Our gentle readers will recall our December 3, 2005 article, wherein we discussed our Ogden City council delegation's four-day National League of Cities conference in Charlotte, North Carolina. As you'll recall, they'd received some gentle "ribbing," about hob-nobbing the the neoCON faction.
The convention ended last weekend; and our delegation returned to Ogden, with box-loads of information in hand. Both council-members-elect Dorrene Jeske and Bill Glasmann graciously volunteered to provide us full reports. True to their words, I received detailed articles yesterday evening. In the interest of conserving front page-space, I'll make them available through the following links:
You can read Dorrene's Jeske's report here.
You can read Bill Glasmann's report here.
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank both of these new council-members for expending the time and energy to inform our readers about the Charlotte event. It's obvious that they both worked hard and learned much.
What's more, it's very encouraging to observe that both of these new council-persons are delivering on their campaign promises, even prior to their formal swearing-in, to keep the townsfolk informed.
Their lame-duck predecessors arrogantly behaved as if our Weber County Forum readership, numbering now in the thousands, didn't even exist. Of course, that's no different than how they treated the general public.
A tip of the hat to Dorrene and Bill, I say.
It's a new day in Ogden, I think.
And what think our gentle readers about this?
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
49 comments:
Too late...too late. We needed someone to brainstorm a decent name for the new bus terminal. Whoever came up with the "Intermodal Hub" needs to find a new profession. Counting on you to protect us from "The Ogden Intermodal Adventurama" or some similar excrescence. All the best, Ms. J, and hang in there until we get a decent one.
I lived in a city once that built a brand new sports arene/convention center downtown and named it "The Centroplex!" Tis enough to gag a maggot. Folks immediately began pointing out that "Centroplex" sounded like a secret new ingredient for making girdles. "The new Playtex, now with Centroplex!" Please, Ms. J., give us something better than that.
The way the City has written the contract with Boyer, if passed December 27th, any and ALL control of the Rec Center and mall development will be REMOVED from the hands of the City Council!! Scott Brown will be the ONLY contact for the City! THIS IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!!
Yes, it is. Are you saying here that Boyer is somehow involved in the development of the rec center? I knew they were in other places on the site, but never did I hear that they had anything to do with the rec center. Do they?
Dorene, our prayers are with you and your family. I wish your well.
Dorrene
You are a breath of fresh air! I wish you and your family all the very best with your grand child.
I believe that you and your fellow new councilmen will be the best thing to happen to Ogden for a long long time. Good luck to all of you - and to the people of Ogden. There are definately brighter days ahead.
I hope you can do something about this total BS thing with Boyer. Can we see the proposed contracts with Boyer and Miller?
My suggestions for the Rec Center:
Matt Godfrey Memorial - MGM
To Hell with the people center
Toxic Exercise Center - TEC
Gang of Six horror - GOSH
A caution Ms. Jeske:
In your interesting report on the Charlotte conference, you mentioned that you'd met with the Mayor and he "told" you you were in charge of finding a name for the new Rec Center downtown. I hope, Ms. Jeske, he asked you to take on the job. He cannot tell you to do it.
This may seem a minor point, and in many ways it is... except that for a very long time now the relationship between the Mayor and the Council has been this: The Mayor assigns, the Council carries out. That is not how the Mayor/Council form of government is supposed to work. Council members are no less elected by the people [particularly at-large council members] than the mayor is. The Council has very important oversight responsibilities, particularly involving money, that it has in the past several years not exercized. One example:
Some years ago, our current Mayor asked the Council for money to buy roll-away bleacher seats for the downtown amphitheater. The Council said no, that at the time the very expensive roll-away seats were not a wise expenditure of city funds. The Mayor went ahead and bought them anyway even after the Council said no. And he paid no price for that. In street terms, he "got away with it."
In short, the Council seems to have become in the last six years or so, a largely advisory body. That is not what it is intended to be in the Mayor/Council model of city government.
I concede that there are some, probably some who've posted here, who would like to see you, and the new Council, oppose anything coming from the Mayor simply because it comes from the Mayor. I am not one of them. The Council and Mayor must work together for the common good or we are all sunk. But working together does not mean falling into the habit of doing the Mayor's bidding, willy nilly, or of simply shaking heads and going "tsk tsk" when he jumps the rails [the amphitheater seating incident.]
So I was just a little antsy at seeing your post saying he "told" you you were in charge of naming the center. Ask you to take it on, sure. Tell you it's yours, no. Maybe too picky a point to raise here, but I don't want to see you, or any of our new council persons, falling into the old habit of accepting "the mayor orders, the council carries out" model of city government.
That said, from your report, the trip to Charlotte seemed well worth your time and the City's money.
Dorrene and Bill, thank you so much for writing those reports. Very well written and informative, and I'm sure you're better equipped for taking on this gargantuan task now. Bill's financing seminar sounds intriguing and so worthwhile--these financing deals have been a concern to all of us, I think.
At least what this will do is perhaps give the two of you a model or an idea of best and worst possible scenarios in these things, and then maybe you can figure out how to get to best from where we are now. This is really kind of exciting!
And good point, Curmudgeon. I absolutely agree. Council members always have the right to refuse these things.
Although naming things is always fun. We could all have a good time with this one.
Great articles, the both of you.
I share Rudy's feeling of optimism, as we move toward the new year, and our new citizen friendly city government.
Thanks so much for all you've done so far!
If Glasmann stays true to his campaign promises, and to the well written report from the convention, he will be a great asset to Ogden, a huge improvement in this awful city government we have been suffering under for the last six years.
Good luck and go get um Bill. Don't take no wooden nickels, especially from Pee Wee. (if he is able to come up with some real ones however, don't turn em down just cause they came from him)
Glasmann, Jeske, Stephens, Garcia & Wicks. The new gang of five! Are the citizens of Ogden lucky or what? I for one just simply luvs this new day that is about to dawn over our dear old home town.
By the way Glasmann has some mighty big family shoes to fill. His great grandfather was an early mayor of Ogden, one of the finest we ever had.
In your interesting report on the Charlotte conference, Dorrene, you mentioned that you'd met with the Mayor and he "told" you you were in charge of finding a name for the new Rec Center downtown. I hope, Ms. Jeske, he asked you to take on the job. He cannot "command" you to do anything.
Curmudgeon is elegantly correct on this.
Keep in mind that the coucil is a co-equal power in Ogden City Government -- and that you'll be a stting counclperson in about two weeks.
I would have told the little shit to "stick it," myself, if I'd been you.
Naming the River Project something more palatable ain't your problem, Dorrene.
The little dork is just trying to "play" you.
Amen to that Rudi!
Pee Wee is an insidious manipulator.
I will attempt to answer some of the questions and concerns that some of you had about some of the statements that I made in my report. But first, I would like to tell Bill what an excellent job he did on his report. You were so detailed and informative that I felt that my report was inadequate. I could tell that you spent a lot more time than I did going over your notes and reporting on the classes. You will be a great asset on the Council because you are so thorough, Bill.
Dian, I read the contract and couldn't find where it states that Boyer will handle the rec center construction, but when we were briefed about the contract, I sure had the impression that Boyer will be handling everything. For those of you who asked if you could get a copy of the contract -- you should be able to as it is or will be a matter of public record. You may have to pay for the printing though.
