By Sharon
The Standard-Examiner editorial today appears to me to be pro gondola while making a feeble attempt at neutrality on the subject.
Soft pedaling a lack of information under the guise of a 'complicated' plan is nonsense.
Also, Schwebke's article on SGO is just downright awful! He made a few points abut SGO wanting answers and then dragged out the same propaganda that Peterson and Godfrey are still spouting: $20,000,000. for the downtown leg, WSU's land (as if this is a done deal), millions to the schools, millions in tax revenue, ad nauseum.
Schwebke appears to be incapable of writing an in-depth article that HE may have researched!
What happened to John Wright? How about hiring Dian? Now, THERE is a writer! And, she knows how to research!
-----------
The above article is another reader post, pulled up from the dark recesses of one of our Weber County Forum comments sections, and displayed on the front page to launch today's forum discussion.
Comments, anyone?
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
44 comments:
As for Sharon and her take on today's lead Editorial, nobody can do right by this woman. The Editorial was fine. It suggested that everyone take a "chill pill" regarding this gondola thing that is so divisive. There is absolutely NOTHING of a formal nature in front of the Council or the Administration or the Public! Only a "concept" has been presented to ANYONE, with a pro side (LO)that markets above and beyond the line of reason and a con side (SMO) that offers no economically viable alternative.
As for the Fire and Police, my take is that they get their raises if their job performance is up to certain Standards. Considering the jobs they do, I hope that they are up to these Standards. However, I don't believe that some so-called punishment factor, something that the Standard Examiner claims to have reared its ugly head due to this impasse, should enter to any rank and file or collective bargaining negotiation.
Pass me a bunch of those "chill pills" so I can hand them out.
Sharon -
The articles in question are a whole lot more reasonable and un-biased than we are used to getting from this so called news paper.
As usual, we must read the SL papers to get a half way accurate take on what is really going on with the gang that can't shoot straight.
I was okay with the ed today; however, I do agree with Sharon that it was biased in favor of the project. And, don't forget to hand out those chill pills to the mayor! There is nothing formal in front of the Council or Administration or Public, yet the Mayor is cheerleading this project to no end and throwing out all sorts of numbers, supposed facts, and known mistruths. It is hard for me to sit back and just watch this happen, if the public doesn't actively outright question this proposal who will? Definitely not the mayor.
Has anyone noticed that the Standard Net "Gondola poll" is getting stacked? It been relative consistent in the yeas to nay until the last 2 days. Take a look
By consistent, it's been running 2/3 against and 1/3 for. Not any more. I suggest that there's a campaign at work here.
Anon-
Not that the SE polls matter, but the reason why you are seeing a change in the numbers is because the propagandists of Lift Ogden have put the poll link on their website's homepage. Wait and see, at their next pep rally they will use the poll to push their agenda. They are good at marketing and promoting and selling the project, even if they cannot back any of their claims up.
Unfortunately, my fear is that our indepth investigative SE reporters will assume this IS the public view.
Anon:
Of course, we must also consider the possibility that when the "poll" was running 2-1 against, it reflected an SGO campaign to pump the figures. SGO had the poll link on its website. Really not fair to assume that when the poll runs your way, it represents ligitimate public opinion, and when it runs the other way, it represents hype by an interest group.
These non-scientific polls are fun but they do not accurately reflect public opinion on any issue. Ever.
The several polls that the Standard ran in the two years leading up to the Rec center vote didn't end up having any impact. The polls consistantly ran against the mayor's Rec Center by high margins. Yet the Standard didn't seem to put any stock in their own polls and I don't believe they ever even mentioned them. The Standard, as you may recall, was a big backer of this particular mayorial boondoggle. That could have something to say about how legit a news source they really are anymore.
It is a tough game nowdays in the news business. It sometimes seems sad to think that the Standard Examiner has come to what it has because of financial concerns and an inability to compete with a multitude of other news outlets. I sure do not remember these sorts of questionable ethics and competency issues with the Standard back when the Glasmann's owned and ran the paper.
There was some glimmer of hope when McKitrick was covering Ogden. Then it kind of went to hell for a while until John Wright came aboard. I think he was doing too good of a job at reporting the truth, and the suits of sandusky got nervous and shipped him off. Now of course we are back in the doldroms with this very uninspired and untalented fellow that cannot cover his own bias even when he tries.
