Prying information loose from government has always been a key project in the development of this nation's democratic traditions. What James Madison wrote in 1822 remains just as true today: "A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and the people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power, which knowledge gives."
Open The Government.Org
Democracy
October, 2006
We got a real kick out of this morning's Standard-Examiner guest commentary, wherein "somebody", ostensibly speaking on behalf of the Emerald City council, attempts to rationalize the council's most recent demonstration of tight government secrecy policy, in re the recent council seat "A" appointment matter.
In a nutshell, the author of today's overly-legalistic commentary regally informs the lumpencitizenry that the council already exceeded the bare legal minimum requirements for this process. It allowed us to look over its shoulder after all, as it selected its new council colleague. There was no legal obligation for the council to include the taxpayers in the process, somebody reminds us. "We could have lawfully conducted the whole process entirely behind closed doors," the commentary author hints. "We already went overboard to cater to you overly-nosey folks. Don't push your luck" is the message that we get from today's commentary.
And when it comes to matters of personal privacy, the council seemingly stands fast with its brand-new "seige mentality" attitude. From now on, privacy (and vague "security issues") will apparently trump the public's right to know important details about those who would write our laws and spend out taxpayer funds, presumably in every upcoming instance. Somewhere in a very warm corner of the universe we are sure that old Joe Stalin's ghost is wearing a little smile over this development. The Emerald City council has clearly jumped aboard the new-fangled anti-democratic neoCON-style government secrecy bandwagon.
We'll remind those public servants that the Fourth-amendment-derived "right of privacy," which the council has suddenly and vigorously invoked, is legally-dependent upon a "reasonable expectation of privacy." In the instant case, none of the council applicants enjoyed the reasonable expectation of broad privacy protection. These folks weren't applying to drive a lawn-mower on the Mt. Ogden Golf course. It was an elected seat on our city legislature that was at stake. Additionally, all of the information which was summarily suppressed by the council had been voluntarily and publicly disclosed, in circumstances wherein each applicant was on notice that such information would be made part of the public record, subject to public scrutiny.
Despite the council's protestations to the contrary, we believe the taxpayers have been fundamentally cut out of the selection process.
It's plain that at least some on the council don't trust the taxpayers with arguably crucial information, information that's essential to citizen oversight. And we'll also remind the council of this:
Trust is a two-way street in American democracy. Unless the council acts to correct this policy blunder, they can reasonably expect the citizen-electors to reciprocate, and demonstrate their own failure of trust, in November 2007.
We believe that the Emerald city council needs to be called out on this plainly bone-headed public posture; and we hope that the Standard-Examiner will follow through in aggressively pursuing its legal GRAMA remedies in this connection.
We'd also be interested in knowing whether the entire council agreed to the statement included in today's citizen unfriendly proclamation. Did the council vote unanimously, or is this just another example of council leadership being led along by the nose, and bowing to the agenda of council "mentor" Bill Cook?
Maybe a few of our gentle readers can help us out with these questions.
There's lot's of fodder for discussion of today's of Std-Ex guest commentary, we think.
Let's hear it from our gentle readers.
Democracy
October, 2006
We got a real kick out of this morning's Standard-Examiner guest commentary, wherein "somebody", ostensibly speaking on behalf of the Emerald City council, attempts to rationalize the council's most recent demonstration of tight government secrecy policy, in re the recent council seat "A" appointment matter.
In a nutshell, the author of today's overly-legalistic commentary regally informs the lumpencitizenry that the council already exceeded the bare legal minimum requirements for this process. It allowed us to look over its shoulder after all, as it selected its new council colleague. There was no legal obligation for the council to include the taxpayers in the process, somebody reminds us. "We could have lawfully conducted the whole process entirely behind closed doors," the commentary author hints. "We already went overboard to cater to you overly-nosey folks. Don't push your luck" is the message that we get from today's commentary.
And when it comes to matters of personal privacy, the council seemingly stands fast with its brand-new "seige mentality" attitude. From now on, privacy (and vague "security issues") will apparently trump the public's right to know important details about those who would write our laws and spend out taxpayer funds, presumably in every upcoming instance. Somewhere in a very warm corner of the universe we are sure that old Joe Stalin's ghost is wearing a little smile over this development. The Emerald City council has clearly jumped aboard the new-fangled anti-democratic neoCON-style government secrecy bandwagon.
