As we move into the weekend this St. Padraic's Day, we thought it would be appropriate to set up a Friday open thread, since most of us will be Down at the Pub, this St. Paddy's after Church, of course. Before we open the floor for discussion however, there are a couple of announcements we'd like to make:
Ogden Council Rules of Procedure. Many of our gentle readers have been clamoring for an online version of the written rules and procedures that govern city council and RDA Board meetings. Until now, such a resource was unavailable. This pesky little problem has now been resolved. Earlier this week a friend of Weber County Forum scanned and digitized a hard-copy version which we had obtained from the Ogden City Council office. The electronic version is now available in our Weber County Forum archives. It's a pared-down version of Robert's Rules -- sort of a Robert's Rules Lite. You can view the document via this link for the time being. When time permits, we'll add a permanent link to our sidebar.
The Voices reprise. And we are pleased to announce that gentle reader Dian Woodhouse's wonderful one-act theatrical reading, The Voices, has been brought back to the Ogden front-stage by popular demand, and has been re-scheduled for a couple of return engagements. You can read the press release here . If you missed the performance the first time around, you have the opportunity to catch its reprise.
With that, the floor is now open to you all.
Erin go bragh!
'sup, gentle readers?
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
26 comments:
Well, since this is an open thread today.... I was wondering this AM if anyone has looked at the Mayor's claim that Mt. Ogden Golf Course loses 320K a year.
We have learned, the hard way, to be wary of numbers from Hizzonah, and he does have an interest in the loss being as large as possible in order to justify sale of the park. So I was wondering if anyone has looked at the numbers and what make them up? Are they valid numbers? They may be, I don't know. I just notice that so far everyone, press included, seems to be accepting the number from the Mayor's office as graven in stone and handed down from the mount. Justified?
From what I understand, community recreation centers are usually worse money pits than municipally owned golf courses.
How ironic that the mayor would push so hard for the former, but then complain about the latter losing money.
Centerville Citizen,
Learn Ogden's issues, then comment. The private entities are going to operate and be liable for any shortfall at the rec. center, that's their part of the deal. Just another example of the whitewashing that takes place too often in this city by those who are opposed to things.
Don't browbeat Centerville Citizen.
His last comment was wise beyond his years, I believe.
Your main argument is plainly ad hominem and therefore logically invalid.
Please discuss the issues he raised, if you can. Please though, don't throw him into your pool of intelligent people people you iconoclistically regard as "obstructionist" "C.A.V.E.S."
Make your argument if you can; and then shut up.
And don't throw in your "insider knowledge" unless you're willing to reveal your identity in government... and position.
Without that, you're just another dumbass who posts here anonymously.
Thanks in advance.
In relation to Centerville Guy's post -
He certainly is on to something here.
In the Little Lord Mayor's High Tech Wreck Scheme, the citizens of Ogden will be into it at least $20 million dollars. Normal rents I believe are always around 1 percent per month of the rented properties value. In this case the rent on this abortion should in the real world be $200,000 per month. The Fat, Fat Cat guy will be paying the city $55,000 per month.
That means the city of Ogden, and its citizens, will be subsidizing the Fat guy to the tune of $145,000 each and every month! that equated to $1,740,000 per year!!
In addition, the Fat, Fat Cat guy and his partner do not have any where near deep enough pockets to cover the down side if they cannot make a go of this business. That means that if and when they fail, the money will be coming out of any profits from the Business Depot which is the only money making deal the city has. Other wise, the citizens of Ogden are going to have to make good if the Fat Guy fizzles.
And the lord is going to use a $350,000 deficit as an excuse to give away the golf course and get his ego monument built!!!!
By the way, how much do all of Ogden's other recreational facilities cost. The parks? The Band Stand that he is so proud of? The Rodeo grounds?
And how about the Cemetery, we know that aint a money maker.
He is one cheekly little bastard, that's for sure.