Curmudgeon and Rudi, I'm sorry if you were misled about my involvement in the naming of the river project and the mall. I met with the Mayor on Wednesday and did not mention taking the class on marketing. It was at our 8:00 AM meeting Thursday on the possible new medical center when the Mayor said that they called the river project the river project and said that they weren't very creative with names. I said, "Oh, one of the classes I took in North Carolina was on marketing and 'branding,' and that I had been given some good information on how to come up with a good name that was appropriate and enduring. The Mayor's reply was, "You can be in charge of coming up with a name for the river project and the mall then." I didn't get a big response about helping name the river project or the mall so I would still like to have more of you help. This could really be a fun project. Don't worry about my being told to do something -- if Harry wants to get a rise out of me, all he has to do is tell me, 'Answer the phone and say 'Hello!' when it rings. My back immediately goes up when people tell me to do anything or when I feel that I am not being treated with the same or more respect than a man. That's just one of my little quirks. The Mayor was a gentleman, friendly and congenial when we met. He told me about the projects the City has been doing and seemed more than willing to meet half way and be very accommodating. Time will tell how sincere he is. As we need to work together, I will give him the benefit of a doubt this round.
Thanks to all who have expressed concern for my great-grandson and granddaughter. I really appreciate your comments and prayers. I also appreciate your words of confidence in my ability to serve as your Council representative and your words of encouragement. It is very humbling and frightening to know. I will do my very best and what I know is the right thing to do for Ogden and for you. I will not forget why you elected me and that I represent you. I hope that you will realize that the current Council has tied our hands on several things, and we have no choice in the way things are to be done. I am so angry over the fact that they insist on voting on the Boyer contract, restricting us even more! One week! The delay won't hurt the project. It seems as though we're being punished for winning!
Thank you, Ms. Jeske. Appreciate the reply.
Mr. Glassman wrote in his "report" that he learned the following:
“Leadership is not the ability to make people go where you want them to go; it is the ability to make them WANT TO GO where you want them to go.”
.
In other words leadership is manipulating the people to your way of thinking by conning them! This doesn't seem to have anything to do with representing the will of the people - which incidently is what elected REPRESENTATIVES are elected to do.
This is extremely disappointing and venal thinking right out of Mayor Godfrey's handbook. I already regret the vote I gave to Mr. Glassman. We did not elect him to LEAD us, we elected him to REPRESENT us.
He represents himself as a foe to the so called "Neo Cons", and one of the first things he does is spout one of their core philosophys! That strikes me as very duplicitas. I hope that this is not a preview of what he will be like once he is in office.
Food for thought indeed, Arlene. Absolutely right in one sense, for sure.
However....an example....
If we are all going down a mountain trail, and I am your leader, and I say---all right, we're all going to run as fast as we can.
And you know there is a cliff up ahead and you say no, this would not be wise.
In other words--this is a situation where you know more than I do.
I am never going to convince you to honestly believe that I have a good idea. What I have to do now to be a good leader is listen to you, know that you too have a mind and there is a possibility that you might know what you are talking about, and act accordingly by sending someone ahead to Get More Information. And when they come back and say my idea was dangerous, then we will all agree to be careful and we will thank you. We will all believe in that course of action, and I will then have been a good leader.
I will have represented you and looked out for your best interests and led you down in a safe way.
If on the other hand, my ego gets in the way and I view you as a threat to my position, and tell you to be quiet, that I'm in charge here, and things will not go well for you if you do not obey me, and scare you into submission, and then force a group of people down a trail I have never been on and take us all full speed over a cliff, even though you and probably quite a few others thought this was folly and informed me of that, I am obviously not a good leader, and those of you who survive this will probably throw me out if by some chance I survived too.
Because it is obvious that I only care about myself and my position, and don't think it matters if anything bad happens to you. Not representative, in other words.
This is really interesting if you apply it to the schism in Ogden about these projects. An article Rudi posted the other day gave two criteria for ascertaining whether or not a project was worthwhile: Is it the will of the people, and Is it financially sound?
Many of us are answering no to both of these. In order to make us answer yes, the city would have to come forward with valid information that the rec center was something a majority wanted, and that the city would be better off financially with it than without it.
Instead, what the city is saying is that there is no success without risk and that we don't understand the full issue because the negotiations were private and things went on that we don't know about.
So imagine us on that trail again, you knowing there is a cliff and me saying sternly--There is no success without risk, and besides, I was in a meeting up higher on the hill and we discussed this and decided to go for it.
The way out of this is, of course, for someone to prove definitively that the cliff is or is not there. The city, metaphorically speaking, does not seem to be able to prove that the cliff is not there. In fact, it has admitted risk, but then has not acted to protect us from that risk in any way, as it has the lenders, for instance.
Any leader, and any representative, will always have some opposition. But if the opposition has facts or unaddressed concerns that show a course may be faulty, then they will never Want to go where the leader wants them to go, and with good reason. If the leader cannot refute those facts or adequately address those concerns, then the leader has to take them into account and take a wiser and different course.
So that's another way to look at that quote, although Arlene's impression of it is certainly a valid one. I really think we're all hypersensitive for signs that Bill and Dorrene have been sucked into the Cult of the Neocons, myself. They should thank us for our vigilance, in my opinion---please don't be insulted, you two. If we're sitting here saying watch out all the time, just know that it's because we want you to succeed at what we've elected you to do.
Arlene has broached, and dian has continued, a very interesting topic: what is the proper role of someone elected [at any level] as a representative of the people?
Some history may be instructive here. The Constitution was modeled, very largely, on the Virginia Plan, which was modeled, very largely on the way representative government worked in colonial Virginia. In Washington's and Madison's and Jefferson's and George Mason's Virigina, members of the House of Burgesses [colonial Virginia's house of epresentatives] were not expected to reflect, in every vote they cast in the House, the wishes of 51% of the voters in their districts. Anyone who actually did that would have been considered unqualified to hold the office at all. Elected Representatives were expected, once elected, to excercise their own best judgement on every issue placed before them, and to vote according regardless of the wishes of the majority in their districts [aka "the people"].
The presumption was that the electee, being a gentleman, had the time and the education necessary to inform himself about the issues of the day --- in short, he would have access to more and better information than the electorate did. The "check" on the Burgesses' power was the next election. If, in sum, the voters were displeased with how the delegates exercised their independent judgement on the voters' behalf, voters did not return them to office.
The US House of Representatives was, at its inception designed to operate the same way: delegates were to exercise their own best judgement on each issue that came before them. The Capitol of the U.S. was deliberately located in a swamp [now known as Washington DC] far from any existing cities and press so that the legislators could act on matters "at a distance and out of sight." The Founders worried about legislators having voters looking over their shoulders all the time on every vote. And with good reason.
This original idea of the role of representative continued long into the 20th century. Read for example JFK's introduction to Profiles in Courage, which he wrote while a Congressman. In it, he selected a number of Congressmen who he thought were particularly courageous because> they voted against the clear will of their constituents and by doing so served the nation well, even at the cost, for some of them, of their jobs. [Example: the key Senator who refused to find President Andrew Johnson "guilty" when he was impeached by the Radical Republicans following Lincoln's assassination. His one vote would have removed Johnson. Johnson's was wildly popular in the North following Lincoln's murder. The Congressman was a RAdical Republican, but he thought the impeachment political and not justified on the evidence and he refused to vote Johnston guilty. Had he follwed his constituents' clear preference, we might now have a more parliamentry form of government in which Presidents could be removed, mid-term, for disagreeing with the majority party in Congress --- Johnson's only real "crime".] Kenney's introduction to the book makes it plain he thought that the role of the Congressman was, still, to exercise his own best judgement on any issue before Congress, and not simply to reflect the wishes of a majority in his district.
