Last night's Ogden RDA meeting was VERY encouraging.
What was formally on the agenda was what STD-Ex reporter Cub reporter Scott Schwebke said in today's Std-Ex backpage story.
Yeah. They set the "bonding" hearing for 1/24/06. No big deal.
That's the MINOR story.
The BIG story is this. The Ogden City RDA board basically begged Mayor Godfrey all last week, prior to last night's RDA meeting, for basic "qualification" information on Ernest Health, Inc. This happened ALL WEEK.
Godfrey's administration "clammed up," and even had a private meeting with Ernest, Inc. execs early last Tuesday, hours before Tuesday night's RDA Board meeting, and barred council leadership from attending.
Last Friday afternoon, the message was delivered to RDA Board members that emperor Godfrey (who doesn't have even a vote on the RDA Board) hadn't supplied the requested information... and that he didn't intend to supply any requested information to the governing body of the Ogden RDA, the state-delegated governing board.
Matt Godfrey basically told the voting members (the governing body of the Ogden RDA) to "stick it."
Thus they asked the Ernest Health, Inc. rep a few basic questions Tuesday night, during a public meeting. That was their last resort, I believe, given Emporer Godfrey's juvenile and decidedly machiavellian machinations.
And Yes! The new RDA Board voted to set a hearing for new bonding and a loan for 1/24/06.
The beauty of it is that in doing this, the RDA board commanded Mayor Godfrey to produce all the fundamental audited financials on Ernest Health, and resumes of all the Ernest Health Officers and Directors, just as any prudent prospective partner, lessor or lender would do.
Rumors are circulating that Ernest Health has already "pulled the plug," even after agreeing publicly to furnish the information. This is reportedly happening even though The slick Texan in the well-tailored $1500 suit said he was still doing his "Due Diligence" on Ogden City.
If they don't want to produce basic financials...that should tell us all something very important.
I've disagreed a lot at various time with Ogden activist Sharon Beech, and her tactics.
Nevertheless, I agree with her every comment at last night's RDA session, wherein she said she'd be giving a hat-tip to the new council, for asking necessary questions, and restoring active discussion to City Council/RDA sessions.
I'll give lavish credit where it's due: Bingo, Sharon Beech!
Our city council is no longer slavish and dysfunctional. It'll get lots better, I predict, once our new councilpeople "learn the procedural ropes."
Update 1/12/06 11:50 a.m. MT: The Standard-Examiner reports this morning on the Ernest Health brou-ha-ha. Mayor Godfrey is "appalled," Scott Schwebke dutifully reports. He's never seen anything like it. "Maybe the council didn't understand what they were doing," Emperor Godfrey muses.
“I’m very disappointed,” Godfrey said. ‘“We’ve been working for a year on that (hospital) project. To see it go up in smoke in one meeting is sad.”
I'll tell you what's appalling. Our "visionary" can-do Mayor -- and his high-priced "can-do" economic development team -- have apparently been in negotiations with Ernest Health for a year, and yet have failed to obtain information so elementary and fundamental to the transaction as to make a rookie realtor blush. It's beyond dissapointing. It goes well beyond appalling, too.
That the Ogden RDA Board was forced into the position of having to ask all the necessary qualifying questions at the very last minute, in a public forum, demonstrates a degree of administrative incompetence and hubris that's shocking to the conscience.
It raises serious questions about the judgment of the folks who've been minding the Economic Development shop in Ogden for the past few years. How they could have gotten so deeply into this project without obtaining the the most basic and foundational financial statements and insider information simply boggles the mind.
Thank God the voters of Ogden had the good sense to install a new slate of citizen representatives to look after their interests. The current administration and its crew of "experts" obviously need to be closely watched.
And a hint to the Mayor and his well-paid crew: It might be a good idea to intimately involve the new council and RDA Board in the process from now on, since they're the folks who control the votes. Learn to co-operate and and share information with the TRUE decision makers in the future, and nobody will wind up with egg on their face. The gang of six mentality is a thing of the past. Sooner or later you'll have to learn to work with the OTHER branch of city government... the legislative one that resides on the city hall third floor.
Just a helpul hint from yer old pal Rudi...
Update 1/17/06 12:30 p.m. MT: The plot thickens, it seems. The Local Albuquerque, New Mexico press has now picked up on the Ernest Hospitals "jilted suitor" story. Where will it ever end?
Further comments, anyone?
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
56 comments:
Dear Mr. Larsen:
I was not at the RDA meeting, and so I cannot reslove the disagreement between Rudizink and the Ernst Co. representative with respect to the characterization of the RDA questions he was asked. [Rudizink's description: "thus they [RDA] asked the Ernest Health, Inc. rep a few basic questions." Mr. Brokette's description: "he had never been treated so shabbily by a government agency anywhere, anytime...."]. Perhaps a blog, where most folks posting have a dog in the fight, is not the best venue for resolving such matters.
However, Mr. Rudizink in his post did raise for me [I have no position on Earnst or its proposal, and I have little understanding of the workings of RDA bonding, etc.] some questions that, I note, you ignored in your post. Let me put them as succintly as I can:
1. Did the Mayor's office repeatedly refuse to provide the RDA with information it requested and had a defensible reason to request over the previous week?
2. Was the information the RDA requested the kind of information that companies seeking city support to bring in a new business routinely provide? Or was the information requested in some way extraordinary and not the kind routinely supplied to RDAs in such circumstances? [I do n't know, but this question seems to me to matter.]
From my POV, if the RDA requests were for the kind of corporation financials and leadership biographies that are routinely provided in such circumstances, your argument will not stand and the fault for the collapse lays squarely at the Mayor's feet. Only if the RDA was requesting from the Administration and Ernst information that was in some way extraordinary and well beyond that normally supplied by businesses in these circumstances will your point that the fault or Ernst's withdrawl lays with the RDA stand.
To be fair, I should tell you that from my POV, the Godfrey administration has an unfortunate track record of withholding information from the Council until very very late. Given that, absent any other information, this has me leaning in the direction of accepting Mr. Rudizink's view on this matter, rather than yours. But I am willing to tilt the other way if the answers to the questions I posed above indicate that I should.
Bill Godfrey! That dastardly bounder him!!
Steve, you are a clueless joke, this playing a pawn in the mayor's dumb little blame game just simply re-confirms it.
If this Ernest deal goes away because someone ask who the hell they are, then I say good ridance. No legit organization would be offended by some one asking basic qualifying questions about them and their financials.
Stick to your Cho Cho developement where your true talents lie.
"You know I meant Bill Glassman."
