One oddity we'll note about the normally milquetoast Standard-Examiner editorial board: on those rare occasions when they actually get their editorial hackles up over some issue, they chomp down with terrible fury. There are no half-measures in such instances. Giant predator fish off Amity Island swim clear of the Std-Ex editorial board when they're on one of their harsh but infrequent feeding frenzies. When you've been bitten by the Std-Ex editors you've definitely been shark-bit. If you don't believe us, ask Bill Glasmann. This morning's scathing Std-Ex editorial starts out thusly:
If the Ogden City Council doesn't trust the public, then the members of the council don't deserve our trust.From this point it gets much worse, and picks up angst-ridden steam:
Aggrieved at being caught violating its very own policy regarding the release of information about applicants for an open City Council seat, the City Council voted Tuesday to change that policy. Now when the council wants to withhold such information, its revised policy will support the denial of the public's right to know.
This is an especially ironic action taken by council members who have run on platforms of open government and have accused the city's mayor of conducting business outside the public's view. Hypocrisy doesn't get more in your face than this.Okay. Everyone in town knows the council severely blundered last Tuesday night, in a transparent effort to justify the ill-considered utilitarian folly of a couple of members of that body... (and that of Council Director Cook.) In improperly "balancing" the the relatively slight privacy rights of a few council applicants, and viewing them as outweighing the overwhelming public interest in obtaining important information about council applicants, the council did "drop the ball." And we spanked the council thoroughly here over the course of the last week, so we suppose the Std-Ex does deserve the opportunity to take its own shot.
Still, we believe we ought to put this all in perspective. Whether certain council members are actual hypocrites (or mere error-prone humans) depends, we think, on what the council does from here on. Will the council allow this patently bad decision to stand, thus justifying the harsh criticism that the Std-Ex has this morning heaped out; or will the council comply with our home-town newspaper's standing GRAMA request and provide the information that is requested therein?
We've witnessed the council reconsider its own mistakes in the past. And we've heard various council members express satisfaction in "doing the right thing." There's no reason that this council should not do so again. As the Std-Ex aptly points out, council vacancies occur with some frequency here in The Top of Utah. Any one of the council could get run over by a train tomorrow, gawd forbid. You just never know.
So looking down the road, will the council demonstrate the wisdom and courage to revisit the issue, and modify the draconian procedure that it has adopted for the filling of future council vacancies?
And what about Bill Cook? How much longer will our council tolerate his repeated mistakes and bone-headed advice? A "little birdy" informs us that Mr. Cook's fingerprints are all over the council's latest foray into a troubling brand of government secrecy. We think our part-time council deserves more competent advice than Mr. Cook has been providing of late. It seems to us that every time the council gets caught in some public uproar, Mr. Cook is in the thick of it. He's a very nice man, but we think he's over his head. Perhaps its time to just let him go.
So what about it gentle readers? Would any one of you like to continue this discussion? And for those who are so inclined, this might not be a bad time to communicate with our city council, and let them know just what you think.
The floor is open.