Of course, instant electronic media have trumped the founders' intentions, and all of our reps --- city, state and national --- know that every cough or hiccup will be on the evening news moments after they happen, with film at eleven. Has this constant public oversight made the system work better than the one the founders designed? Debatable, but I tend to think the answer is no.
Which leads us to dian's point: isn't it the role of a representative to try to persuade "the people" that his understand of what is good for the city [state or nation] is correct, and theirs is wrong? Should we admire city councimen or Congressmen, as Arlene seems to suggest, who say "I think this course of action is wrong. I think it will harm the city [state or nation], but most of the people in my district want it, so I will vote for it anyway." Possibly. But I wouldn't. I'd consider him [or her] coweardly and betrying the public trust to vote for something he believed was wrong or harmful, just to curry favor with voters. Of course, displeased voters could, and very well might, un-elect him or her at the next opportunity. They would be exercising their best judgement and is how the system works. Or is supposed to. [Which is why I have a great deal of respect for the council incombents who ran this time and were not re-elected: they exercized their best judgement regardless of how it might affect their re-election; the voting public judged on the whole that they had not as a rule cast their votes on the council wisely, and removed them from office. Both the councilpersons and the voters acted honorably, and did what the system permited, and I would argue, required, them to do.]
I don't think elected officials working to convince voters that the officials' views on an issue are better for the the city [state or nation] is coniving or deceitful. I think it's leadership.
The presumption in government is still that elected officials have more knowledge, more information and so are better able to make judgements than the electorate at large. [We can debate whether that presumption is still valid some other time. And it is now debatable, as it was not in 1789.] I still want my elected officials to exercise their best judgement on issue that come before them, and not to merely raise a wet finger to catch the latest shifts in public opinion before they vote. And if they choose in my view wrongly too often, I will work, and vote, to remove them at the next election.
What Arlene seems to be suggesting, that representatives should follow the will of the majority as they understand it at all times the Founders would have called truckling to the mob. Our system is designed so that the general public's will gets expressed in elections. But not between elections, the Gallop Poll notwithstanding.
The whole question of what is the role of elected representatives in an age of instant communications and virtually daily polls on every conceivable issue before them is IMO a fascinating one. Glad Arlene raised it.
My take on the matter is that Bill Glasmann made a report on a workshop, not a statement as to his political philosophy. Re-reading that passages, I find that manipulation may be present if one were to stop half way through the sentence, but if one continues on and takes into consideration the entirety of the sentence, then the meaning is choice, not manipulation.
As for the role of an elected official. A multiple choice test may best define it:
What is the role of a council person or a commissioner?
a-leader
b-representative
c-servant
d-decision maker
e-one who safegaurds
f-steward
g-all of the above
h-all of the above and then some
The answers is (h).
Dian and Curmudgeon raise some pretty good points.
However I think there is some room for disagreement here on this subject of the role of representatives in city government versus national government.
I also disagree on why the swamp was chosen as the seat of government. Seems like this subject was covered pretty well in the best selling biography of John Adams that was on the best seller list last year. Yes, I read it, but in lieu of digging it out and looking up this subject I will pass on my memory of what it said about the founding of Washington, D.C.
Seems like D.C. was chosen as a compromise between the big states and the little states. (Also the reason incidently that the House and Senate were set up as they were). The big and little here refers to population. There was a fear by the little states that they would be over shadowed and controlled by the big ones. The original capital, after Philly, was New York City - both of course in big states. So the government, under George Washington, decided to set up in none of the states, but instead create the District of Columbia to calm the dissention that was brewing over the issue. This is why it was called Washington.
Washington D.C. was, and is, very close to Baltimore, a big city of the time which would seem to negate the "at a distance and out of sight" reason put forth by Curmudgeon. Philly and New York City were both a great distant from the rest of the states at that time. It would take a week or two at best for people or information to go back and forth between the seat of government and the various states. This again would seem to argue against - "The Founders worried about legislators having voters looking over their shoulders all the time on every vote."
While their points on the role of representatives in government are mostly accruate when it comes to national government and large complex issues faced at that level, I do not believe they hold true on a city level where the citizenry are for the most part well informed and where the issues dealt with are much closer to their every day lives.
The primary role of local government is public safety and infastructure, something that effects all of us on a daily and personal level. In this situation the problems are pretty simple and direct compared to what the national government is faced with. Our representatives live here and are in much more direct contact with the people that they represent. In this case they should more directly represent the will of the people on these local issues.
There are a lot of people in Ogden that do not believe that their "representatives" on the city council have been representing them at all. There is a very large belief in Ogden that these soon to be ex-representatives have been representing the Mayor and his "Calling" and have completely ignored and shown distain for the will of the public.
I believe that this recent election reflects that. These deposed despots have been voted out for that very reason, rather they accept and understand it or not!
They showed contempt for the people, and the people, in their infinate wisdom, have returned the favor. I am confident that in two years time the people will do the same with Godfey, Sasten and Stevenson. It can't come soon enough in my book.
I agree with the earlier writer. The new council members were elected to "represent" us not "lead" us. They are legislators, not Mayors, not Governors, not Presidents, not Kings (or Queens).
I also found Glasmann's new found "knowledge" on this subject to be very alarming. I hope it is not a portent to his future actions. I think he will be very good for Ogden if he doesn't go down that evil NeoCon road.
With a name like "Plato" I assume you subscribe to the mayor's notion of this being a "repulic" not a democracy.
“Leadership is not the ability to make people go where you want them to go; it is the ability to make them WANT TO GO where you want them to go.”
There doesn't seem to be any ambiguity at all in the sentence. The entire thought is all about manipulating the public. Contrary to what you write, it is the last half that makes it so.
"What is the role of a council person or a commissioner?
a-leader
b-representative
c-servant
d-decision maker
e-one who safegaurds
f-steward
g-all of the above
h-all of the above and then some
The answer is h."
Wellllll - a and d are one and the same, and b, e and f are the same. In any event the whole insipid thing obviously comes straight out of the League of Cities and towns propoganda Neo-Con handbook. The most troubling piece of shit in the little question is the answer - h - "all of the above and then some". Leaves plenty of room to abuse the public by self important little wienies like the ones we recently deposed.
This is off the subject but I thought it kind of funny.
In this morning's SL Tribune Books Section there was an article on the "Urban Dictionary" which is a book out on current urban slang.
Two entries caught my eye and made me think of the Gang of Six and their recent dirty tricks.
DL - Acronym for "down low" secret.
Dillhole - An inidividual lacking intelligence, people
skills, compassion and a human soul.
These are right on definitions for Godfrey, Safsten, Stevenson, Burdett, Jorgensen and the big dumb sleepy one.
That was an excellent post, Curmudgen. You deserve a hat-tip for that. I do believe it's useful to look at our historical roots. The American founders were indeed decidedly un-democratic in the new government they created, at least as the term "democracy" was defined 230 years ago.
