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.
45 comments:
Well, Mr. Rudi,
I did communicate my 'thoughts' to the Council.
Perhaps a 'reading 'mentor' would help ths Council to get through an email and comprehend the contents?
I was pondering this deporable situation this morning before reading the SE's editorial. MY! They are gettng up on their hind legs, aren't they? Refreshing.
Anyway, "Self", I says to myself, "now why can't this Council display some smarts AND humility AND INTEGRITY and admit that , "hey..I think we goofed big time on this one." Then Safsten, he of a lot of Council experience and very smart too, will pop and and interject, "Say! I've got it! Let's put on a show in our barn."...uh, no, wrong script, sorry. Safsten will pop up and interject, "Say! I've got it! Let's redo this whole policy fiasco. People are, like, really mad at us and all because we let Cook, Jesse , Amy and Gary try to take away OUR power and authority. So, let's do two things at once: let's REamend our latest amendment and the people will be happy and love us (and MAYBE I can still be reelected,) AND Jesse and Cook will learn to stop going behind our backs! I HATE when that happens. So, gang, what do you say? We can look like heroes to the VOTERS, uh, constituents and put that bossy Cook in his place for once! Come on, kids, it'll be swell!"
Yep, that's what I was thinking, alright. A nice do-over works for yucky bathrooms and kitchens. It'll work for yucky 'work' by this Council.
The Council did drop the ball on this one. And the SE's editorial charge of hipocracy has some merit.
It would be nice, though, if the SE's crusade for open government [a very good idea] extended to the news desk, and extended to encouraging its reporters to ask questions --- probing questions --- of all elected officials. If the SE is concerned about open government and keeping the electorate informed --- which as an independent newspaper it should be --- that concern should not be limited to the editorial pages. It should to pervade the news department as well.
crum...you are talking about two different skill levels and pay of people doing the two differnet tasks. They will never have the experience/talent in the newsroom.
Nice thought though.
Now, you see. Regarding today's editorial, we can't say we didn't see it coming.
At the risk of belaboring a point, I will state again that this began with four people in a room. The Council Chair, Vice Chair, Executive Director, and City Attorney.
These four people were responsible for denying the Standard Examiner's initial request for the letters.
The Executive Director gave quotes to the newspaper stating that the policy of openness would be amended.
The Council Chair apologized in Council meeting for having "Leadership," (the Council Chair and Vice Chair,) participate in making the decision to keep the information private without informing the rest of the Council.
All this before the formal vote.
The Standard Examiner has held the entire Council responsible for this from the beginning, although the entire body did not vote on it until Tuesday. They can all legitimately be held responsible for it now, however, since all voted in favor of the policy change.
Why?
My speculation is that they have been told that they have to appear to the rest of us as a Team. A United Front. And Teams, of course, have Team Leaders, who should be followed For The Good Of The Team, do they not?
Which is absolutely wrong in the case of a democratic government.
Although groups of people can and do come to unanimous consensus frequently after fact gathering and discussion, there will be differences of opinion. Which is why we have, or are supposed to have, more than one, or two, or four people making these decisions.
Could have been a very neat trap, this emphasis on Teamwork and Support of the Team Leaders, and perhaps they all fell into it. If this unanimous vote was motivated by the perceived need to support Leadership, it has led only to the entire body being pilloried on the editorial pages of the Standard Examiner.
Let it be noted that the Executive Director and the City Attorney are not being pilloried on those pages. Of course they're not. They're not the people we vote for to make those decisions. Think about it.
Neither, oddly enough, are the Chair and Vice Chair, who made the decision in the first place and publicly took responsibility for it, singled out for any criticism whatsoever. Ponder that one. Hmmm.
Only Councilwoman Jeske has been singled out for special disapprobation, and I find this unusual, because the most glaring impropriety in this whole situation is that the ball was already rolling before Councilwoman Jeske, along with members Safsten, Stephenson, Stephens, and Van Hooser had even voted on it. As Leadership, Chairman Garcia and Vice Chair Wicks had, of course, already given their consent. But does the Standard Examiner address this?
No. It never has. This omission is very unusual, to say the least.