Bottom line is I don't think any one pays much attention to the Standard's polls any more than they do to the paper itself. Like I said, the Paper seemed to ignore their own polls in the past. The sad part is that they will let LO rig the poll and then use the Standard's remaining credibility by using said poll for their propoganda purposes.
In spite of above, I do think that the Standard comes down the pike with a very good editorial fairly frequently. Don't know if it is Porter or one of his editorial board, but whoever writes them, they are top notch. The Cartoon guy and Trentleman are also amongst the best in their fields.
In January 2004 the Standard-Examiner actually commissioned a scientific poll on the tram proposal, in response to rumors that the mayor was reviving the idea (immediately after his reelection, after he hadn't mentioned the idea in public for years). The poll was done by a WSU professor, so some people will say it's automatically biased, but I've never heard this professor express a personal opinion on the matter one way or the other and even if she has one, her professional integrity would take precedence. The question was simply, "Should a tram be built to the top of Mt. Ogden?" The results were 37.6% yes, 52.8% no, and 9.2% no answer (not sure what happened to the other 0.4%), with a margin of error of 11%.
Amazingly, after paying for this poll, the Standard-Examiner never reported the results. I know about it only because Cathy McKitrick called and asked me to comment on the results. But when her article appeared, it didn't mention the poll or my response.
This anecdote aside, Cathy McKitrick is a terrific reporter and her departure was a great loss to the Standard-Examiner. I've acquired a lot of respect for nearly all the S-E reporters I've worked with over the years, even when they don't get all the facts right or spin things the way I would want. Scott Schwebke, on the other hand, seems to have little interest in even talking to me. The only time he has ever called me was when he was doing a human-interest story on Curt Geiger: He called and tried to get me to say something negative about CG, and I refused to play that game. I find much of Schwebke's reporting to be ok, but he seems to have an unhealthy trust of government officials and a paranoid distrust of anyone who disagrees with the government.
Dan:
Thanks. I did not know of the poll commissioned by the SE. Apparently, the public proved unreliable and did not produce the answers the SE was looking for. Tacky of them.
Careful, OzBoy....you will have the tsk's tsk's of Curm and some Anon or other for calling the rec center a 'boondoggle'.
We don't like name calling, remember?
But, coarse person that I am....I like your comments. No bull...just the truth.
impressed as hell said... I believe
we were referring to name calling on a PERSONAL level.........
ArmySarge:
Exactly right. Calling a public funded construction a boondoggle is a judgement about its wisdom [which judgement every citizen has a perfect right to make], not a personal attack.
[Note: I am not saying the Rec Center/Mall Redevelopment project is a boondogle. I don't know. In four years or so, we will all know, one way or the other, to our relief or dismay.]
oh...'scuuuuse me! I thought we were all trying to be ladies and gentlemen and letting the proponents of a 'concept' get away with murder.
But, I think now that the only blood one might see is from the splinters in the behinds of those who straddle the fence of "can't we just all get along and talk
nice?"
How's this for 'nice?'...thank you Army Sarge, Sir.
Dian,
How many people were polled in that WSU survey? To have a margin of error of 5% you only need to poll about 300 people. An 11% margin of error would be like 150 or less. Not much confidence in that. BTW with 11% you take the actual number you get for each answer and go 11 point either way. With one at 37 and one at 52 the bands would overlap which would mean that you cannot say that the poll tells you anything since the values overlap within the margin of error.
On a different note, I bring this up here cause the Council Meeting thread is so long I am afraid it would get lost in there.
You mentioned: "The ordinance limiting the amount of unrelated adults living in one dwelling also passed, but on this one there was some dissent."
Check out this story.
A story about a town that used a law about limiting the number of unrelated people living in a house to prohibit unmarried couples with more than 2 children from living in the town.
I don't think this is where they (Ogden City Council) were going but it would be interesting to know a little more about that ordinance.
acritic,
Are you confusing me with Dian? Thanks for the compliment.
Obviously the WSU poll was small--hence the 11% margin of error. But a small, randomly chosen sample is far, far better than a large skewed sample.
