Don Porter viciously (and unjustifiably) attacks a long-time Emerald City citizen-activist
This morning's ridiculous Std-Ex" editorial" was the Standard-Examiner's worst "hissy-fit" yet. (We believe you coined the term, Curm, in reference to the Std-Ex). It was in fact a full-blown bull-goose loony temper tantrum, wrongfully directed toward one of the most community-minded folks in Emerald City.
Ms. Littrell was making the news, and effecting substantive change in Ogden, long before anyone in this town had ever heard of Susie Van Hooser, Curmudgeon... or even Rudizink for that matter.
This half-baked article is littered with gross mis-statements, false conclusions and exaggerations:
Std-Ex accusation #1: "The lawsuit is ridiculous and a waste of time. Like a similar, meritless complaint filed by Littrell against the mayor in September, it will be dismissed."
Fact: No previous lawsuits or other court actions have been ever been previously filed in this matter. The Std-Ex just flat-out lied about that.
As for the merit of this lawsuit... that's for the court to decide, innit?
Std-Ex accusation #2: "Some of the 61 plaintiffs in the lawsuit say they had no idea they were taking Godfrey to court. They told Standard-Examiner reporter Scott Schwebke they thought they were signing a petition".
Fact: The prefactory language on the authorization document that each of these plaintiffs signed clearly disclosed that each of these prospective plainiffs were signing a document authorizing their names to be used for specific purposes in a legal proceeding to remove Boss Godfrey's name from the ballot. The language (IN BOLD TYPE) is crystal clear:
"I HEREBY WISH TO INCLUDE MY NAME AS AN OGDEN CITY REGISTERED VOTER AS A PLAINTIFF IN THE PROCEEDINGS DOROTHY E. LITTRELL HAS INSTITUTED PURSUANT TO OGDEN MUNICIPAL CODE 1-8-5D FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT TO REMOVE THE NAME MATT GODFREY FROM THE BALLOT IN THE OGDEN CITY ELECTION TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 6, 2007 FOR THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE OGDEN CITY MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE PEOPLE TO RE-ELECT MATTHEW GODFREY."
Here's the "legal definition" of "petition," by the way:
Petition
Robert Cato, who's the Standard-Examiner's "case in chief" ADMITS he didn't read the document he signed.
We're still wondering why he even talked to the Standard-Examiner.
Sheesh!
Accusation #3: Heres' the worst of all:
"But there is another reason we condemn these political obsessions. This lawsuit feeds into an assumption that many of Godfrey’s opponents are motivated by a dislike, even hatred, for the mayor. That assumption is untrue, of course, but small-minded, petty actions by a few, such as the lawsuit, provide oxygen for the stereotype of the “angry, obsessive anti-Godfrey” activist.
"And that’s not good for Ogden. What the city needs, in this final month of the campaign, is a full discussion of the issues and differences between the mayor and his challenger. There are many points to discuss: economic development, bringing more businesses to Ogden, protecting the environment, the future of Historic 25th Street, the future of the gondola, construction around The Junction, how to most effectively fight gangs and crime, the higher rate of poverty in Ogden, effective community policing ..."
Nobody that we know of in the Ogden city activist community truly "HATES" the erstwile Mayor, as the Std-Ex editors suggest.
To invoke a quote from our own patron Saint, St. Augustine, one of the top five revered saints who've provided wisdom to Christian society within the last 1500 years:
"Love the sinner; NOT the sin."
Oust Boss Godfrey in November! We'll "give him our St. Augustine love" later.
And to the editors of the Standard-Examiner we say this: Why not just go and do what you've already decided to do -- endorse Boss Godfrey?
Update 10/7/07 11:08 a.m. MT: Emerald City Gang of Six holdover councilmember Rick Safsten "one-ups" yesterday's Std-Ex editorial hit-piece, with this morning's hate-filled and venomous Guest Commentary Op-ed screed, steering the sheer nastiness of the 2007 municipal election campaign into heretofore uncharted waters. We haven't seen good old Rick this far out of control since March of 2006, when the moderator of The Senate Site suggested that Mr. Safsten enroll in an anger management course.
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
117 comments:
The Standard's editorial rant on "obsession", I quote from the piece,( Don Porters own words?) "small minded petty actions by a few".
Mr Porter needs to step back and truely take a fresh overview of the past few years, that have led up to where things are now.
When it comes to obsessions, lying little matty, potato nose, short deck and the pathetic senile ed allen should be called out, the real distructive obsession is theirs. GONDOLAS,GONDOLAS, GONDOLAS.
Their obsession continues, despite their attempts to keep it under the radar and out of the discussion.
Porters words quite adequately apply to all the antics and activities of one, lift Ogden, advocating till their death, a gondola to nowhere, funded and maintained by a city in debt up to its eyeballs. Head cheerleader lying little matty, architect of that debt, and leading the blind idiotic followers of lift Ogden in a chorus of more debt, sell the land,build a gondola to nowhere.
Any one that would call Ms. Litrell obsessed and not examine the other side of the coin has no credibility.
Pettiness is something measured by degree, one could argue falsifying campain filing documents is quite serious and not petty. It can also be argued that selling the most prized public lands for the pupose of building a gondola to nowhere is petty, I disagree.
As to Porters "small minded", the urban gondola to nowhere speaks quite clearly.
"Suzie" attacked Dorothy too.
First she said Dortothy's lawsuit was "ill considered."
The next day she said it was a "black eye" for Ogden.
I'm thinking right now about switching my vote to Matt Godfrey.
He's the "devil we know," unlike the "devil we don't."
Well if there was no actual lawsuit filed by Ms Littrell against the mayor in Sept then the SE needs to print a full retraction and apology for misleading the public. They owe it to the public they have chosen to inform through print said retraction in the same format as was published falsely accusing her. Unfortunately if they even do print a retraction it will be hidden in some obscure section of the paper. Probably have an "accident" during printing where it did not clearly print and write it off as "well we tried". This is such BS. They (SE) can print whatever ed-op piece they want from their own people, but when others try to submit they pull out some "strict guidelines" policy. I am so glad I do not subscribe to that RAG.
Well, the editorial is not one of the SE's finest efforts, I concede, though Rudi, your post seems to edge over the line into heat-driven tirade at times too.
Let's take a look at that the editorial actually said.
"Politics can produce passion, and that’s a good thing. But politics also breeds obsession, and that’s not good. Obsession clouds reason, which leads to foolish actions. " True enough, I guess, but also so self-evident as not to amount to saying much of anything.
"In Ogden, this obsession has led to risible lawsuits to force Ogden Mayor Matthew Godfrey off the November ballot.... The lawsuit is ridiculous and a waste of time. Like a similar, merit-less complaint filed by Littrell against the mayor in September, it will be dismissed. Godfrey’s opponent, Susan Van Hooser, and candidates for Ogden City Council have not registered their personal campaign committees with the city. But we never saw frivolous lawsuits against them. Hmmm? "
Oh, my. Where to begin with that? Let's start here: the SE announces, twice, that Ms. Littrell's suit is "ridiculous" [risible means laughable]. Guys, the matter is in court. The SE is assuming the case has no merit, which at this point makes no more sense than Ms. Littrell's supporters assuming it has great merit. We're all going to have to wait and see how the court deals with it, annoying as that might be. Risky, always to assume what a court will do. Why, I remember when Utahans in high dudgeon, and even editorial writers, were dashing off letters and editorials denouncing the Sierra Club suit over the original Legacy Highway design as a ridiculous [dare I say risible?] time wasting nuisance suit that the courts would toss out immediately. Didn't happen.