The Council has been severely weakened because of this Leadership way of doing things, which has, in my opinion, gotten out of hand and is not, definitely not, spelled out in the policy manual.
The policy manual states that Leadership keeps the Council informed. Nowhere does it say that it usurps its authority and that the rest of the Council needs to accept that.
I wish at least one of them had, at the time of the vote, stated that they were voting against the proposed policy change for two reasons: one, that they thought the public should have the information, barring sensitive numbers, etc., and two, that they wished to show their displeasure with decisions being made and actions being taken on the basis of those decisions without their vote or consent.
And furthermore, the Council has a press person. Why wasn't this individual instructed to go through the letters and write five capsule bios, suitable for printing in the Standard Examiner, if the letters themselves did indeed contain info not appropriate for public view? Consulting, of course, with the candidates themselves and getting their approval for said press release bios? Why not that, if magic marker seemed just too crude?
Many ways they could have gone with this. Too bad they went the way they did.
Now that there is a new council person on the cc. don't you think that it would be appropreate to have a new vote for the council chair and this time we boot out the lazy jesse Garcia and put in some leadership that will fire cook whoo we all know runs the council and not the members.
Maybe its time for Amy to run things for a while.
Anon:
From news reports, both the Council chair and vice-chair were involved in refusing the SE the letters. And neither voted against the change in procedures.
And there is no, repeat no, evidence that I can find that indicates Mr. Cook is doing anything other than what the Council wants him to do. If you know of any, please point it out for us. He serves at the pleasure of the Council. It really is that simple.
Curmudgeon, Bill Cook did send a letter of apology to the Council because staff overlooked the Council Norms and forgot that they had put in the public announcement the statement that the candidate's information would be made public when Scott Schwebke called and asked for the candidate's letters. He didn't ask Council members for that information -- he asked Council staff. Chair Garcia and Vice Chair Wicks backed up Bill Cook's story (after all, staff can be fired but the Council can't).
Jeske is called to the carpet because she campaigned from the position of an open and transparent government....yet has seemed to vote different. Plus she spoke up about it and said that she felt that it should be kept private.
It is interesting how quickly members all fall into line.
Curmudgeon, Bill Cook not only advises the Council on policy and procedure, he is the one who actually runs the Council. Look at it from his point of view: Why
shouldn't he determine what gets discussed and when and what doesn't? He's the one making the big bucks (over $104,000.) and the one with the degrees and the experience. I don't know who has been feeding you crap, but that isn't the way the Ogden council works. Of course, it is supposed to work as you state, but when you have a very intelligent, charismatic man "advising" for the most part new, inexperienced lay council members, and a weak, ineffective chair, you get exactly what has happened with the Ogden council. Annonymous 2007, maybe this explains a lot of it: if a Council member tries to buck Bill Cook or take an independent stand on issues, they are very quickly labeled "trouble makers," and "dissidents." The other Council members don't want to associate with them, and of course their opinion is disregarded as "unimportant," "irrelevant." and/or "unworkable." This pressure is maintained until the "rebel" Council member finally succumbs and tries to be a "team player." Not a pretty picture.
Deep:
Who the Council members permit to influence them changes what I wrote not at all. It merely reenforces it: the Council does not seem unhappy, as a body, with what Mr. Cook does for it. If it becomes unhappy, it can do something about the situation. It hasn't. So responsibility for how the Council "runs" lies, in the end, with the Council members themselves, not the staff.
Of course the more-or-less permanent civil service [as it is commonly called in GB] can and usually does have enormous influence on the legislators and administrators they serve. The permanent civil servents embody the "institutional memory" of the Council [or whatever other body they serve] far better than elected or appointed officials who tend to come and go. [All elected public officials should have to watch at least one full season of "Yes, Minister!" before taking their oaths of office.]
But they are, staff like Mr. Cook, not elected. The power, finally, is in the hands of the elected officials.
I myself have no strong opinion about whether Mr. Cook is doing a good job for the Council or not. [Though I know some here, including RZ, think he is not, and I have learned not to dismiss their views about city governance out of hand.] He may be doing a poor job, or a Machiavellian job or an OK job or a fan-damn-tastic job. My point was that whichever of those characterizations may be correct, the Council is evidently satisfied with the job he is doing. That's all.
