We loved this Ace Reporter Schwebke masterpiece in this morning's Standard-Examiner:
Greiner remains on ballot; campaign plans on hold.
Poor ole' Scott Schwebke thought he'd delivered The Godfrey Propaganda Organ coup de gras upon Republican Senate 18 candidate Greiner with this crafty article. So did many of our gentle readers, judging from comments in the lower sections.
Sorry Scott... no such luck.
We've spent much of the last two days talkin' to a few of our snitches - and some legal fellers in SLC and Washington, D.C. And guess what?
Our conclusion is that Jon Greiner is by no means outta the Senate 18 hunt -- at least not because of the Hatch Act.. Pass it on.
Here's the kicker:
Board upholds Perkins ruling
Lawmaker prevails again in Hatch Act complaint
The Perkins case involves a Deputy Police chief in Henderson Nevada, who ran for the Nevada legislature in 2001 and ultimately became the Nevada State Assembly Speaker.
Somewhere along the line, somebody put in a Hatch Act Complaint.
The facts in the Perkins case are almost completely analogous to the instant Greiner case.
After two+ years of battling with federal administrative agency beaureaucrats, Perkins remains the Nevada Assemby Speaker. Federal Counsel lost TWO straight legal rounds in this extended battle (trial & appeal) before they The Office of Special Counsel finally threw in the towel.
No. Bureaucratic federal attorneys in Washington are neither omiciscient nor omnipotent. The federal Office of Special Persecutors got their ass handed to them in the Perkins Matter, before they finally gave up.
Yes. The Perkins case sets precedent.
Legal precedent of course doesn't mean Greiner will win the Senate 18 race, even if he's later vindicated in the courts. His campaign has been perhaps irretrievably corrupted by four straight Standard-Examiner stories, intended by the Godfrey forces to allow the most corrupt figure in the history of the universe (Reid) to glide into the State Senate by virtual default.
Even more sad is the fact that Boss Godfrey's pet shill, Stuart Reid, will possibly prevail in the November election, due to the barrage of misinformation the Standard-Examiner has disseminated about Republican Greiner's "Hatch Act Problems" during the last week.
As we said before, the evil Stuart Reid is an alternative far too horrible to contemplate.
We'll make no bones about it. Chief's Greiner's Republican political philosophy differs somewhat from ours. Of course we haven't really talked to the chief about this, and are relying in this assumption upon -- you guessed it -- The Standard-Examiner. (Maybe Chief Greiner will give us a ring one of these days and buy us lunch. We'd feel more self-assured about this if we got it from the horse's mouth.)
We do NOT believe that Chief Greiner has gotten a "fair shake" in this race.
We'll see what happens down the road, when it comes time to the counting of the chickens.
Regardless of the outcome, this race has left a very "fowl" taste in our mouth.
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
18 comments:
Rudi
There does seem to be a couple of critical differences between these two cases.
One is that Perkins was not the Chief of Police during the time in question and in addition the city of Henderson seemed to take significant action over a prolonged period of time to isolate him from any connection to control over Federal funds.
It is rather amusing how the disingenuous Republicans tout the rightousness of the Hatch Act in the case of Perkins, and revile it in the case of forgetfull John.
Rudi, you seem to be letting your dogmatic Republican instincts overcome your normal good judgement on this matter. Having Reid in the State Senate if infanitely better than having this very dark and evil Greiner there.
As a Democrat Reid would have virtually no power and thus could not do any damage to the citizens of Utah and the Constitution.
As a Republican in that den of disgusting NeoCons Greiner could do much mischief and further erode our constitutional rights as he has demonstrated his glee in doing to Matt Jones.
He is one dark dude, dude.
Rudi:
I'm curious. Just what misinformation is it you think the SE reported? If the Justice Department got it wrong in its letter to Greiner, that seems to be the Justice Department's responsibility. The SE simply reported that the letter had been sent and its contents.
If not that, what misinformation do you think the SE reported?
Why do you say that Greiner has not received a 'fair shake' in this race?
Any negatives have been of his own doing. He didn't HAVE to run that plate for the little man, did he??
He didn't have to take orders and put Jones on administrative leave, thereby trampling Jones' freedom of speech, did he?