As for the SE's " But we never saw frivolous lawsuits against them.[Other candidates, and in particular Ms. Hooser.] Hmmm? " That's a ludicrous comparison to make. Mayor Godfrey is an incumbent with an eight year record in office. Councilwoman Van Hooser is the challenger with a year on the City Council. To liken their situations, and to draw conclusions from that about why there are what the SE considers hate-motivated suits against the one but not the other, is... well, it's nonsense. When Ms. Van Hooser becomes Mayor, and if she serves two terms, there will be those who, by the end of it, will have developed a passionate dislike for her [no matter how well or badly she is judged by the general public to have done]. I absolutely gaa-rhon--tee it, as they say down on the Bayou. And thus the potential for "hate" driven suits in one case is far greater that for the other. The SE editorial board knows this. Or should.
"Some of the 61 plaintiffs in the lawsuit say they had no idea they were taking Godfrey to court. They told Standard-Examiner reporter Scott Schwebke they thought they were signing a petition. At least one plaintiff, Robert Cato, of Ogden, wants his name removed from the lawsuit."
Like it or not, Rudi, and regardless of what you think it says about the signers, this is true. We both might wish it was not, but it is.
"In any event, these Godfrey opponents are not trying to win the November election on the merits. Their win-at-any-cost obsession against the Ogden city administration is an embarrassment. We are pleased that mayoral candidate Van Hooser has urged the petitioners to drop the lawsuit. We hope they do. There are far more important issues to debate."
I'm hard put to criticize the editors for that, since I concur in it all.
"But there is another reason we condemn these political obsessions. This lawsuit feeds into an assumption that many of Godfrey’s opponents are motivated by a dislike, even hatred, for the mayor. That assumption is untrue, of course, but small-minded, petty actions by a few, such as the lawsuit, provide oxygen for the stereotype of the “angry, obsessive anti-Godfrey” activist."
From different premises [I am a Van Hoover supporter], I agree again with the editors' general point. [And sorry, Rudi, but posts in the past two years right here on WCF indicate beyond reasonable doubt that some people do in fact hate the Mayor. They have in fact said exactly that is some posts, as I recall. Unfortunate, I agree, but there it is. The SE goes over the top in implying that that is what drove Ms. Littrell to file, and so criticizes her unfairly in that regard, but that some are motivated by that seems irrefutable to me.]
"What the city needs, in this final month of the campaign, is a full discussion of the issues and differences between the mayor and his challenger. There are many points to discuss: economic development, bringing more businesses to Ogden, protecting the environment, the future of Historic 25th Street, the future of the gondola, construction around The Junction, how to most effectively fight gangs and crime, the higher rate of poverty in Ogden, effective community policing Both candidates have distinct ideas on these and other issues...."
Absolutely right.
" For the obsessives, who chirp foolishly at the edges, we have only contempt."
Ah, SE. The editorial has as one of its messages the sound idea that excessive passion leading to "hate" in campaigning is bad for the body politic. I could not agree more. But having conveyed that sound message, they blow it at the end with "we have only contempt."
Contempt? Not a whole lot removed from "hate," is it? In fact, I think you could reasonably argue that "contempt" is one of the common precursors to "hate." And so, in the end, the SE contributes to just the kind of venomous political climate it purports to bemoan.
As I said, not one of the editors' better efforts.
John Spencer:
You have a very low threshold for what constitutes an "attack." Ms. Van Hooser opined that the suit was ill-advised [meaning she disagreed with Ms. Littrell about its wisdom]. That hardly constitutes an attack. At no point did she attack Ms. Littrell personally, or her motives, or denigrate her. She merely said she thought her filing the suit was ill-advised and would not reflect well on the City.
As I said, you have a low threshold for what constitutes an "attack" in public affairs. Mr. Brown attacked Councilman Garcia in his now famous out-of-control rant in the Council chamber. Some posters at WCF "attack" Mayor Godfrey with some regularity. But a Councilwoman and candidate disagreeing about the wisdom of someone filing a lawsuit hardly constitutes an "attack" on the filer.
By your standard, every time any councilmen disagreed with another council member about anything, they'd be "attacking" them.
A good attack in politics begins with something like this: "Look, you miserable misbegotten son of a sea snake..." But "I think what you did was ill-advised" doesn't even come close.
"At no point did she attack Ms. Littrell personally, or her motives, or denigrate her."
Van Hooser said Littrell's lawsuit was a "black eye" for Ogden.
Are you daft, or just basically dishonest?
John Spencer:
You wrote: Are you daft, or just basically dishonest?
Neither. She said it did not reflect well upon the city. That's what a black eye for Ogden means. What do you think it means? I sort of agree with Councilwoman Van Hooser on that, though I might have phrased it differently. But like Councilwoman Van Hooser [and the SE which agrees with her on this point], I'd rather have Ogden thought of as a city that settles the question of who should be its next mayor at the polls, not via law suit.
The only one who attacked [unfairly I think] Ms. Littrell personally in this discussion is the SE editorial by implying her suit was motivated by fanatical rancor for Godfrey bordering on hate.
I don't know Ms. Littrell myself. I may have met her once at a Council meeting a long time ago. Don't recall for sure. I know she is very concerned about property rights, and spear headed a challenge to the city's use of eminent domain procedures to assemble large lots for the benefit of private corporations like Wal-Mart. She was right to be concerned about that, and the Utah State Legislature, in a momentary fit of Republican sanity, made use of eminent domain procedures by municipalities much more difficult than they had been before.
It's perfectly possible, seems to me, that Ms. Littrell believes the Godfrey administration poses such a threat to private property rights and the public weal because of its shall we say cavalier treatment of rules and regulations it should be bound by --- which cavalier treatment the SE has itself taken the Godfrey administration to task for more than once --- that she thinks something like legal proceedings to insure his removal from office is justified. I don't share that opinion, but if that is her opinion, it is not on its face a trivial one. The SE was wrong, I think, to assume that her motive was fanatical animus or hatred. The editorial offered no evidence that it was.
But your claim that Ms. Van Hooser has "attacked" Ms. Littrell simply by disagreeing about the wisdom of filing the lawsuit and by having a different view about its impact on the city than she does is no more defensible than the SE's editorial assumptions about Ms. Littrell's motives.
Did anyone attend SVH's get together at the two bit cafe last nite?
If so, give us the flavor of the remarks she made to her supporters.
Mercy:
All I can say about her drawing power as a candidate is that Mr. Bob Geiger attended the fund-raiser.
Can this woman bridge political divides or what!
Did Bob donate so he would be entitled to the refreshments? Did he eat on the cheap and then run?
How large a crowd? Did Geiger ask SVH questions?
You are usually verbose, Curm. Do you have a canape stuck in your throat?