B.S., Herr Larsen.
We all took it for what it was, a "freudian slip."
The conscious mind is always ruled by the subconscious.
You inadvertantly let the truth slip out.
This is a totally bizarre view, Mr. Larsen. Why shouldn't a city government, who is asked to consider a sweetheart deal for any developer/business owner, ask for proof that the developer/business owner is going to be around for the long haul.
It takes a lot of property and sales tax to equal the amount of money that the city would be giving up on this deal. Godfrey is truly the king of "buy high, sell low". Just look at the old mall site.
I, for one, would not want the city of Ogden to be caught in the same circumstances that plagued the city of Salt Lake. Do you remember the American Stores deal? The city put out time, money, and goodwill in order to bring that building downtown (to the tune of $5.5 million)... supposedly to bring huge amounts of jobs to SLC. It was touted as the greatest thing since sliced bread. All of a sudden... oops, no corporate headquarters... oops, no tremendous boost for the economy. The same thing happened in Lehi with the Micron facility which now sits empty.
The base fact is that the city council should have been given ample time to conduct due diligence. Then Mr. Brockette would not have had to go through this in public. This could have been conducted in a private meeting, which was scuttled by the Mayor's machinations. It makes the city look bad when the Mayor oversteps his bounds and tries to conduct business behind everyone's back then tries to get it rubber-stamped by the council. He shouldn't cry when the council slaps his hand for it.
Is it sour grapes that makes you so bitter against the new Council and RDA Board, Stevie Boy?!
Are a hospital and a bunch of doctors offices part of the original plan for the River Project. Or did Godfrey just jump at a company that was looking to build wherever they could get a good deal. I thought the original plan called for retail stores, restaurants, some condos and business offices along that prime river front property. I think Godfrey was desperate to get just anything on that land before the options started to expire.
I think the original plan fits the area better than having a hospital and doctor offices on prime Washington Blvd. and river front property. Hopefully Ogden will have a longlasting showcase on that property -- not just something to fill the space.
Let's use some foresight and vision in developing downtown Ogden -- not desperation!
I'm so glad that someone with such myopia and blind loyalty to the administration wasn't elected to the Council last fall. At last we have a Council who can think; who are concerned about what the citizens of Ogden want, care enough for Ogden to do their due diligence and take their responsibilities seriously. Qualities and concepts that seem to have escaped you, Steve.
The new Council gets top marks for standing their ground and insisting on pertinent information from Ernest Health, Inc. before that RDA project could go forward.
The fact that Ernest has backed out is proof that the requested information was not going to turn out to be so red hot as RDA director Matthew Godfrey and RDA employees Scott Brown and David Harmer had insisted it was.
Scott Brown and David Harmer repeatedly insisted that they had done their due diligence on Ernest Health. Yet they furnished no information at the RDA meeting on January 3 as to whom the principals in Ernest Health even were.
Harmer and Brown hammered away for over an hour at the "just sworn-in" council at the meeting on the 3rd that it was imperative that the resolution to bring in Ernest Health had to be signed that night.
Because of the lack of information forthcoming from the RDA employees at that meeting, in the week from January 3 until the RDA meeting on January 10, several of us went online to Google and other websites and found reams of information on the principals of Ernest Health and the projects they had completed and had in process.
We furnished that to the RDA Council members because the Ogden RDA director Mayor Godfrey had never given them any facts even though he had been in negotiations with Ernest Health, Inc. for over a year.
Mayor Godfrey is in violation of Utah statutes which make him responsible for informing the Council. He consistently failed to furnish information regarding his deal with Ernest Health, Inc. even though the Council made requests for such information.
This fiasco furnishes fodder to those in the Utah legislature who are working at putting more restrictions on the insidious growth of Redevelopment Agencies in Utah.
Redevelopment Agencies should not be legally allowed to incur debt without taxpayer approval because we are the ones paying the bonds off when the RDA projects fall apart.
Support RDA reform as the abuse is widespread over the entire country.
Congratulations to RDA Council members who protected Ogden citizens from another RDA fiasco.
I suppose that our exalted Mayor has never engaged in fear-mongering, spite, or hatred... how many people has he told that he would bury, fire, or ruin if they didn't conform to his viewpoint. I know of at least three. No... our Mayor is an angelic being with halos rotating constantly over his head at the magnificent altitude of four feet from the ground.
The truth is that the Mayor, Stuart Reid, and Scott Brown were and are the biggest hinderances to growth in this city. This is one deal. Have you ever found out how many good deals were lost for this city because of their arrogance? Maybe you should do some fact-finding before you point fingers at those who are questioning the Mayor's tactics and motives.
What is being overlooked by some regarding this issue is the use of public money in the project. This puts the project in a different category than that of a corporation that simply wishes to purchase a land parcel and begin operations.
When a corporation or company is publicly traded, much or all of the information that the RDA requested is made accessible to everyone. Why is this? So as to enable investors, who are members of the public, to make an informed decision.
With the mingling of public money in private enterprise present in these RDA projects, the RDA is put in the position of deciding upon whether or not public investment in certain companies would be wise and in the best interests of the public. In order to make this decision, it of course has to know about the companies. Wouldn't anyone who was considering putting $1.5 million into something want to know a bit about it?
My view therefore is that the RDA was simply doing its job for us. If we as taxpayers through these projects are put in the position of investors in private enterprise, we must make those investments wisely, and I congratulate the RDA on making an attempt to do so. It holds a position of stewardship over our money, and it was exercising that.
Insofar as the alleged "shabby treatment" of Mr. Brockette is concerned, this, if indeed it happened, could have been avoided by simply providing a list of requested information to Mr. Brockette and allowing him time to consider it privately. If it had been impossible for him to provide all of the information, he could have communicated that and the RDA would then have based its decision on the information it did have. But the way this was orchestrated, by allowing no time for the RDA to request the information of him it felt it needed to make an informed decision before the public meeting, made this route impossible.
Also, in my understanding, the reason the vote was deemed necessary last night was the fact that the options held by the city to purchase the properties were about to expire. I assume this means that purchasing costs would go up after this expiration--otherwise, why would it be such a time crunch?
Is that right?
If so, my question is---why are property values increasing in a blighted area? This does not seem to fit the definition of "blighted" to me.
And so it begins.
Good job on increasing our tax base, providing new good paying jobs, and welcoming economic development to our city.
Congratulations Bill, Dorene, Steve, Amy, and Jesse.
Thank you for your help in moving Ogden forward.