I agree with Ozboy on this one about Greiner. Except...I don't want to see Reid in there either. You said earlier that Greiner would not be beholden to Godfrey. Well , he sure hasn't done anything to distance himself from Godfrey, has he?
Can't feel sorry for Greiner...and sure don't want Reid down at the Capitol!
I don't like Greiner much, mostly because of his lack of support for his officers as he has made apparent on several occasions. Like the time he called them "whiners" to the Salt Lake TV station and other news outlets. Also how he didn't stick up for them in their wage dispute with the city.
Being a former GI myself (101st in the 60's) and a firm police supporter, I can tell you that any commander that does not respect his troops more than that doesn't have nor deserve the respect of those troops. A commander without respect of his troops is no leader.
Our public safety people are professional men and women, not basic recruits that need to be bullied and insulted into shape.
In spite of that, one has to remember that Greiner is not a free agent in this Jones affair, or in lots of things to do with the police department. He is after all an at will employee of the little tyrant. Godfrey can fire him pretty much on a whim if he wanted to. So to say that Greiner could merely refuse Godfrey's request for the license plate check doesn't really hold water.
In spite of his power, he still could lose that cushy $105 grand a year if he doesn't follow orders and there is only one person who can give him orders.
Jeeze, how would you like to have a dick like Godfrey have that kind of power over you? Man maybe I ought to start looking for something to like about our dear Chief! Can any one out there give me something like about him?
Sure...he isn't Godfrey! Too tall.
Does anyone know whether the BDO gets ANY federal money in ANY form?
Rudi,
While no one can doubt your crack legal expertise considering your career as a...well....we'll just assume you have great expertise. Anyway, if Reid is "corrupt," where is your basis? Surely, he would be in front of the courts by now wouldn't he? Reid doing something you don't like does not equal "corruptness." Your comments verge on slander if you can't back up your claims of corruptness with court-validated findings of guilt. Otherwise, we have to presume you just don't like the guy and do alot of baseless name-calling for your own gain.
Give some facts of corruptness based on the law and then we'd have something to talk about.
If his "corruptness" bothers you (and presumably others) so much, why don't you hire an attorney and do something about it? Or, is it that he really isn't guilty of anything and your just shooting blanks (as usual).
Time to Suggest Changes to Council Rules
Just learned from Ms. Jeske that the Council will submit and discuss any proposed changes in its rules this Thursday at its work session. So if you have suggestions about how the Council's rules might be changed to good effect, this would be the time to contact Council members to let them know.
I'm suggesting that they change the rules for public comment at Council meetings to provide for public comment before the Council acts on a meeting's agenda items. As it is now, public comment comes only after the Council has acted, meaning the public gets a chance only to comment on what the Council has already done, and no chance to comment in hopes of affecting the Council's actions.
Yes, I know, it probably won't matter a hill of beans most times whether the public comment period is before or after the Council acts each week. But appearances matter, and the Council should at least embrace the possibility that what someone says to the Council might make a difference in what the Council does. And for that, public comments should be enabled before the Council votes on an item, not after.
Anonymous: "If Reid is "corrupt," where is your basis?"
We posted nine (9) corroboarative links within this article.
Perhaps you missed them, so we'll graciouly spoon-feed you here:
The Links Anonymous Was Too Lazy to Read
"Surely, he would be in front of the courts by now wouldn't he?"
You're serious, Right?
HAHAHAHAHA!
Good one.
Yes, Curm...comments BEFORE council action is the very least the council can do to give the appearance of being in tune with the common folk.
I've requested this many times as you know. I will join you once again in this request. Hope others do too.
Dian has all the Council Norms, etc at her computer fingertips, so I'll acquiesce to her expertise, but the council simply MUST give themselves back the power the 'old' council handed to Godfrey.
Isn't it true that he can buy...sell property without council approval?
Is that scary enuf?
Whatever has been handed to him, must be taken back.
Dian (and Rudi) have all those facts and know the ordinances...those are what I think should be adressed.
Also, despite that letter written by WHOM? and signed by the entire council keeping the public UNinformed about potential council members who are applying for selection, the whole premise of 'secrecy' masquerading as 'protection' is wrong and needs to be readdressed. The city's previous guidelines need to be reinstated. As I've said before, campaign flyers contain more info than the city is willing to let the public know about someone we can't even vote for!!