We'll remind those public servants that the Fourth-amendment-derived "right of privacy," which the council has suddenly and vigorously invoked, is legally-dependent upon a "reasonable expectation of privacy." In the instant case, none of the council applicants enjoyed the reasonable expectation of broad privacy protection. These folks weren't applying to drive a lawn-mower on the Mt. Ogden Golf course. It was an elected seat on our city legislature that was at stake. Additionally, all of the information which was summarily suppressed by the council had been voluntarily and publicly disclosed, in circumstances wherein each applicant was on notice that such information would be made part of the public record, subject to public scrutiny.
Despite the council's protestations to the contrary, we believe the taxpayers have been fundamentally cut out of the selection process.
It's plain that at least some on the council don't trust the taxpayers with arguably crucial information, information that's essential to citizen oversight. And we'll also remind the council of this:
Trust is a two-way street in American democracy. Unless the council acts to correct this policy blunder, they can reasonably expect the citizen-electors to reciprocate, and demonstrate their own failure of trust, in November 2007.
We believe that the Emerald city council needs to be called out on this plainly bone-headed public posture; and we hope that the Standard-Examiner will follow through in aggressively pursuing its legal GRAMA remedies in this connection.
We'd also be interested in knowing whether the entire council agreed to the statement included in today's citizen unfriendly proclamation. Did the council vote unanimously, or is this just another example of council leadership being led along by the nose, and bowing to the agenda of council "mentor" Bill Cook?
Maybe a few of our gentle readers can help us out with these questions.
There's lot's of fodder for discussion of today's of Std-Ex guest commentary, we think.
Let's hear it from our gentle readers.
22 comments:
Righto...did the ENTIRE council sign on to this mumbo jumbo?
Disgraceful. "someone" must've rec'd some stinging rebukes over their gaffe for 'them' to feel it necessary to defend their position.
Well, all their names are at the end of the article. Funny thing is, as you know, I have been attending the official Council Meetings as of late, and there has been no official motion passed to take a public and united stance in the media on this issue. Perhaps one was not required, since, when the Council voted to change the "Norms," the vote was unanimous. But, as Arcritic says in the previous thread, the line in the Commentary stating that the entire process could have been done behind closed doors is simply an incorrect one according to Utah State Law.
Also, it must be remembered that, in the initial press release announcing that applications for the vacant seat would be accepted, there was a notice there that all information submitted would be public information. And do you know something that really boggles the mind?
The City itself, on its webpage, published a list of all 39 applicants' addresses and telephone numbers. This was "part of the process." So it's not exactly like applicants' privacy was being totally looked out for here.
And one more thing. This line in the Commentary:
The majority of the information provided by the applicants was not related to the required qualifications.
Why then, were these applicants chosen? The press release explicitly stated:
Citizens wishing to apply for the vacant At-Large Seat A should submit a resume and letter of interest to the Ogden City Council Office (2549 Washington Blvd., Ste. 320, Ogden, UT, 84401) by Monday, September 11, 2006 at 5:00PM. Letters of interest should include answers to the following questions:
• “Why do you want to serve as a Council Member?”
• “Why do you feel that you are qualified to serve as a Council Member?”
The applicants' responses to these two questions were indeed pertinent information related to the required qualifications, and should have been made available to the public. And if the answers to these required questions were not on those application letters, one wonders why these people were chosen, since they would not have followed the Council's instructions regarding what should be on the applications.
I, like Arcritic, think the tone of the Commentary arrogant. And I shall add to that the descriptive words "pompous" and "patronizing." And I will end by asking this question of the Council:
If you don't think the public deserves information about qualifications for a Council seat, what does that say about you, as holders of those seats? You are, after all, in those seats because of a vote of the public.
I hope you all don't think we made seven bad decisions there.
All About Sue
With all the interest there still is in the selection process relating to Susan VanHooser, I have to wonder, why didn’t you just ask?
I told my most reliable Council operatives that if there were to be five finalists, to forget the CEO, the CFO, and all those other idiots. I told them I wanted: Three jerks, one Mexican, and one puppy. In other words, I needed four they would not choose, and one they couldn’t resist, so the vote would be unanimous. I was glad to see for the five, they picked my friend JT, plus a thief, plus a homeless man, plus the required Mexican. I was delighted that for the puppy, they chose a clone of the last puppy they had to pick for a Council replacement (Donna Burdett). They got somebody who is non-controversial, easy to manipulate, and who is experienced in government services, i.e. kissing up to the big boys.
As a matter of fact, since I have frozen DNA samples of all Council members I will give $1000 to the first person who can show even one genome of difference between Donna Burdett and Susan VanHooser. (For those wanting to enter the competition, you can pick your vial up at my secretary’s freezer with a $100 deposit for when you lose.)
