Tonight's the night the council will consider a matter which - in a normal corner of the universe -- would have dropped off calender three weeks ago. In a normal corner of the universe, in fact, this matter would never have been calendered in the first place. Emerald City is of course NOT a normal place. This is MattGodfreyWorld, a place ruled with an iron fist by the Kingfish on Nine, who believes himself to have been annointed to bend the people's will to his own "inspired vision."
The matter, of course, is the ratification by the council of the appointment of another of the "annointed ones." The Dustin Chapman planning commission appointment, tabled for further study during a regular council meeting on August 15, is set for a council vote tonight.
Read the full article here.
Update 9/5/06 9:44 p.m. MT: For those sitting on the edges of their seats, awaiting news of the results of tonight's planning commission ratification vote, we've just heard from Dian, who's covering tonight's meeting. The council has just emerged from closed session, and has returned to the council chamber, where the regular meeting is being re-convened. We will update this article to provide the final outcome, just as soon as we hear back from Dian.
Update 9/5/06 10:20 p.m. MT: Dian has called in with tonight's final vote. The council has taken the ethical high road, and denied Mr. Chapman's appointment by a 5-1 vote, Councilman Stephenson (surprise of surprises) being the sole dissenting vote. Dian will provide a full play-by-play description in an article to follow. Due to the late hour however, we do not expect to post it before tomorrow morning.
We'd like to thank Dian for her timely reporting, and also offer a Weber County Forum tip o' the hat to the council majority, for conforming to the highest ethical standards in this matter.
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
25 comments:
The council is slated to interview Dustin Chapman in a closed executive session, then vote on his appointment during its regular open meeting that begins at 6 p.m. in the Municipal Building, 2549 Washington Blvd.
Thinking that all this would be much more interesting if we could all be present tonight, (I think is when it is,) at this interview, I took a look at the Open Meeting's Act to see why not. Here is the ACLU's nutshell version of exemptions to open meetings:
A closed meeting may only be held for the following purposes, any of which are limited to discussion about 1) the character/professional competence/health of a person; 2) strategies for collective bargaining; 3) pending or imminent litigation; 4) the price of real property; 5) security personnel or devices; or, 6) criminal misconduct allegations.
So one would of course think that the justification for closing this interview meeting is:
1) the character/professional competence/health of a person;
(and I have more than a few problems with that, but nevermind that for now...)
In perusing this law, Section 52-4 of the Utah Code, one finds:
52-4-205. Purposes of closed meetings.
(2) A public body may not interview a person applying to fill an elected position in a closed meeting.
The question here is of course whether or not a seat on the planning commission would be deemed an elected position. And before you dismiss this possibility out of hand, consider the following:
Individuals for these seats are nominated, (an election oriented term,) meaning that their names are put before a specific body (the Council,) to be voted upon which is what we mean by electing an individual for a position versus just hiring him/her.
Anticipating the hue and cry of "standard practice" and "this is how it's always been done," I still think this an interesting point. I looked in the definition of terms of the open meetings law and they do not have "elected" there. And although we all do not vote on Planning Commission members at elections in which we are allowed to participate, the fact that our Council, which we have elected to represent us, votes on the Planning Commission members does indicate that this is not strictly an appointed position. Nor is it a hired employee one.
The Council is also intending to conduct closed interviews for the purpose of filling a vacant seat in much the same way as these proceedings.
Interesting question, I think. This latter position is one which by nature is an elected position. We all go out and vote for Council members in general elections. And here is (2) of Section 52-4-205:
(2) A public body may not interview a person applying to fill an elected position in a closed meeting.
Now isn't that what the Council seat especially, is? Perhaps the Planning Commission seat, too? Or am I misinterpreting this?
Take a look at Title 52, Chapter 4 of the Utah Code and see what you think.
Wow, Dian! In non-kingdom city-states, government errs on the side of transparancy and openness. Why if it weren't for public outcry, the CC wouldn't even be interviewing Chapman tonight.
Since the Chapman vote comes last on the agenda, does that mean that the floor will be open for public comment prior to voting? Just in case, those who haven't phoned or emailed the council members recently, might consider doing so ASAP. I like to think that in their hearts CC members want to do what's right for Ogden. Let's give them ammunition to help them do it.
Sorry I did not post links on that. Here is the ACLU's page on Utah Open Meetings:
Guide to Utah's Open and Public Meetings Act
On that page two lines down is a link to the Act:
Utah Code Title 52 Chapter 04 Open and Public Meetings Act
Scroll down that page and you find 52-4-205:
52-4-205 Purposes of closed meetings
2) A public body may not interview a person applying to fill an elected position in a closed meeting.
Is the last line on that page.
Hope those links work. Sometimes I have problems linking the Code.
Anyway that's how I found that.