Mrs. Jeske says she was misquoted. I think she said she was 'interviewed' over the phone.
Well, Dorrene and any other folks who are often quoted, here's some advice.
ALWAYS insist on seeing just what the reporter is going to put into the article BEFORE it goes to press!! I have done this many times. Even to viewing TV interviews before airing.
Even so, Dian, you are spot on with your assessment of the SE's editorial in which THEY dropped the ball. No censure of Cook, Garcia and Wicks. Do you think this editorial board really understands the issues? Do you think they've deliberaltey 'overlooked' the impropiety and the "dangerousness" of policy changes being made behind closed doors? The statements to the SE re 'no resumes given to the SE and public'...and ONLY Cook, and his closet CC members making that decision...or maybe Cook and Wicks didn't have anything to do with THAT decision, but certainly didn't do anything to rectify it!!??
This is a sorry mess. Once this came to the full attention of the whole Council, NO one came forward and said, "wait a minnit....this is not right. The public is not served by this proposed change, we're doing bad things in secret, and our Chair and Vice Chair are a party to it....I vote NO!!!"
Next item on the agenda should be the replacement of Bill CooK. He is employed by the Council. If, as Curm states, they are satisfied with his 'take-over' style, than more shame on them!! Not a bad idea, Anon, to vote in a new Chair now that the make-up of the Council has changed.
I wrote to the Council, and I didn't receive a reply from any of them, and I postscripted that a 'reply would be appreciated'. The only one I ever rec'd an email reply from was Glasmann...and his was to be partronizing in the extreme. But, hey, it WAS a reply!!
This Council needs to go back to Council charm school and relearn their duties, responsibilities and take a rememdial course in policy, ordinance and code reading and comprehension. Also, learning the U.S. and State Constitution should be on their homework list.
The SE editorial board and publisher should be enrolled also.
And, Schwebke, you're doing better...but a reporter ASKS QUESTIONS, AND THEN FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS.
I said, 'maybe Cook and Wicks didn't have anything to do with that decision'...and meant to say,
'Garcia and Wicks....'
Also 'maybe Cook and his CLOSET CC members...'
is exactly what I meant: CLOSET, as a place to hang clothes...or in this instance..'to take into a closet for a secret interview.'
Another Council Norm:
Council Members are expected to:
Follow up on all personalized constituent's requests with a resonable period of time.
Expect that to to be deleted shortly.
Well, "Kid", let me reply before you are deleted. Thanx for the info. Maybe I'll still get a reply to my emails.
If they all go to 'charm school', that 'norm' will be pointed out, dont you think?
Curm always receives replies, but then, he writes such nice comfy sounding letters.
lol...not me deleted, the norm. That way they won't have to reply.
oh yeah...riiight....maybe I should go to council charm school and learn how to comprehend.
Hate to bring up the Nazi's Curmudgeon, but Hitler was voted for by the people, he also had a parliment (Reichstag) that were also voted in by the people and theoretically had legislative power. In the real world it doesn't always work out the way its supposed to as Ogden and Berlin point out.
Godfrey and his lieutenants, including Cook, run all aspects of Ogden city government - including the council. They all follow very closely the League of Cities and towns instruction manuals. One leading rule is "we are all on same team so lets play nice with each other and have no disputing the leaders"
There have been a few sprinklings of hope from the council of late. Let's hope they continue to come into their own and realize the authority and responsibility that they truly have.
They could start by letting Peterson know that they and the city would gladly look at and entertain any proposal he might want to make. The city has policies and procedures in place to fully vet any proposal that he may present and he should apply accordingly.
Second and the very most pressing thing in Ogden, the council should repeal the ordinance wherein the last council gave all of their legislatively given power of property disopersal over to the mayor. He could sell the golf course and park land to Peterson right now with out any discussion or permission from any one. Now that is dangerous if you ask me.
I would hope that the council will start paying a lot more attention to the really dangerous stuff facing Ogden's tax payers, present and future.
I agree with Curmudgeon when he states:
The permanent civil servents embody the "institutional memory" of the Council [or whatever other body they serve] far better than elected or appointed officials who tend to come and go....But they are, staff like Mr. Cook, not elected. The power, finally, is in the hands of the elected officials.