Some said I looked unhappy when Sue was chosen. No, what you saw was disgust. Like the videos I watch in my den after midnight, there are things in this life that I may find revolting, but that I know I have to do – like working within a system that refuses to give me the carte blanche power I deserve, making me resort to these machinations. As for why I didn’t shake hands with her when she was sworn in – as you know, puppies when they are happy have a habit of pissing all over you. As to her having independence and courage as some of you have hoped, remember that her clone, Donna, after she was dismissed by the electorate, in a subsequent lame-duck session voted for my recreation center. It takes independence and courage to do something like that, I guess.
It took Sue less than a week to spend an entire afternoon with Curt and I, and our associates. If you feel that is innocuous, you might ask when she will be spending an afternoon getting YOUR perspective on the issues! When she said she’d look carefully at all sides, you didn’t know she meant all sides of Curt Geiger, did you? Remember that to serve on the Council you must have the following qualifications: No firm opinions, lots of time on your hands, and a desire to idle your hours away associating with people. In other words, you must have no intelligence, no life of you own, and be a sycophant. You must be looking for a way – not to serve the public – but to take a shortcut to the halls where the beautiful people dwell. Sue knows, and you should know, that she is one of us now.
With her appointment, the Council is now comprised entirely of women, with the exception of the two eunuchs. And a majority of them are still mine. This is all just too easy. Now you know how it all happened, and so you can quit quessing.
Dear Matt,
Thank you so much for reiterating your triple date with Sue, Curt and you....From your lips to Curt's ear.
Curt said "it never happened." In fact, he was rather like a happy puppy when he called and let that puppy happiness spill all over me...as if I was the one who said he's been seen hob nobbing at Rooster's with you and Sue.
So, as difficult as it is, somewhere in your very depths...your sox, perhaps? you could pull out the truth and tell us celeb watchers if Curt, you and Sue were at Rooster's??
Step up, be a man and the leader we all know you are....I'm tired of getting blamed for EVERYTHING Geiger!
Matt
I aint seen nothin about Sue
that says she belongs to you.
And if you are gonna
insist she is another Donna,
Give us some proof
or shut up you goof.
Publishing the home addresses and phone numbers of the Council candidates on the City's website was an invitation for the citizenry to phone them so we could get to know them better? I thought that was a potentially dangerous invasion of privacy. Letting us see what their qualifications were and why they wanted the job is by no stretch of imagination the same. Once again, a valid request for information is met with a non-answer.
How about publishing the home addresses and phone numbers of the Mayor, City Council, Misters Cook, Patterson, and Greiner, and all other City Officials so we can phone them day or night to get to know them better as well. I have some questions about the Golf Course , zoning, etc that I'd LOVE to ask the Mayor.
Like Dian, I would like to see each Councilmember state publicly whether they did or did not subscribe to today's Guest Commentary.
They all voted yes. Public enough for me...remove the lot of them.
Gee, I bet WE could call Greiner to run license plates for us too if we could call him day and night.
Ever notice how much personal and professional information is embodied in a campaign flyer???
Sue Van Hooser is another Donna Burdett?
Mattie, you are sure smokin' something that can't be good for you.
Sue is pretty, stylish, ASKS questions and so far we haven't seen her SNARLING at anyone!!!
Good Ink for Ogden, and Mayor Godfrey
The SE this morning is running a story [byline: Scott Schwebke] about Ogden's being featured on the cover of Connect magazine, a Utah business publication out of Salt Lake City.
Here are the opening graphs: OGDEN — A Salt Lake City business magazine has ranked Mayor Matthew Godfrey as one of 25 Utahns responsible for driving the state’s economy.
Godfrey will be featured in an article in the December edition of Connect Magazine.
The article will tout Godfrey’s role in revitalizing Ogden through projects such as The Junction, a retail, recreational and residential development being built downtown and helping to establish Ogden as a burgeoning hub for the snowsports industry.
“Mayor Godfrey is wellliked and respected by many of Utah’s business community members. His future plans and current accomplishments for Ogden’s economic growth are often praised as visionary,” said Colin Kelly Jr. senior editor of Connect Magazine.
For some reason, I cannot get the link to work this morning, but you can find the full article in the SE business section. The SE story includes praise for the Mayor from the real estate industry, and mentions his success in drawning ski and outdoor related businesses to Ogden, it does not mention the gondola or Peterson projects. Interesting.