All this zoning and rezoning, tho innocuous appearing now, makes me a tad nervous. Will we become used to the lukewarm water and be too lulled by little zoning packages that we won't leap out of the boiling pot when the BIG rezoning and amending of the Gen'l Plan occurs?
i was told today that the City Engineer can't help you when you have a pothole or cave-in on your street. All that money for road improvement and repair has gone into the Junction!
Ogden is a house of cards...and there's a big windy storm a'comin'.
BTW...would CH 17 and its operations come under Council Norms?
Word on the street is that there is an effort to move Channel 17 to a county wide station, similar to what is available to cable subscribers in Davis County
. If local governments in Weber County decide to participate in this, Channel 17 would not longer be Godfrey's toy. I would hope that some sort of board comprised of stakeholders from each jurisdiction would be set up to determine programming. This would include local schools.
Ogden City Council and Redevelopment Agency meetings are currently available online as audio files. They seem pretty efficient in getting the files posted shortly after the meetings- the file from the October 17 meeting is available.
Sharon,
No, the mayor cannot sell/buy any city property "at-will."
The ordinance regarding the selling/buying of property says the mayor can sell/buy property that is less than a certain value. The land value limit eludes me, but its something around $50,000. Hopefully someone else knows the exact dollar amount, or can look it up.
Below is the part of the Ogden Municipal Code I've found that in my opinion says that the mayor can sell property at will with some exceptions. Let us know if you know of a different part of the Code that puts a land value limit on it, please.
4-3A-5: CONVEYANCE OF CITY REAL PROPERTY:
A.Highest And Best Economic Return:
1. Every sale, lease, encumbrance, or other conveyance of city owned real property shall be made by the mayor, or under the mayor's express written authority. All conveyances or encumbrances of such property shall be based on the highest and best economic return to the city, except that consideration for property conveyed may be based on other public policy factors if the city council makes a legislative determination that the consideration is adequate.
2. The highest and best economic return to the city, as referred to in this article, shall be for cash, or its equivalent, and for not less than fair market value as estimated by one or more of the following methods:
a. Evaluation by qualified and disinterested appraiser; or
b. An information market survey conducted by the director of management services, or under his/her express written authority, in the case of items of real property possessing readily discernable market value.
3. The mayor may reject any proposed conveyance or encumbrance of real property, if determined in the mayor's sole discretion not to be in the best interests of the city.
B.Public Uses; Planning Commission Review: The sale of any public use property owned by the city shall not be sold if such conveyance would not conform with the Ogden City general plan, and any proposed conveyance of such property shall be reviewed by the planning commission for its determination as to such compliance. The planning commission may adopt guidelines authorizing staff review of such conveyances for compliance with the plan. For purposes of this section, "public use property" includes any real property:
1. Acquired, dedicated, or used as a park, recreation facility, public street, trail, trailhead, or other public way;
2. Acquired, dedicated or used for the delivery of municipal services to the public;
3. Associated with, or contiguous to, the municipal block, the Ogden City cemetery, the El Monte and Mount Ogden golf courses, the community services building, the Marshall White Center, the Ogden-Hinckley airport, the public safety building, the public works complex, Union Station, and the intermodel hub; and
4. Within one hundred feet (100') of the Ogden River or the Weber River or undeveloped property located in the foothills along the eastern boundaries of the city.
"Public use property" shall not include property acquired by the city for a specific project or purpose involving the future conveyance of such property to a third party for other than a public use.
C.Disclosure To City Council And Opportunity For Public Comment:
1. Before any sale, lease, trade or other encumbrance of any "significant parcel" of real property of the city, as defined herein, the mayor shall deliver a notice of the pendency of such transaction to the office of the city council and allow an opportunity for public comment on the proposed disposition at a public hearing, after fourteen (14) days' notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the city.
2. For purposes of this subsection, "lease" shall not include the rental of property on a month to month basis or for a term of less than one year. "Lease" shall also not include airport leases governed by the provisions of title 8 of this code.
