behalf of the citizens of Cedar Hills…  RCrawley@cedarhills.org

City Attorney: City Manager runs CH – not the Mayor

Written By: admin - Sep• 25•15

Tuesday, July 28, 2015


Cedar Hills Councilman Rob Crawley posted an interesting document on his blog.  It was about the Council’s requested clarification by the City Attorney answering the question:

Who has the authority to run the City?

The answer is buried in the document details below.  But, the simple answer is that the key power and authority under State Code and CH City ordinance puts that power and responsibility in the hands of the City Manger David Bunker, — not Mayor Gary Gygi.

Mayor Gygi has raised concerns recently by his usurpation of powers in a number of areas, including micro-management and resulting alienation of the City employees.  This Council requested clarification from the new CH City Attorney  David Shaw who made it clear that the scope of the Mayor’s powers is closer to that of being the CH’s ceremonial public face in cutting ribbons, speaking at Eagle Scout events, etc., and chairing the City Council meetings — rather than the complete control he has reportedly pursued.

Here’s Councilman Crawley’s post & the City Attorney David Shaw’s letter to the Council, as taken and belatedly provided for you here from Crawley’s blog…  http://cedarhillsrob.blogspot.com


Over the last couple of years while I have been on the city council, there have been debate and occasional disagreement about the various duties and responsibilities of the mayor, city council and city manager.  I requested that our attorney spell out the boundaries for us as we move forward to hopefully limit the disagreements and debates over the next 2+ years that I will remain on the city council.  Following is his report:


TO:                     The Honorable Gary Gygi Council Member Augustus Council Member Crawley Council Member Geddes Council Member Rees Council Member Zappala

CC:                     David Bunker, City Manager

FROM:               David J. Shaw, City Attorney

Elysa Dishman

DATE:                July 21, 2015

SUBJECT:         Roles and Responsibilities of the Cedar Hills Mayor, City Council, and City


This Memorandum is in response to your request for our analysis of the roles and responsibilities of the Mayor, City Council, and City Manager for the City of Cedar Hills (the “City”) pursuant to Utah Law and the Cedar Hills Municipal Code (“CHMC”). Under the City’s current form of government, each of the Mayor, City Council, and City Manager have distinct roles under applicable law. Generally speaking, the Mayor is the “chief executive officer” who supervises, presides, and plays a role in formulating high-level policies and the strategic vision for the City.  The City Council is the legislative and governing body of the City and has executive and administrative duties that are not tasked to the Mayor.   The City Manager is the “chief administrative officer of the city” and manages the day-to-day operation of city functions.  For a side-by-side comparison of the roles and responsibilities of the Mayor, City Council, and City Manager from the Utah Code and CHMC, see Addendum A attached to this Memorandum.


Form of Cedar Hills Governing Body and the Utah Municipal Code

The governing body for the City of Cedar Hills is a council composed of six members, …


For the complete posting see http://cedarhillsrob.blogspot.com

OR, open this PDF …  CH Attorney David Shaw on Mayor vs City Manager duties & responsibilities 2015 07 21




INVITATION – To All Candidates for CH Council,

Written By: admin - Sep• 18•15



To All Candidates for Cedar Hills Council,


Congrats on making it through the Primary vote.
We would like to introduce you — in your own words — to our Cedar Hills Citizens for Responsible Government readers.
So, we would like to offer you the opportunity to have your latest, respectful flyer or position paper (preferably a one or two page doc in a PDF format) that our readers can open.
Each flyer will be posted with “Introducing Candidate for CH Council Jenney Rees”, etc., without any comment.
May we invite your submission to our head Researcher at  KenCromar@BlueMoonProd.com  ideally by Wednesday night Sept 23.
For those who choose not to submit, we will gather information regarding your positions as best we can, and provide that information to readers.  We would much rather have you state your own position in your own words.
Until Then,
Ken Cromar signature blue 3 lg
Ken Cromar – Researcher for
Cedar Hills Citizens for Responsible Government

CH Recount: Vote results changed again, again, and again… TIE!

Written By: admin - Sep• 08•15

Recount Produces Different Results twice, and ends in a tie! — Mail-in Ballot process proven insecure.