Even having overthrown an autocratic King George, they were unwilling to embrace "pure" democracy, i.e., rule of "the masses." Landed citizens and "American aristocrats" all, "The Founders" were unwilling to turn the reins of their revolution over to what some of them derisively called "mob rule."
The "republican system " (known in the rest of the world as "indirect democracy") they devised was a brilliant one, which isolated them from the vagaries of sheer public opinion. Although elective officers were indeed deemed to serve at the will of the people, and with their consent, elections were only held periodically. This helped cool passions, and provide politicaly stability, and was also a practical necessity in the "horse and buggy" age. The system of "checks and balances" they installed was a political marvel, too, operating to limit accumulations of undue power in any single branch of government.
In the intervening years though, there's been much slippage from the harsh original "republican" concept. Both houses of congress are now popolarly-elected, and legislative districts are now re-apportinated under the principle of "one man, one vote," unlike the scheme originally written into the constitution by "The Framers." Certain states, even have direct-democracy aspects -- like "citizen propositions" and "legislative recall. Even the State of Utah falls into that more 'democratic" fold, with an "indirect" referendum provision. Public-notice requirements are ubiquitous throughout governement statutes; and it's unrealistic to consider them unnecessary "surplusage."
And, of course, we live in the information age, wherein citizens are no longer geographically-isolated.
We've been inelucably moving toward greater participatory democracy in this country ever since the founding; and I believe you've put a fine point on the question, Curmudgeon: "...what is the role of elected representatives in an age of instant communications and virtually daily polls on every conceivable issue before them?"
I'm going to give you my quick answer on this... as least as it pertains to Ogden City:
The role is self-defined... defined by the candidates themselves, in fact.
Many citizens of this city believe we've been delivered by the election process from a nighmarish situation, where our elected representaives were completely detached from their voter citizenry. Not only did Mayor Godfrey openly thumb his nose at public opinion... five of the seven council members acted as the mayor's personal hatchet-men. The outgoing council is rightly perceived as having been inanttentive, incompetent and lacking good business judgment. It's hard to imagine how our city government could have gotten any more detached from the public it was supposed to serve than it was than during the last four years.
What is the proper role of the new city council?
To the new council I say this: The answer is really quite simple. Be true to your campaign promises. Listen to, and communicate with, the people. Scrupulously consider public input along with all the other data. Make it a point to let us know you're being deliberate in your decisions. There will be "hard" cases, where both sides of the 'argument can present wholly rational arguments, of course. In these cases, go out of your way to demonstrate that your decisions are deliberate and rationally-based. Refuse to rush into decisions in cases where you lack adequate data. Remember your primary role is to act as the delegated representatives of citizens who can't participate in the formal process; and don't forget it's we citizens whom you represent. Get down to the fundamentals of running a city government; and remember that Ogden city has neither the practical capacity nor the expertise to be deeply involved in the real estate development business. Above all... conform your decisions to the community morality. Don't be lured into making immoral decisions on the vague, subjective communitarian notion "of the greater good."
If all goes well, we're looking forward to a new day in Ogden. You've already defined your roles during your campaigns. It's now time to follow through.
Touche, Rudi, Touche
I just hope that the new council doesnt fall into the vision trap the the Godfrey regime has. Use the vision that the people who elected you. Get back to the basics, provide clean water, provide fire protection, police protection, provide the basics.
We dont need to provide real estate investment, and nonsense to the tax payers for our community.
Furthermore we dont need the Boyer Corp. to own and manage the City's assets. You know about the Fox in the hen house????
Dont be afraid to stand your ground.
Do what is right.
I have a lot of respect for Jesse, Amy, Doug, Dorrene, and Bill.
Stay the course.
Rudi for Mayor.
Ah, rudizink, we disagree. Your view of the role of a councilperson seems to me to be way too restrictive to be practical, for many reason. Here are a few:
a. "Stick to your campaign promises." Fine idea. In general, I agree. But over the course of a term, many things will arise that were not expected to arise during the election campaign. Many issues will come up on which the electee will not have taken a postion in the campaign. There will be more and more of these as time goes on.
b. Be careful to get public input before making decisions. Well, sure. But that input will come, inevitably, from both sides of whatever controversial issue is up before the council. The councilperson, has, it seems to me, to exercise his or her best judgement as to which set of public inputs -- the pros or the cons to oversimplify --- are the most convincing. Unless you are suggesting the electee simply count letters and emails on each side and vote as the bigger pile would wish, this "be guided by public input" advice seems to be no real guide at all.
c. Behind your comments about "public input" lies I think the assumption that your view on matters represents "the will of the people." And certainly in the recent election the will of those voting was clearly expressed with regard to who should be on the council and who should not. But it would be wrong, and demonstrably so, to assume that every vote for the new council at-large members represented a vote against the Mayor or the Rec Center or using eminent domain for RDAs. People vote for [and against] candidates in any election for an entire market basket of reasons.
Folks who read wcforum and especially those who post here tend to be policy wonks [Curmudgeon raises his hand and admits guilt on this], but if we could ask every citizen of Ogden what the Boyer Company is and what it does, I would be astonished if one in twenty could tell you. The number would be still less if you asked who the various Godfrey appointees who get folks exercised in wcforum so often are, or what they do. One in twenty knowing would floor me.
d. Elections matter, and those who vote get to choose those who make decisions for all of us. Absolutely. But... the councilpersons I elected serve in office not merely those who voted for them, or even more broadly those who voted; they serve the entire population of Ogden, voting or not. And they have a responsibility to keep the best interests of all in mind. In short, I think your advice to councilmembers: "Don't be lured into making [what you think are] immoral decisions on the vague, subjective communitarian notion 'of the greater good'" is dead wrong.
One of the rallying cries of American rebels and constitution-writers was salus populi suprema lex esto, roughly translated, "the welfare of the people is the supreme law." It was used, for example, as an argument replying to Antifederalists who complained that the Constitution would diminish the power and rights of the state governments. Yes, it will, said Federalists, but that scarifice in soverign state power had to be made for the common good, for the "salus populi." I expect my council members to pursue the common good. I'll work against any one of them who I think isn't.
It's little disturbing to see you characterizing, still, council members who reached different conclusions about what constituted the common good, about the wisest course for the city to follow over the last four years [and I broadly agree with you on the specific issues] as making "immoral" decisions. Wrong ones,yes. Unwise ones, sure. But immoral? I don't think so, unless you can show that somebody sold his or her vote, and no one as alleged that, much less proved it. Honest differences over public policy [absent proof of bribery] do not make one side immoral and the other moral, though they can make one side right and the other wrong.
I suspect your unhappiness with the "common good" argument relates to the issue of eminent domain's use in RDA projects. But you need to be careful here not to throw out the baby with the bath water. Eminent domain is an essential power of government: federal, state and local. And nothing in the recent legislation from Salt Lake has changed that. It did not ban the city's using eminent domain powers. It merely banned them using such powers in RDA projects which would take property by force from one private citizen in order to create an investment opportunity for another private citizen [e.g. the Wal-Mart RDA takings, now blocked, and rightly so, by the state legislature.] But the City of Ogden can still take your home, or mine, with fair market value compensation, to build a road or a school or a reservoir or for some other undisputedly public purpose. The legislature in no way limited that power.