Interesting how Larsen seems to know about what information was requested, and why? Also, his assumption that such information would be used in the way he describes is laughable. Who the hell is this guy to say that? Oh yeah, he was the guy who got defeated in November, that's who.
I attended the RDA meeting and sat enthralled at the 'new' city council doing the job for Ogden for which they were voted in to replace the mayor's minions.
I did not see spitefulness, meanness, or any other 'nesses' coming from the council's questioning of Brockette.
In fact Bill Glassman started off thanking Darby for coming and welcoming him to Ogden. I heard Dorrene Jeske say that she knew from personal experience that such a facility is needed.
However, is it ERNEST that is needed here? Frankly, Darby Brockette's ingratiating smiles, chuckles and side glances when asked probing questions made my skin crawl Never trust a simpering man.
The council asked probing, appropriate questions of this man, AS THEY SHOULD, and always in a polite and respectful manner. The fact that neither he nor the mayor and his cohorts didn't have the financial info is just another example of the mayor's chicanery.
This deceitful man thought he'd poke another scam down our throats. I guess he didn't notice he had five, count 'em, FIVE, new independent, savvy, thoughtful thinkers protecting the taxpayers and looking out for the city. (Two of them holdovers who are now supported in standing up for what is right)....didn't Jesse do a good job as chairperson? Safsten still hasn't gotten the message that HE is not in control. Give it up, Rick. Your violation of Robert's Rules on the election of council officers on swearing in day was an embarrassment as you tried to get Stephenson in as vicechair. That was humiliating to watch and should have given you the strong message that you two are on very limited time!
Who, besides Larsen, can swallow Godfrey's prattle about the city losing businesses for '30 years' and then blaming this new council for "losing businesses" (it was their second meeting fercryingoutloud) and sending Ernest down the road' just for asking the questions the administration SHOULD HAVE ASKED OVER A YR AGO???? But, isn't this hizzoner's tired and trite tactic? Always blame someone else for his inadequacies and deceitfulness: Call 'askers and thinkers' NEGATIVE, MEAN-SPIRITED, BACKWARD, and oh yeah....CAVES! Doesn't that mean CITIZENS AGAINST VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING STUPID?? Or CITIZENS ADVOCATING VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING SENSIBLE? t-SHIRTS ANYONE??
If Ernest really does pack up their tent and hit the road it's because like all cockroaches they can't stand the light. Someone help Godfrey fold his tent,eh?
Larsen, your last entries came right out of the mayor's press corps. How can you spend so much time on this blog when you told us many times during the 'debates' that you spent your "time walking the neighborhoods of the poor and disadvantaged, spreading cheer" in your broken Spanish? In fact, you even moved into your neighborhood to be near them. So, go take a walk.
BRAVO TO THE COUNCIL!!!!
Oh, Bob G....wise up, sir. Asking a Co for it's financial history, debts, credit line and investors is not business 'UN-friendly'...it's BUSINESS SAVVY. If Ernest is a stand up company, then why didn't Brockette come with portfolios for the council...why didn't the mayor and Harmer? Don't the citizens have a right to know the background of people Godfrey is giving $1.5 bucks??? Note that Provo and ID did not! Only Godfrey bribes shady companies with our dough...and then blames a conscientous council for asking appropriate questions. Well, if Ernest has nothing to hide, as Brockette, in his simpering, chuckly way assured us....then why he did leave the mtg right away, and why is he ducking out of town now? As I said, when the light is turned on, cockroaches run. Is that why the mayor's office is dark?
Hey Bobby,
Your sarcasm of valid thought and discussion is getting old. For asking the right questions that any business should ask when heading into a partnership should be applauded. And yes, Ogden City is now in THE business thanks to many of the old council decisions.
Congratulations to the new City Council for doing a great job as stewards for Ogden. It was appropriate, and apparently quite useful, to ask “probative and valid” questions of Ernest Health‘s Chief Administrative Officer. The subsequent decision, by Ernest Health company officials, to “pull the plug” on the hospital plan indicates a questionable business agreement. The Mayor and his cohorts had been working on the Ernest Health deal for one year. That must have been some business plan.
The Ernest Health hospital plan ended abruptly. The Mayor refused to provide relevant information beforehand. The Mayor and his cohorts barred City Council leadership from their secretive meetings. These are reasons to be concerned. It might be a good idea for the new City Council to review all of Mayor Godfrey’s business deals.
Hey, Bob, I want you to answer this: You're saying that Bingo is one of the City Council? I don't think so! I haven't heard any of them refer to Ernest or any other business as cockroaches. I think you're as far off on that assessment as you are on your assessment of the Council. Dubious has you pegged right -- how did you ever get to have a store of your own, if you don't ask pertinent questions of your big buyers? Only a fool doesn't ask questions in any kind of a business deal. And Jeske was right when she told Godfrey, "If you want me to support your projects, then give me the information I need to do so." (or something like that -- that's close.) This Council isn't the Mayor's rubber stamp, and everyone needs to realize that. HooRay - they think!
Keep up the good work, Council!
Mr. Larson:
Granted, some of the posts here have had a "crowing" and sarcastic tone. But not all. Some have asked what seem to me to be reasonable questions. Your lumping them all together and dismissing them all suggests to me that you share an attitude all too [I think] common in the Godfrey administration: a penchant for autocratic governance instead of a much more effective model: coalition building.
Permit me to suggest that IF the administration has been working with Ernst for a year, it seems to have done a poor job of keeping others informed of the process, of involving the Council in the process in timely fashion along the way. Had that been done, the results could have been very different.
Permit me to suggest to you and the Mayor that a "coalition building" model may still work, though it's rather late in the game. But it's not too late.
You want to join the name-calling posts here, have at it. But doing that will not help forge a successful working relationship between the Mayor and the new Council. And forging such a working relationship is essential to the progress and welfare of the voters. The Mayor may not like sharing power and responsibility, but under the circumstances since election day, he no longer has much choice. The sooner the administration realizes that and begins to work with the Council, the better off we all will be.
End of sermonette.
Steve--am responding to your post since it seemed to be in response to one of mine.
Whatever the reason for the value of the properties increase, the increase itself cannot be disputed. They will be worth more, and the pushing of this issue was an attempt by the city to get in under the wire before that increase occurred. Which makes sense if you consider no other factors than that.
However, there were and are other factors, not the least of them being that this push to vote is on one level an attempt by the city to have the sellers accept a lower price than they would after February 3rd. This is what anyone in the business for a profit would attempt to do, (however, it may not be the best way to treat people who voted them in.) Be that as it may, developers have been known to go in on their own and make their own deals without any city intervention whatsoever. City ownership and control of property is Not a condition vital for economic development, and decisions involving tax dollars should not be based on the supposition that it is.