One poll watcher’s experience.

by Ken Cromar – former CH City Councilman
When people vote, they expect that their vote will be properly counted, without mistakes or cheating.  

That’s why the law allows for each candidate to have a poll watcher to observe the ballots being counted.  Curt Crosby, a candidate for Cedar Hills Council, asked me to be his designee to represent him.  I agreed.  Wow!  What a roller-coaster ride it turned out to be.

First, Curt Crosby won the sixth and final slot in the Primary election on August 10th.  
Then, the straggler mail-in ballots were added to the count which gave a one-point win to Brian Miller.  Finally, Thursday September third’s recount produced a 8-vote win for Miller that was about to be announced to the public, until this poll watcher’s tally (mine) proved the City’s numbers inaccurate.  
After some quick recalculations the final result was a TIE between candidates Miller and Craig Clement.  This could result in a coin toss to determine the winner of the sixth place and a run at the November General Election!
Yes, elections in Cedar Hills are not without drama!  
In 1995, I was elected as a new Cedar Hills City Councilman by one single vote!  A recount found an incorrectly counted ballot.  That resulted in a two-point win for me.  For weeks, couples would come up to me and say it was their two votes that put me over the top.  All of them were right.  Every vote counts.  Or at least they should!  
The two previous CH elections of 2013 and 2011 also had concerns. We always seems to have some sort of election drama in CH. (more on that below)
Because of regular questions in our elections, Cedar Hills Citizens for Responsible Government thought it would be wise to carefully watch Cedar Hills’ first experience with mail-in ballots during July and August.  On July 30th, the City Recorder met with candidate Council Candidate Curt Crosby, Sam Bushman and I to explain her procedures.  By the end of the visit she admitted that she could not say with 100 certainty that the ballot boxes, which not attended by sworn polling officers during the month it was in the City lobby, were not tampered with, and that she knew the election was honest and fair. 
Many, including the Mayor, have touted mail-in voting as wonderful because the numbers increase.  But, having higher voter percentages is meaningless, in fact dangerous to a fair election, if you can’t verify every vote is legitimate.  
In other words, just because there are more ballots in the ballot box to count, doesn’t mean they all got there legally and lawfully.  CH’s mail-in ballot process stretched out the number of voting days to 29.  And it essentially made each and every one of the approximately 2000 homes in CH a potential polling place.  That’s just not reasonable.  
Don’t misunderstand.  No accusations are being made here.  Even if there were, they could never be proven, because no one really knows with 100% certainty what happened to the ballots once they got mailed from the post office.  Therein is the problem with mail-in ballots.  This primary election proved to me that mail-in ballots have made CH’s election less secure, and more open to potential compromise and the stealing elections through mischief, mistakes and/or dishonesty.  
Here’s the various results and what I learned during Cedar Hills’ 2015 Primary election:
Chart with vote tallys
Why the Primary Vote and Recount anyway?  An Overview:
This years’  election there were 9 candidates for the three open Cedar Hills Council seats.  By law, that number had to be narrowed to six for the November General election.  The August 10th vote count, which went until 1 a.m. (it was exhausting!), resulted in the sixth and final slot being won by Curt Crosby with 268, four votes over Craig Clement with 264, and ten votes over Brian Miller’s 258.
Then, over the next few days straggler mail-in ballots, reportedly post-marked August 10th or earlier (reportedly, “none smeared”), produced nearly 100 late mail-in ballots which were counted two weeks later at the next Council meeting on August 25.  The results changed two candidates jumping past Crosby; with Brian Miller winning with 284 votes, Craig Clement with 283, and Crosby at 279.
The Recount Began
Crosby asked for a recount.  It occurred Thursday, September 3rd.  He appointed me, Ken Cromar, as his designee to watch the recount of the ballots.