We are well aware of how it is SUPPOSED to work but, let's be realistic here. If enough people don't support this thing ( and it will take a lot of support), the bottom line is that the people of Ogden will suffer.
320K loss comes from the Ogden City Golf Courses (courses Mt. Ogden and El Monte) entry, I do believe.
From the Council Handbook:
C. When speaking or debating before the Council, all persons including Council members, shall confine their remarks to the question under discussion or debate, avoiding comments on personalities. Anyone engaging in discussion or debate beyond the question before the Council shall be directed to stop by the presiding officer, and no further discussion or debate will be allowed by said person.
I find this interesting, because both council members and the public regularly accuse each other of ad hominem attacks. This portion of the Council Handbook states very clearly that it is a rule of those proceedings that if such attacks occur, not only should they be stopped, but the attacking person can no longer speak.
It would be a good idea to start enforcing this, I think.
About the cemetery, Ozboy -
Right now Ogden charges $500 a plot for Ogden residents and $550 for non-residents. That's actually a pretty low price to pay to be buried in such a beautiful historic cemetery. Starting this July, Salt Lake City is going to start charging residents $700 for a plot in its municipal cemetery and $1,225 a plot for non-residents.
I asked about the actual losses/cost of operating Mt. Ogden Park golf course because, in conversations at Grounds for Coffee and other on-going public forums here and there [e.g. the aisles at Smiths and Albertsons], the argument for selling that seems to have the most traction is "Well, if it's losing 320K a year...."
So I thought it might be prudent to actually look at the numbers. If, as someone suggested above, it represents the losses for both city owned courses, that would be worth knowing.
I do not know how to research this. The costs and income of the course must be a matter of public record. If someone can tell me how to get acess to the annual financial report for Mt. Ogden Park golf course, I'll be happy to do the digging. But I have no idea where to start. Hizzonah may be right about this [a stopped clock is right twice a day after all], but I'd like to know for sure.
Dian,
I really appreciate the way you
get the facts of the matter and share it.
Regarding speaking to a subject at Council meetings however, you will note that the public cannot speak AFTER an item has been brought up to the Council for their discussion, nor is the public allowed to speak BEFORE the vote!
Therefore, when any one of us has something that needs to be orought up and put before the Council, we have to do it when public comments are open to us....whether it's the subject on the agenda or not. To wait is to be too late!!!
I'm pretty sure that it is the Farmington Council meetings that are open and laid back. I understand there is give and take between the admin, council and public. I think it would be enlightening and entertaining to attend one of their meetings, and see how it is to be a PART of the process! Anyone up for carpooling?
You're right, Sharon--except for Public Hearings.
I have always liked speaker's lists, myself. It just seems things work better with them. There has to be a person to keep them, but the way I have seen them work very effectively is that, once a motion is opened for discussion, people put their names on a list as being either for or against the issue. The lists are given to the Chairman, who will then start with the side in favor of the motion and call on people in the order in which they signed up.
Sometimes a Chairman will work through the lists having first all who wish to speak in favor of the issue speak, and then all against the issue speak. Sometimes he will run it five for, five against, five for, five against, etc. These get interesting, because people of course will rebut and challenge and therefore this should only be done if there's time for it. Sometimes it is made a rule that no one can speak more than once on one issue. Sometimes the Chair will allow people to go back and forth a few times. Sometimes he will just run the for side, then the against side, and then close discussion.
It is understood in this situation that if someone gets up and says what you had intended to say, you pass, and do not get up to say it all over again unless you have something to add to it.
The advantages to this are:
You know your order, because you have seen the list and know what number you are, and so can position yourself close to the microphone when your turn is getting close, thereby eliminating all the dead air in the meeting taken up by people walking to the mic.
The Chair cannot be accused of favoritism, either on the issue or on the order of those called upon.