Mercy:
Ahem. I am never verbose but endeavor always to express my ideas, opinions and points of view, in the leanest, sparest, most economical grammatical constructions as may be within my reach, grasp or domain at any given time period or moment.
I'm hurt that you think me verbose. Cut to the very quick, I am.
I have to laugh at this....
Fiscal Responsibility and Accountability - Our elected officials must be responsible and accountable to the community we serve. This means making sure that your hard-earned tax dollars are spent wisely and responsibly.
This is what Blaine Johnson has on his web site.
Blaine if you are for Accountability and say that Our elected officials must be responsible and accountable to the community we serve. This means making sure that your hard-earned tax dollars are spent wisely and responsibly. Then please do tell just how did 3 million bucks end up in the Ogden community foundation and how would you account for where the money is being spent? please do tell. Or this statement makes one hell of a lier out out of YOU.
well, geez, Curm...after all that you didn't answer Mercy's questions!
So, if you were there, tell us in your sparsest, most economical but scintillating style what the heck went on at Susies gala!
I wasn't up to attending, and thot she would be uncomfortable with a NAMED plaintiff there!
And hurry up, as I have to hit the feathers. Thank you.
Well this is what I found on Royals web page.
I am a fiscal conservative from my business education and from experience running a business. I value the worth of a dollar and its ability to be invested wisely for return on capital. Taxes are sacred monies and fiduciary responsibility must be exercised to maximize their deployment and assessment. The Ogden taxpayer is the boss!
So Royal where are you on the 93 million debt? Are you going to increase the RDA DEBT and the give aways to the Godfrey cronies? Please explain.
Are the Taxpayer really the boss? When Godfrey said the gondola is off the table and the people say no to the gondola will you vote for it anyway?
Please do tell.
John Spencer you should vote for Godfrey: in fact I think you were planning on it before you even logged onto this blog.
John Spencer you should vote for Godfrey so you get what you deserve, the devil you know.
But I will vote for Van Hooser because she isn't the devil that I know and from what I've hear from her and what she stands for, I'll not only take my chances but I think I'll be very pleased with my choice.
Sharon:
Oh, you'd have been welcome, Sharon. Hell, I'm a Democrat. If I didn't show at political events unless everyone there agreed with me about everything, I'd never go anywhere. I'm sorry you thought disagreeing with the candidate about the wisdom of the lawsuit would have made you unwelcome. Absolutely not. Mr. Geiger was welcome -- though it may have been Curt rather than Bob my informant now tells me. I didn't run into him myself. The rooms were crowded, some people spilling out onto the sidewalk table area, and it was a little difficult circulating easily. So after noshing down on some first class eats, and $2 drafts [!]at a wonderful old bar that looked like it had been moved there intact from Nadler's Saloon on the Jersey City waterfront [one of my Dad's haunts when he was crewing tug boats as a young man], I just staked out a comfortable stretch of wall to lean against and chatted with whoever wandered by and generally people-watched. [Mrs. Curmudgeon, being about six orders of magnitude more sociable than I am on any given day, moved around more, and spoke with Mr. Geiger.]
Sharon, it was a chatty, social evening, with a minimum of speechafyin' and a lot of political chat, issues talk, strategy talk and laughing. I wouldn't feel comfortable repeating conversations taken part in or overheard.
The Candidate gave a short speech about how and why she decided to enter the race, which was interesting and well delivered and spoke to some of the major problems created by the current administration, which became clear to her, she said, as she took her place on the Council. The general tenor of her remarks was that Ogden could not be well governed with a Mayor in office who had no respect for the Council or its role in the Mayor/Council form of government, and who made no serious effort to keep the Council informed of matters is needed to be informed of in order to do its job. She has some specific examples of Administration proposals that the Council liked and was eager to see go forward... proposals involving gang violence control, for example. She noted that after making a big announcement about an anti-gangs initiative a long time ago... nothing happened. Nada. The Administration's announced program had no follow-up. So, finally, the Council began to act on its own and has initiated its own gang violence program. It was the same, she said, dealing with repair of the city's water and sewage lines. Repeated requests from Council members that the City begin planning for the expensive repairs that would have to be made, and from the Mayor, no action. Until the Council gave up waiting and acted on its own to make something happen, hiring a consultant to look into the repairs needed, and various funding alternatives, and holding public input meetings to get public feedback and keep people informed about what their government --- or at least the Council end of of --- was doing. [Now there's a novel idea: that government should keep people informed, instead of hiding what it's up to. Imagine that.] And, she noted, it was the Council which insisted that the city should do the research and get the facts first before deciding on expensive repair programs and financing options. She had other examples, but that was the gist of her remarks, I thought.
Then she took questions, some from the whole crowd and then others one on one, circulating around -- what is usually called "working the room." She seemed at ease and to be enjoying it all.
That's important, by the way. The really good ones... the good campaigners... enjoy the fight, enjoy the campaigning, and keep their good cheer throughout. Ronald Reagan was one. So was Bill Clinton. And Hubert Humphrey. And Tip O'Neil. And Alan Simpson. Rarely does someone who does not enjoy the race win it.
Just an all around pleasant evening with interesting convivial people there to support a good candidate. I wish you had been there. I think you'd have enjoyed it and found it interesting.
Sounds good, Curm. Thank you. I 'got the flavor'.
Wish I'd felt better, but being in large close crowds is a no-no for me.
So, I'll just rely on others' accounts.
Susie's remarks make sense and certainly show the reluctance of Godfrey to do much more than make big pronouncements that grab him headlines. Then no action.
It surely would be wonderful if the SE would write abut the real Godfrey...real issues...why the Council has to take the bull by the horns....why the real business of running this city is not being taken care of by a young mayor looking for his legacy.
I just shake my head in disgust at Safsten's commentary this morning. He's misinformed. He's mean-spirited and accusatory.
I wonder if he volunteered to defend his "maligned" leader or if Godfrey approached Rick?
"You write it for me, Rick. You and my fathr-in-law can sound like petty pouty 8th grade girls better than anyone. And, 'Dad's' already written to the paper and everyone else. So, will you please do it? Please? You and your family get first rides on the gondola!"
Yep...having Mayor VanHooser looking out for Ogden is a good thing! And, returning Amy to the Council to sit alongside Ardeema and Gochnour is going to be sooo good for Ogden!
Brandon may to bring a picture of Safsten to CC meetings just so he won't feel so alone!
Sharon:
On Safsten's op ed piece: sadly, he descends into precisely the kind of mud-slinging he claims to find in Littrell and others. He assigns to them the basest motives, like hate. And so commits the very sin he claims he is preaching against in others.
Mr. Safsten's piece has the look and feel of something written in haste and annoyance, rather than something written after calm consideration and careful thought. I write letters like that too sometimes. But then I put them aside for a while, and go so something else, and then come back to them and read them over before I send them. Nine times out of ten, I end up tossing the letter entirely, or seriously revising its contents in the direction of more reason and civility, less heat and rancor. Nine times out of ten, at least. Council Safsten would have served himself, his constituents and his city well had he done the same.
[For those who have not yet seen Mr. Safsten's unfortunate op ed piece, it can be found here.]