I drew no conclusions from the poll results--I merely reported them. But the poll certainly tells you something (rather than nothing): It tells you, for instance, that both support for a tram and opposition to it were widespread at that time. As you say, the results are consistent with a 50-50 split; the results are also consistent with a 2:1 ratio against, but not a 2:1 ratio for. I think a fair assessment would be to say that the community was strongly divided on the issue, with a likely (not conclusive) majority opposed.
Here's a little primer on "sampling error:
All polls based on samples are subject to 'sampling error' which reflects the effects of chance in the sampling process. The uncertainty is often expressed as a margin of error. The margin of error does not reflect other sources of error, such as measurement error. A poll with a random sample of 1,000 people has margin of sampling error of 3% for the estimated percentage of the whole population. A 3% margin of error means that 95% of the time the procedure used would give an estimate within 3% of the percentage to be estimated. The margin of error can be reduced by using a larger sample, however if a pollster wishes to reduce the margin of error to 1% they would need a sample of around 10,000 people. In practice pollsters need to balance the cost of a large sample against the reduction in sampling error and a sample size of around 500-1,000 is a typical compromise for political polls. (Note that to get 500 complete responses it may be necessary to make thousands of phone calls.)
Since the margin of error differs slightly with the percentage the margins of error in polls is usually reported for the 50-50 split; the margin of error is smaller for 40-60, 30-70, 20-80, etc. splits.
Sampling Error
I would trust a Dan Jones poll.
No ties to Ogden or Godfrey.
True professionals with many years of impeccable experience.
Abner:
Even with a DJ poll, I would want to see the questions and the script used by the phone pollers. People commission polls for many reasons, one of which may be to discern in as unbiased a way as possible public opinion on a particular issue.
Sometimes, though, polls are commissioned to test out a particular argument or set of phrases to see if using them will materially affect how the public responds. The goal is not to assess public opinion on the issue, but how certain phrases or approaches may shift the public's opinion on an issue.
Without in any way questioning the professionalism of the DJ organization, I'd still want to see the questions and the script used on a poll before assessing the significance of the results.
I know nothing about that survey--thanks, Dan. It is really something I would like to know more about.
Arcritic, about the Ordinance---
This ordinance was tabled from last week's meeting because there were some questions about it. The agenda read: Consideration of Ordinance 2006-26 regarding revisions to units renting to more than three unrelated people.
This ordinance, as I understand it, has been passed and now prohibits renting to more than three unrelated people in one unit.
The motivation for formulating this ordinance was an attempt to solve some neighborhood problems. For example, if you have a house that was once a single family home that can accommodate eight people, renting to eight unrelated adults can mean eight parked cars on the street. In a worst case scenario, there are people and their friends coming and going at all hours, the property goes down because no one living in it cares enough to keep it up, therefore the look of the neighborhood is destroyed and it too goes down. It was thought that this ordinance would help eradicate these problems that were present in several Ogden neighborhoods.
However, an individual who had purchased a property and had been renting to students at WSU had approached the City Council. His contention, it seemed, was that he had brought his property under an ordinance that it was fine to rent to more than three, which he had done, and that the passing of the new ordinance had created an unwelcome change for him.
Debate on this was, as is increasingly common in our Council, quite meticulous. Councilman Glasmann brought up the point that, in passing this ordinance, the Council was sending a message to property investors to "go ahead and purchase your property and you may make your investment back and you may not." There was talk of making an exception--however, Councilman Safsten said he envisioned other landlords "knocking on the door and asking---How do you do this?" because the others, of course, would have to conform to the ordinance. There was a discussion of having to be fair across the board.
Councilman Safsten then gave a rather eloquent speech about what had happened to the neighborhood in which he grew up. The single family homes had been rented to multiple tenants, and these tenants were not the kind to stay in one place for too long. The schools in the neighborhood suffered, because there was a high turnover in students constantly moving out and moving in. There was the too many parked cars problem, and people wanting to buy shied away from the neighborhood because it had become unkempt. Councilman Safsten said that it was very difficult to get a neighborhood back to owner occupied homes once this sort of thing occurred.
This speech evidently convinced Councilman Glasmann, because he made the motion to pass it. Sorry I didn't get how the vote went---I believe Councilwoman Jeske dissented, and perhaps one or two others.
