Did everybody catch this letter to the editor that appeared in this morning's Standard-Examiner?Fly on the wall tells it all
Sunday, October 9, 2005
I recently had the good fortune to speak to the "fly" on the wall that was present at the meeting between Ogden Mayor Godfrey and Stuart Reid.
The meeting went something like this:
Godfrey: "Hey, Stuart, come on in. I've got a deal for you that's really good and will dupe the City Council and the public."
Reid: "I'll be right in."
Godfrey: "You can resign or I'll terminate you. We'll pay $43,561 in severance and hire you as a contractor for $77,828. Your first-year compensation will be $121,389 instead of your current salary of $104,547."
Reid: "You've got my attention, Mayor. I'll resign -- it looks better."
Godfrey: "I hear you, Stuart. I agree."
Reid: "But, mayor, I don't think I'm entitled to severance unless you terminate me, and how can we get around the City Council?"
Godfrey: "Well, Stuart, if it comes to that, I'll change the paperwork to 'termination.' The City Council will whine, but they can't do anything about it."
Reid: "I'm in. It's an early Christmas. Thanks, Santa."
My conclusions follow:
* Mayor Godfrey looked at the decision as, "What can I legally get away with?" instead of, "What is morally correct for those paying the bills (the public)?"
* The process smacks of cronyism.
* We need to elect officials who view public revenue as a sacred trust.
* Is this the tip of the iceberg in the behavior of Ogden's public servants?
Don L. Owens
Ogden
And if you caught the letter, you probably read the other side of the story,"" on the right side of the editorial page, written by none other than Mayor Godfrey himself.
For my own part, I'm growing sick of this story, and I don't feel like ruining a perfectly enjoyable weekend by dissecting it further today. If you're a glutton for punishment, though, you can read more about it here, here and here.
It's probably a little early to draw conclusions about the technical legal merits of this transaction; inasmuch as the city council's independent attorney hasn't issued his own opinion yet.
While we await the verdict of learned counsel, though, I'm going to apply a few of the facts we do know, and ask a few peripheral questions.
Inasmuch as we know that Stuart Reid's term of employment as Ogden City Economic Development Director was covered by a written agreement, why wasn't his purported prior oral severance agreement incorporated and integrated into it too? It was an integral part of his employment agreement with Ogden City, so why did Mayor Godfrey and Mr. Reid choose leave it out? Was it supposed to be a secret? If so, Why? And from whom was the secret to be kept? The city council? The taxpayers?
Mayor Godfrey's guest commentary also contains this slightly disturbing revelation: "Stuart received exactly what is allowed for under Ordinance 99-46, just as other Ogden employees have over the years. "
Are we understand from this that there exist other similar secret oral severance agreements ready to spring forth upon the voluntary terminations of other highly-paid city employees within Ogden city's current employ? If so, who else will be receiving a secret severance bonus?
And isn't reader Don Owens Right? Doesn't morality enter into the question here? Disregarding legal technicalities, doesn't this boil down to a question of right and wrong? And am I the only one who finds the adoption of a highly legalistic posture in this situation, adverse to the taxpayer interest, to be, well, more than slightly inelegant?
And what, if anything, did the other members of the "gang of six" (Jorgensen, Safsten, Burdett, Filiaga, and Stephenson) know about this; and when did they know it?
So many questions; so few answers.
20 comments:
Dontcha just love the way certain sleazy politicians hide behind "every thing we did was legal"?
Believe it or not, everything Hitler and his henchmen did was also "legal", Everything Stalin did was "legal", Everything the little Jerk in North Korea does is "legal".
All of them, including Godfrey, do very little however that is moral.
Amen. Just because something's legal doesn't make it right.
Well, with apologies for repeating myself: it seems the Nancy Workman approach to city governance has migrated north to Ogden.
In Mayor Godfrey's statements there is this sentence,"Furthermore, in just one transaction brokered under Stuart's leadership, the city of Ogden made more than $3.2 million!".
This is most interesting because we have not been given the details of this incredible feat. What are the details and what happened to the $3.2 million?
Or is this just another of Godfrey's inflated remarks?
If and when we get some new and ethical people on the city council I believe we will find out that every thing Stu and Matt touched was a big money loser.