"The public good" is exactly what our council members should be pursuing. Where specific election promises have been made, they should be kept. But your overall view of what the proper councilman's role is is, IMO, far too restrictive. And I suspect no matter how much public input our new council members solicit on an issue, if they ultimately vote in opposition to the public input you give them, you'll be back here blasting them as having acted immorally and against the will of those who elected them. Representing the people of a city [state or nation] is a much more complex task than that, if one wants to do it well.
[An aside: about time I thanked you for starting this forum. The occasional name-calling aside, I've found some of the discussions very interesting. And I've learned from people who post here who know a damn sight more than I do about specific matters like real estate, and city finance, etc. Ya done good. Thank you. ]
Curmudgeon has definately raised the bar here at the WCForum!
Damn, I'm now going to have to put on my thinking cap and quit being so damn visceral. I hope this doesn't ruin all the fun and games here in blood sport land.
It's off to the library for this old attack dog...
The current difference of opinion regarding the proper role of government is over what is the realistic definition of "common good".
The basis for any governmental action should be:
No. 1 - Is it constitutional?
No. 2 - Is it financially
responsible?
No. 3 - Is it financially attainable?
No. 4 - Does it fulfill the common sense prudent man requirement?
No. 5 - Is it morally right?
No. 6 - Does it pit one class of citizen against another?
No. 7 - Is it a necessary function of government?
One prevailing idea of common good is to build rec centers and bowling alleys that has nothing to do the function of government but it is what certain citizens want.
Get back to the concept of free enterprise with the role of government being to provide services and not current popular fads.
Glassman sure did mention the Panther ball players and cheer leaders alot. Me thinks he doth protest too much. What is all that about? Did some one get a little too close to home for his comfort level?
This idea of him being a leader is kind of funny also. Did he completely miss-understand what the voters said in November? It appears that the voters of Ogden are sick and tired of so called leaders and instead would like some one to represent them for a change.
Apparently you believe we disagree on numerous points Curmudgeon. I'm not at all sure of that at all, even though you're willing to give elected legislative representatives that maximum discretion possible, whereas I believe they should be hemmed in by the promises they made to the people who elected them.
a) You said, "Many issues will come up on which the electee will not have taken a postion in the campaign. There will be more and more of these as time goes on. "
I said, "There will be "hard" cases, where both sides of the 'argument can present wholly rational arguments, of course. In these cases, go out of your way to demonstrate that your decisions are deliberate and rationally-based."
Do we disagree on this? I'm not sure we do. Our council electees promised more "transparency" and "conscious deliberation" in the conduct of city government. No more "back-room deals, that's all.
Do you disagree that our new electees promised the voters that? Do you agree that this ethic is a proper "ideal?"
b) You said:"Unless you are suggesting the electee simply count letters and emails on each side and vote as the bigger pile would wish, this "be guided by public input" advice seems to be no real guide at all."
That's a "strawman." I never advocated decisons based on either polling-data or e-mail vote counts. what I said was this: "Scrupulously consider public input along with all the other data. "
Do we disagree on this?
c) You said: "Behind your comments about "public input" lies I think the assumption that your view on matters represents "the will of the people."
Wrong assumption -- another strawman..
Need I invoke to "old cultural saw," about folks who make "assumptions?"
Here's what I said:" Many citizens of this city believe we've been delivered by the election process from a nighmarish situation, wherein our elected representatives [one of whom was "appointed and revealed that her primary fealty was to those who appointed her] ...were completely detached from their voter citizenry.This isn't my personal opinion. It's evidenced by the "council housecleaning. :"Not only did Mayor Godfrey openly thumb his nose at public opinion... five of the seven council members acted as the mayor's personal hatchet-men. The outgoing council is rightly perceived as having been inattentive, incompetent and lacking good business judgment. It's hard to imagine how our city government could have gotten any more detached from the public it was supposed to serve than it was than during the last four years."
My comment is backed by my personal experience too, (although it's purely anecdotal and uscientific.) This was the startling viewpoint of the hundreds of citizens I talked to, when I walked precincts during the months of October and November.
And your assertion that our council will mindlessly oppose anything Matt Godfrey proposes is just the kind of B.S. that we need to "stamp out." The other thing we're trying to stamp out is tyrannical, despotic, citizen-unfriendly local government.
In one sense, that means stamping out Godfrey, if he "stays the course," and behaves like Emperor Julius Caesar during his last years as the "Captain at the helm."
In another sense, it will be a test of his adaptability.
Can the little guy actually operate in an atmosphere wherein he "doesn't hold the council hammer?
We'll see, won't we?
Do we disagree on this? I'm not sure we do.
d) Here's what you said: "I think your advice to councilmembers: "Don't be lured into making [what you think are] immoral decisions on the vague, subjective communitarian notion 'of the greater good'" is dead wrong.
I think your objection here is shabby, and reveals the communitarian aspect that's subtly crept into our American society.
Here's what I said :"Above all... conform your decisions to the community morality. Don't be lured into making immoral decisions on the vague, subjective communitarian notion "of the greater good."
When the community morality conflicts with the subjective goal of some "Stalinist Central Planner's" "greater good," what's a decent and moral councilperson to do?
What would YOU do, Curmudgeon?
I'm not even sure we disagree on this.
Please enlighten me on what, exactly, we disagree about.
Thanks in advance.
I will add that I appreciate your kind compliments about the founding of this blog. Indeed, I don't have ALL the answers, although my "experience" is pretty eclectic. My role here, as I see it, is to start the discussion.
It's the job of our readers to drive it from there. you've been quite helpful recently, in that regard.
Welcome to this forum, Curmudgeon. I hope we can count on you to bookmark this place, and become a regular poster here.
"Disagreement is the "staff of life" here on Weber County Forum. It's thoughtful and intelligent folks like you we rely upon to fatten the discussion, and offer WCF regulars the highly-nutritional "red meat" that they crave and rightly deserve.
Don't be a stranger, Curmudgeon.
Well, apparently we agree on more than I thought. Two points. [You knew there would be at least a couple, right?]
You wrote: And your assertion that our council will mindlessly oppose anything Matt Godfrey proposes is just the kind of B.S. that we need to "stamp out." Been back through what I posted, and I can't find anywhere where I said the new council "will mindlessly oppose anything Matt Godfrey proposes." I don't think that, I will be bitterly disappointed in the new council members if they do that, and I don't think I wrote that. If I did write something that could be read that way, it was a bit of truly poor composition.
Now to what seems to be the heart of our disagreement: You wrote: Here's what I said :"Above all... conform your decisions to the community morality. Don't be lured into making immoral decisions on the vague, subjective communitarian notion "of the greater good." When the community morality conflicts with the subjective goal of some "Stalinist Central Planner's" "greater good," what's a decent and moral councilperson to do?
Wow. Stalinist Central Planners right here in Junction City! Whoda thunk it? Somebody tell Rep. Buttars, stat!
I'd be curious to known when [on what issue I guess] you think "the community morality" conflicted with [I presume] Mayor Godfrey's "Stalinist Central Planner's greater good"? You, and Ms. Littrell, seem to look on city governance as, in significant part, a kind of morality play. I don't. In my view, decisions of the city administration rarely involve moral questions, occasionally involve ethical questions [fake firings arranged to boost separation benefits of appointees, perhaps....], and more often involve questions of justice [taking homes by force to make a parking lot for Wal-Mart...]. But morality? I don't think so.