Depending on time constraints and how tightly the Chair wishes to run the meeting, he can, for instance, limit the speakers' times to one, two, or three minutes. He can cut limits down at any time if it looks like its going on too long. He can close the speaker's lists, and should at some point, meaning that if you decide late to get on it and it's closed, it is your fault you missed your chance and he can't be accused of not calling on you because of prejudice.
The Chair can in this way ensure that everyone who wishes to be heard has that opportunity, while still being able to move the agenda. It takes some skill, but it can work.
All this to say that I think there's a way to work the public into the process, if so desired, and still get through the meeting in a reasonable time.
The new council has, on a few occassions, changed the agenda to allow for Public Comments PRIOR to an important issue being brought up. The problem, and this has come from the Public, is that when this is done, the Administration and or Council has not shared any information in which the Public can use or comment on.
Public Hearings, as Dian says, are different, and the Public has 5 minutes to talk about the issue before the vote. Comments, on the other hand, are just that, and both sides are expected to be civil.
Curmudgeon: start with the City Recorder; she'll point you in the right direction regarding your figures for the gold courses.
The so called "public comment" period in Ogden, at least for the last six years, has only been theater of the absurd put on and orchestrated by the little lord mayor and his sycophants in the council leadership. Namely Sasten and Jorgensen.
The decisions open to comment have always already been made in the lords secret meetings.
The public comment farce is only done to satisfy state law, and to placate the masses by leading them to believe that their voice's are being heard.
It is a shameless joke perptrated on the citizens by corrupt and evil little men.
This of course is why people are so alarmed about the appearance of that dirty little game continuing with the new council - vis-a-vis these secret meeting his lordship is having with them over the gondola and golf course give away program he is pushing.
Grondahl's cartoon in the SubStandard, about Godfrey in Italy, is absolutely priceless!
Check it out. Every time I see the little lord mayor in a Grondahl cartoon I crack up. He has got the little twerp's number, likeness, and attitude down pat!
Frankie, Frankie, Frankie,
Your mother surely doesn't know about your bad manners. Have you ever looked in the mirror, especially a long view?
Not a pleasant sight. Those in glass houses shouldn't ....and you know it.
I believe your are just a little touched in the noggin. I just wonder what a cartoon of your likeness by my buddy Calvin would look like. Disheveled, double chin, big bay window, big ears, shabbily dressed. Oh what a laugh it would be. Hardy har har.
Tootles
Aunt Lizzie
Actually people say I look just like Brad Pitt.
Or was that Apricot Pitt?
I know it's one or the other.
I attended a legislative committee meeting once and thought their method of soliciting information was a pretty good model that allowed everyone a chance.
The have the person requesting the agenda item speak to the item usually along with some staff information, then the members of the committee are allowed to question the person, and staff and make comments. Then the issue is open to public comment and they go back and forth with for and against comments (sometimes if there is expected to be significant numbers of commentators they will have signup sheets available at the beginning of the meeting for those there to address a specific item to put their names and their position for or against and the chair then calls on them).
After whatever time is available for public comment, the committee then discusses the item among themselves when they have the ability to amend or substitute the motion. Then the dispose of the item in what ever manner they decide, moving on in the agenda, putting it to a vote, tabling, etc.
I suggested this method to in my council, along with the requirement that the petitioner and any other party that was going to have significant comments on the subject submit a synopsys of their comments to the council before hand.
I guess that would have been to open of a process cause it ever saw the light of day.
Of course, I know there are some members of the public that might (and actually do at public hearings I have attended) take much more time than that allotted to them and go off on tangents (which seem to have a recurring theme much like many comments I see here).
But it seems to me that should be the responsibility of the chairman of the committee to keep the meeting under control. And with someone who can and is willing to enforce the rules consistently and fairly, that type of system would work. It might even lengthen the meetings to the point that the committee (council) memebers might limit their own comments to salient points and not just talk to hear their own voices, which is one thing I try my hardest to avoid.