Ogden’s slow, consistent move upward can continue if we’re civil
Just went to Matt Godfrey re-election web page.
Interesting that he doesn't mention that he worked for the city (but was fired) for about a year during his extensive work career (maybe 4 years in the private sector at most) prior to becoming mayor. Yes, this man has extensive real world business experience.
This is the guy that bragged to have amassed 45 rental units financed with his credit card within a shortly after getting out of college (Desert News article dated Apr 9, 2000). He took a big risk in being so leveraged when he bought all those rental units, but he knew that if the business strategy didn’t work out, that they couldn’t get blood out of a turnip.
Seems to me, that Godfrey is using the same high risk, high leveraging business strategy with Ogden City finances and of course it’s easier to gamble with other people’s money.
People that have limited business experience or who haven’t been in the market for an extensive period of time tend to think that markets only move in one direction, those that have been around for a while, know better. That’s why the more experienced tend to be more risk adverse than those new to the market. All of us have witnessed the recent melt down of the mortgage loan business lately; hopefully this won’t happen to Ogden.
Godfrey is touting his business experienced to voters as a justification as to why he is more qualified than Susie Van Hooser. Seems to me, that the majority of the business experience that he’s actually had in his short career is that of taking big risks with other people’s money.
Googleboy, you are too optimistic. Stop wondering if you are.
Also, you seem to be a proponent of the gondola to WSU. Where do you think that 'private' money is going to come from?
Are you naive or just a LO member trying to schmooze us?
Googleboy,
Are you suggesting that we bite our tongues relative to Safstens article in todays paper or that he is part of the problem?
Googleboy,
People go into the Junction on the weekends. Great!
Others say it's hard to find anyone there during the week. How much money is being spent by those dragging small children thru there? Can they afford to let the kids buy rides?
So, we'll have office space filled up...and people living downtown. Uh huh....where are the stores? Will Ogden realize a lot of revenue from the Costa Vida?
JC Penney just opened in another close by town!
Not Ogden...where it had been located and enjoyed by thousands. What a homecoming for everyone if Penney's had relocated here!
How wonderful if we had TJ Maxx, Ross, and the other stores and restaurants in and around the Junction!
Who will get the revenues now?
WE'll get to go downtown and peer into offices!! Maybe hang around and see tenants coming in and out of their dwellings.
Oh yes, we 'naysayers' are real proud of the job Godfrey has done...he and his A-Team. The front of the Junction is so gaudy and tawdry...who the &^$#%^&* designed that? Who the *&^%$ okayed it?
I'm surprised Salomen agreed to put their name there. We're all thrilled with the construction site too. Should be lovely after this last storm and the snows coming soon.
Yep, Mayor Godfrey...your excellent business experience has been an experience for us all to shudder over for as long as we are indentured to the rec center and your other visions.
Porter says,
"... and that the people who approve of his new position on the golf course will now engage him in a productive discussion on where to go from here regarding Ogden redevelopment and transit."
For crap's sake, Don, That is all that SGO wanted all along. You are pretty late to them game suggesting that. Nevertheless, maybe you can encourage the mayor to engage in productive discussion...
The nerve of these newspaper types, framing the last couple years into some neat bundle for which he now has the ultimate resolution.
Try checking the SGO website and the Ogden Sierra club, Don.
I can't help noticing that the SE published Safsten's commentary without insisting that an opposing view be published simultaneously.
Now it is possible that they asked several people, especially Dorothy Littrell, and none were willing to write anything, but I sorta doubt it. I know for a fact that neither I nor Mr. Ogdenlover were invited to the party and Don Porter knows that we both can write up a storm.
Seems there is one set of standards for pro-Godfrey writers and another for people like Dan Schroeder.
OL:
Well, I think the objection the SE had to publishing Dan's piece solo was that it would have appeared just days before the primary vote, and for that reason, it would not have been fair to include it without giving Hizzonah adjacent space to address the same issue. The SE did offer to publish Dan's piece solo just after the primary.
I can see some point to the SE's argument, at least as far as offering Hizzonah adjacent space to write on the same topic. But when the paper made the offer, and he declined, seems to me the SE had fulfilled its ethical obligations, and should have gone ahead with Dan's piece. What the SE did was, in effect, grant the Mayor a veto over an essay it would otherwise have published, a veto exercised by the Mayor's refusal to write a companion piece.
Not wise policy, seems to me, for a paper that prides itself on its independence... as every decent daily should.
Van Hooser/Godfrey Debate Update
Susan Van Hooser's website has a post, dated today, containing information about her up-coming debate with Mayor Godfrey. Here are the opening graphs:
Please come if you can to the first mayoral candidates' debate since the primary. The debate is sponsored by two WSU student organizations and will be held at noon on Friday, October 12, in the Wattis Business Smith Lecture Hall at WSU. The event is free and open to the public.
And, she adds
We're trying hard to schedule at least one more debate, and we'll announce it here when we get the details worked out.
More information on the Van Hooser for Mayor website here.
Once you're there, scroll down on her "Recent Campaign News" inset box for other interesting releases.
Now this Rick Saftsen feller, the one who says Dorothy Littrell is full of hatred and cynicism - ain't he the same feller who said the folks that wanted to save the golf course were anti progress, backward, naysayers and so on. 'Cept now he himself is one of the ones who claims to want to save the golf course.
I think I understand Rick. The way you know which people he disagrees with is that they are the people he calls all the bad words.
It's call narcissism - having a god complex - or self worship. But some folks just call it being a silly man.
Ran into a neighbor of mine from down the street a couple of days ago and while conversing with her I asked her about her feelings with the up coming mayoral elections. She said that she was for Godfrey because she didn’t think that Van Hooser was qualified. I asked what she meant by that and I reminded her that Godfrey had very little experience at anything when he came into office. She stuttered and stammered a little and then vaguely suggested that she wasn’t qualified because Van Hooser wasn’t a member of the Mormon Church. Now I know this neighbor well enough to know she is not an independent thinker and knew someone was planting this thought in her head. I also know that she had recently been at a church meeting as it came up during the conversation.
I sure hope that Godfrey and his supporters aren’t using religion as another reason to divide this community. I hope that those in leadership roles within the Mormon Church ensure that this type of discrimination is not tolerated or condoned and explain to their Ward members that a person’s vote should be based on the candidate’s platform and not their religion. Any candidate’s platform that more nearly matches the voter’s vision of how the community should be run is more important than their religion. This type of discrimination is never healthy for our Church or for the City, but especially when we are considering who we vote for or when we are trying to recruit new companies to relocate in our town.
Almost everyone I know who supports VanHooser and the female city council candidates is LDS, as am I. The church is strictly neutral, but does say to support good and wise people who share our own view of the proper role of government. A letter from the First Presidency to that effect, is read from the pulpit in all LDS meeting houses before each national election.
So people who claim that Godfrey and his "pod people" ticket are endorsed by the church are liars, who are violating church policy, it seems to me.
Why is it that it seems the Godfrey supporters are the liars, the sign stealers, and the ones who get testy real fast? Hmmmm.