I think city governance in Ogden operates too often on an ad hoc basis: problems are faced one at a time, without a whole lot of planning or discussion about the implications of today's decisions on the problems coming down the road tomorrow. What Ogden needs is not no planning or less planning. What Ogden needs is better planning in virtually every area of city governance: management of financial resources, maintenance of community services and infrastructure, and in planning for growth and development. It isn't Comrade Godfrey vs the proletariat here. It's poor planning, vs sound planning. The current administration's hodge-podge of projects, schemes, slight-of-hand visions and the like [with more to come: can we all say "gondola/gondola"?] is a carricature of real ubran planning.
Further deponent sayeth not.
This is what you said, Curmudgeon:
"But it would be wrong, and demonstrably so, to assume that every vote for the new council at-large members represented a vote against the Mayor or the Rec Center or using eminent domain for RDAs. "
Here's what I said:
"And your assertion that our council will mindlessly oppose anything Matt Godfrey proposes is just the kind of B.S. that we need to "stamp out."
Both assertions are probably correct, I think, but I'll admit I misinterpreted your point, and launched into "cross-talk," and will concede your point.
So where does that leave our "debate?"
That brings us to essential agreement, doesn't it?
Are we not in almost complete agreement?
The new council-members have defined their "role" with their general campaign promises.
Am I wrong about this?
Headline: B. GEIGER PRONOUNCES JESKE, GLASSMAN "SANE."
Whew! My brow, knitted in worry since election day, eases to smoothness, my racing heartbeat slows to normal. Peace and calm return to my fevered mind. The city is safe! Bob Geiger has found Councilmembers-elect Jeske and Glassman "sane"! Let ringing bells prolcaim to all the good citizens on the evening winds, the city is safe! The city is safe!
Did anyone else find this just a tad presumptuous, not to say arrogant? Just a little? Around the edges?
Well Rudi, I was quite disappointed to see your's and Curmudgeon's reply to a post by Bob G. that you had already deleted.
It is hard for me to imagine that Bob would post something so inflammatory that you would delete it. The Bob G. I met in person last summer is very bright, intelligent and dedicated to his beliefs. I of course am quite opposed to the majority of his postions, but I did find him to be genuine in them.
The least you could have done was to ban the offending post to the "dungeon" where it could keep company with old posts of mine that flamed him!
Just cause he's a dyed in the wool Godfreyite don't mean he's a bad guy!
Yeah, what gives, Rudi? This smells suspiciously of the "C" word to me. You allow much to the contrary to be written of certain people, assumptions, predictions, dark and vile prognostications. Knowing Bob G the way we do from reading his blog comments would suggest that nothing he writes would fall within those lines or skirt any "moral" issues that others would find offensive.
Something don't wash.
Upcomming City Councilmembers -
I am very glad to hear about your ventures to Charlotte. It was very interesting to hear your reports. Please let me know where you are posting this information to the public. Weber County Forum has a very limited audience, and you would not want to be accused of not "informing the people".
(Rudi, even with all of the techology out there....99.9% of Ogden is already uniformed regarding what Dorrene and Bill have done and learned. I wonder how uninformed they'll be after 2 years? I wonder if Bill and Dorrene will simply be polling the populous for what they should do, or if they'll have a little more intel than the average Joe. I wonder if people out there will be shooting them down as ludicrous, uniformed pee wees! I guarantee it! Someone will.)
As for me, I happen to believe that "representing" the public means that you take every opportunity you can to educate yourself on the issues that confront our community and then apply that education to rational judgement and a moral conscious to make decisions. It is Bill and Dorrene's responsiblity to continue to educate themselves and develop their rational judgement and moral conscious.
Education -
There is no doubt that Bill and Dorrene's education on Ogden issues will be superior to 90% of the people who live and work in Ogden. Not only will they be morally required to understand the issues, they'll be privy to information that is not open to the public. I am a believer that "rational"-"intelligent"-"Moral" human beings will most often choose the right when they are fully informed. If Bill and Dorrene find themselves opposed by "irrational" people; "rational, uninformed" people; or "immoral people", I trust they'll do their best to lead them and inspire them to "want to choose the right."
Challenge #1:
Not all "rational, uninformed" people are that way out of neglect. Some information is not privy to the public or can be privy to the public. This is a necessity that often cannot be avoided.
Challenge #2:
Some people simply do not inform themselves or are unaware of the location of the information. This an issue with humanity that cannot be avoided or overcome.
Challenge #3:
Some people are not rational, and therefore cannot effectively manage information. We all have a limited capacity for reason, some more than others.
Challenge #4:
Some people are not moral. Information is a tool for them to hurt others.
If, due to time constraints or other issues of practicality, Dorrene and Bill cannot educate the rational person, rehabilitate the insane person, force feed the lethargic person or help the immoral person find religion...I hope that they will do the right thing even if they must take some shots in doing so---This is what Character is. Bill knows that. He is a Marine. Doing what is right in the face of opposition is called Moral Courage!
After short correspondence with Dorrene and some longer conversation with Bill, I believe that they are both sane and rational. As their educations grow, their ability to make "good decisions" for the community will also grow. Time will tell if they actually deliver, and time will tell if they can keep me and the rest of Ogden believing that they are sane, rational and educated. If they find themselves facing a choice between an uninformed or immoral majority and choosing the right---I HOPE THEY CHOOSE THE RIGHT!
Of the 12 people who wrote today, one of them already began to discard Bill, and some began to position him as "ify". This happened in response to an innocent comment in a report on a little conference in Charlotte before Bill even took office.
Based on their well-written reports of a learning experience designed to help them best perform as leaders and as representatives in our community, people who hear what they want to hear and who were not present in Charlotte are already doubting. (Can you imagine reporting to 200 million people regarding top secret issues such as National Defense? Especially when there is an opposition party whose sole goal is to replace you in your office at almost any cost. ***Not an attack on the Democrats. Just a simple fact regarding the political climate of our country and how it impacts decision makers who must handle significantly complicated issues.)
"This is extremely disappointing and venal thinking right out of Mayor Godfrey's handbook. I already regret the vote I gave to Mr. Glassman. We did not elect him to LEAD us, we elected him to REPRESENT us." - WOW!
Good luck Bill and Dorrene. I'm with you, and you have the benefit of the doubt from me. Nothing you said today moved me away from you, but please remember that even as innocent as your trip and your reports were, you already pissed someone off and 99.9% of Ogden has no idea what you have done.
Do the right thing!
Semper Fi --- You know what that means Bill! There are important reasons why our founding fathers set up a Republic. Your trip to Charlotte begins to hi-lite those reasons.
Bob Geiger
Editor's Note: I've been on the phone with Bob Geiger and discussed the comment he earlier posted.
I'd taken personal offense with elements of it; but he's convinced me no insult was intended, and that I was wrong in deleting it.
We've ironed out our differences, and I now concede that I was being overly-sensitive, and over-reacted.
I won't belabor the details, but I've thus restored Bob's post.
I confess I'm human, and thus susceptible to error.
So sue me;)
Curmudgeon:
You said the following which I take strong exception with:
"I broadly agree with you on the specific issues] as making "immoral" decisions. Wrong ones,yes. Unwise ones, sure. But immoral? I don't think so, unless you can show that somebody sold his or her vote, and no one as alleged that, much less proved it. Honest differences over public policy [absent proof of bribery] do not make one side immoral and the other moral, though they can make one side right and the other wrong."