Absolutely true. However, there's a bit more to it.
A staff member, who does indeed embody the "institutional memory" of the organization, and who has been there before elected officials arrive and will, he or she hopes, remain when they leave, and can be a great help and a godsend to all elected officials, is perfectly capable of seizing the power which should be in the hands of the elected officials when and if they do not seize it themselves. If the officials do not direct the executive, the executive will push for what he or she deems appropriate.
And in fact, I think any staff member faced with a group of elected officials who are out of their depth, clueless, at sea, lazy, or just sitting there like bumps on logs, will do just that.
I am not saying that the Ogden City Council is any of the above. However, it is the job of the staff person to keep things moving, get them resolved, get them dealt with, and if nobody else seems to be moving towards those ends, staff will.
Viewed in a charitable light, the Executive Director, could be pushing an agenda simply because no one else is, and he or she thinks it best. If a group of officials has no idea what to do, be advised, the Executive Director will come up with something. That is a large part of that job.
However, if the elected officials, either individually or as a body, have a clear way they want to go, they should direct the Executive Director to facilitate that. If the Executive Director then balks and does not facilitate that, then that is the time to oust him or her, since it is obvious that the interests of the officials are not being served by this individual.
Our recent situation here was not good in that there was no consensus of the entire body before actions were taken. The Executive Director was involved in that. From what I have heard, it is the way things have been working for quite some time, and it is a method with which, as you know, I disagree.
But there is nothing that says that this situation, long-standing though it may be, cannot be changed. It can be. And if Curmudgeon is wrong about the Council being satisfied with the status quo, he is still right about one thing--the Council itself is able to change that.
The Council does not need the permission of the Executive Director to direct the Executive Director.
The Council does not work for the Executive Director. It's the other way around.
Sharon:
You wrote: "Curm always receives replies, but then, he writes such nice comfy sounding letters." Not always, come to think of it, but usually, when I email a Council member direct [i.e. not as part of a group email to the whole council.] And my emails are often critical of the Councilmember. But they are civil. Again, if folks start off with "listen to me, you miserable misbegotten son of a sea snake," their stuff will probably not be read. Writing a letter to an elected official is lobbying. It is useful to remember that, I think, when you sit down to write them.
Ozboy:
We elect 'em, Oz. As I've said before, we get the government we deserve [god help us]. If we've elected a Council chock full of folks who can be convinved to abandon their ideas and the conclusions they've reached because somebody will start whispering that they're "not a team player," then we've done a piss poor job as voters.
Dian:
Exactly. Well put.
"If the elected officials....have a clear way they want to go, they should direct the Executive Director to facilitate that. If the Exeutive Director then balks and does not facilitate that, then it is time to oust him or her.....".
Well, Dian, you may recall that during the SB229 Civil Service Commission brouhaha facilitated by Mayor Godfrey; the Council twice directed Mr. Cook to deliver a letter to the Legislature stating the Council's opposition to SB229.....he didn't do his job. Instead, I found him in the committee room where that bill was being discussed and denying that he'd been instructed by the Council to deliver their opposition.
I would call that balking and/or refusing to do the bidding of the Council.
Curm...I say a lot of things, but I've never said, "listen to me you miserable misbegotten son a sea snake", tho I must admire your phraseology!!
Do you have any more that I could file under "WOW!" phrases??
I like alliteration...so see if you can come up with a few more, eh?
Sharon:
[Grin]
Liked it, eh?
Sharon, how about:
"Why that mayor is a little lilly livered low life"
bonnie baby,
now you're alliterating!!!
terrible teensy tantrum-throwing toad?
Why is it that people don't use good ole common cense. that is who is really in charge of things here in ogden? I thought that the balance of power was to the legislative body to represent the people to whom they got their power, isn't this why there is more than one in this body. next was the executive that was to carry out the law as it was legislated, and next was the judicary to interpet the law if need be. so why does it seem that our elected officals just don't get it.
now lets get it right form here on out, ok.
Gotta say I love how Wal-mart seems to be the featured advertiser lately. With how much they are loved here and all.
This time a year always makes me wonder what the folks between Monroe and Washington, north of 20th street think about the goings on!....What do you all say?