Secondly, you then state that this is Not an investment in that the city is simply turning over a fair market purchase to a fair market buyer, while bearing the costs of demolition. What is implied here is that the city is Not interested in turning a profit and may even be willing to take a loss. I don't think we're in any position to do that, and cuts in vital services have bolstered that view. If people really want Ogden to be a good place for their children and their children's children, mortgaging the future of their city or sending it into bankruptcy is not the way to do that.
You speak of the minority impinging on the well-being of the majority. Let me ask you this--if you owned and were inhabiting an "aging and declining property," and oil was discovered on your land, would you prefer to be able to sell that land at a handsome profit? Or would you prefer government ownership and control of the oil industry for the good of us all, and have them give you a sum of their choosing and relocate you so that they could set their derricks up?
I think you might prefer the former. I know I would.
Insofar as the reasons for the administration's reluctance to give information, after having considered it, here are my thoughts:
1. Some of the information requested goes beyond the bounds of propriety.
This is a matter of opinion, but if the administration believes it, it could have just said so and produced valid reasons for its belief if asked to do so. Much information of this nature is public information anyway. There was no need for this to explode into emotionalism and then deteriorate into blaming, especially since the nature of the dialogue was not accusations, but questions.
2. Oft times the information serves no purpose but to fuel the fires of obstruction when the people requesting it intend to use it to defeat any purpose not because the object needs defeating, but rather that certain persons have promised to resist all progress initiated by someone they envy, resent and dispise.
There are several assumptions here. What is implied is that the administration Knows the intent of those requesting information, Knows that it is caused by promises to resist progress, and Knows that it is motivated by envy, resentment, and personal feelings of the negative kind. I would question these assumptions about our city council, and would hope that this is not the administration’s honest view of them. Furthermore, the release of information "fueling the fires of obstruction" can only occur if the information requested has negative connotations. And in that case, those involved should of course be given an opportunity to explain it.
3. Because they persons requesting the information will not allow the truths within the information to make any difference in their rigid and protected points of view.
This is not only an assumption about the nature of those requesting the information, but also a prediction of what will happen in the future. And although the administration does have certain powers, they do not extend into the realm of the supernatural.
This blog is one powerful service to Weber county. Everyone needs to thank Rudizink, Curmdgeon, Dian and others for their words of wisdom and in providing the right spirit of building a wiser community.
The word on the street is, this forum is partially responsible for digging the secret and “private” plans out of Ogden and exposing them to the people and council. Thank you WCF.
Revealing the Ogden administrations secret workings many clamor on this forum is costing jobs and growth.
May I remind those so interested in keeping so many secrets private in government is against the law. When any municipality is doing the peoples business, it is to be done in public. There are only two legal exceptions (public land acquisitions and personnel issues). My opinion is, this hospital deal does not meet either of these two qualifications of the Sunshine act. The council and the people had a legitimate right to all information which the mayor was “privy” to.
Everyone needs to praise the council for doing the peoples business. I feel pity for Mayor Godfrey to watch him publicly criticize the council in the paper for doing their job of protecting Ogden from potential harm. I feel loosing his temper against the freshly elected council will only cause more of the people who just elected that body to be glad in what they did. If this path is followed to it’s end, Godfrey’s term will end at the next election and he will remain a lame duck for the next two years.
Time will tell for those throwing mud on the new council. Wasn't it Franklin who put is best when he said. “If mud be thrown on polished marble it will not long adhered, but mud thrown on a dirt wall will stick and incorporate.”
Ogden Standard of January 15, 2006 "Ernest Expanding" by Scott Schwebke quotes Ogden's RDA community development director, Dave Harmer, as saying the RDA was not offering any tax increment incentives to Ernest Health, Inc.
As usual, Mr. Harmer applies the use of semantics with his borderline statements.
Here is the official RDA Phase I -Ogden River Development Project Cash Flow Statement:
Sources of Funds:
Tax Increment $2,150,043
Land Sales Proceeds 2,059,101
Line of Credit(Bonds)
3,000,000
----------
Total Funds Sources
$7,209,144
----------
Uses of Funds:
Property Acquisition $3,626,991
Infrastructure 250,000
Park Blvd. 110,000.
Power Pole Relocation 100,000.
LOC Interest 82,500
Contingency 122,152
Repayment of Line of
Credit 3,000,000
---------
Total Uses of Funds
$7,209,144
---------
Tax Increment would have been involved in the Ernest Health, Inc. deal no matter how you look at it. And it would have still been a giveaway of property tax.
Ernest was to pay $1,500,00 for their land.
Ogden City would have been back in the real estate business to start the RDA River Project.
There is an old saying, "Good riddance to bad rubbish".
You're missing a few key points here, I think, Bob. Unlike Provo, the taxpayers of Ogden City were being asked to participate in the project, by incurring debt, to bear substantial acquisition, demolition and site preparation costs.
If Ernest had simply bought the property at arm's length, as they've done in other communities, the questions about financial capability and principal identity would have never arisen publicly, and would have remained a purely private matter.
Moreover, Ernest Hospitals has never committed to entering into any agreement at all. Despite coy hints that Ernest was "leaning" toward the project, and that Ogden's demographics "strongly supported" Ogden's candidacy for a new hospital, Mr. Brockette in fact stated several times that his company was still completing its own "due diligence," (even a full year into the negotiations!)
Ernest was far from a "done deal," yet many of the less sophisticated and inexperienced among us are behaving as if the deal were already on the plate.
And I attended Tuesday night's meeting, and took copious notes. The necessary questions that were put to Mr. Brockette were delivered graciously and respectfully, and Mr. Brockette even remarked that he understood the RDA Board was duty-bound to DO ITS OWN DUE DILIGENCE, JUST AS HIS OWN COMPANY WAS DOING.
Not only was the discussion cordial, Board Member Glasmann and Mr. Brockette actually launched into a friendly good-ole boy colloquy, which appeared headed toward a full-tilt, country style bull-session, which might later evolve into chugging down a few "lone Stars" at a local "watering hole."
I thought Glasmann and Brockette connected very amicably, and was shocked to learn from the slavish neoCON pro-Godfrey house organ (The Standard-Examiner) that Mr. Brockette felt he'd been insulted, and that Glasmann was suddenly his chief antagonist.
As a matter of fact, I was sitting in an aisle seat as Mr. Brockette left the council. I gave him a "thumbs up," a smile and a nod as he left the room, and he even returned a nod and a grin.