A couple of definitions from Webster on the word "moral":
1. Dealing with or able to distinguish between right and wrong conduct.
2. Principles, standards or conduct with respect to right and wrong ethics.
Now, we have a Mayor who repeatedly lies to the public in council sessions about the nature of the financing of the Rec center. The ruling majority on the council does not fulfill their duty to call him on the lies, but instead incorporates them into their official actions.
We have at least one of those council persons who has stated that she votes for the mayor's proposals out of loyalty to him because he appointed her to the position.
We have a council that routinely voted for enormously expensive proposals of the mayor's without any due dilligence. They have been known to get information packets on these projects moments before they vote - said votes are always in support of the things they obviously have not had time to study.
They have routinely ignored the large number of informed citizens, some experts in the areas being considered, who have presented very compelling reasons for them to step back and at least study the issues.
They take public input, as required by law, and then vote within minutes of that input without even pretending to take that input into consideration. It is obvious to all who attend these meetings that the decisions being considered have already been decided before the public input.
They openly defied the electorate by voting in this extremely risky $20 million dollar Rec Center as a lame duck body. They did so without so much as an elementary and independent feasibilty study.
They are on the verge of voting for a proposal that will turn the control of the city's interests in the Rec Center and mall development over to Boyer in order to tie the hands of the new council and the people of Ogden. This of course will be their last official lame duck screwing of the citizens.
They stood by, and by their non action have allowed the mayor to steal $43 thousand plus dollars from the treasury with this illegal Reid bonus.
They have completely abrogated their duty as a council to represent the people, and have instead only represented the mayor and his many and varied losing schemes and illegal acts. They have not, in any instant, provided a check or balance to the unbridled powers exercised by the equally immoral and inept mayor.
The list goes on and on and on. I do not find any of it being "Honest differences over public policy".
What do you call any of this? I call in immoral!
Yes Curmudgeon, these soon to be gone council persons, and the two remaining ones are immoral, and more than that they are simply scum of the earth.
I say good ridance to them, and in two years the remaining two, and the sorry assed excuse for a mayor, will join them on the dust heap of Ogden's history.
The inside story is that Stuart Reid's severance bonus wasn't limited to the $43 grand he put in his pocket.
Mr. Reid's personal vehicle loan was also paid off from the city coffers, as the inside story goes.
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Is there an honest accountant in the house?
Why does this new rumour not surprise me?
Since conversation seems to have shifted to the Mayor's {a} ill-advised {b} unethical {c} immoral [pick one] "special" separation pay arrangements with his appointees, I'm curious that no one has commented on the actions yesterday of the City Council sharply curtailing [it seems to me] the Mayor's ability to engage in such under-the-table verbal contract arrangements in the future. Can we concede that the group so many like to call the Gang of Five has done a good thing?
They've also done a good thing in the statement the entire council published today in the SE vis-a-vis the gondola/gondola Malan's Basin development issue. The Council said, in language so plain that not even I think Hizzona The Mayor could misread it, that it has not taken a position, pro or con, on those plans. This will come as news to those businesses Hizzona has reportedly been wooing by telling them the gondola/gondola scheme is a slam dunk done deal, and in no way undecided.
Not a bad way for the old council to go out: cut the mayor's cronyism powers and yank his chain in a very public way on his assurances that the gondola is a done deal. Or so it seems to me.
There's a main article on that very subject in the pipeline, Curmudgeon.
And having read your last most excellent post, you can count on having the language of your comment, some of it at least, elevated and incoroprated into the "Front Page" sooner or later.
I'd refrained from posting anything on this important council development yet, inasmuch as my primary focus today has been toward generating "funds," at the very last moment, for the Marshal White Center Sub for Santa program.
So far we've received pledges of about five-hundred bucks -- which ain't half-bad for a half-day's work.
Patience my wee laddee/lassie, as the case may be.
We'll be discussing this in a new thread, in short order.
And as I said before... don't be surprised if your "language" comes up.
The old council's legacy will in part be defined in how it votes on the Boyer referendum. Will they or won't they send it to the new council, who is not, I'm told, overly enthusiastic about their being left out of the decisions making process.
To Blue
I hope that you are understating the case a tad here. I do not know, but if I had to guess I would say that the new council should be outraged at being left out of the decisions that will effect all of Ogden way into the future.
The old council's legacy has already been defined - in spades. They are inept, corrupt toadies of the mayor. There is nothing that they can do now to change that. They have already written the history of their legacy. The voters of Ogden know that legacy and have taken the proper corrective action.
There is very little doubt about how they will vote on turning the whole shebang over to Boyer and Scott Brown so that the new council will be deprived of their rightfull authority over this Mall development and the many millions of dollars that will be in play.
The old council and their puppeteer Godfrey have repeatedly shown their distain and contempt for the people. They will twist the knive into the heart of the citizens until the new council pries it out of their evil hands.
The venal mayor and his rubber stampers on the old council will go right to the bitter end with their corrupt self serving manuevers in order to set up a situation that ties the hands of the new council and limits their ability to clean up this horrible mess that they have created.
They will no doubt also set into place other road blocks to protect and preserve their many other odious schemes and insults to the citizens. They have absolutely no shame, or honor, or dignity.
But I have faith in the new council and their ability to work their, and our, way out of this tragic set of circumstances. They are all true, moral and capable citizen politicians who have pledged to stop the madness. And unlike the old council, the new council does have honor, dignity and intelligence.
A bright new day is about to dawn on Ogden. This long horrible nightmare is just about over. Praise the lord...
mpauqThe Duke inquires
Putting a new saddle on an old horse, no battle of wit intended.
Would it not have been refreshing to have at least one of the newly elected council members rebuttal the mayor and the soon to be ex council members comments with, the reason why the people of Ogden have spent money and vested their time in putting me here is because the are not happy with what you and the some of the old council have done. They cannot figure out why after spending all that money and time on 25th street making and renovating new shops and condos that now you are diverting the business else were. How is the current small business to thieve and /or grow if you are using tax dollars (lots, big, huge, grandee, more than a destitute city can afford) to entice big out of town business to compete with? Is there no wonder why so many of the shops remain empty because they fill at the next whim of the mayor (oh I want to use” pee wee” so bad… but I shall be nice, at least for now.) their business will be compromised at their one tax dollar expense. The tax dollars that there family, relatives and fellow Odgenite friends have paid in good faith thinking it goes for schools, fire and police, upkeep for the city. The people of Ogden do not want to go into business what they want is a good place to live so lets not spend money on what they do not want. Do you think the money that Wal-Mart, Larry Miller, the gym and boiling alley make as profit will stay in Ogden. As elected servants of are community why not do things to help ensure the success of what business we have not ran off left in. by them doing well and their drawing in new business and the tax dollars it will generate will make Ogden flourish. Then for a change we will have time to look into thing like why people were afraid to shop at the mall, what can we do to eliminate violence and keep drugs under rap and are children getting a quality education. You know the things cities need mayor and counsel members for not business leaders that do not do well.