I think it is unfortunate that many of the decisions are made with virtually no public input and then the public is availed their opportunity either at the beginning of the meeting or at the end to comment when either nothing on the subject has yet come up or the decision has already been rendered.
At times, the Public Comments seem more like a needles stuck in the groove of the same old record, week after week after week. Nothing changes.
I think the new council HEARS the comments these days and applies what is said, if it's not the same sorry banter over and over again, to the issue.
We'all should maybe drop by a council meeting and make some comments, see if they're heard, before likening this council to the last council, wherein pretty much what has been said about that body is fact.
Arcritic, that sounds like a good procedure to me. So it would go:
Presentation of agenda item
Questions
Then a motion and a second.
Open for council discussion.
Open for public comments.
Close public comments.
More council discussion
Call the question & vote.
Is that about it? It would have to be run very tightly. There are people who are not chairing meetings whom I have seen sort of cue the chair if things are going too long--it's sort of like a chair's assistant position and they really do well.
Lots of time in here for people to walk over and get on a sign up sheet if they were used, also.
I do think it's possible.
Dian,
That sound about right. But you are right either the chair or a chairs assistant needs to be right on top of things so they don't get out of hand and the meetings go on and on till way past everyones bedtimes.
Well we could always hire Jorgenson and his three minute and much despised clock!
do you really think Godfrey is willing to give the duped public that much consideration and time for their input??
Sheesh.
1) The 320K loss is only "Operating Loss". How much would the "subsidized" golf game cost if the golf course were going to try to purn at an "operating profit"?
2) Private Golf courses in our area are finding it difficult to compete with our "subsidized" golf prices. This isn't good for tax revenue producing private courses. Call Kelly Woodland at the Barn. Call Norm Steele with Ben Lomond Golf Course.
3) It is always important to consider the opportunity costs of not changing course here! What is the future tax revenue stream that would come from building hi value properties around the golf course, making modification that increase its probability at running at a profit, etc. vs. the future tax drain of continuing to run the course at an operating loss of $320,000 per year! The differential between tax revenue and tax loss could be very, very large. Large enough to maybe save many programs such as the Marshall White Center, pay the Fire Fighters, Pay some more police, etc.
4) Another important thing to consider is that the private golf courses that must compete with our subsidized one have to pay rents on their courses. OUr subsidized golf course loses $320,000 per year, and does not have large payment streams going out on rents/leases/mortages on their property. Think of the disadvantage we are puting local private interests in.
These comments are certainly stupid and silly to the "gentle readers" here. None-the-less, they are important to consider.
What are the green fees, and other fees, with the public courses vs the private ones?
Also, should all city owned recreational facilities be privatized? How about the Lorin Farr park, stadium and swimming pool? How about all of the city parks? How about El Monte course? How about the mayor's band stand? None of them make money. Should they all be sold off? Is the purpose of the city to make money, or to provide services to the citizens? The city spends a whole lot more money on Godfrey and all those suits that he hires than they do on this golf course and park.
The point that a new and improved golf course would throw off tax revenue to support fire fighters, police and the MWC sounds great, but the reality is that the money would just go to support more of the mayor's grand schemes, and to pay for more of his expensive and incompetent executive staff.
In addition, the new course would no doubt be private and exclusive and only for the use of the rich and powerful. This may suit Godfrey's purpose of eliminating the poor and people of color from Ogden, or at least the east side. You know those rich folks in their fancy golf course houses are not going to want a bunch of dark skinned and poor kids playing in the area.
I think Godfrey and Peterson should keep their greedy and grubby hands off of the public's recreational facilities.
It's NOW Thursday afternoon. Much has been in the news, city wise. Is this "Friday Open Thread" thing going to be a weekly thread or have you been so busy with your Republican cronies that you've not been able to get around to something new and refreshing?
Let's go, Rudizinkblogmastermeister. Give us some controversy and let the words flow.
New comments are not allowed.