Subtle gestures, indeed. But I saw no indication that Mr. Brockette had gotten his "hackles up."
I think you're focusing too much on the ridiculous "spin" that's been put on by the Emperor's office and the Standard-Examiner, Bob.
The gist of the spin is that Ogden is a financial "basket case," and that we should accept all offers, with no questions asked.
That's facially imprudent... and also juvenile, Bob.
And I'll say it again. Don't hitch your wagon to the Godfrey horse. It's lame and hunch-backed; and it'll be "out to pasture" in 2008.
Tyrrany and secrecy are out in Ogden city governement; grass-roots input and Councilwoman Jeske's "light on government" are in.
The new council is honoring their oaths of office, and fulfilling their promises to people who vote.
Deal with it.
And stop the friggin' whining, dammit! ;)
Great post, Dorothy.
If our gentle readers would click the google ads a little more often, I'd spring for top-of-the line blog software, where great posts like Dorothy's last could be rated by our gentle readership.
I'd rate that one as a "10," BTW Dorothy.
Thanks.
Was it wrong for the new ouncil to ask questions regarding the background and solvency of Ernest since the City was going to open a $4,000,000 line of credit to help get them started?
I think not.
I have been asked to explain the Sources of Funds Statement the Ogden RDA presented to the RDA Board for approval.
Number 1. The RDA planned to borrow $3 million in bonds to be paid off with pledged tax increment estimated to be $2,150,043 as it accrued over an unknown specified period..probably 15 to 20 years.
Number 2. The RDA would be paying interest at an unknown interest rate for an unknown period of time. $82,500 was calculated into the cost of Phase I
as LOC Interest which was probably part of the cost of acquiring the $3 million loan.
Number 3. The RDA expected to sell Ernest Health their land for $1.5 million and evidently expected another $559,101. from other land sales.
Number 4. Total cost of acquiring the land was estimated to be $4,209,144.
Number 5. This does provide for interest over the unknown number of years. The tax increment being pledged to pay off the bonds is also an estimate.
The RDA Board was entirely within the bounds of their office to ask for more information.
In the meetings I attended no such information was provided to them.
No, Bob.
If there was ANY error at all, it was on the part of Emperorer Godfrey, who insisted on cutting the RDA Board out of the loop.
He wilfully failed to furnish the information that the Board needed to make an informed decision, and now has egg on his face.
Your attempt to "spin" this situation is transparent and politically laughable.
Of course nobody would ever accuse Matt Godfrey and his minions of having a lick of political sense.
Well said Bob!
Surely the REAL reason Ernest pulled out is that we're dragging our foolish feet on the gondola?
LOL, Elder McConkie.
Say! That reminds me I have an email reply that's overdue.
Let's see if I get this.
(1) Ogden City puts up about $4,000,000 to buy and clear land, then sells about 4 of the 6 acres of land to Ernest for $1,500,000
(2) Ogden City asks NO questions about Ernest solvency, financials, history, etc. and here they come. Everyone is happy.
(3) Ernest builds its hospital. Runs fine for a year or two and then a situation happens and Ernest fails and building abandoned. All payments stop, including Tax Increment.
(4) It takes a few months for things to settle down but Ogden City has no TI funds coming in to pay for the $4 million used to start the project.
(5) A bank appears and after 6 to 9 months, forecloses and the building goes on the open market. Ogden still has no TI funds coming in.
(6) A year or two passes until the bldg is sold, probably for less than it's value. No TI funds coming in.
(7) Tax Increment now much less than before, if it still applies. Ogden City makes up the difference.
Ogden City is now on the hook for 2-3 years of payments for the start-up capital, but everyone is still delighted that nobody in Ogden City government asked Ernest any questions about its viability because it wasn't anyone's business, you know, like Larsen claims.
What's to worry? The Recreation Center can pick up the tab, or BDO, or a tax increase, user fee, whatever. No problem.
That about the size of it, Steve?
Bob G just needs to shut the hell up. Sorry that the questions weren't asked like Ernst wanted them to be. Tough titty said the kitty. Ernst needs to sack up and answer the tough questions and give some support to their claims if they want the citizens of Ogden to pay for their adventure. It's about time someone stood up for the people of Ogden. The new council has only been in for two weeks. Give them a chance. The old council had four years to screw things up and mayor dumb ass has had 6 years. It takes time for someone to take down someone else's stupdity and fix it.
Curmudgeon notes Mr. Larson's last post, applauds its plainspoken and restrained language, and attempt to argue the differences out on the basis of information, not name-calling. This is good. Hope it continues.
One caveat. Mr. Larson states there are only three appropriate questions for the council to ask:
1. Is the land appropriate according to zoning and master plan?
2. Will the building conform to building codes?
3. Does the builder have financing sufficient to complete the task?
I think, perhaps, in some cases, there may be a fourth:
"Is your business acceptable to the Boyer Co. as one not competing with the Mall redevelopment project [e.g. is it a bookstore over 10K square feet?]?" Or is that covered under #1 above?
Absolutely, Cur. My take is that the Mayor has been touting Ernest for over a year and the RDA just met them and did what they should have in an investigative way. Ernest, in over a year, was still struggling with this location, which is quite evident. The "non-compete" that Boyer has has made the location of certain businesses at the River project impossible, making something like Ernest the only liklehood. Mayor Godfrey maybe got caught here and set this up between Ernest and the RDA as his out.
Possible?
Dorothy Littrell and Rudi deserve many high fives! Dorothy, thank you for digging up the true FACTS and along with Jeske's flashlights keeping a light on the administrations 'in the dark' dealings.
Steve: do you get daily bulletins of propaganda (b.s. in more odiferous terms) from hizzoner? That's a lot of paper the overburdened citizens are buying. You must have reams of the stuff by now. When well-crumpled they will be fairly soft 'outhouse teeshew".
Naw, I'm not on the city council, Bob. I'm just an admirer of five independent, polite, thoughtful, and very smart elected members doing what their constituents voted them in office to do!
Haveaniceday, eh?
Mr. Bernie,
Who are "the people who matter who don't give a darn about this crap?"
The citizens who are sick of the crap Godfrey and his cohorts have been shoveling on top of us matter....and we are giving the crap back from whence it came.
IF you were in attendance at the RDA meeting you would have seen civility (til the mayor spoke), intelligent questions (for a welcome change), polite and welcoming comments from 5 members...and not one hostile insulting remark...til diety pontificated at the end of the doings. Oh yeah, and til Safsten reminded us HE sits on the right hand of diety. Methinks, HE thinks he has to be Fasi reincarnated with insulting bloviating ad infintum.
