You are on page 1of 4
Norman R. Henderson 11270 East Silver Fork Road Brighton, UT 84121 October 13, 2018 U.S. Attomey John Huber 111 Main St #1800 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP ‘One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Re: Complaint against Jayme Blakesley, prior attorney for UTA (Utah Transit Authority), and Ben. McAdams, Mountain Accord Executive Committee Chair Dear US Attomey John Huber and the law firm Coblentz Patch, Duffy and Bass, ‘My name is Norm Henderson. I am one of the plaintiffs in what is known as the Mountain Accord lawsuit. | retired from the National Park Service after nearly 30 years of employment. My responsibilities with the Park Service included ensuring that the agency followed proper public ‘outreach and compliance procedure throughout the resource management decision-making process. Tam a homeowner in one of the canyons most affected by the decisions made by the Mountain ‘Accord. When I became aware of the Mountain Accord program and reviewed its processes, I became very concemed. Mountain Accord was proposing to construct direct transportation solutions in the canyons that reached into the billions of dollars. It was also facilitating what appears to be some of the most high dollar land trades in the state's history. ‘One would assume that such recommendations would come with thorough documentation of its decision making process (potentially via NEPA due to the vast amount of US Forest Service land involved). However, when I attempted to review documents and audio recordings for how they arrived at their recommendations, I found that most items I was looking for did not exist. Not only do the items not exist, but also Mountain Accord was claiming that it was not required to have the items since it wasn't subject to the law that required them; the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act (PMA). On October 4, 2016, State Auditor John Dougall, backed by the Utah Attorney Generals office, issued a determination letter stating that Mountain Accord is subject to OPMA. Our lawsuit was filed October 6, 2016. During the course of the lawsuit, we confirmed that Mountain Accord repeatedly broke the law. In its reply to our complaint, Mountain Accord admitted violation. We also discovered what appears to be a cover-up of its violations. This was not low-level staffer’s that conducted these actions; rather, it appears that they were executed by top officials at UTA and the mayor of largest county in the state. In July 2018, Mountain Accord through its attorney offered to settle the Mountain Accord lawsuit. Now nearly 80 days later, the suit is still not settled because Mountain Accord insists that I agree to the following language: The Parties understand, acknowledge, and agree that this Agreement constitutes a setilement of disputed claims and neither this Agreement nor the settlement it represents is in any way an admission of liability, violation of law, or wrong doing by any party.” (Paragraph 7) Our attorney replied to Mountain Accord’s attorney with the following: My clients can't accept paragraph 7 as you have it drafted because it attempts to avoid what has already been established in this case which is that OPMA applied and your client's did not comply with it. They would rather file a motion for summary judgment and have the court issue a judgment as a matter of law that your clients violated OPMA I simply will not sign, nor be pressured into signing a settlement agreement that I know to be false. So how does Mountain Accord relate to UTA? UTA was designated as the Fiscal Agent for Mountain Accord when it appropriated funding in support of the Mountain Accord efforts. In addition to these state funds, UTA has contributed substantial funds and in-kind services directly to Mountain Accord. We know that UTA receives a large portion of its funding from the federal government and has a checkered history of compliance with state law. Due to U'TA’s violations and as required by the US Attorney for Utah, UTA is now monitored by outside legal council for the next three years. During discovery of the Mountain Accord lawsuit we found that UTA was not being truthful to you in its letters dated October 4, 2016 and April 4, 2017 as follows:. 1, Violation of Transparency laws. UTA’s letter dated October 4, 2016 states: UTA has made efforts to increase transparency on multiple fronts....UTA recognizes the importance of conducting its business in public. As a result, the Authority complies with Open Meeting Law requirements Unfortunately, the facts do not support the claims made by UTA. In fact, UTA and ‘Mountain Accord admitted in its response to our complaint that the Mountain Accord Executive Board did not comply with the Open and Public Meetings Act (OPMA). Also, Mountain Accord Program Director Laynee Jones stated, “Clearly we did not follow the act”, “We didn’t follow...there’s no question.” In addition, one can quickly look up Mountain Accord on the state’s Public Notice website and discover there is absolutely no history of Mountain Accord; no posting of meetings, no approved minutes, no recordings, literally nothing. This violation of the law occurred both. prior to and after the October 4, 2016 letter. In the same letter, UTA also states: To further transparency improvement efforts and as permitted by state record's law, UTA has begun placing documents requested by members of the public and the media on its website so the general public has access to requested information. However, the following month, on November 7, 2016, attorney Fred Finlinson responding to acitizens GRAMA request for specific documents relating to Mountain Accord claimed, “Since the Mountain Accord is not...subject fo the records request provided by GRAMA, no records are available...” So UTA as the fiscal agent for Mountain Accord states to you that they are complying with the Open Meetings law, yet at the same time, they do not comply with OPMA, they do not comply with GRAMA, all while spending millions of taxpayer dollars. Their spent funds included federal, state, county and municipal money as they made a nearly $3 Billion transportation project recommendation. 2. Misleading a United States Congressional Committee. ‘On November 15, 2016, UTA attorney Jayme Blakesley, Salt Lake County Mayor and Mountain Accord Executive Committee Chair Ben McAdams and Sandy City Mayor Tom Dolan lead a local delegation to Washington DC to testify in front of the House Subcommittee on Federal Lands. UTA attorney Jayme Blakesley, Sandy City Mayor Dolan, and Snowbird, a major campaign donor of Mayor McAdams, testified before this committee, requesting federal legislation that would establish the Central Wasatch National Conservation and Recreation Area (HR 5718) introduced by Congressman Jason Chaffetz. Those testifying repeated over and over that Mountain Accord was an unprecedented collaborative process, a once in a lifetime opportunity, and that all stakeholders had been represented. In this hearing that lasted nearly an hour and a half, those testifying withheld relevant facts about the legislation. They did not divulge that the bill bad actually been negotiated will they violated the Open Meetings law. They did not state that the land exchanges would greatly enrich the four cottonwood canyon ski resorts and that the ski resort with the most to gain had donated heavily to the political campaigns ‘of Mountain Accord leadership. They also failed to mention that the local constituency most