I agree, Curm.
However, I have seen in the (a) newspaper results of a DJ poll and the questions also published. I don't recall if the script was also.
But, surely a reputable pollster like DJ would make that available upon request.
We all know that poll results can be construed to reach the conclusion of the one(s) commissioning the poll.
Returning to the editorial in the SE: Paragraphs 8,9,13 are interesting and telling.
"Useful information would include such things as hard figures concerning the constuction cost of the urban portion...... There's nothing nefarious about this lack of information......" REALLY??
"And when it comes to the proposed sale of 150 acres of Weber State University land east of the present campus, WE HAVE NO OBJECTION, (WHO IS THE SE TO OBJECT???) as long as Weber State gets useful land in trade--say across Harrison Boulevard or adjoining its Davis County campus."
TRADE? What makes the SE think a 'trade' is now on the table for Peterson's land grab?
Peterson's original plan was to PURCHASE 1/3 of WSU's land...and now the SE is talking about a 'trade'?
I was told by someone in the know at WSU that the University is not interested in the 'land across Harrison'.
Have Porter and Greiling been attending those pep rally luncheons around town and listening to Godfrey and the LO supporters?
I maintain that the editorial is more PRO gondola than not. If you don't think there is bias FOR this 'concept' (hah), just take a good look at the tone of Schwebke's reporting...and not just today.
Dear Impressed As Hell:
It's perfectly possible to have vigorous, even colorful, political debate without descending into the kind of demeaning personal attacks that have [sadly] occasionally appeared here. Harry S. Truman knew how, for one.
If we are going to name-call, we could at least do it with a little style. As they do in Australia. From a recent column by Charles Krauthammer
In the Australian House of Representatives last month, opposition member Julia Gillard interrupted a speech by the minister of health thusly: "I move that that sniveling grub over there be not further heard."
For that, the good woman was ordered removed from the House, if only for a day. She might have escaped that little time-out if she had responded to the speaker's demand for an apology with something other than "If I have offended grubs, I withdraw unconditionally."
After reading the bloggs, it seems that the Standard Examiner as some things to learn. However, we too have some things to never forget!
The first rule of thumb of news papers is they are a business to sell papers and bring in clients.
So who are the clients? Mayor Godfrey.
They are just like the politicians in Washington D.C. remember the phrase: “Just follow the money” this is not only true for corrupt politicians, but for news paper organizations as well they will slant the storeys to be in favor of their clients. Bigger the clients the more slant the storeys will have.
You want proof. Then pick a Utah news paper and read about a bill that is being argued on the house or senate floor, if republicans want the bill there will be that slant for the republicans, if democrats are against it then pick up a new paper that is from a area where the democrats are the majority.
it true where ever you go in the world as well.
Here again, Beech shows here naivete when it comes to Editorials and real estate development.
(1) Nothing nefarious about the lack of hard numbers for the urban portion, AT THIS TIME, is correct. There are none. There ARE NO PLANS, yet. CP is focusing on the mountain leg and the MO Park and MOGC, NOT the urban leg. It's far too early for any of this, as once again, NOTHING FORMAL has been presented. This is simple, Sharon. No hard numbers because there are no formal plans. Those will come in due time.
(2)Next, this woman rnats about the SE having "no objection" to CP acquiring the PROPOSED 150 acres, IF there is a land trade. She rails about no land trade being on the table. Well, guess what? NOTHING is on the table, which is my frigging point! But is that to say that MATBE, when something formal is presented, that the university wouldn't propose a "land trade?" They could. Done all the time in real estate development. They call it offer-counter offer, and strange things happen in developmental proposals. Beech is narrow minded to the point that she wears blinders when it comes to these things. But in her defense, she's probably just ignorant of how this type of business is done. Therefore, she gets a pass but also a chastising.
Curmudgeon, you, as always, present a well thought out and profound debate to my "chill pill" argument. However, I'm talking the Big Picture here, not just one or two elements that maybe SMO has addressed with an alternative. To me, a TRAX type system is much to our advantage instead of the urban gondola leg that's been PROPOSED. This area is something that has been on the drawing boards of BOTH the City and the UTA for a couple of years. It's the /public mass transit thing that our town needs. TRAX would be more viable and make more money, I'm sure. One needs look only to SLC and see the commercial that has sprung up around all of the On/Off stations on the TRAX route. But is this a phenomenum dreampt up by SMO? Nope. This has been an alternative of UTA, and others, since the beginning.