So, the assumption would be that the recount of all the ballots would produce the exact same results, right?  Wrong.  Virtually every candidate’s final vote total changed.  
It was an intensely tedious process to recount all the mail-in ballots for the Primary election, sitting in a room with the ballots counters from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.  Retirees Glenn and Bobbi Dodge along with Connie Paxman did a wonderful job. I carefully watched over Glenn’s shoulder as he would speak out each name on each ballot and Bobbi and Connie would each mark their own tally sheet.  I also kept my own tally, which later proved critical to accurate final results.  The team was careful and attentive, and when errors were caught, Colleen Mulvey was called over to confirm errors and correct the count immediately.  
There were a number of interesting ballots; including one with no votes at all, and a couple with four votes when only three were allowed thus spoiling their ballot completely.   This was the case with at least one ballot, which cost my candidate, Curt Crosby, at least one vote.  But, Curt agreed with me that accuracy and fairness is paramount to a fair process.
When it was all over, we were exhausted and anxious to learn what the five precincts total came to, as we were too busy to keep a running total.  While Ms. Mulvey and Gretchen Gordon were gone to tally the numbers in their spreadsheet, I tallied my numbers.  When they returned Colleen announced that Brian Miller had won the final slot by eight votes.  This did not match my total which showed a TIE between Miller and Craig Clement.  They said they were certain their total was correct.  I assured them that mine was, as I had checked it twice.
They then called out the votes for each candidate precinct by precinct.  It was discovered that in Precinct #2 that Brian Miller had received 31 votes, not 39 as Mulvey’s total showed.  They went back to her office search for the error.  When she came back she brought the ballot envelope announcing that the three ballot counters had signed their names to the envelope certifying a 39 when it was actually 31.  It was apparently an error of transposing a 1 into a 9, but it was an honest error.  
In other words, had I not been there watching the ballot recount, and tallied the precinct totals myself, the City would’ve have incorrectly announced an 8-point win for Brian Miller.  Instead, we had a certified TIE vote between Miller and Craig Clement.
Yes, over the years, voting in Cedar Hills has been interesting and dramatic.
In 2011, I ran for Council with Jerry Dearinger and Paul Sorensen in a relatively tight race.  That year six of our poll watchers were NOT allowed to watch the ballot counts, and were told to listen from afar.  The six signed Affidavits declaring that they were not allowed to watch the ballots and confirm the markings.  They became instead vote listeners.  A recount was requested but not granted.  The laws have changed since then.  (There were many other irregularities which may be explained later.)
In 2013, the then appointed-Mayor Gary Gygi ran at least part of his campaign from one of the City buildings.  This was proven through GRAMA requested emails which contained photos.   (Note:  Gygi was appointed by the Council to fill Mayor Eric Richardson’s position after he resigned to face Federal Bank Fraud charges, a year in prison and $110,000 in restitution fines.) 
Going through the new mail-in process in CH I’ve learned how easy it would be to cheat an election, even just a few votes.  I will not share here the specifics, lest I give anyone ideas.  But, I’ve shared many of the examples Curt Crosby, Sam Bushman and I contemplated, with Scott Hoganson who is the Utah County Deputy Clerk Auditor in charge of elections.  He added our list to his own list of concerns and examples of how cheating is facilitated.
Again, it’s not a question of whether the count of the ballots that made it into the box was correct.  (4th time is the charm!)  The most important question is how the ballots got into the box, were they legal and legitimate, and were there any ballots that didn’t make it into the box.  With this mail-in system, we’ll never know!
The City officials involved with supervising the voting are not bad people.  In fact they are good people doing the best they can with the questionable system they are required to work under.
Election officials must be willing to contemplate that though most are honest, it is possible that some are willing to break laws and cheat elections to get “their guy” into office.
Not good enough though to assume honesty, but must implement measures to insure mischief-proof elections.  No one at the City should touch a ballot or guard or handle the box who is not a SWORN election official.
We will never know if this Primary election was tampered with or if the results are true and accurate.
We do know the opportunity for election tampering was there for at least a 29-day window.
Would it surprise you to learn that on the night of  August 10, just prior to the counting of the votes, I asked for the group’s attention, and explained that I was tearing up my ballot in protest over an election process I already knew was in question.  I stated that the City Recorder admitted on July 30th she did not know with 100% certainty that the ballot box or ballots put into the box were legitimate and untampered votes, nor that all cast ballots made it into the box.   I then unsealed the envelope for the first time, in front of the group.  I found that the required contents were all there, tore the ballot in half and handed the ballot to Colleen the City Recorder “in protest” on an election outcome I knew could not be certified as being completed without error or mischief.
I believe it would be wise for the City to reconsider the mail-in ballot approach and return to the proven safe and secure single-day voting approach of the past as quickly as possible.  We shouldn’t have to worry that the vote totals will keep changing again, and again, and again.