Dear myra mains, why we all think, "Thank God we're not part of Ogden! And all that squabblin'. It's just downright disgustin' the way you all feud n fight amongst youselves. An I've noticed that curmudgeon is always pickin' apart everythin everyone says. I just stumbled here by accident, but I don't think I evah want to come back! No siree I shur don't! Didn't you all know that the city limits are the Ogden River on the north?"
How many mulligans are you going to give these people? Are they really that bad at making decisions that they have to take 'do overs' over and over?
These people don't seem to be looking at the big picture. Ms. Jeske seems not to have understood this issue based on her own post here. Does she have anyone that she can talk to about these issues other than the other council members and the executive director and city attorney? It seems that her views were limited and shaped significantly by how the issue was framed by the leadership and staff.
I hope that they can get things corrected but they need to look deeper and try to make the decisions correctly to begin with. However, I really doubt that the council is going to revisit this issue, even as I said before, if they are ultimately required to release the information requested by the SE.
arcritic...good point. This will sound harsh, but I think what we are seeing is that while people may have good intentions, that doesn't make them cut out to carry them out...and perhaps they shouldn't have been put into public office based solely on intentions, but also the ability to perform.
A Council member who choose to re-visit this issue might get repremanded for breaking ranks, but also would show they understand they are supposed to be looking out for the greater good.
I would have expected one of them to have common sense.
Thank you ARCritic for giving EVERYONE a little perspective on this matter, from the point of view of another elected public official, in another neighboring jurisdiction, who obviously doesn't have to put up with the likes of the passive-aggressive Godfreyite control-freak Bill Cook.
Any one of the council members could move to reconsider this motion, but, due to the very odd, (In my opinion,) rule governing reconsideration in the Council Manual, this has to be done either at the meeting the vote was made or at the next one. It can't go on any longer.
But anyone could do it, in spite of the fact that Councilwoman Jeske has become the poster child, or should we say scapegoat, for this decision which was, after all, a unanimous vote.
Yes, I'm surprised none of them had the balls to say this isn't right...Jeske made her self a poster child by opening her mouth and trying to justify her lack of intellectual reasoning. She recognized that she was going against her principals and did it anyway. The rest of them are equally guilty, but perhaps smart enough not to justify.
Again, while I think this issue isn't earth stopping, I think it speaks volumes to the hunker down mind set of the council and I hope it will not have impact on an issue of greater consequence.
This is of pretty great importance.
ANYONE can and should revisit this issue Tues. nite as that will be the last time it can be done.
Come one Dorrene, Doug..even brand new Susan. You need to hit the ground running, Susan. Make up for having lunch with two of the sleaziest people in Ogden by moving to amend the Council's reprehensible lack of guts and knowledge of your own policies.
I hope you're reading this blog. You were given the website.....you three need to get together and come to agreement that one of you will make the motion and one of the other two will second. Get it done!!!
Don't worry if the other Council members will 'not like it', 'be mad at me'...I hope so, wear that as a badge of honor!! Courage!
Write this on your foreheads, Council members who may be afraid of not being popular with your CC fellows:
"You know you're on the right side when you see who your enemies are!"
And, if decency and honor (see above post) and integrity mean anything...just SERVE your constitutents.
In re: the Council rule that reconsideration must occur at same or next following meeting.
Well, I'd like to point out that the Council leadership has already established that it can ignore published Council procedures whenever it wishes to, and then have the Council retroactively change the rules after they have ignored them. That's what happened in the candidates' letters matter, isn't it?
Which naturally raises this question: why can't the leadership similarly ignore the Council's published rules regarding reconsiderations? The Council can always, we now know, retroactively change the rules to justify ignoring them in the first place.
Right?
Hey, Rudizink, in one of your "open Thread" posts, you state: "We do however assail "pills," who react in knee-jerk fashion to our own well-seasoned political philosophies, strategies and tactics." And in this thread and your posts you are encouraging the council members to revisit and reverse their decision last week. So which is it? Are you going to lambast them if and when they change this Council Norm because they will responding like a knee-jerk to the criticism of all of you. Don't get me wrong, I believe that it was a mistake to
vote as they did, but I can see where they wouldn't revisit this issue because of the bad precedent it would set, and it would look like they caved in to your pressure and would look like they were willows in the wind. They really have place themselves in a no-win situation.