Looks like today's the big day. From the D-News:
Ogden completes probe of mayor, police chief
OGDEN — An investigation by the Weber County Attorney's Office looking into a matter involving Ogden Police Chief Jon Greiner and Mayor Matthew Godfrey is expected to be released today.
More here: Ogden completes probe of mayor, police chief
Curmudgeon
"Connect" magazine is a bit of a joke in the Salt Lake Biz community. Like Godfrey, they are long on ambitions and dreams and short on substance. It is no surprise that they would do another fluff piece on the little wizard.
Last May they did a piece on Ogden, the Mayor, and a companion piece by Geiger. Then, like now, it was full of the regular empty propoganda about the ski hub scheme and how Ogden was going to be the "new Milan"!
They did however cover a number of other positive things happening in Ogden, none of which have anything to do with Godfrey, Lift Ogden or the Gondola proposal.
Bottom line, Connect magazine has no credibility and very few readers. A flash in the pan if you will.
Agree with Marvin about Connect and their position in the Utah business community, with one exception.
Connect is actually a pretty good looking magazine however thin on content and reporting.
Their main, and only other publication, is an in house magazine for Zion Bank which is also pretty nice looking. It is a "fluff & feel good" magazine that promotes those warm and fuzzy feelings that banks like to promote for sales purposes.
"Connect" follows this formula and does not do any investigative or "meaty" articles about the business community. It is called "press release" journalism.
The company is about 3 years old and started with the Zion promotional circular.
I am sure we are all waiting with baited breath for the release of Decaria's proclamation. Don't get your hopes up , Dian. It will be one of those "indecision things" that politicians fumble around with all of the time.
Two things:
Greiner states he isn't 'actively campaigning'...no neighborhood walks, no more mailings, meet the candidates...however, he isn't picking up his yard signs because his 'supporters' are okay with leaving them!
HUH? I thot he was in violation by doing ANY campaigning, and yard signs in yards IS campaining. So if homeowners say 'okay'...no law is broken? Cool!
The other is in the short Des News piece. This one states that Greiner ASKED for the license plate number, when both GG and have stated that Godfrey called it into Greiner AT HOME, AFTER HOURS after following Mrs. Jones, because he thot he recognized Matt.
The truth...it is elusive.
BTW...Geiger gave me the early scoop on Connect Magazine. Telling me last week that the mayor 'has been chosen as one of the 25 most influential businessmen in the state!!' It is interesting that the goofy gondola is not touted in this article. Also, the mayor has done so much to make Ogden a ski hub. No credit to Curt?
Thanks to all for comments on "Connect" mag. It's beginning to sound suspiciously like a glorified vanity publication. Say nice things about businessmen, officeholders in hopes of increasing circulation, influence of the magazine. But I will try to track down a copy when it appears. [Is there a newsstand in Ogden that carries it? Anyone know?] Generally I don't like to dismiss anything on report only without seeing it first.
"Connect" magazine was started about 3 years ago by a young guy that had formerly worked for "Utah Business" which is Utah's premier and only significant business magazine. Utah Business along with the tabloid size "Enterprise" are the only two publications in Utah with real credibility and wide readership.
This guy was a product of the Larry Miller entrepreneurial incubation project and I believe he was financed by Miller as well. Miller got him a contract to do the in house promotional magazine for Zion bank, which as far as I can tell is their only publication other than this "Connect". Both are good looking magazines as has been previously noted by another poster.
The "Connect" is indeed a "feel good, or vanity" publication. The way they work is: "You buy ad space in the magazine and we will write a nice article saying anything you want"
They are not taken seriously in the Utah business community. They have never published a probative, investigative, questioning or balanced article in their history. They have also been accused of highly inflating their circulation figures.
The Miller connection could very well explain the Godfrey/Gieger fluff pieces from last spring as well as the pending one that Schlepke writes about.
Ogdenlover-
Ogden City Council member addresses and phone numbers are listed on the city website.
The same cannot be said for the Mayor or administration.
Anon,
I imagine when you say, 'Ogden City Council member addresses and phone numbers are listed on the city website' you mean their home addresses and phone numbers.
I would guess the reason that the mayor and administration don't list their home addresses and phone numbers would be that they have full-time offices at the city offices and can be reached or left a message there. Where as, the council don't have full-time offices there and so can't as easily be reached there during business hours or have a message left for them.
They DO have offices...but probably in them very much.
sorry...but probably NOT in them very much.
According to the Council handbook they have "cubicles" and phones and normal office support stuff.
New comments are not allowed.