The old horse is this. The same scam on the Ogden citizens has happened when they built the mall. Lots of bonds and tax dollars it killed privet business in Ogden. The ones that could not pay Ogden’s tab plus normal taxes went broke or left while they could as Ogden’s mayor and council made for extremely poor business partners. They went to places that they could make a profit without the mayors strong-arm. Look at Riverdale Layton, Roy? Next more bonds for the parking tiaras and then more bonds for a enclosed walkway to ZCMI because the mall was and did unfairly compete with tax dollars to put them out of business. (Jest a thought, maybe the council should send the mayor to business school instead of him sending new counsel members to urban plight indoctrination to keep their minds clearly focused on things he clearly does not care about why he stick’s it to Ogden and Weber county tax payers again and again. Some how thinking he is doing them good. That way some day he might be smart enough not to make such unrealistic business blunders. Think of the money Ogden would save?)
Now think of all the money and time went to tear down the mall at the taxpayer expense. It may have been money from DDO but it was meant to do good for the city and county not for the mayor and council to venture into business with. Something in the ballpark of 10 mill. Then it was in the best interest of Ogden taxpayers to bail out the mayor and council to the tune of another approximately 6 to 8 mill because they illegally tore down something that did not belong to them. When was the beating? Did they even get chastised? Think of what his kind of chump change could have done to help with Ogden’s so called blight. Ok so that leaves the parking tiaras, were is the money to tear it down? Understand we are steel paying on bonds. It’s not paid for yet? Could be wrong but that’s what I here. Close to a million an acre? Why did they not use eminent domain on it?
The new saddle is that it’s about to happen again. Brought to you by the same people that did it the first time with a new twist and they have Pee Wee on their side. To bad Pee Wee don’t know he is being dry humped and whence they no longer need him they will offer him a job at Boyer as to keep his mouth shut. They will need a new putts mayor for the next new saddle.When it comes to the real sex Ogden tax payers will be on the reciving end they are jest worming up on him. The idea that these people will soon have all say in the matter is unthinkable. The mayor and the new and existing council owe it to the good people of Ogden and Weber County not to allow this kid of extortion to happen with every type of energy at their disposal. The mayor and council have a chance to better Ogden and themselves if they did.
I would like to thank who ever is responsible for this forum and people like bonnie lee and Ozboy and others that are willing to speak up. You are the Paul Reveers, Jefferson’s, Frank lends of are times. God’s speed.
The following is something I would really like to see, and is of course my own opinion on how the course of our new city government should go.
Do’s and Don’ts for the New Council:
DO:
Always remember what you said and how things were from your perspective when you were running for election. If you ever catch yourself answering a question from the public by saying you cannot answer anything at all because of private dealings, or that the public “just doesn’t understand,” listen to yourself saying that. And remember how it was and what you promised to do.
DO:
Invoke your right to demand disclosure from all involved in the City Council and administration as required by Utah Law 10-3-1307. This law states that anyone involved in city government who has invested or otherwise has an interest in any entity doing business with the municipality must disclose that interest. Actually, they must do this without being asked, but ask anyway, and review the investments and info regarding possible conflict of interest.
DO:
Call for a complete financial report, and/or get an audit, requesting emphasis on: the Reid severance package and other possibly inappropriate and/or unauthorized uses of municipal funds, and the possibility of co-mingling of funds between the municipality and the redevelopment agency, which is prohibited under the redevelopment act.
DO:
Familiarize yourselves with the Utah Code, the Ogden City Code, and the Redevelopment Agency Act in the Utah Code. Also with Robert’s Rules of Order and parlimentary procedure, and rights of reconsideration of issues. Do your own research, or get a professional opinion--don’t believe something is the case just because someone, no matter how powerful or “experienced,” says it is. Demand proof.
DO:
Form a good working relationship with the local media, communicate via the press, over the internet, and any way you can. Be accessible.
DO:
Remember your responsibilities to the municipality as well as your rights as officials. You may indeed have the right to involvement in redevelopment projects, but you also have responsibilities to provide basic services and infrastructure to the municipality. This involves making fiscal decisions that should, in my opinion, lean heavily to the side of responsibility.
DON’T:
Lie.
DON’T:
Invite four hours or so of public comment, and then whip out prepared speeches and read them as justification for the votes you are about to make. This is highly insulting to those you have invited to comment, as it indicates that nothing that the public has said, or could have said, would ever influence you, and this is contrary to your pledge to represent it.
DON’T:
Allow visible symbols of citizen opinion, such as the Yes stickers at the rec center council meeting, at public meetings. It immediately creates an adversarial situation instead of a community meeting. Furthermore, it might raise a suspicion in the minds of those present that one side is being favored over another insofar as being called upon to speak.
DON’T:
View the laws of the municipality and state as obstacles that you must get around. Play by the rules.
DON’T:
Look at the city of Ogden as your own private fiefdom, and the tax dollars you have now and also those taxpayers will pay in the future as your own private funds to do with the fiefdom whatever you wish, and yourselves as the sole decision makers as to who gets to have businesses here and who doesn’t. This is impinging on the right of Americans to a free market economy.
DON’T:
Retreat into the recesses of the municipal building when faced with opposition. Face the opposition and answer its questions insofar as you are able without violating confidentiality. The opposition may have vital input you have not thought of or considered, and could help you. Do not be rude nor condescending to it, and do not allow it to be so toward you.
A fine, thoughtful primer on public service, Dian. Some of us wish there were still a regular Standard column bearing your family name.
The advesarial situation of which you speak was formed long, long before public imput sessions for the rec. center. That feeling was created by a certain quixotish group, that Jeske was a part of, and their in-your-face-attitude toward the whole situation that they had from the outset
Dian, may I add:
DON'T DO DO DO
Rude and condecending also came from the group mentioned above. The moment they call the chair of the city council "the second most arrogant man I have ever met," the first being the Mayor I assume, the line was crossed. Having that same group of people repeadedly causing disturbances in the council chamber and being thrown out of meetings repeated times also crosses a line. I would expect my city council members to be cordial and nice to all persons, but I would expect the same from the citizens. They are elected officials and merit respect for their positions if nothing else. I would expect them to stand up for themselves when others are condecending and throwing insults at them, their positions, and the city constantly.
Lip Gloss! Don't tell me Big Red, the Valley Girl is lost and visiting our blog!? In spite of the inside help Big Red received from the Mayor's office via John Patterson, she still couldn't pull it off. Talk about adversarial tactics! The letter that was sent out against Jesse just before the Primary and Dori calling the City Recorder's Office and claiming that Dorrene was electioneering at Donna's Voting Place on Nov. 8th at 3:00 PM were all lies and backfired!
It's must have been pretty rough reading this string. By the comments here and what the voters said November 8th, A CHANGE WAS NEEDED! I wasn't aware that ALL opposition was "adversarial" as you imply in your comments. Because the Sub-Standard has been compromised and doesn't do investigative reporting any more, someone has to bring the shady dealings of the Mayor's office, supported by the City Council, out in the open. Sometimes opposition is needed and this was one of those times. Probably "that group" could have been more diplomatic, but it goes both ways -they were being met with arrogance and intolerance. As has been demonstrated, no matter how informative or logical the arguments, nothing ever moved the Council, no matter who approached them. And I wasn't aware Jeske belonged to a "group." She seems pretty independent, as do all the newly elected Council Members, to me. Yes, she helped with the petitions calling for the $20 million dollar bond to be placed on the ballot to give taxpayers the right to say where their tax money was being spent, but there were a lot of people collecting signatures. Does that mean that they are all a part of that "adversarial, in-your-face group?"
Quit being such poor losers and start helping build Ogden with a common sense approach. Like it or not, I believe (and hope) that will be the way the new Council does business.
New comments are not allowed.