What do you say Arcritic, our incognito "elected official expert"?
Something that was mentioned in passing in a discussion I had, is that one reason the council went the way they did was when Scott S. of the SE was asked what he wanted the info for and what was he going to do with it, he stupidly answered, "Why put it on the internet!" WHO WANTS THEIR INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET FOR ALL THE WORLD TO SEE? Especially with all the weirdos and sickos out there. It seems to me that the SE should have some responsibility for the information they ask for and receive. It shouldn't be carelessly "put out there" for any depraved sex maniac, would-be Manson, or ID theft ring. We do live in a world full of sickos, and I can see the Federal government changing the GRAMA law in the not too-far future.
aaron:
Seems to me a far worse precedent has already been set by the Council leadership when it violated its own published procedures by refusing to make the letters public. Then, retroactively, had the procedures changed to justify their violation in the first place. Now, you want to talk about setting bad precedents, strikes me that that one was a real hum-dinger.
As far as not wanting to appear to be caving in to public pressue: the job of elected legislators is to do, in every instance, what they think will best serve the public good. Period. Not doing something they think it would be right to do because it would make them look weak or it would make it seem that they are caving to public pressure would be a violation of their obligations as legislators. If public protests lead council members to conclude that they have acted unwisely, then they should work to reverse the earlier decision they think was ill-advised. Not that hard a call for a conscientious Council member to make, really. Not that hard at all.
aaron said:
They really have place themselves in a no-win situation.
That is the real issue. They have put themselves into this situation. If they reconsider, on the one hand they will be considered wafflers by many but they will also be considered couragous by others.
Personally, I don't think they will reconsider, as I have said before, even if they ultimately lose an appeal that forces them to release the letters.
Also, what the person is going to use the information for is not a consideration for whether it should be released or not. And to make a determination as to whether to release the information based on what the person is going to use it for should not be a consideration.
One other thing, they can change the policy again at any time. That is a different issue than reconsideration of a prior decision. Reconsideration is a special thing regarding bringing back something that was previously decided.
There is precedence for this lame behavior on the part of the Ogden City Council.
It was only about a year ago that the City Council "cleaned up", as I recall them calling it, some pesky city laws that seemed to make it a crime for the Mayor to have given Stuart Reid $47,000 of tax payer money as a walking gift to get him from the city hall pork fest to the BDO where he was going to stick his considerably hungry snout into yet another Ogden City Public Trough to the tune of $70,000 or so a year.
Some of us still wonder how changing a city ordinance could forgive a state crime? The only explanation that make much sense is that the people in charge of prosecuting crime in Ogden, Weber County and the State of Utah seem to have a big yeller streak up their backs when it comes to chasing down and charging elected officials, especially Republican ones.
Like the crooks, they are adherents to the League of Cities and Towns rules:
Though shall not cast any dispersions on any other elected brother.
Though shall protect all secret knowledge from the masses.
Though shall always show a united face to the public.
Though shall always go along to get along.
Though shall remake thyself into a mindless developer worker bee and be a harmonius part of progress as defined by the King Bee.
Though shall always show deference to our annointed leaders who are infallible in all things.
ozboy said:
Like the crooks, they are adherents to the League of Cities and Towns rules:
Though shall not cast any dispersions on any other elected brother.
Though shall protect all secret knowledge from the masses.
Though shall always show a united face to the public.
Though shall always go along to get along.
Though shall remake thyself into a mindless developer worker bee and be a harmonius part of progress as defined by the King Bee.
Though shall always show deference to our annointed leaders who are infallible in all things.
I guess I missed the memo cause I didn't know about these rules to be a member of the ULCT. I keep going to the training, maybe I just haven't been shown the secret handshake so I can't get into those special rooms where they teach these things. :-)
From these last clues Arcritic, I can only deduce that you are a woman. Women can not be priests and therefore cannot learn the secret handshake.
If you want to truly be in the political in crowd you must move to one of the other 49 states.
Sorry ozboy, but you would be wrong. In probably everything you said in that post.
New comments are not allowed.