I wonder, if Ernest has been doing over a year's due diligence and still hadn't made a decision on that particular site and then "pulled the plug," as the Standard said, over maybe one or two RDA members' comments at one meeting, could this maybe have been just an easy out for them? Is it possible that there're other reasons for their hasty retreat?
Actually, the way it has been portrayed is that Mayor Godfrey had either a phone call or a meeting after the meeting with Mr. Brockette, and Mayor Godfrey then said via Steve Larsen and then via the Standard that the deal was off because of the behavior of the council.
I did not attend the meeting, but I have trouble believing that Mr. Brockette turned down what appears to be a sweetheart deal because of a personal experience facing a board of people. In his career in the medical industry, surely he has done this before, and although these things can be somewhat unpleasant it is hard to believe that this was a million dollar insult, whatever it was.
Perhaps he too is trying to get the best deal, and deciding among competing locations. Once locations realize they are competing, they might make the deal even better.
But you're right, sally--there might be other reasons, for sure.
Let's quit being polite and discreet about the Ernest Health proposal.
The Ogden RDA council members were getting too close to the real facts when they questioned Darby Brockette about Ernest Health's connection to HealthSouth.
As of today you can read it for yourself. Go to Google and type in "Robert Thomson of HealthSouth".
You get 3,680 available reports on Robert Thomson.
The same Robert Thomson is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Ernest Health, Inc. on their articles of incorporation in the state of Delaware.
Go to http://www.scrushy-report.com/names.html this very day and print out the Scrushy: Report from Birmingham with the list of names of persons involved in the July 1, 2004 Grand Jury indictment of Richard M. Scrushy and other HealthSouth employees indicted.
You will find:
Robert Thomson, CEO of Inpatient Division, HealthSouth, indicted and charged with bribery in Saudi Hospital bribery case. Found not guilty in jury trial. Facing 16 lawsuits - 8 from insurance industry and 8 from holders of HealthSouth stocks or bonds.
Those of you posting comments that the Ogden RDA Board was out of order in asking their questions don't have a clue to what goes on in the real world.
Mr. Brockette's statement that there is no connection between Ernest Health, Inc. and HealthSouth could politely be called a lack of truth.
The Ogden RDA Board was smarter than anyone wants to give them credit for.
Frankly I'm very disappointed that Bill Glassman is taking the" blame" (upon himself) for this Ernest mess.
All blame for botching this deal lies at the feet of Godfrey and his mouthpieces.
HE FORCED the council to ask questions of Brockette. Brockette also forced the council to question him at the RDA meeting. HE could and should have shown up with portfolios for every council member...prepared to answer questions. AND, he should have turned to Godfrey and asked, "you mean to tell me that I've been dealing with you for months and you've never apprised your council of any of this or given them information on my credentials???"
I also cannot believe that Brockette is the savation of the River Project.....he seemed smarmy to me...he wasn't as forthcoming as an honest businessman should be. The questions asked by Bill, Dorrene, Doug and the others were NOT hostile or impolite.
The council did the job they've been voted in to do...and Godfrey once again has failed the people and this city. DEALINGS IN THE DARK. It isn't up to Bill and Jesse to trot after Brockette. If he's the real deal then Godfrey should get on his knobby knees and bring him back WITH FULL DISCLOSURE.
I hope this council is not going to be gun shy and second guess all their decisions henceforth. They did the right thing the right way and deserve our thanks.
Godfrey is the anti-christ. He must be stopped! And Bob G. and Bernie are his evil disciples!
Hey, Bob G., you were back in Washington, DC again? Did you get any money for your gondola? Did the Ernest guy also say that he felt bad that he wasn't going to be around to ride on your gondola? Since he wouldn't invest a nickel in the Ogden gumball machine. I was told the reason that they left in such a hurry Tuesday night was that they were late leaving to catch their plane to Washington, DC. Surely he didn't call you long distance to tell you he wouldn't be joining you on the ski slopes? Oh, maybe Ernest is a company you recruited for Ogden and that's why you're so buddy-buddy that their CEO calls you to tell you that he won't do business with those jerky city council people.
What you trying to do? They don't lynch people any more so you can't create any vacancies on the City Council just yet.
oh bob g....'get their arms around the fast paced business environment'????
Your youth is showing, son.
How does the council 'get in FRONT of the train to make it go'?? In that harness cowboy matt has em roped and hog-tied in while he stands on the cowcatcher cracking that big black whip over their heads?
Yeah, the big business engine's been puffing into the station, but engineer matt derailed it when he failed to keep a light on the tracks.
Hey, Bob, did Brockette scurry out of the RDA meeting as soon as he left the podium so he could confer with you?
I know.....you could move patients from McKay Dee down to the Ernest Rehab by gondola!!! See, and you think we never come up with any good business proposals.
oh bob g....'get their arms around the fast paced business environment'????
Your youth is showing, son.
How does the council 'get in FRONT of the train to make it go'?? In that harness cowboy matt has em roped and hog-tied in while he stands on the cowcatcher cracking that big black whip over their heads?
Yeah, the big business engine's been puffing into the station, but engineer matt derailed it when he failed to keep a light on the tracks.
Hey, Bob, did Brockette scurry out of the RDA meeting as soon as he left the podium so he could confer with you?
I know.....you could move patients from McKay Dee down to the Ernest Rehab by gondola!!! See, and you think we never come up with any good business proposals.
Brush up on city gov't structure and areas of responsibility, Bob. The council should respond in this area, not mold. You have much of this backward.
I don't think it's a compliment to Glassman that you admire him, Bob....not in the same fetid breath as admiring the mayor!
None of the 3 new council members ran on a platform of 'hating the mayor'...and they are not in a mold of being against Godfrey at every turn.
They are 3 independent thinkers...aye, there's the rub...they're THINKERS...and they think Godfrey has tried to hoodwink the RDA and the citizens of Ogden again.
Godfrey has a lousy record on integrity and being truthful and honorable.
The council has had no choice but to butt heads with this administration. Only two weeks into their term and they were forced to do their own fact finding on the spot!
The only thing I fault Glassman on is taking any 'blame' for doing his job. Enuf already, Bill. Not necessary...all apologies need to come from hizzoner....but that Napoleon is incapable of admitting HE could ever need correction. He's incapable of insight into his own psyche.