SE Extends Its Reach/Expands Its Tenticles [Pick one, depending on your view of the SE]
Amid all the hoo-raw and commentary on the SE editorial and Mr. Safsten's op ed piece, nobody has commented on the news in Managing Editor Andy Howell's Saturday "Behind the Headlines" column. Lots in it worth noting.
Howell reports that the SE is "not just a newspaper anymore." It's delving --- deep --- into digital offerings, video production and even local news shows.
We are expanding our video production [Howell writes] to include longer mini-documentaries and programs designed to run independently on a regular basis. We have an agreement to air these productions on Channel 17 in Ogden and Davis County, as well as in Comcast Cable’s On Demand video section. This gives us an expanded number of platforms from our normal print and Web operations.
[ Ahem. I will pass over in pained silence a newspaper man, a print guy for god's sake, talking about --- or even using the term --- "an expanded number of platforms." This from the managing editor of a paper that has a hot-metal Linotype machine in its lobby. Sigh.]
Howell goes on: Last month we premiered two such offerings — a 30-minute documentary called “Climbing Half Dome” and a new monthly video magazine called “Top of Utah Today." “Climbing Half Dome” documents the harrowing 22-hour technical climb up the face of the Yosemite landmark by Outdoors Editor Robert Johnson and climbing companion Glen Kaplan.
“Top of Utah Today” is hosted by Online News Producer Amorie Pickett and features the best Standard-Examiner videos and audio slideshows of the previous month.
What, you doubtless are asking yourselves --- well, I am --- is a newspaper doing getting involved video production and such like? Here's the concept, again according to Howell:
We envision the Standard’s video offerings to be a blend of C-SPAN, with regular coverage of city council meetings; CNN, with a daily newscast for the Top of Utah; PBS, with documentary films; The Discovery Channel, with educational programing; The National Geographic Channel, with exciting outdoor videos; and other entertainment programs. All with local content.
Two things in all that pastiche of trendy digital glitter caught my eye: "regular coverage of city council meetings... [and] a daily newscast for the Top of Utah."
Both of those could be good things. The first is long overdue, and the second could get Ogden at least a bit out of the news shadow of SLC broadcast journalism for the reading-is-so-boring set. I am cautiously optimistic, but as always, the devil will be in the details.
Howell's column, with more detail on the SE's plans, can be found here.
Local Oaf Rick Safsten can suck it; we all know where he stoops, and it's below the Geigers' decks, about mid-range...slurp! The most telling thing in Don "I bow down to every nonsensical whim of Squirrel Patroller Lee Carter" Porter's "editorial" is this: "the future of the gondola." There is no gondola, there never will be, Wayne Peterson and his famed Squirrel Patrol will not build one, UDOT will never allow one: yet, Lee Carter, Csmoker, and member of the famed Squirrel Patrol thinks there's a future. Have you ever seen "Dumb and Dumber:" So you're sayin' there's a chance! Here's my friendly advice to newbie, certified Squirrel Patroller, Lee Carter (and you can give him the message, Porter, you asshat, douche): There will never be a GONDOLA in OTown. Go back to whatever midwestern shithole from which you came. You make me sick, you Geiger.
Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger...
Local Oaf Rick Safsten can suck it; we all know where he stoops! The most telling thing in Don "I bow down to every nonsensical whim of Squirrel Patroller Lee Carter" Porter's "editorial" is this: "the future of the gondola." There is no gondola, there never will be, Wayne Peterson and his famed Squirrel Patrol will not build one, UDOT will never allow one: yet, Lee Carter, Csmoker, and member of the famed Squirrel Patrol thinks there's a future. Have you ever seen "Dumb and Dumber:" So you're sayin' there's a chance! Here's my friendly advice to newbie, certified Squirrel Patroller, Lee Carter (and you can give him the message, Porter, you a**hat, d*****): There will never be a GONDOLA in OTown. Go back to whatever midwestern s***hole from which you came. You make me sick, you Geiger.
Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger, Geiger...
Oh, this is getting good. People that miss the point, Daftsten's editorial hack painting poor Matthew as the victim of hatemongers. The sad thing is that voter's are sheep and will fall into the trap. Even sadder is that many in government use that "with us or against us" slant. Good or bad, at least one citizen has stood up for what is right. I note that Daftsten is claiming what many short sighted, knee-jerkers are, the point of the suit is campaign fraud and MONEY not reported. The campaign committee names are only a minor part. Anyway, however it turns out, this kind of shake-up needs to happen to get politicians to at least follow the rules, as being ethical would be a stretch. Oh, by the way, did Godfrey's father have to die at virtually the same time as the lawsuit? How inconsiderate.
In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.
Alexander Hamilton
Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation. It is better be alone than in bad company.
It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one.
George Washington
I remember that there were rumors (albeit, unconfirmed) in Godfrey's last re-election 4 years ago, that there was talk during LDS Church services leading up to the election about members voting for (church member) Godfrey. Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but was Godfrey not a Bishop at the time of his re-election or just before then? I am not trying to start a religious war or anything but I did hear that from two entirely different sources LDS church members were "encouraged" to vote Godfrey. I have also been told that it did not happen at all, but I have heard that song and dance before ("oh, we don't teach that in our religion") on something completely unrelated to Godfrey but about the LDS church. I will be the first to admit that I did not get this information from a direct source, but it was enough to make me wonder and not be surprised at all.
BTW anyone would be a fool to believe that religion does not have any influence in Utah politics.
Dear Waterboy:
Not only did Lying Little Matty Gondola Godfrey insert religion into his public office, he "proclaimed" he has been "foreordained" to lead OTown to God with a GONDOLA. That's his divine "vision." And, his senile, impotent loser father-in-law loves his "precious character." C'mon, Dr. Eddie, you drug-addled pile of crap: you are as full of shit as a Christmas goose. "Ohhh! Sometimes those referees call against the Jazz! And the paper calls against my little wife-slapping, gondola pal!' You deluded pile of kimchi! Take your meds! Eddie! You embarrass your ward!
And, Good Old (?) Curmudgeon:
It was Short-deck whose hubris was great enough to attend Susie's fest Friday. THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE was out saving communities with GONDOLAS.
THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE
Jason:
Yes, so I've been informed. I'm glad he was there. We can always hope that his standing there,listening to Candidate Van Hooser speak common sense plainly, will have a good long term effect. Some of it might... eventually... seep in.
I know, I know, but hey... I'm a Liberal Democrat. I think under the right circumstances, anyone is capable of improvement. Yes, anyone.
I understand that Safsten's guest commentary was a surprise to Dorothy Littrell.
She was not asked to submit her side of the issue.
So much for The Standard's code of ethics which they claim to be fair, honest and impartial in their reporting.
Ogdenlover,
Why don't YOU submit a rebuttal to Daftsen's whine? (Daftsten..clever).
No, Dorothy wasn't asked to rebut. Fairness? From the SE? If any of us believe that, we'd be visionaries too.
Saftsen's remark about Dorothy's lawsuit coming at the time of Mr. Godfrey's death, is stunning in it's crudity and insensitivity.
But Wait! Rick's been hanging around the foreordained visionary so long, he just transferred those abilities to see the future (and it is ours') to Dorothy!