My point of suggesting SMO offers NO economical alternative is this: Overall, CP has a verbal proposal that IF DONE CORRECTLY (emphasise here), it has the potential to inject a whole lot of money into the City economy. This includes every aspect: the mountain leg, the Malan's Basin Resort, SOME housing, etc. Much needs to be considered BEFORE this happens, if in fact it does. But, I've yet to see, except for the urban leg, anything that rivals this proposal economically coming from SMO. There's not alot of money in the trails system, although we all enjoy the open space. MOGC DOES loose money, and a re-configured gold course might be just what the doctor ordered. I realize that there are some hard core golfers who are adamently opposed to the sale, as well as others, but the MOGC is in need of a fix as far as the basic recreational golfer is concerned, as well as the income factor for our city. We maybe need to take a look at this aspect, instead of listening to all of these folks, on BOTH sides of the issue, spouting off figures they glean from thin air.
T-Rex:
You had me [more or less] until your final sentence, when you wrote: all of these folks, on BOTH sides of the issue, spouting off figures they glean from thin air.
As an SGO backer, their sign on my lawn and all, please let me know what figures you've found SGO offering "gleaned from thin air," and where they appeared. If such exist, I'll talk to the SGO people and see if I can have the figures sourced. I think they are trying to be very careful not to offer numbers that cannot be backed.
I agree, no proposal is yet on the table. What has me edgy is that the Mayor has already begun the process of amending the general plan to accommodate the proposal that has not yet been made. This does not inspire much confidence in me that the necessary period of full and careful consideration of the proposal, once it's formally presented, will occur. Our mayor after all has a record of witholding information, and then demanding immediate action from the council. He did it most recently on the two extra floors at the Mall Redevolpment plan.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
"Nefarious" is a strong word, but I can at least make a case that the city (i.e., the mayor) has been less than fully honest and forthcoming about the urban gondola, and especially about comparisons to the streetcar alternative.
We're not totally in the dark about the urban gondola. There have been two feasibility studies, and both have been made public. (The first, which the city paid for, hasn't been widely circulated but I have a copy if anyone wants to see it; the second, done jointly with UTA, WFRC, and WSU, is posted on the SGO web site.)
Neither study looked at the exact gondola configuration that's now being proposed, but the configurations are similar enough that we can make some pretty good cost estimates from them. To make a long story short, the currently proposed urban gondola, about 4.5 miles long with five stations, should cost somewhere between $30 million and $45 million to construct and about $4 million a year to operate and maintain. The cost of the streetcar alternative, which could have up to nine stations, would be about $80 to $100 million for construction and $2.6 million annually for operation and maintenance.
I find it inexcusable that instead of reporting the results of the studies themselves, the Standard-Examiner keeps printing the rounded-down $20 million figure for the gondola, which is lower than any of the estimates in the studies, even for a gondola with only three stations. Similarly, the mayor is exaggerating when he says that the gondola would cost only 1/4 as much as the streetcar. But most importantly, the mayor is not telling the truth about where the money would come from. The most likely mix for funding the streetcar construction cost is about 50% federal, 45% UTA, and 5% Ogden City--and much of the city's contribution would be in-kind, such as right-of-way and sidewalk improvements. The streetcar's operating cost would be the sole responsibility of UTA. For the gondola, however, the city would be entirely responsible for construction and operating costs, less whatever it could convince private donors and Chris Peterson to contribute. (The mayor is promising that Peterson will pick up the operating cost but he won't be under any long-term obligation to do so.)
While I'm on the subject, the mayor has also been exaggerating the time needed to build either the streetcar or gondola. The mayor says 15-20 years for the streetcar and only with a tax increase, while UTA says a soon as 7 years with a tax increase or 10-15 without a tax increase. The mayor says "now" for the gondola, but I don't see how the approvals, engineering work, financing, and construction could take less than four years, and I can easily imagine it taking over a decade if Peterson is slow to raise the money he needs for the rest of his project.
Dan, how good of you to post that! Very useful. And you can back it up, too.