Until then this evil cabal at city hall will keep the true numbers from the public.
The only projects that appear to be any where near successful are the Fresnius and Business depot deals. That of course is because they are being run by private companies. These two, along with every other city project, are to be hocked to the hilt over this stupid high tech wreck deal, so in the end it won't matter if they work or not. The banks will end up with all the profits and the properties, and the tax payers of Ogden will end up with tens of millions of losses.
The Mayor's little feel good piece in the SubStandard the other day was packed with lies and misleading statements about Reid's business prowess. If he was even half as good as Godfrey said, he would have been snapped up by private enterprise when he left our employement in the summer. Yet here he is back slopping out of the Ogden public trough for a third of what he and the mayor said he was worth in the private market. At that, it is still twenty times what he is worth.
Simply amazing how this devious duo keeps up the steady flow of lies. It just shows the contempt that they have toward the public.
It do seem funny that this Reid character would re-hire for 75K when Godfrey claims he's worth225K on the open mkt.
But then, most of what the Mayor says is funny, no?
Bottom line...Ogden is on its way back period! No one can stop it, especially you negative, doomsdaying pessimists. Look out SLC, Provo, Layton!
Gawn-dola-ahhh: wow. I've attended Lift Ogden meetings and depending on who was speaking, they assured the faithful that Ogden is but a tram/gondola/two-gondolas [the plan changes meeting to meeting]away from becoming "the next Aspen" or "the new Teluride" [sp?] or "another Alburquerque" or "a new Park City." But I never until this moment realized the full scope of their vision. Ogden as the new Layton? Or even --- oh, be still my heart! --- the new Provo? Where to I sign up?
Salt Lake and Provo maybe, but Ogden beating Layton in the ski and convention industry game? No way.
Watch out SLC, Provo and Layton....seems I've heard the Utmormon utter these words over and over again. What is this, a race for ego? Is this the goal, to beat SLC (which we NEVER can do if one looks at the reality-State Capital, over a million people, a thriving downtown, culture, a world reknown university, a whacked-out mayor but efficient, nevertheless), Layotn, a boom-town that has a city government that really UNDERSTANDS the role of city government, and Provo, the bastion of the LDS Church and computer technology? Should Ogden be "taking on" this battle, which sounds more like EGO than "what's good for Ogden" business?
At first look, you'll say I'm up in the night for uttering the above. But the reality is that Ogden should seek it's own identity and move forward with the object of re-becoming Ogden again, without this added "watch out you other cities" mentality, for THAT just doesn't count in the grand scheme of things. Those cards will fall where they may, I doubt the city leaders of those communities are staying awake nights wondering and fearing that Ogden is on thier tail.
Nope, Ogden should concentrate, CONCENTRATE, on becoming Ogden, and not feel that it's in a race to take-over some imagined status thing with other cities that have already figured out the way to succeed is to pay attention to thier own, respective needs rather than feel that they're in a race for some vaunted position.
That sort of mentality belongs on that other, un-read blog that the Utmo kid has up but barley running. Issues are discussed here are the childish races to greatness should be put back where they belong, in a place that doesn't interfere with the reality of what and where Ogden is and needs to be.
In Godfrey's commentary, he states that:
"Stuart received exactly what is allowed for under Ordinance 99-46, just as other Ogden employees have over the years. Ordinance 99-46 also allows for an employee who has received severance to be immediately rehired by the city. While we did not operate under the ordinance because my agreement with Stuart predated it; we are still in perfect harmony with it."
Being curious, I looked for 99-46 in the Ogden City Code. 2-6-9 popped up, which is the ordinance we are familiar with which deals with classification and pay plans. At the bottom of 2-6-9 is:
(1979 Code § 3.44.080; Ord. 94-53, 10-25-1994; amd. Ord. 99-46, 12-14-1999; Ord. 2003-51, 9-16-2003, eff. retroactive to 7-1-2003; Ord. 2004-25, 5-4-2004)
Which shows, I think, that within 2-6-9 is the revision of 99-46.
Remember 2-6-9? It's the one that states:
"If prior to the effective date hereof, employment agreements exist with different severance terms, then the eligible employee will be entitled to the benefit of the more advantageous terms. "
Problem is, in my opinion, no employment agreements exist. Because they were not written down. And one can perhaps see why.