How clever of her...using her
"medium" abilities. Next she'll be asked by the cops to solve crimes! Instead of being upset at the timing....Godfrey and Safsten could use her "I see dead people" talents to help Godfrey in his crime fighting capers. Why, think of it...every time she got a vision or impression that someone was about to die in a gang shooting, she could alert the cops who would scurry over, break up the fight, and it would all be reported as mischief or loud partying, thus protecting the mayor's deflated crime stats!
What a woman. Maybe she should be our next mayor...not only is she visionary...but she also has REAL business experience!
Hey Curm,
You saw Geiger at VSH's "do". Was he eating the food?
If so, was he just mooching or did he make a donation to Susie's campaign for the privilege of enjoying the refreshments?
Is the SE so beholden to Godfrey for the SE's bldg that they STILL have to kiss his skinny butt?
I mean, if the SE ever took Godfrey to task and printed all his corrupt deals, malfesance and cronyisms...what will Godfrey do? Take back the SE bldg?
Think about it.
I really don't like giving such a baffoon as safsten the time of day,but, he seems to not be in touch with his owns emotions or motivations.
Hatred and cynicism, and in safsten's case one might add a sense of guilt as well.
Over the past 2 years I have attended so many Council meetings and council work sessions that I've lost count. "yes lying little matty" safsten has on numerous occasions has, as a matter of record, attacked Ms. Litrell, for everything he has suspected her involvement. This goes clear back to the eminent domain Walmart attempted land grab, thru the can fiasco,(yet to be resolved) and now, election laws. safsten has been so busy licking lying little matty's boots that he fails to see a taxpaying constituent raising questions and concerns about the way her government is going about things. Clearly her right.
One could also argue that she's been technically right, on every call, though lying little matty has yet to suffer the consequenses for his behavior. Oh yea, hey safsten, all these issues have been reactions to improprieties committed by you and your guy. Who's acting out of hatred?
I'm quite sure that on filing the suit that the clairvoyant Ms. Litrell requested the COURT to serve the mayor on the day of the funeral, it might be in the filing document," SEARCH THE OBITUARIES TO DETERMINE THE TIME AND DATE FOR SERVING".
Safsten, you have been blinded by hate, at one time we were almost obliged to cut you some slack due to circumstances, but now, eat chain.
THIS JUST IN...... FOX NEWS HAS JUST TAKIN OVER OGDEN UTAHS NEWSPAPER......NO GEIGER SIGHTINGS HAVE BEEN BEEN REPORTED YET BUT KEEP A CLOSE EYE OUT...... YOU KNOW WE WONT . THEY SURE ARE SNEAKY DEVILS !!! BACK TO YOU SHORT DECK.....
If wally world mart had been built in the o town how much would Godfrey been bought off, I mean given as a donation to re-election campaign?
Isn't that how the R & O contruction plays?
For the Record and Sharon:
Your criticism of the SE for running the Safsten piece solo seems a little... but only a little... off the mark. Ms. Littrell is not running for office. Neither is Mr. Safsten. So Ms. Littrell has time to reply, as a candidate might not to a hit-piece appearing solo merely days before the polls open.
On the other hand, the SE editors have, in the past, asked for someone to do a parallel piece on the opposite side of a matter on which they received one op ed piece, and since Mr. Safsten's piece plainly attacks one women directly, a sense of fairness might have impelled the editors to offer Ms. Littrell adjacent space. I probably would have. But I probably would have rejected the Safsten piece in the first place as too personal and emotional an attack to have appeared on the op ed page in the first place, where [I presume] the goal is to encourage reasoned discussion of public matters. Maybe it merited appearing in the "Flowers and Darts" on line section. At most.
I expect if Ms. Littrell submits a reply, or one of her defenders does, it will appear [presuming it meets all other standards applied to op ed pieces]. Newspaper hawkers love controversy. It sells papers.
But I hope Ms. Littrell does not reply and I hope her defenders do not. For if she does, it will serve merely to extend the focus of the paper and the public even longer on her ill-advised and ill-timed law suit, and it will for still longer shove aside and bury under the continuing controversy the election and the issues that ought to be being discussed, by both sides, as part of that contest. Besides, Safsten's piece was so over the top, such an exercise in personal and partisan mud-slinging, that I doubt it will have convinced many who do not already share his views on the matter. He was preaching to the choir. So will Ms. Littrell be doing if she replies.
Sometimes, the way to triumph in spats such as these is to let your opponents unreasoning anger stand for all to see. Period. Firing back in kind achieves little or nothing, in such circumstances but to rivet peoples' attention on the mudslinging for yet another round.
Exactly right, Curm; and an added point.
Parties in pending lawsuits ought not be speaking to the press about the the substance of their cases -- period.
Godfrey and Williams certainly know better; yet they spouted off at length on the merits at least two days running.
As for the various plaintiffs who made comments to the Standard-Examiner within the past two days -- they should simply "button it."
"Trying" the case in the press isn't merely inelegant, but can be arguably unethical in certain instances.
While it's probably ok for a plaintiff or defendant to speak publicly about whether their case is "meritorious" or their opponent's case is "without merit," arguing their facts and legal theories in the media can get parties to lawsuits into serious hot water.
What bunk, Curm.
So far, one debate is scheduled between Susie and Godfrey. It was announced on her website. That really informs the populace.
So, your advice is to let the SE's vitriolic and incorrect editorial and Safstens', crude, vulgar and 'hate filled' rant stand???
Is that going to let the voters, those that read, have a fair and clear picture of what is going on?
The SE has adamantly refused to bring Godfrey's wretched record to light. Any wrist slapping they petend to have proferred has been administered with a feather.
An erudite author could put together a commentary detailing Godfrey's 7 years of secret combinations without a hint of rancor. "Just the facts, m'am".
Then the ten percent who read, at last, would have the truth for a welcome change.
Ogdenlover, Bill C (without the profanity) and a few others could do a first-rate rebuttal.
Your sense of "fairness", Curm, gets in the way of logic. You often tell us how you take the SE to task, but then you dilute any criticism, by singing like the Fiddler on the Roof: "But, on the other hand....".
Well, the other hand needs to come forth with an expose of Godfrey's miserable record, filled with FACTS. Using FACTS, instead of rancor will give the reading voters clarity.
BTW, I said nothing of putting Dorothy's lawsuit into the rebuttal. Just Godfrey's wretched record.
Bob Cato didn't read what he signed!
Now, another "gentleman" who professes deep animus toward Godfrey and his administration, and who was very eager to sign on as a plaintiff changed his mind.
That's fine. What isn't fine is that he called the atty to have his name removed. The suit was already filed, so that little action was billed to Ms Littrell to the tune of $150.00!! One is hard pressed to believe that the atty didn't apprise this 'gentleman" of the fee for his change of mind.
A gentleman would have paid the bill he incurred. A gentleman would now insist on paying the bill instead of putting the onus on Ms. Littrell.
Speaking of bias and lack of integrity with regards to the editorial folks at the Standard, why have they not commented on the more than frivolous lawsuit the mayor has filed on the property owner on 25th st? The one with the most accurate artistic rendering of true public sentiment.
