Comments about ‘University of Utah tries to smooth things over with conservative donor’

How can the U even suggest that the donation wasn't mishandled when $75K of it went to the wrong place?
This was no clerical error and efforts to clear it up only made things murkier.
The donor was unwise to use a middleman. He should have donated directly to the U.
Slightly off-topic: Why did the DN go to such great lengths to point out that the donor was "conservative"? Does it make a difference?

I will believe Jowers over the other guy every time.

Mr. Valcarce seems to have forgotten that once in a while the IRS does look into charitable organizations. He had better learn to be more thorough in his instructions to organizations he sends donations to. Sounds like Tea Party members just can't get their heads screwed on right yet.

How did DN get its hands on this letter?

Valcarce made this donation solely to avoid charges for tax fraud. Doesn't make him appear to be a very believable character.

A full and complete audit of the Hinckley Institute and the Jower's fund should be conducted to assure future donors and philanthropists that their donations are being used in the manner they desire and not for purposes of self aggrandizement, as is the case with Mr. Jowers. Taking and anonymous donation and taking credit for such in your own fund may not be illegal, but it is as unethical and tacky as it gets.

A Rob Bishop scholarship?

I hope Bishop takes advantage of it, and goes back to school.
Either that, or it's awarded to Gubner Herbert so he can be educated past the high school level.

I believe Jowers actions speak louder than his words in putting $75000 of the money into a trust with his own name on it. What would be the purpose of that, even if allowable, if not self-aggrandizement?

The Legislative Audit released this week of the University of Utah's handling of the many fees charged to students shows a horrible pattern of mismanagement, lack of accountability, use of all sorts of flaky purposes other than that for which it was ostensibly collected.

I doubt if Jowers and the Hinckley Institute do any better.

The entire University of Utah leadership has an attitude that they can do as they darn well please, and routinely ignore state laws (see their long running refusal to obey state laws regarding legally possessed firearms).

That attitude is unacceptable and those mishandling funds and policies must be held accountable. Criminal or civil charges may be appropriate, or certainly dismissal for insubordination or incompetence if not rising the the level of legally culpable.

Shame on Peter ValCarce for attempting to leverage a charitable donation for his own political gain. According to previous articles, ValCarce gave the Hinckley Institute full discretion when signed over the funds.

Now, 3 years later, he makes a stink? At the same time Jowers is striving to make Utah politics more accessible? Clearly not a coincidence!!!

That's what's so sad about ValCarce's spurious claim is that what he is doing in attacking Jowers is much more despicable than anything he claims Jowers has done.

I have interacted personally with both Peter ValCarce and Kirk Jowers over the last several years. Jowers has always been completely honest, transparent, and a joy to associate with.

In contrast, after my first interaction with ValCarce, I never wanted to work with him again. Enough said.

I think what reader's of this story have failed to grasp, is that if one donates to a University or charitable institution and does not designate how the money is to be use, then the institution receiving the donation has every right to decide on how it is best used.

Demanding after the fact, and attempting to put the blame on the University is simply political showmanship and attempting to create a problem where there was none. Those who would attempt to link this to any other University issue regarding student fees are simply playing the guilt by association game and are seemingly more concerned about gun laws than the actual facts of this case.

Memo to Fred Esplin: Jowers may have the best interests of the Hinckley Institute at heart BUT he also has the interests of Kirk Jowers top of mind. From my observations, in Jowers' mind it's him first, Hinckley/UofU a distant second. I don't know that Jowers misused Valcarce's donation but never lose sight that every move he makes is calculated to enhance his reputation and political future.

Let's all remember who Valcarce is. A Republican slime ball who is responsible for most of the annoying letters and fliers received during the election season. He claims to be a political activist and truly interested in the political arena, but really he is just out to make a quick buck and take advantage of potential politicians. Valcarce wasn't furious that his money was being "used" for a different purpose, he was furious that he didn't get his name mentioned during the Doug Wright Show and instead had to see Kirk Jowers--who he has long dislike--get some face time. Well Valcarce had enough and demanded some time in the light, so there he is, making a scene. Write to your representatives and potential candidates and tell them that any flier coming from Valcarce or his company, Arena Communications, means you won't vote for them. That is what I am doing.

I just hear the sound of babies crying.

Re: JustGordon: You are correct that the money can be use as need if there is no designation. However, it appears here that Mr. Jowers, used it as though it was from a fund named after him. Pretty deceitful on the part of a paid public servant. The University can and should do better than this. And, all us should be concerned that institutions treat their donors with respect as much after the gift as before. Look at the public derision on this comment board that the U's actions have caused one of their donors.

@DN subscriber: Thank goodness there are folks up on the hill that actually can and do think independently. The U audit had to do with student fees, not the Hinkley Institue. And speaking of legislative audits, maybe we could focus on how our esteemed leaders have managed the DABC. On second thought, let's ignore that and do something really important. How about now that we have a State hand gun, shouldn't we name a State semi-automatic. Maybe put it on the flag.
BTW - Valcarce was trying to get around paying taxes that were required when the IRS figured out he was not adhering to the conditions of having a charitable trust. His credibility is a bit tarnished.

The disheartening aspect of this story is Jowers' attempt to turn himself into a political martyr when he was the very person mishandling the anonymous donation. This is PR 101...when attacked, create a straw man (caucus system, they are out to get me).

So he will donate as long as everything goes his way. Sounds like a whiney 2 year-old to me. Dang, grow up, pal,

I know Pete Valcarse...he is an honest and decent man. Those of you calling him a slimeball know nothing. I think there is plenty of blame to throw around here.