2-6-9 is also the ordinance that states that no employee of Ogden City is entitled to severance if he or she leaves voluntarily.
Was that it? Can you imagine them writing this down? That Reid, in violation of 2-6-9, gets severance when leaving voluntarily? Because under 2-6-9, Reid does Not get " exactly what is allowed for under Ordinance 99-46, just as other Ogden employees have over the years..." In fact, he is ineligible for it because of leaving voluntarily.
Not that I know for sure that the severance agreement violated 2-6-9, since it doesn't exist in a form I can read, but it makes a kind of sense in this weirdly made arrangement that otherwise makes none. If this is indeed what happened, that the agreement consisted of Reid's getting severance if he leaves voluntarily, what we have is a mayor making a side agreement that directly violates Ogden City Ordinance 2-6-9.
I also can't find anywhere in this ordinance where it specifically states that an employee given severance can be immediately rehired by the city. What it does say is:
"A requested resignation shall not be considered a voluntary resignation and will entitle the eligible employee to severance pay benefits so long as the employee is not rehired for the same position with the city within six (6) months of termination date."
One could infer from that the intent to make a recipient of severance wait six months before being rehired. Of course it says nothing about people who resign voluntarily getting a severance and then getting rehired, because it prohibits that from happening.
Perfect harmony?
Ogden City Ordinance 2-6-9
I am pretty sure that Stuie isnt the only one benifiting from the good ol boys club that the Mayor has going on. The Police Chief, and the Fire Chief struck a pretty sweet deal. Both of them retired and worked part time for six months, then they were reappointed to their positions. Both are earning their retirement pay from the State Retirement System, in addition to a full benifit and pay package from the City. Also the Fire Marshal retired, worked part time for six months, then was re-appointed to his position, the Fire Marshal position was never posted for consideration of a replacement, violating the State Retirement Office laws. It seems that the Fire Marshal's position was held open for him. There are also instances of positions being held open in the Police Department for certain ranks of officers. These are just a few of the good ol boys club that we have going on in Camelot. Who do you think is responsible for those sweet deals? My guess is King Matt. It's pretty obvious that the Mayor is making more than one sweet deal. Who knows where the madness ends?
I've talked to numerous ex-Ogden city bigwigs about this.
They all tell me that Ogden City Ordinance Section 2-6-9 has NEVER permitted sole mayoral disgression in the awarding of voluntary severence bonuses.
Although such performance awards HAVE been occasionally been granted in the past, outside the ordinance, they've always been upfront and publically transparent, based on written memoranda, with city council approval.
The present city council only learned about Reid's 43K windfall after reading about it in the Standard-Examiner.
This situation is about as bad as it can get, I think.
The Mayor is showing desperation by clinging to a 5-1/2 year old secret oral agreement.
The situation stinks to high heaven.
We have an opportunity to unseat three of the gang of six.
Let's keep our eye on the mission of returning the control of Ogden city to Ogdenites.
Jorgensen and Burdett must go; along with the mayor's rubber-stamp candidates Larsen and Mosher.
The choice is between business as usual -- one man rule -- or a group of well-qualified and progessive candidates who will involve we citizens in the process of taking Ogden back from the redevelopment extremists and bringing prosperity to Ogden.
We can't take Ogden city back though, unless concerned citizens are willing to put on their wooly-woolies on a cold day in November, and go to the polls to vote out three of the "gang of six."
Nobody can complain after the general election if they failed to get out and vote.
Interesting information, anonymous.
The first thing the new council should do after being sworn in is to order an independent audit.
Something seems to be rotten in the state of Ogden.
But, the Candidates really need to hold the Mayors feet to the fire on these sweet deals that the citizens "have elected him to make". DO NOT LET HIM SKATE. I dont think that the current Council wont bother to rock the boat any further. Too bad the Sub-Standard wont look into these other improprieties that appear to be going on in our fair city. Oh that's right, it might influence the election.
You all think that this is something? Watch the dirty trick crap that will come out from Godfrey and his minions when the campaign begins to wind down. I can see it now: character assassination, inuendo, lies, cheap tricks, sleaze, you name it, it's on its way. No way will the Gang of 6 stay ethical; there's a damn good chance that they'll loose some seats to some up front and honest people who have integrity and want only to help the people. This, the Godfreyites will not stand for.