RECOUNT – Press Release / Open Letter to CH Voters from Candidate Crosby

Written By: admin - Aug• 28•15


DATE:  Friday August 28, 2015

RE:  Request for recount of mail-in voting in Cedar Hills granted.  Recount scheduled for September 3, 2015

CONTACT:   Curt Crosby – Candidate for Cedar Hills City Council – cell:  (801) 669-2211

NOTE:  All photos are authorized for use with a “photo courtesy of Cedar Hills Citizens for Responsible Government  www.CedarHIllsCitizens.org “.


As a candidate for City Council in Cedar Hills, yesterday I submitted a written request to City Recorder Colleen Mulvey yesterday asking for a recount of the Primary election results.  She has responded to all candidates this morning in writing saying,


“FYI –

“I have received a request for a recount of the votes for the 2015 Municipal Primary Election from candidate Curt Crosby.

“According to Utah State Code 20A-4-401, Mr. Crosby is eligible to request a recount, which means all ballots in all precincts for all city council candidates will be recounted.

“I have scheduled the recount of the votes for the 2015 Municipal Primary Election for next Thursday, September 3rd beginning at 9:00 a.m. at the city office building.”

Based on the August 10th Election Day vote count, I was the sixth and final candidate of nine winning by four votes, to continue into the General Election in November.  But, straggler mail-in ballots deemed by the City Recorder Mulvey to be legitimate, were counted during the August 25 City Council meeting canvas, changing the outcome to a 5-vote loss and a one-vote loss for fellow candidate Craig Clement putting Brian Miller into the General election.

Votes totals for the sixth and final candidate to go thru General Election positions as of:

                       August 10th votes   August 25 votes   Final Approved Total

Curt Crosby          268 *                             11                         279

Craig Clement      264                                19                         283

Brian Miller         258                                26                         284 **

          *    winner on Aug 10th totals

         **   winner based on Aug 25th totals



In asking for a recount, folks need not assume that the request is an attempt to call into question our City Recorder Colleen Mulvey’s integrity.  Actually, I believe it likely the recount will produce the same results, but in the interest of all Cedar Hills voters the closeness, and the fact that the past three election cycles in a row in Cedar Hills have been clouded in controversy, legitimate voting deserves at least some level of confirmation.  Regardless the outcome of the recount, many questions regarding the legitimacy of the votes created by the imperfect vote by mail system, will never be known, nor will the accuracy of the outcome.  This is the problem created by the shallow thinking that higher voter numbers is good, when it may be artificially created with potentially fraudulent votes facilitated by mail-in ballots.


Recount Request was Carefully Considered

I’ve made the request for this recount only after careful consideration and was not a last minute decision.  Cedar Hills Citizens for Responsible Government learned weeks before the votes were counted on August 10, that the prolonged process that has traditionally confined to one highly monitored day by sworn election officials, grows the opportunity for voting mischief to at least 29 days with highly unmonitored voting with ballots handled and supervised by unsworn election officials.  What has been traditionally one day of highly monitored voting at one or two specific locations in Cedar Hills, has now essentially grown to over 2,000 potential unmonitored home voting locations.  While I believe the vast majority of the households will vote honorably, it takes only one or two households of illegal voting to sway the outcome of an election, especially an election as close as our recent vote.

In Cedar Hills the Primary election’s ballot box was left out in the City lobby unsealed, without tamper-proof tape, and left unprotected by sworn election officials apparently for all 29 days of the mail-in ballot election process.  (see photo Evidence #A below)  Also, mailed in ballots were handled by non-sworn election officials opening the process to potential voter fraud.