Dian,
You are a marvel. Have you supplied this to the Council, in case they were not aware??
I echo OgLover, we must email/phone all 6 Coucnil members to reject Chapman and to open the Comments to the public first.
Mention Dian's links.
The only elected positions in a city are the mayor and council members. All other positions are appointed. The council is not even appointing a memeber of the planning commission tonight. Members of the planning commission are appointed by the Mayor with 'advice and consent' of the city council. Ogden City Code
So they can interview them in closed session. Not that I would suggest it. Maybe for an employee but not for a planning commission member. They could interview in open session and then go into closed session to discuss the 'character, professional competence/physical or mental health of an individual. Then come out and make their decision.
I posted the other blog about Glassman that the way the first press release was phrases it implied that they may interview people for the council position in closed session but in fact that is against the law. They are still allowed to go into closed session for their discussion.
But that is good research and can keep your government officials on their toes. One thing that I keep trying to point out is that the open meeting law specifically states that nothing in the law requires any meeting to be closed. Most discussions can be handled publically with tact and decorum, which unfortunately most councils lack.
Seems to me an easy way out of the dilemma would be for Mr. Chapman to request of the Council that his interview be conducted in public. That, it seems to me, would resolve any Council concerns about his right to and expectation of privacy when being interviewed by the Council.
Mr. Chapman, I think, was quoted in the SE after the Council meeting at which his appointment vote was postponed, that he had no problem with the postponement and interview because he had "nothing to hide." [Or words to that effect.] I can't think of anything at this point that would make that point more forcefully or more clearly than his asking the Council to hold the interview in public.
I would have to say though, that it is not Mr. Chapman's duty or responsibility to tell the Council how to do their business. I would even say it might be a bit presumptuous of Mr. Chapman to do so.
You on the other hand, curm, you have every right in the world to tell them how they should be doing their job. :-)
If Chapman is appointed tonight
it will be a sure sign that the Little Lord has every bit as much power over this council as he did over the last one.
The only real solution to this evil Godfrey business will be found at the ballot box in Nov 07.
Hang on and lets hope the little bastard doesn't give the whole town to his buddies before then
There is one more use of a closed meeting but the Code doesn't address it so it must be illegal and that is for Ogden City Council to keep us cooling our heels while they go into a closed session to eat a catered dinner at our expense.
And that is just what they did tonight.
5 to 1!
Hosanna, hosanna, hosanna
There just might be a little glimmer of hope that Emerald City may some day regain integrity and intelligence in its city government.
According to a very knowledgeable source, the next time will be the charm for the little mayor.
After nixing Prisbey and now this clown Chapman, the council will not have the guts or the brains to deny the mayor's next choice. And remember, it is the Mayor's choice on this planning commission appointment. And also remember, the mayor will end up getting someone on the commission that will rubber stamp this gawd awful gondola scam that he is trying to perpitrate on the citizens of Ogden.
The little bounder just never gives up. He talks with the angels, that is why he doesn't give a damn what the people say.
A few points:
(a) Seems pretty clear to me that all those condemnations of this Council for being mindless lackeys of the administration, etc. were way off base.[Though I notice someone has already posted a prediction that the Council will, next time, become rubber stamps, etc.] Seems to me the last election has produced a Council that excercises independent judgement when it thinks it necessary. The members took the time, by delaying the vote, to look more closely at the nomination, and finally reached their own conclusion about its wisdom at this time, which differed from the Mayor's judgment.
It's not always going to come out that way. The Council will, I am certain, side with the Mayor on some controversial votes down the line. That will not mean it has become a mindless rubber stamp. All we can reasonably ask on such matters is that the members take the time to look at the issues carefully, that they give a serious hearing to advocates on both sides of controversial matters, and then make their best call. I think they did that this time, but it's easy for me to say that because they decided the matter as I would have. They deserve the same respect, I think, when they reach a conclusion different from the one I would have reached.
(b) I don't think this was a surrogate vote on the gondola/Peterson proposal. I think this was a vote on whether Mr. Chapman was, at this time, a wise appointment to the Planning Commission. Period. [We disagree again, I'm afraid, Mono!]
(c)I think, finally, that Mr. Chapman's reaction to the vote, reported in this morning's Standard Examiner is further evidence that he has not yet achieved the kind of maturity necessary for service on the Planning Commission. He lashed out at the Council members, telling them they were "treading on dangerous water" [let the mixed metaphor go] and "discouraging young people from getting invovled in local government." [The latter quote is Mr. Schwebke's summary, not Mr. Chapman's acutal words.]