Thanks.
Dan S...."nefarious" was in the Becch criticized Editorial. She brought it up: I expanded on it's intent of meaning. Not a problem, here.
Curmudgeon....probably should have said that "INDIVIDUALS from both sides, in their passion, etc., etc., etc.", as for the numbers and claims from thin air, instead of leaving my statement so open that one could read into it that I meant the hierarchy of the groups (LO & SMO) per say. I do think the LO hierarchy does do that, however, and I have heard a few thoughts dropped by SMO leaders that cause me to lift an eyebrow or two. But the SMO map, showing the new configuration of the trail system, seems a bit premature, even though it was, they claim, taken from the Ogden City website. Also, I've heard many SMO members say that the MOGC will become a Par 3, or Executive Course. They also mention the income and expenses of the current golf operation, down even to how muc money is now being brought in and where it goes once it hits the City coffers. Then there's the steepness of the new trail to Waterall and the fact that Public usage of the current trail system makes CP's property accessable due to "common law," whatever the hell that means (this is not the Homestead Act people).
Both groups, LO & SMO, have valid points of discussion, but many of the individual members seem to be spouting off unsubstantiated claims and figures that rise the emotional pitch, thereby justifying this "chill-pill" thing.
Thanks for the astute response to my comments. Were such comments made with such clarity and forethought.
Dan S -
One major problem with your very sensible approach is that the mayor does not have the time to wait for more sensible solutions.
Election season for his office is only 15 months away. He has to cram this "hail mary" pass through and get it under way before that election season.
He knows that this is last chance to have a winner. For 6 years now he has done nothing but lose public money on a whole series of loser schemes.
If he can not enter that election with at least the appearance of a winner, his politcal career is over. (praise the lord). His options for some cushy well paying job in private industry is also shot if he can't pull a rabbit out of the hat pretty darn soon. After all, what company want's to hire a guy who's resume only has money losing fiasco's on it?
Oz....he does appear to be scrambling abit, eh? But he's feisty and in some way, seems to pull off much of what he sets out to do. Like's been said, there's more on the table than the gondola, but it sure don't seem like it.
In regards to Dan S. comment on the mass transit study, I think he left out a very important finding in that report and that is that the projected ridership of either a street car or light rail system, per the report would be double that of a gondola system.
Additionally according to UTA, the TRAX system already has double the rideship estimates for its projected use in the year 2020. This suggests that we could see even higher ridership numbers with a system in our community than the study suggested.
A lot more bang for the buck for locals. Rather than paying for a gondola system, with our open space, to provide a system mainly for people that don't want to step foot in our community.
Question. Should we be building a system for our residents and our comunity or for people that haven't finacially contributed to the system and that are literally and figuratively just going over our heads?
I would suspect that any study of ridership for a light rail system for UTA would take into consideration the success of TRAX. So I don't know that how much higher the ridership numbers would be. I don't think the actual ridership would end up being as far under the estimates as TRAX was.
T Rex
Welcome to the funny farm! Most of what you have posted the last few days is pretty smart and well thought out. You seem to have a good insight into our fair town's government.
I don't agree totally with your take on Bill Cook. Perhaps you have observed him a lot closer than I have. Incidentally, I didn't necessarily call for his head although I think that could possibly be a good thing. I think educating him on just who the people voted for may turn him into a more loyal council employee.
My big concerns about Cook are: Just where was he when the mayor set up and executed that nasty little slaughter of the innocents (new council-members) over the Ernest fiasco? Seems like he should have stood up for them and called bull shit on this insidious little game played out by a morally corrupt little man.
Why was he down at the state legislature working against the wishes of the council and apparently promoting Godfrey's cause on SB229?
Where was he when Jeske took so much bull shit for doing what she promised the voters she would do?
Sure it was encouraging to see him stand up to the mayor that one time, but one page doesn't make a whole book. The mayor does consider Cook to be on his "A" team, doesn't he?
I certainly agree with you on how tenacious the little mayor is. And yes, he does seem to have a history of getting every goof ball thing he wants. However, the vast majority of his time in office he had a completely lame and compliant council that rolled over and spread their legs every time he winked at them. The real sad part about this tenacious little bugger is how much good he could really do for Ogden if he were on the people's side instead of representing only his inside clique of friends and relatives.