This suit is a rehash of an issue that has been dealt with before, with the mayor losing the first go round. Freedom of speach.
I should think the fact that the mayor is again actively trying to deny this property owner his constitutional rights, after losing once before, should be extremely news worthy.
But we must concider the fact that this may not reflect to positively on the mayor could be another biased ommission on behalf of the local paper.
I have been given a note by a coworker that says there's a candidate forum at Ogden High tonight (Mon Oct 8) at 7 pm.
I can't be there, but I wonder if anyone on WCF can confirm this?
Sharon, as hard as it is,(commenting on the evils of lying little matty) I don't recall that I've resorted to profanity. This is not to say that one initial impulse would not be to respond in such a mannor.
I have exercized a deal of restaint.
"Matt" is a four letter word.
Dear Sharon:
The issues are not working for Godfrey. In the primary, when the issues were the primary focus of attention, he lost six out of every ten votes cast. They worked so badly for him, he had to back off, publicly, his park sale plan, and people were still so skeptical, he had to promise to find a way to lock the land in public ownership --- or at least say he would. That's how toxic a focus on the issues was to his re-election prospects. They led 60% of the voters to say "no" to a third Godfrey term.
Under those circumstances, if I were the incumbent, I'd desperately want to get the voters attention off the issues and on to something else. Along comes the law suit --- which I would have considered, and I suspect Godfrey considers, a gift from god --- and suddenly, the focus of the press, and the public [based on my continued shameless eavesdropping] is no long the silly gondola plan or people's not trusting Godfrey or his ignoring gang violence until the election loomed. All of a sudden all the discussion is about the lawsuit, and Ms. Littrell [who is not running for office], and now Mr. Safsten [who is not running for office]. "Did you see what Rick Safsten said about that lawsuit in the paper" is a winning discussion for Godfrey because the people engaged in it are not talking about the issues he lost them on by a margin of 6-4, but about something else instead.
As long as the conversational buzz among undecideds as we approach the election is "did you see what Safsten said about the law suit" and not "Jeez, Godfrey still wants to build this foolish gondola thing"?, it serves Godfrey's purposes.
His advocates... like Mr. Safsten... will keep stirring the lawsuit/Littrell pot as long as they possibly can, and keep hoping people reply in kind. It serves their purposes well.
Mono, the meeting you refer to, is a continuation of the neighborhood meeting that was held at the Red Cross building 2 weeks ago. It's about gangs, crime and such.
Candidates running on more taxpayer funded development may not receive such a warm welcome.
Mono:
I don't think its strictly speaking a candidate forum. I think its another community meeting called to discuss gangs and crime, and that candidates will be present for it, and probably part of the discussion. I don't know how many candidates for how many offices, or which ones. I was told it was similar to the community meeting on gangs and violence held in central Ogden just before the primary. That's all I have. Trying to find out more.
Bill C:
You ask: Speaking of bias and lack of integrity with regards to the editorial folks at the Standard, why have they not commented on the more than frivolous lawsuit the mayor has filed on the property owner on 25th st?
Well, maybe because that law suit does not seek to remove a candidate for mayor from the ballot that the voters put him on. How's that for openers?
Again, I said nothing about invoking the lawsuit into a rebuttal commentary.
Godfrey's wrteched record should be the focal point.
Which date is the cut-off for a commentary detailing Godfrey's machinations?
That would be a good time to have a commentary in the paper.
No rancor...no mention of the lawsuit...just Godfrey's record. And, Bill C......sorry about the profanity....maybe deleting the colorful names?
Sure, Godfrey only rec'd 40% of the vote...out of how many casting their votes?
More people, hopefully, will turn out in Nov...but they need more to enlighten them than Don Porter and Safsten and the othr apologists who will turn up on the editorial pages like box elder bugs swarming over warm bricks.
Curm, all the previos engagements between the mayor and this property owner dominated the headlines, this is a continuation of those proceedings, the fact they don't cover it surely reflects bias.
Is not the same mayor seeking re-election? Was he not found guilty of denying this property owner his right to free speech? Did not this mayor waste tax dollars in his pursuit of these dealings? This is quite newsworthy, and should be covered.
Fascinating 2003 article on the subject of the "political hate speech" epithet -- twisted rhetorical jargon calculated to short-circuit the "thinking" process.
"Over the last two months, the Republican Party has begun a systematic effort to label attacks on President Bush by Democratic presidential candidates as "political hate speech," a new piece of political jargon intended to delegitimize criticism of Bush....
"Like "Enronomics" and "Daschlenomics", "political hate speech" is a carefully crafted term designed to create a hazy, non-logical association between two concepts. In this case, the phrase associates criticism of the president with "hate speech," which generally refers to speech that attacks others on the basis of their race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation. Of course, some rhetoric directed toward President Bush could fairly be described as hateful (just like any politician), but Republicans have used the term sweepingly to try to delegitimize nearly all criticism of Bush, regardless of its substance. This is a key tactic of political jargon, which often seeks to undermine the legitimacy of criticism by invoking hazy but powerful emotional symbols."
The Republican assault on "political hate speech"
Substitute the word "Godfrey" for "Bush," and "usual suspects" or "naysayers" for the words "liberal" and "democrat," and you'll see why this fuzzy rhetorical terminology is popping up in recent Godfreyite screeds, of which Safsten's Op-ed piece is but the latest.
It's straight from the right wing socialist (NeoCON) playbook.
Once again these sick people reveal themselves as devious master manipulators.
Why wasn't this story in the standard this morning? OH that is because crime is down in OGDEN, I FORGOT.....
Ogden police find gunshot victim, but little information on shooting
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 10/08/2007 08:12:29 AM MDT
Posted: 8:15 AM- Police in Ogden are trying to determine why someone shot a man in the stomach last night.
About 11:30 p.m. Sunday, police received a report of gunfire and a second report saying someone received a gunshot wound in the 1700 block of Pingree Ave. Officers arrived and could not find anyone injured nor any cooperating witnesses, said Lt. Scott Sangberg.
Officers checked at McKay Dee Hospital and McKay-Dee Hospital and found a 35-year-old man with a gunshot wound to the stomach, but the victim did not tell police what happened, Sangberg said.
The wounded man is expected to survive. Six casings from a .45-caliber gun were found in the 1700 block of Pingree, Sangberg said.
Anyone with information about the shooting can reach Ogden police by calling 801-629-8221.
Too funny, Do what is right. Once again your blogmeister is "scooped" by his own attentive and clever readers.
In truth, we had intended to include the latest Emerald City crime story in a "potpourri" article later today; and indeed we do still intend to do that.
Stay tuned.
Curmudgeon continues to state that the lawsuit is "ill-advised and ill-timed". So when is the right time to bring to light a candidate's failure to follow the rules? Why is it ill-advised that a citizen should want to see the government bound by the rules? It has to be now, before the election. Like it or not. Also, if in your opinion, any citizen's rights should be restricted, impeded, or disallowed because an election is iminent, then aren't we either back to deep southern politics or moving toward becoming the USSR, China, Iraq, Iran, or any number of oppressive, dictatorship countries? The beauty of the Constitution is that We the People have rights, and a duty to place checks and balances on government (including those running for government). When we fail to respect the Constitution and it's protections, we will give in to tyranny. If we do not hold our government to a higher standard than the populace we will indeed be crushed by the monster we help to create. There is no other time to pursue this suit and I don't know anyone who would advise a person to relinquish their civil rights because of public opinion. I understand what you are saying about leaving the decision to the voters. However, if the candidates do not follow the election rules, and are caught, who do they have to blame? Now that the cat is out of the bag, Godfrey could file a similar suit against SVH, except that she probably reported all her contributions. Give it a rest, the suit is likely not going away.