Look, I understand his disappointment. But a man with more experience and maturity would have accepted the vote with more grace and less anger. Had he thanked the Council for considering him and for the opportunity to be interviewed, had he recognized that it had a difficult decision to make and that it made its best call on the matter, and had he offered to stay involved and help Ogden progress in anyway he could in the future, I think some [on the Council and off] might have begun wondering if perhaps they made the right call after all. But he didn't. He lashed out. As he had before. Which simply reinforced my belief that the Council made, this time, the right decision.
(d)I think Councilman Safsten got it about right in his comments to the Standard Examiner He said that widespread public perception that Mr. Chapman was already so committed to the Peterson/gondola proposals that he could not keep an open mind about matters involving them made it difficult to confirm him at this time. "Maybe in another time and another setting," Safsten said, Mr. Chapman "could serve on the planning commission."
Exactly right. The Peterson/gondola proposals would have huge impacts [for good or ill, depending on your point of view] on Ogden, and so it is vital that when the Planning Commission and Council decide issues relating to them, the decisions must not only be wise and fair, they must be perceived to be fair as well. And placing as outspoken a partisan for the projects as Mr. Chapman on the Planning Commission at this time could not help but raise questions about how fairly and impartially the Commission would look at Peterson and gondola related matters. So, as I said, I think Safsten's explanation of the Council's action was right on the money.
(e) The Chapman nomination was, I think, very clearly an "in your face" nomination by the Mayor. Let us all hope that he will learn from the experience and work with the Council and other groups... LO and SGO for example... to nominate candidates for the Planning Commission in whose independence and open-mindedness all "sides" will have confidence.
I know, I know. Be we can hope, can't we?
Curmudgeon
Godfrey learn from this experience? You gotta be frigging kidding!
He is called by a higher power, him and Warren Jeffs, only they have the keys, there is nothing us mere mortals can teach them. There are no real world experiences that will change them.
Like the above poster, I believe that the LL will in fact get someone on the planning commission that will do his bidding. He will just keep coming back with his ringers until he wears the council down and they approve one of his lackeys. He absolutely will not allow a nuetral and qualified person to be placed on this commission.
The Little Lord already knows everything as God is perched on his shoulder and whispering in his ear.
You are obviously a very bright and knowledgeable guy Curmudgeon, but you do come across as awfully naive sometimes.
Ozboy:
Note, please, the last line of what I posted above:
I know, I know. Be we can hope, can't we?
Hardly bespeaks nieve optimism that the Mayor will learn from the experience. But [being the good liberal that I am], I believe absolutely everyone can learn from experience. Even Republicans. [Told you I was a liberal.] Whether they choose to or not is another matter.
Still, I hope the Mayor does learn from it. Consulting with a wide range of people, on the Council and off, who favor the Peterson proposal [or at least as much of it as we know so far], and who do not, in order to put up a nominee in whose objectivity all could have confidence, a person whose nomination would not in and of itself be divisive would be good for Ogden. Another "in your face" [to the those who question the wisdom of the Peterson and gondola proposals] would not be. And, if he stopped to think about it for a while, and didn't let his ego get in the way, I think the Mayor might even come to understand that such a nomination would be good for him as well.
Am I confident that that will happen? No. But, to repeat, we can hope, can't we?
As somebody who was at the meeting last night, Mr. Chapman did handle it all with grace. He thanked the council and said that he understood the position they had to take. The warning was more of that, a warning. No lashing out, as it were. Go listen to the audio and get back to us all before you make a judgment on somebody's maturity.
Give it up Anonymous. I was there also, and Chapman was a very sore loser.
He was not gracious in the least. He warned the Council that they were treading in dangerous water...and pushing young people out of Ogden..when they are willing to serve.
Well, he can gain experience, and hopefully maturity, by volunteering to serve on several committees. He is a college student, so one would think he needs to study.
He was pouty and whiny and a little bit threatening.
I can't imagine mature, experienced and much wiser members of the Planning Commission wanting this kid amongst them.
Many thanks and much appreciation to the Council.
I only have two gripes. One..why wasn't DC interviewed during these past two weeks? Why did the Exec session last two hours? They were eating in there!!!
Some who were unable, due to health reasons, had to leave. Was this the intent of the Council?
Ms. Jeske made a motion to have Comments before the Session...but NO ONE would second it!
So, the people were not allowed to express their opinions. Two: The mayor was allowed to be in the COUNCIL'S Exec Session! I find that highly improper and an attempt by Godfrey to manipulate the proceedings. Thank goodness they all, with the exception of his puppet, Stephenson, ignored him and did the right thing.
Someone on the Council should have told the mayor that he was excused..take your sandwich with you."
Other than two insensitive , to the people, gaffes...a good meeting.
Ah Curmudgeon
What would it be like to be a starry eyed liberal Democrat living in the land of the Disingenuous Conservative Mo/Repubs? (the very most insidious and self rightous of all Repubs)
Pretty lonely and depressing I would think.
