By Curmudgeon
Well, Managing Editor Andy Howell of the Standard-Examiner, in his "Behind the Headlines" column this morning, offers up an explanation of how the inaccurate story about the City Council's resolution on the coming transportation tax got printed in his paper. And an apology. It's a complicated process, a chain of events that went wrong in sequence, resulting in the Std-Ex getting the story flat wrong.
Here's the apology, from his column:
In hindsight, the story should have been held. The reported objections by the mayor were inconsistent with what we thought was the council’s action. His concerns indicated there was a misunderstanding, or there was a bigger issue we weren’t aware of. Either way, it left a hole in the story that outweighed the urgency of reporting the council’s vote on the matter. It is our job to provide clarity for readers on government action, not add to the confusion. With this story we failed.But then, having explained and properly apologized for the paper's muff, he just couldn't leave well enough alone. He had to go on and editorialize, berating the Council for having done what his paper mis-reported. The closing paragraph of the column:
That being said, what good is adopting a resolution of neutrality on a ballot issue? I don’t mean to single out the Ogden council, because the Layton City Council did the same thing. But the purpose of such a resolution is to let voters know where the council stands. If council members didn’t want to take a position, they just should not have voted on the resolution. As it stands, the council made a decision to be undecided.So close, Mr. Howell. You came so close, but faded down the stretch. The little gratuitous editorial stuck on the end of the Std-Ex's mea culpa suggests that all the Council did in its resolution was refuse to take a definite stand on the coming vote. Wrong. It also in its resolution stated its view that if the tax passed, no less than 40% of the money should be spent on transit funding, a not-meaningless statement since WACOG at a recent meeting in a non-binding vote indicated it wants to spend 80% of the money on roads, and only 20% on transit. Here is the full resolution the Council passed [minus the "wherases"]. I wonder if Mr. Howell read the whole thing before opining in his column that it was all just a meaningless exercise:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE OGDEN CITY COUNCIL, that if the Opinion Question #1 ballot measure is approved by County residents the Council hereby formally encourages the Weber Area Council of Governments (WACOG) to distribute the funds from the tax increase so that at least 40% of the funds are used for transit projects. Further, the Council encourages the voters of Ogden City and Weber County to voice their opinions regarding the question on November 6th.Note, please, that the main intent of the resolution was to urge 40% of the spending at least be on transit, not the "urge to vote" that so annoyed Mr. Howell.
One other thing worth noting about Mr. Howell's essay this morning. Again, from Mr. Howell's column:
During the vote, it was noted that the mayor, who was aware of the change [in the resolution], was not happy with the [new] resolution. This was puzzling, since Scott [Schwebke] knew the mayor supported the original version of the resolution, the one Scott thought had been approved. After the meeting, Scott asked both Chief Administrative Officer John Patterson and council Executive Director Bill Cook why the mayor was not happy with the resolution. Both told him to ask the mayor, who was not at the meeting and couldn’t be reached.... Scott wasn’t able to reach Godfrey after the meeting. Faced with a deadline, he wrote the story with what he had for the next day’s paper.English translation: the Std-Ex's reporter asked the Mayor's Chief Executive Officer for information that, had he supplied it, would have resulted in the story being reported accurately. Being Godfrey's chief aide, naturally, he stonewalled, and told Mr. Schwebke to ask the Mayor, who was unavailable. Imagine that. [Yes, he also asked Mr. Cook, who works for the Council. But Mr. Cook quite properly told Schewbke to ask the Mayor, since it is not Mr. Cook's responsibility to speak for the administration or explain its views. That is, however, one of Mr. Patterson's responsibilities. Presumably he was at the meeting, in lieu of the Mayor, to do just that.]
Imagine that. Godfrey's chief administrative officer refusing to supply the Std-Ex with information it needed to report the Council's proceedings accurately. Who'da ever thunk it?
Also in this morning's paper, an article on Amer Sports's big opening bash at the renovated American Can building downtown. Many notable personages there for the festivities, including Gov. Huntsman. As the Std-Ex reports, the stage was "crowded" with "representatives from the Ogden Chamber of Commerce" singing the praises of Mayor Godfrey: "Mayor Godfrey saw a vision and ran with it," said Marsha Combe, a member of the Ogden Chamber of Commerce. "It's neat to see a business like this in this part of Ogden," she said.
OK. Fair enough. Credit for bringing Amer to Ogden instead of Salt Lake goes to the Mayor, and rightly so. But I did notice, in the entire article, the omission of a particular word. Or I should say, the strange omission of a particular word. The word is "gondola." Nary a single mention. Passing strange, I thought, since but a few short months ago, the Mayor and Mr. Curt Geiger, strong Godfrey advocate, were insisting to all and sundry that without the promise of an imminent gondola in Godfrey-town, Amer Sports would not have come here, that in fact Amer Sports came because of the gondola promise. "Just ask them," we were told. "Just ask them."
And now a whole day of speechafyin' and celebratin' and all kinds of big wigs there, and the Mayor congratulating himself and likening the coming of Amer Sports to the "the joining of the railroads" with the golden spike --- yes, he really did say that --- and suddenly the gondola project, once touted as the lynchpin to it all, has vanished.
Imagine that....