3. For purposes of this subsection, "significant parcel" means:
a. "Public use property" as defined in subsection B of this section;
b. A parcel of real property, or a combination of contiguous parcels, having an appraised or estimated value in excess of seventy five thousand dollars ($75,000.00); or
c. A parcel of real property, or a combination of contiguous parcels, having a size in excess of one acre.
4. "Significant parcel" shall not include:
a. "DDOU property", as defined in section 4-3A-7 of this article, or property in the Ogden commercial and industrial park as provided in subsection E of this section; or
b. Property being conveyed as part of the following programs so long as such properties would not otherwise be considered to be "public use property" as defined in subsection B of this section:
(1) Infill housing program,
(2) Homestead program,
(3) East Central revitalization program,
(4) HUD asset control area program,
(5) Twenty Fifth Street infill program, and
(6) Any other federally funded program for which the city council has adopted program guidelines.
5. The public hearing requirement imposed herein is not intended to apply if the conveyance is subject to a different notice and public hearing requirement under the provisions of state law or these ordinances.
D.Notice: The notice required in subsection C of this section shall specify the following:
1. A general description of the property to be conveyed or encumbered;
2. The nature of the proposed conveyance or encumbrance whether the property is to be sold, traded or encumbered, including the nature of the conveyance if the property is to be sold, or if a trade or lease of property is contemplated, a brief summary of the proposed transaction;
3. Persons to whom interests are to be conveyed;
4. Any consideration tendered;
5. The name of the person, department or entity requesting such action; and
6. The date, time and place of the public hearing.
E.Exception: The sale of city owned lots within the Ogden commercial and industrial park, as such park has been subdivided and recorded in the official records of Weber County, state of Utah, is exempt from the requirements of subsections C and D of this section, provided any such lot sale is for the established market value price as periodically reviewed and established by city administration, such sales are made subject to outstanding industrial park protective covenants, and are for lots properly subdivided in accordance with applicable city ordinances. Any proposed sales of city owned industrial park lots desiring a discount from the established market value price, requesting seller assisted financing via installment sale, second mortgage position, or any other form of incentive from the city shall require notification to the city council in accordance with subsections C and D of this section.
F.Sales Proceeds: The sale proceeds, less closing costs and real estate commissions, from lot sales within the Ogden commercial and industrial park shall be deposited into the city's CIP account and shall be earmarked for payment of outstanding purchase obligations of the city for park property (the Stratford property), park infrastructure improvements, and acquisition of additional park property.
(Ord. 2003-20, 8-5-2003; amd. Ord. 2005-70, 12-6-2005)
Dian,
The value I wasn't remembering is $75,000. That is the property value limit amount that the mayor cannot go over without approval. There are other conditions, but that is the general point of the ordinance.
Thanks for your help.
b. A parcel of real property, or a combination of contiguous parcels, having an appraised or estimated value in excess of seventy five thousand dollars ($75,000.00); or...
Good work, Dian. As I read the ordinace, it merely requires notice to the council and a public comments session, prior to the completion of an administration-proposed sale in excess of a $75,000 threshhold.
There appears to be no explicit council consent requirement, except this language in paragraph 1:
"All conveyances or encumbrances of such property shall be based on the highest and best economic return to the city, except that consideration for property conveyed may be based on other public policy factors if the city council makes a legislative determination that the consideration is adequate."
Thus the council seems to retain at least some slight oversight capacity under the current ordinance, at least in narrow circumstances where disgreement exists regarding adequacy of consideration in administration-arranged property transactions.
Still, this ordinance in no manner can be deemed a true "Advice and Consent" ordinance, in our opinion.
The previous council appears to have almost completely delegated away its general power of consent in Emerald City real estate transactions.
Blog administrator tells board troll: "GFY"
Yes, Rudi, and Anon--that's the way I was reading it. The Mayor does have to notify the Council of the pending sale, and allow a public comments meeting, but the way things stand now, I can't find anything that states that the Council could Stop a proposed sale if it wanted to.
that's what I'm afraid of. It seems there are limited protections...but, knowing the sneakiness of the mayor..I think he'd get around them. Especially, if he thinks he has enuf patsy's on the Planning Commission and the Council. We must remain vigilant.
This appears to be the code to be revised, post haste...as it's the one the 'old' council apparently amemded or slashed thru for Godfrey.
New comments are not allowed.