It sure as hell aint Flatbush now is it?
From today's Salt Lake Trib, more of Dwight Chapman's "mature" remarks.
Anon:
Well, I've looked at the SL Trib report of Mr. Chapman's post-meeting public comments, and at Dian's longer report [posted above under a new thread], and they all report remarks that can reasonably be called "petulant" it seems to me. So no apology necessary that I can see. But when the transcript of the meeting becomes available, I'll check it to make sure.
Mono:
Hell, disagreements are what make blogs interesting. Be no fun at all if all we did was agree with each other. Actually, I wish we had more folks posting here [civilly that is] who had different views than most of the WC posters, and who wanted to argue for them, and discuss them with those of us who think differently. Nothing strengthens an argument like having to defend it in a discussion with someone who's reached different conclusions. And sometimes, those discussions lead me to change my mind.
Here's where I think, on this one, you and I disagree. You wrote: As I count it, the council now has three solid "no" votes on anything the Mayor brings forward: Garcia, Wicks, Jeske. I don't think that's so at all. Those three have voted for Godfrey proposals, and I think they will again, provided they conclude the proposals are well thought out, well-supported and in the city's best interests. I don't think any of them [based on conversations and emails] are likely to oppose "anything the Mayor brings forward." Nor would I want them to.
I'd agree the Council, since the election, has changed in some ways compared to the previous Council. I'd describe the change this way: the previous Council was more likely to give Administration proposals the benefit of the doubt on disputed matters, whereas I think the newly elected Council seems more prone to reserve judgement on disputed matters, and to demand more convincing evidence from the Administration before it makes a decision in its favor. And it's more willing to say "no" when it thinks that evidence is absent.
Overall, I think the change has been beneficial for the city. The Council should serve an oversight role vis-a-vis the Mayor's office. I think it's become more active in that regard since the election, and that's a good thing.
But I don't think any of the members are at the point of opposing anything that comes from the Administration simply because it comes from the administration. At least I hope not. A strong and well-functioning Council should neither accept nor reject anything merely because a particular administration proposed it. Or so it seems to me.
Your advice to the Mayor... start mending fences... is damn good advice. Whether the Mayor is sharp enough to take it, we'll have to see. He does not, as a rule, people in City government tell me, "play well with others." I hope he's a quick learner and that he concludes he has more to gain from cooperation and consultation than from confrontation. But, given past performance, I'm not optimistic. As you say, "time will tell."
Why should the mayor make any effort to "mend fences"? Especially considering that he is always right and every body else is always wrong.
When you have the exclusive handle on the "keys" you don't have to go running around mending any damn fences.
Zed:
He should consider it for several reasons.
First, it would be good for Ogden if he shifted his "style" [politely so-called] from confrontation to cooperation and consultation. Less division in the city, less acrimony, more accomplished.
Second, it would be good for him. It would make him more effective as Mayor and it would probably result in his having more influence with the Council rather than less.
Political office, and the power that comes with it, affects different people in different ways. Some are enobled by holding office. They become bigger men and women [so to speak] than they were when they came into office. [Harry Truman comes to mind.] Some are largely unchanged by holding high office [Lyndon Johnson and the first President Bush come to mind]. And some are diminished by it and leave smaller men and women [again, so to speak] than when they came to power. [Richard Nixon comes to mind.]
It does not look, reading this morning's paper, that our current Mayor has shown much capacity for growing in office. I hope I am wrong about that, but the signs are not encouraging.
Mono:
You wrote: It's reminiscent of another politician whose career I follow. First, divide and polarize the electorate; then, when you reap what you've sown, say, "I can't find an impartial candidate for the Planning Commission [because I've forced everyone to take sides]." As we used to say, "Well, duh."
Exactly. Nicely put. On the same lines, I thought it really funny that the Mayor made a big show of asking SGO to take down its yard signs so as to decrease division in the city at the same time that he made the in-your-face Chapman nomination to the Planning Commission.
Well, knowing I'm not a nominee for the PC...our NEW SGO sign is in the yard. Looks good too.
So many quesions (unanswered), such dissembling.
If Chapman is an example of the caliber of young men that is to serve our comminuty. Then maybe it would be wise to appoint older, more mature and wiser people to any baord. Give these yahoo's a few years to grow up and mature. Godfrey is a prime example of inmaturity in leadership. They just don't know how to respect the older generation or their wisdom. "I guess they just get too brain dead watching to much of Homer Stimpson". "Honor father and mother" is no restricted as family members but any person that is a father or mother or person that has life experiance under their belt. Remember Mid-evil ages with the problem of selfish, spoiled, boy type kings? they want everything their way. I love to use this pharase, "Just grow up and act like a real man". This means Godfrey as well.
New comments are not allowed.