CH Ballot Box 2015 07 30 no tamper-proof tape CH lobby July 29 - no tamper proofing 20150730_113649

I personally witnessed this on July 30th, when my appointed vote count watcher and former City Councilman Ken Cromar, along with radio talk show host Sam Bushman and I, met for about 45-minutes with City Recorder Mulvey in the City offices to discuss the voting process and “chain of custody” she is legally responsible to protect.  By the end of the meeting, Ms. Mulvey admitted that she could not with 100% certify that the ballot box was fully protected from potential ballot fraud.


Morning after vote count tamper-proof tape had not been applied 

Also, on August 11th, the morning after the election day vote count which I won, I, along with Cromar went to the City offices and asked to see the counted ballots envelopes, the brown paper bags and large envelopes were not sealed or protected with tamper-proof vote tape.  City Recorder Mulvey and city employee HR manager Gretchen Gordon taped them with tamper-proof tape in our presence.  We photographed the results.  (see photo Evidence #B below)

CH ballot paper bags after we asked them to have tamper proof tape added Aug 12 - CH ballot paper bags after we asked them to have tamper proof tape added Aug 12 - 20150812_105230 CH ballot envelopes after we asked them to have tamper proof tape added Aug 12 - 20150812_105114

Of what value is higher voter turn out artificially created by mail-in ballots, if we haven’t taken every precaution to protect the process from potential voter fraud?  While I disagree with Hillary Clinton on most all of her political positions, I absolutely agree with her when she was quoted as saying, “Voting is the most precious right of every citizen, and we have a moral obligation to ensure the integrity of our voting process.”

Utah County Commissioners have been in the news lately concerned about mail-in balloting by some cities. They determined not to allow the mail-in ballots for County voting issues, to safeguard potentially fraudulent mail-in voting, canceling out the value of the votes of cities who prefer traditional, verifiable voting.  During Tuesday’s Council meeting, CH Mayor Gary Gygi publicly chastised the Commissioners for their decision.

We have learned that Utah Representative Brad Daw of Orem has prepared two bills for the upcoming Utah State legislative session which offers alternatives to mail-in voting.

Scott Hoganson, the Utah County Deputy Clerk Auditor in charge of elections in Utah County, has also expressed concerns with mail-in voting.  Hoganson has reported created a growing list of examples of how the “chain of custody” of ballots can be compromised from the moment the County mails them out.  In the effort to create a false sense of higher voter involvement, meaningful ID requirements has been sacrificed for uncertified library cards and utility bills are unwisely allowed and thus has added illegitimate individuals on voting rolls, who are now automatically sent mail-in ballots exposing the election process to potential fraud.

With Tuesday’s canvas my neighbor and candidate Craig Clement lost by one vote.  My official vote count designee former Councilman Ken Cromar won his election in 1995 by one vote; before the recount found a spoiled ballot increasing the margin to a two-vote win for Ken.  It should be noted that each vote in any election is a potential two-vote swing in a different direction.


It’s not about the counting – It’s how ballots got in the box

This was not a last minute concern.  The unwise trend toward mail-in ballots has been alarming for months.   Cedar Hills Citizens for Responsible Government has been researching what is called the “Chain of Custody” of mail-in ballots since February when the CH Council voted to go to complete mail-in balloting in an attempt to increase the number of voters.  What we discovered was the possible compromise of the mail-in voting process that could facilitate illegitimate voting by the extended time period voting could take place going from one highly monitored day to 29 days with gaps in security.  This begs the questions, is it worth increasing voter numbers, if the potential for illegitimate voting increases the possibility of canceling legitimate votes of legal voters and changing the outcomes of elections?  I believe the answer is no.

It’s not a question of if the ballots that came out of the ballot box were counted correctly, but rather if all the ballots put into the ballot box were put in there legitimately.