Hey, Bob G, you didn't answer my question: How come you're so privileged to receive/make long distance calls to Ernest? I've checked since my first email, and they DID leave town Tuesday night, so how did you manage a conversation with them the next day? Or are you just trying to make the Council look worse than Godfrey did through the SE? Come on, tell us! Are you telling the truth? Your credibility is at stake here!
Hi, I'm Bob G. and I'm an addict..
Welcome to the meetings Bobby. You are already fitting right in to the attack dog Weber Forum.
I always did think that you would join us eventually.
Bob G., unimaginative isn't the only one who wants to know what your ties are to Ernest that you're exchanging long distance calls. Something doesn't smell right here. The City Council can't
meet with Ernest, but you have calling privileges? Anyone else notice an odor here?
Bob G.
It's funny that you should berate the 60's generation. After your last post I was amused at your language that reminded me so much of the stuff my friends and I were spouting about the older crowd - in the 60's!! (we didn't trust any one over 30 - none of them knew a damn thing about anything! Same problem you have now)
Seems like every over previledged and spoiled generation shows distain for their elders. It surely must be a sign of a successful society.
We were full of our selves then, just like you are now.
We thought we knew it all then, just like you do now.
We now know, just like you will, that we really didn't have the perspective to know too much at all.
Every thing changes, and nothing changes. We had arrogant sleazy politicians that lied to us and led us down dark evil roads, just like you do now. We believed in them then, just like you do now. They stiffed us then, just like they will stiff you now.
When you get a few more years on you, and develope a more efficient bull shit detector, you will look back on this and smile. You will be able to spot phonies like Godfrey a mile away. (Hint - look for hubris) They talk a mighty big game, but like Godfrey, they usually deliver absolutely nothing but massive public debt, and worse - in W's case - death to young patriotic warriors.
I like your spirit Bob, you remind me of my old pals from the revolution - before some of them got killed following false prophets.
PS - It is every American's duty to focus on our rights. Without our constitutional rights what do we have any duty to? Would you propose that we only have duty to duty?
Also Bob. . . .
I assume you were referring to the Viet Nam memorial coming before the WWII one?
Kind of a cheap shot the way you framed it - if in fact that is what you were writing about.
I always was a bit curious about that myself. I wrote it off to the greatest generation's modesty about their saving the world. In spite of being old foggies, they did do that you know. The Viet Nam memorial was a case of a massive national guilty complex - rightfully earned I might add.
I've been wondering where Ozboy's been during all this. Real good to again have his perspective. His anaology regarding the 60's is right the hell on and young Bob should, if he can bring himself down a notch or two, glean something from it. To place Ogden's problems all on that generation is totally out of line and his examples about monuments, latch-key kids, and rights vs duty only show a lack of understanding that wrapped more in confussion and revenge than reason.
I too am a bit bewildered as to why Bob and his dad had more access to Earnest than the City Council folks. What's wrong with this picture? Is there a conflict of interest?
Something just doesn't seem right.
How sickening was it to open that SE rag this morning and read the b.s. by that 'lusrous' editorial staff!? AND the vicious and erroneous "cartoon"? Where was Schwebke last nite? Lurking in the woodwork with the other cockroaches? I didn't see him there. Someone asked me last nite where he was. Perhaps he doesn't need to show up because the intrepid beat reporters Larsen, Prisbey and Mosher can call in the 'facts' and still make deadline.
Hey, Porter et al, when do these lackeys get their own byline?
Is it just me, or does the kid mayor bring to mind Dukakis in that ridiculously large helmet peeping up over the tank??? Here's Mr. Bobblehead, scrawny neck, perched in his 'too big' chair trying to look mayoral. Well, Dukakis lost the election after that infamous picture, and perhaps if enough voters see Mr. Bobblehead it will definitely turn the tide...and the fallout will be on his slavish and dysfunctional supporters.
I wish Glassman would remove the sackcloth and ashes. STOP APOLOGIZING DAMMIT for doing nothing wrong last week. As Beech said last nite, "Brockette should have come with his credentials and the information about himself...and turned to the mayor and asked him why he hadn't supplied the council with the information they'd asked for?"
Hey...so Jeske said she learned that they didn't get the requested info on Brockette and the hosp deal becaue 'we didn't follow protocol....in making the request in writing.'
BULL....Cook led Jesse twice last nite in prodecural 'protocol'...so he was derelict in not informing the council three weeks ago that the request needed to be in writing. So, was the mayor when he was asked. How hard would it have been to say, "hey, put that in writing and you'll have what you need!'
There's an awful stench of decayed morals and integrity permeating that entire building.
Not one of those pets the mayor whisteled over from 25th street, including Prissy, uh....Prisby and the fading redhead had attended the RDA meeting! Why should they? They're fed out of the hands of Godfrey, SE and their masters."One call, that's all"...and they come running...the only things missing were the leashes. But then, well trained pets don't need leashes, do they? (Not visible ones, anyway).
We're all gung ho and full of gratitude for those 25th st business owners. Thanks to all who are invested in Ogden.
Provo, by Brockette's admission are not 'giving any concessions to Ernest'...so, if an outfit wants to purchase land and 'do it on their own'...why should the city care?? Tax revenue if they succeed, and a bldg to sell if they don't. Win, win. Go Provo!Oh, by the way. Moyes and Beech were right on calling for tax funded Ch 17 to televise the council meetings. The fading redhead and Prissy sneered that seeing 'the same people each week' is the reason not to televise. Well, has anyone noticed Mr. Bobblehed on there ala Castro, nite and day?
Hey, two TUNES....DEALINGS IN THE DARK.....NITE AND DAY.....
Lastly, wan't it refreshing to see Neilson again? Still a jerk....'CEO's are emotional and sensitive"...what claptrap! Do you think Donald Trump shares his barber with him?
Dontcha just love the way that lard ass gym owner got up and heaped praise on the business genius of the Godfreyites?
This is the same jerk who cried his eyes out to the press a couple of years ago about the horrible unfairness of governments building Rec centers to compete against private gyms!
This is the same accused sexual offender that is getting a $130,000. per month tax payer financed freebee on his rent on the $20,000,000 Gym and Bowling alley that Lord Godfrey and his evil followers extorted out of those same tax payers.
Any one without integrity would be equally complimentary to the Godfreyites for such magnificient tax payer funded gifts.
At the meeting last night, one thing that needs emphasizing in my opinion is Mayor Godfrey's point of view about the requests from the council regarding Ernest Health, Inc. that have been said to have been denied by the administration.
Mayor Godfrey termed these statements regarding this denial as being "factually inaccurate."