Keep and open mind and consider the source. It already began in Ward 1 the day before the Primary, but good old Jesse pulled it off, nevertheless.
Same stuff happened with the failed petition drive. Unethical politics, but really, what a shock, eh?
This comment of Godfrey's:
Stuart received exactly what is allowed for under Ordinance 99-46, just as other Ogden employees have over the years...
shows what the motivation for this "verbal agreement" might have been.
Because ordinance 2-6-9, under which 99-46 is listed states that severance is one month's salary for every year worked. This is basically what Reid's severance amount was.
However, the ordinance also states that no one leaving voluntarily gets a severance.
I am thinking the whole reason for this "verbal agreement" might have been that it had to do with Reid getting severance if he left voluntarily, which is in violation of the ordinance.
Since the amount of the severance was in compliance with one half of this ordinance, the only reason for a "verbal agreement" would have to be the circumstances of termination.
See what I mean? If the severance had not violated the terms of exit under the ordinance, no secret verbal agreement would have been necessary, since the severance amount was in compliance with Ogden City Code.
The whole thing would have been in compliance with Ogden City severance terms, would no doubt have been written down accordingly, and no one would have said a thing about it.
If this were indeed the nature of the "verbal agreement," (and I can think of no other reason to make one,) this in my opinion appears to be an attempt by two public officials, one of them elected, to willfully violate the Ogden City Code for purposes of personal gain.
Can this be?
"This was something we talked about years ago. I'd get my severance when I left," Reid said. "I had an agreement with him whether it was written or not."
"When I left."
Doesn't this imply the agreement was to get severance for Reid no matter what his terms of leaving were? Meaning that the main point of having the agreement was that Reid had to have it in order to circumvent the terms of ordinance 2-6-9?
If that were indeed the case, of course they wouldn't want to write this down and put their names on it, would they?
Ogden mayor says Reid left on his own, by Kristen Moulton, 9/24/2005, The Salt Lake Tribune
Greg Johnson, former councilmember and head honcho of the City's Good Landlord Program. I was in attendance at one of the original meetings that the City felt it should hold to "inform & enlighten" the landlords as to its new policy. Johnson was in charge.
His claim to fame was that he and his wife ahd about 4 months experience watching over the 4-plex they lived in when they were just married. His comment: "What a nightmare!" His landlording, as stated, ended in 4 months, and with this vast knowledge on how it really is, he was the guy the City chose to head-up the new program. Amazing. Sad. But not surprising.
Kristen's article says it all. Thanks for the dig-up, Dian.
Our gentle readers will note, Bernie, that Rudi graciously refrained from invoking "Godwin's Law" in reference to Merle Moore's earlier comment.
Inexperienced readers should be aware that "Godwin's rule of Nazi analogies" is a near article of faith for those of us who've been plying boards like this since the use-net days of the early nineteen-eighties.
Rudi:
How do you account for Moore's statement about nazi's being first on this thread when 'Goodwin's law" predicts it should be last?
Also from the treatise on "Goodwin's law is the following:
"One common objection to the invocation of Godwin's law is that sometimes using Hitler or the Nazis is a perfectly apt way of making a point. For instance, if one is debating the relative merits of a particular leader, and someone says something like, "He's a good leader, look at the way he's improved the economy", one could reply, "Just because he improved the economy doesn't make him a good leader. Even Hitler improved the economy." Some would view this as a perfectly acceptable comparison. One uses Hitler as a well-known example of an extreme case that requires no explanation to prove that a generalization is not universally true."
I think Bernie's dismissal of the comparison indicates he didn't get what he/she (Moore) meant.
Only Moore can say for sure, but I took it to mean that sleazy politico's who write the laws can write bad ones and then hide behind them to justify their nefarious actions. I didn't take it to mean that all politicians were like that, or that our local officials rise to the infamy of Hitler.
Perhaps Bernie doesn't want to accept that his relation the Mayor is sleazy around the edges like so many of us think?
By the way, this Bernie sounds like he might be a pretty good guy, being a D and all. We shouldn't dislike him because of who he is related to.
New comments are not allowed.