Cedar Hills election questions not new

I have been a candidate in the last three elections in Cedar Hills, 2015, 2013 and 2011.  Every election has been clouded in controversy:

Four years ago in 2011, the appointed ballot watchers for 3 candidates from Cedar Hills Citizens for Responsible Government were not allowed to watch the count.  Six legally authorized candidate-appointed ballot watchers signed Affidavits the next morning explaining that they had been told to stand off to the side where they couldn’t see the ballots, and were only allowed to listen to the count. The request for a recount of the narrow vote was denied.  (Please see… http://www.cedarhillscitizens.org/press-release1/ )

The same 2011 election, the City Newsletter promoted the falsehood on the front page that the City’s controversial golf course was “cash flow positive”, when indeed it was losing an average of $550K a year in taxpayer subsidies, and the city had loaned itself $1.7 million to cover the losses, — throwing support behind the City’s apparently hand-picked & supported candidates (see photo Evidence available upon request)

The same election found the three City promoted candidates break their voluntarily signed Utah State “Pledge of Fair Campaign Practices”.   (Please see…  http://www.cedarhillscitizens.org/an-open-letter-to-the-gygi-augustus-rees-campaign/ )

The relatively close election results were short-lived as the Mayor resigned to face bank fraud charges, to which he pled guilty and went to prison to serve 1-year and was required to pay $110K in restitution.

The Council appointed one of those three questionably elected Council members Gary Gygi to be appointed Mayor.

Two years ago during the 2013 campaign, appointed-Mayor Gygi ran part of his campaign for Mayor from the City offices.  The GRAMA request for records that included photos was made, Mayor Gygi reviewed his records, rather than the City Recorder, and apparently provided inferior home print outs of copies the pictures, rather than the original high resolution images.  After numerous email exchanges the original unaltered photos were finally sent.   (see photo Evidence #C below)

Photo #3 of 8 - DSC_0308 Photo #2 of 8 - DSC_0307 Photo #6 of 8 - DSC_0311







Now in 2015, after the  mail-in ballots that arrived after August 10th were certified by Ms. Mulvey, reportedly postmarked August 10th or earlier, were counted during the Tuesday August 25 the City Council Meeting canvas, the vote total shifted putting me in 8th place five votes behind the final 6th spot, with the 7th place being only one vote behind.  Remarkably close.  It is noteworthy that my official vote count watcher designee Ken Cromar was refused the opportunity to witness the ballots being counted.  Hoganson later said Mulvey could have allowed it, and maybe should have allowed it in the interest of at least the appearance of transparency and fairness.

Again, to me this is not a question of whether the ballots in the box were counted correctly, but rather it’s the bigger question of how the ballots that were counted, actually got into the unprotected ballot box in the first place.

In conclusion, I’ve requested a recount as part of my duty to help insure as much as is possible the integrity of deficient and dangerous mail-in vote process.

Respectfully Submitted to the public for consideration,

Curt Crosby

9835 N. Meadow Drive

Cedar Hills, UT

cell:  (801) 669-2211



Additional Contacts:

Ken Cromar

Candidate Curt Crosby’s vote count watcher designee

Former elected Cedar Hills City Councilman (July 1994 to Jan 2000)

Researcher for Cedar Hills Citizens for Responsible Government



cell:   801-400-5900


Scott Hoganson

Utah County Chief Deputy Clerk Auditor

(in charge of elections in Utah County)

Ut Co Office:  801-851-8130


Colleen Mulvey

Cedar Hills City Recorder –

(in charge of elections in Cedar Hills)

CH Office:  801-785-9668


Utah County Commissioner Bill Lee

Ut Co Office:  (801) 851-8135


Rep. Brad M. Daw

District 60 – Orem

Email:  bdaw@le.utah.gov

cell:   801-850-3608



Photo Evidence #A – see pics above

Actually July 30th, as the calendar had not been turned yet.

Note the ballot box is not sealed with tamper-proof tape and it sits out in the lobby unguarded by sworn election officials.

CH lobby Aug 10th still no tamper proof tape over opening – with non-sworn election official Mike Carson handling the box


Photo Evidence #B – see pics above

Photo of ballot bags morning after August 10, 2015 election count — AFTER the tamper-proof tape had been applied at the request of Candidate Curt Crosby.


Photo Evidence #C  – see pics above

GRAMA requested email containing photos of Gary Gygi’s campaign for Mayor being run from a City building.



City’s Final Results


CH Primary 2015 08 25a