He went on to say that, in Ogden City Government, there is a process that must be undergone to acquire information, and the council did not undertake this process, (whatever it may be.) Therefore, in his opinion, allegations of denial of the request for information are "factually inaccurate."
Following these remarks, Councilwoman Jeske stated that the new council members had not been informed that any such process was required.
Somebody really dropped the ball here.
My opinion is that it was the Absolute Responsibility of those in place who knew about this process to inform the council of it the minute the subject of needing information came up in discussion. Those being new to a group cannot be expected to intuit all processes and procedures.
After all, in most dealings with things of this nature, where there is a Process--even registering a vehicle, for instance-- the people there tell one what window to go to, for heaven's sake. They don't just stand there while you ask and ask and do nothing because you are at the wrong window.
I would imagine that the new members went through an orientation meeting or two, and this process should have been mentioned then.
However, here's what it looks like happened:
Discussion in council meeting with (I assume) staff present where members, both old and new, state that they need information about Ernest Health, Inc. Possibly, some present know about The Process, but say nothing.
Time passes. No information is forthcoming. Deadlines loom. Brockette is arriving for meeting.
Council and citizens try to research Ernest Health, Inc. on their own.
Council members ask Brockette questions.
Criticism of Council by the mayor in local paper for asking questions. Criticism of Council on editorial page of paper this morning for asking questions.
Now, we all know now that this all could have been cleared up had The Process been undergone. But no one had mentioned The Process. And what if The Process had been a two or three week one? It wouldn't have done them any good anyway.
The fact of the matter is, the council was between a rock and a hard spot at this point. Because of the possibility of connections between Ernest Health, Inc. and the former fraudulent HealthSouth, some members felt there were some things they needed to know.
Their only other choice would have been to roll over and question nothing. This might, just might, have been all right had there been enough time for a bit more research on Ernest Health, Inc. and had the research led to no questions, but unfortunately, there was no more time, and the amount of research that had been done by that time led to more questions. And I'm glad they asked them.
Jeske went on to say, however, that meetings had been held, understandings had been reached, and it seemed from her remarks that both the council and administration's intent was to work toward a more smoothly functioning government. It seemed to be the consensus that we will get nowhere if there is a huge gulf between the administrative and legislative bodies, and that bridges must be built.
I agree with this. And therefore don't want to lose sight of it.
And since everybody now knows about The Process, things might run a bit more smoothly.
There seems to be a little twist in this plot that has been left out so far.
The actions in question were not part of the city council or the mayor. This was all done before the RDA board. Same people, but different bodies and roles. In regard to the mayor and council there are apparently protocols of communication that must be followed. Probably a good idea if they are fullfilling their duties as seperate executive and legislative bodies. (something missing in Ogden for six years)
In the RDA, Godfrey is the "Executive Director" and the council members are the board of directors. In this set up the Executive Director is on the same team as the board with the same common interests and goals. In any similar organization any where, in business or government, the Director of an organization works for, and at the direction, of the board. In this case Godfrey had a duty as director to ferret out all pertinent information on a proposed business partner and supply that complete and unbiased information to his board of directors so that they could make an intelligent and informed decision with the tax payers money.
Godfrey obviously did not do this in this case. He has been derilict in his duties to the board that he serves. He has been conspiratorial and has worked against the very board that he serves. He should be removed from this RDA post at once. The State RDA law calls for the council members to be the board of directors. However, the law does not specify that the mayor be the executive director. That post is left up to the discression of the board of directors. Godfrey has betrayed the RDA and should be removed!
The RDA board must have competent and unbiased employees, that they can trust and count on, to keep them informed if they are ever to dig the city out of this mess that Godfrey has created with his past dictatorial ways.
Good point, ozboy. In fact, I was wondering why public comment last night wasn't squelched altogether for reasons of protocol, meaning that technically, the Council is a different entity than the RDA and those comments would have been better placed at an RDA meeting.
But to follow your train of logic, any process or procedure in place to allow the council to get info from the administration would not be applicable in this case, because it wasn't the council and administration.
It was the RDA board and its director.
Like I said, good point. Nice technicality.
As Executive Director of the RDA it is assumed that Godfrey would be duty bound to fully inform new board members, at the very first opportunity, of all matters that the RDA is involved in. The new members should not have to ferret out information on their own about stuff they may not even know exists, like this Ernest fiasco that was sprung on them by their very own Executive Director with out any supporting information - because they did not follow a protocol that they didn't know about, and said protocol may not have applied in any event! A protocol, which if it was applicable to the RDA board, Godfrey had the duty to inform the board about!
Talk about a complete conflict of interest!! Any moral person in this situation would excuse themself from one of the rolls because of the blatant conflict.
The RDA board very clearly needs an Executive Director that is going to work for them. One that is going to serve their, and our, interests in all of these miriad of complex financial deals.
Godfrey, as the author of all of these debacles, is totally and unretrievibly tainted. All of his inner circle of biz geniuses are equally tainted and unqualified.
It is common wisdom in the business (and sports) world that the one's that created the messes and the losses are not the one's that in any way are qualified to clean them up. There are highly qualified MBA's amongst us that are experts at this sort of "clean up".
The RDA board needs to find its own Executive Director. One with educational and business experience that would qualify them to understand and successfully conclude this incredible interwoven mess of deals. A Director that would keep the board completely updated on all details at all times. One that has no axe to grind for either side. One who would be loyal to the board, the citizens of Ogden, common business sense and decency..
This position could be paid for by firing Godfrey's lobbiest Jolly, and the RDA board phantom "PR" specialist, who just might be behind this recent wave of Standard Examiner drivel. It would not suprise me at all to find the RDA board's own employees stabing them in the back, what with this example at the top. Any additional money Godfrey might make for his RDA job could also be added to the pot. It is after all a $50 million dollar or so company. It should be able to afford a qualified and competent Executive Director.
The time to act is now. Rudi, you're a legal eagle, what does the RDA statue say about the Executive Director and who he or she serves at the pleasure of. Also, and most important, what does the law say about the appointment of that Executive Director?
I cruised through the code and I didn't see this specific issue addressed. Is there some where else in the code that defines how these state authorized boards choose their Executive Director?
Is there any kind of procedural advice you could render to this cause?
This is what happens when most of the positions in city government are held by the same people. Things tend to get muddled. I remember reading an article about Boise, I think it was, which has been quite successful ar revitalizing its downtown. The spokesperson said that it had been necessary to have the RDA board made of of people other than the council.
Don't know if that's necessary here, but the Director really should function as one, I agree.
New comments are not allowed.