Ha! Lots of good excuses for falling behind in the poll. Looks like more people would like the gondola to come in..... I hope our children dont bake to death in the oven gondolas, or even worse, "poo rain!"
Polls CAN be manipulated (either way). Perhaps we should just VOTE on this gondola - then we will know for sure.........
So which side do you think Don is talking about?
Standard Examiner article
I remember the Ernest fiasco, but from my understanding he was there, with those new members, advising them how to handle things with the press, etc, once the slaughter began. I heard he even advised, to some degree, the proper responses that lead some of the council members to finally, after all the BS Schembke reported, to get the REAL DEAL out and at long last, tell that story for what it was. From my perspective, he did OK on that one.
I have heard mention that he absolutely understands who his bosses are. In his own unique way, with little fanfare and nothing of a highly profile nature, he subtly directs and advises and I'm thinking there's more to the Legislative story than the rank and file voter are aware of.
He understands the role that the Council plays as per State Governemtn mandates, such as the Mayor's ability to sell various land parcels, etc., with or without the Council participation.
From my limited knowledge, his views are proper and should be well taken by those with little experience. The man knows much and apparently gives good direction. It's up to the individual to heed this advise. The individuals can take his direction or avoid it. That's up to them.
But then, again, these are only my humble opinions and they come from a basically reporter's position, where source revelations are a no-no.
T Rex
If Cook really is a good asset for Ogden City, as you seem to believe, and if he really is the council's "man", how come he doesn't lead the council into regaining their state legislature mandated authority over the city lands?
It would only take one new ordinance overturning the one where the old rubber stamper council gave away the farm and the keys to the kingdom.
The "stampers" issued the little one a blank check, why doesn't Cook lead the current council in putting a stop order on that sucker before it is cashed, which will very likely end up bankrupting the city if it is?
Could be the current council doesn't have a problem with the policy or that there isn't a majority that would be willing to vote to change it or that there is currently enough on the plate of the council with the budget and it has been put off until either it is needed or time allows, again assuming the council feels the same way you do.
They obviously don't feel as you do on the Reid situation so maybe the don't agree with you on this either. Stranger things could happen.
While Cook can take a lead he does have to follow the instructions from the council and if they have instructed him not to proceed with a change he wouldn't be doing his job by going against their wishes.
Artcritic
You are living in a dream world. The council does not direct Cook on anything. Cook directs the council. It has been that way during the whole time of this administration.
Arcritic:
Exactly. In the end, the Council members have the power. Staff can advise, nudge, lament, plead, inform, and so on, but the Council decides. And if the Council members decide, on any given matter, not to exercise their power, it is their decision. To suggest, as some here seem to be doing, that they are more or less blank slates onto which staff can write anything they please, is pretty demeaning to the Council members [certainly], and, when you think about it, to the staff as well.
And I don't think it's true.
Curm, you are correct. Cook offers options, not directives. He's nobody's lackey, regardless what some here might think. He's extremely knowlegable and knows his stuff. When the Council gets stuck, Cook'll explain the various options and the consequences of each option. He keeps the Administration at bay and ensures that the Council does the Council's business, without direction from outside. Just because some council members vote the way they do doesn't mean it comes from the Administration via Cook. It comes from the council member's heart and what that particular council member thinks is best for his or her city. This entire, sordid assumption is way off base.
It's really not up to Cook to set agenda, it's up to the council and Cook then administers it. As for some of those who have taken some heat over their actions, Cook has offered guidance and has done his best to adminsiter and teach the protocol necessary for council members to perform. As long as the performance is within protocola dn above board, Cook will be there at one's side, offering support and consultation. If they should stray outside the parameters then Cook has to reign them back in. He then offers advise and instruction on how to avoid a sticky situation. I can't find a council member that faults him, but then I don't know all of them
well enough to address this confidence.
Bill Cook knows who his bosses are, both individually and collectively.
Bill cook is a discrase to the city that he does not know what he is raelly suppose to be doing in is job and the city should let him go and hire someone that will be good for the city a hell of all better job.
I think bill cook should go back to where he came from and then the city can take care of giting rid of gofrey
amen, amen
New comments are not allowed.