Do what...
Nice catch. Thanks.
Curmudgeon and the Standard:
Ah, what linkage and what a pair to draw to!
While I agree it might have been best if Dorothy had not filed her law suit, I totally disagree with both of you old dinosaurs on the reasons.
In my mind the filing of the suit runs the risk of benefiting the midget with the "sympathy vote". Those people, like you two, who will interpret the law suit as an unfair bullying tactic, will end up feeling sorry for the little felon and voting for him because bad people are picking on him. I also find it hard to believe that a Utah judge would actually remove an incumbent mayor for these infractions.
Incidentally, the law suit alleges a lot more than just some minor filing irregularities. Seems like there are many thousands of dollars that have gone unreported by Godfrey as required by the law.
You decry this brave move by the patriot Dorothy as re-directing the message away from the little guy's true foibles and onto some sort of Red Herring that Dorothy has conjured up.
I think her law suit is actually all about the very most important aspect of this election. That is Godfrey's integrity, or lack of it.
He routinely breaks the laws of the state and city in his normal activities. He makes his own rules up as he goes. He lies when the truth is better. He ignores any other rules that are not especially tailored to suit his specific needs of the moment.
For instance he, and his entire administration of empty suits, have continued to flaunt the state laws on the filing of conflict of interest forms. Never once has he, or they, filed these forms, not once.
He lies, he defies the laws of the land, he holds himself above the laws. These irregularities that are at the heart of Dorothy's law suit are just the tip of a very large illegal ice berg that is the Godfrey administration.
So I think her very brave action in filing this suit is in fact all about the very issue that is the greatest of all in this election.
Matt Godfrey breaks any and every law that he finds inconvenient. As mayor he is supposed to uphold and protect the laws, yet he breaks them routinely and with no recourse from the normal law enforcement agencies.
Go Dorothy, expose the little prick for the piece of immoral political junk that he is.
Rudi, this tactic of "poor me" vitimization being employed by the mayor and his ilk, shows that his record and standing on all issues, is clearly a loser.
These efforts by ed allen, rick safsten and the standard examinar, are nothing more than attempts to distract the public from his miserable failings while in office. Crime, fiduciary responsibility, cronyism, morality, honesty and openness, all strong weaknesses of this guy's time served.
The students of WSU will get a chance to hear his defense of his record, provided they ask the right kinds of questions and don't allow things to morph into something other than a discussion of the issues. I for one, will not rely on the SE for any interpretation of the proceedings, I will attend, and make those judgements for myself. Hopefully all other forms of media will be on hand to provide a more balanced and honest reporting of the event to the public. I might also add, to keep the SE more honest in their report.
I want to re-emphasize, that this mayors record is pathetic, and he is nothing but a victim of his own doings, if thats a good reason for sympathy, you are a fool. Folks, the people of Ogden are the victims.
Tetris:
You wrote: If in your opinion, any citizen's rights should be restricted, impeded, or disallowed because an election is imminent, then aren't we either back to deep southern politics or moving toward becoming the USSR, China, Iraq, Iran, or any number of oppressive, dictatorship countries? The beauty of the Constitution is that We the People have rights..."
I have not, in fact no one has --- not even Mr. Safsten --- suggested that Ms. Littrell has no right to file her lawsuit or that anyone should, or anyone has, the power to prevent her doing so. What I and other are questioning is the wisdom of her filing it. To claim that my suggesting her filing it was unwise somehow is the first step down the road to our becoming Red China or Iran or the now-non-existent USSR is so ridiculous a stretch, it can't be taken seriously. Just to make it perfectly plain, let me say again, she absolutely has the right to bring that suit, or any other she'd care to file. But she was not wise to have done it.
You wrote: Curmudgeon continues to state that the lawsuit is "ill-advised and ill-timed". So when is the right time to bring to light a candidate's failure to follow the rules? Why is it ill-advised that a citizen should want to see the government bound by the rules? It has to be now, before the election. Like it or not.
Several points. First, I'm not sure it has to be before the election. I read in the papers all the time of suits filed about campaign finance violations filed well after the elections are over. Some of them succeed and the penalty assessed is a fine.
But that aside, I presume Ms. Littrell has as her ultimate goal preventing Mr. Godfrey from serving a third term. [I say "presume" since I don't know her and have not spoken to her about this. But it seems a reasonable assumption.] The suit has, in my view, helped the Godfrey campaign by taking the issues that were costing him six voters out of every ten out of the public eye and off the front burner, and has substituted public discussion and press attention about Ms. Littrell's motives and the merit of the suit, and Mr. Safsten's comments etc. Thus shoving aside the issues that were so damaging to Godfrey in the primary. From a tactical point of view, presuming Ms. Littrell's goal was to prevent a third Godfrey term, the suit was ill-advised and ill-timed.
You wrote: Also, [we have] and a duty to place checks and balances on government (including those running for government).
Of course, but "checks and balances" as a governing principle applies to one branch of government checking and balancing another. That's why, for example, I am and many others are working to secure the re-election of Councilwoman Wicks and the defeat of candidates who seem likely to be mere administrative rubbers stamps should they win election. Mr. Eccles, for example. But the most power "check" citizens have upon the actions of elected officials is the ballot box. Ms. Littrell's unfortunate lawsuit has as its goal removing a candidate from the November ballot who the voters put on that ballot. In a democracy, that is not a good thing. The wishes of the voters needs to be respected. Even when they disagree with me. Or you.
You wrote: I don't know anyone who would advise a person to relinquish their civil rights because of public opinion.
I am not aware of anyone who has called for Ms. Littrell to surrender any of her civil rights. The has the right to sue and the freedom to exercise that right --- or not --- as she pleases. Her choosing not to exercise it deprives her of no right. Just as I have the right to vote. If I choose not to vote, I have not surrendered any right at all. Nor would Ms. Littrell if she had not chosen to file the suit.
You wrote: I understand what you are saying about leaving the decision to the voters. However, if the candidates do not follow the election rules, and are caught, who do they have to blame?
You are assuming the suit has merit and will prevail in court. Clearly you wish it would. But as the saying goes, "if wishes were horses then beggars would ride." It succeed. I don't know. It may fail. But your assumption that the suit is going to succeed and that Ms. Littrell's reading of the law and the facts are correct makes, at this point, no more sense than the Standard Examiner's and Mr. Safsten's assumption that the suit has no merit and that Ms. Littrell is wrong about both the facts and the law. None of us know yet whether the suit will succeed or not. Not me. Not you. Not Safsten. Not the SE Editorial Board. Not Ms. Littrell.
Safsten is such an embarrassment! His commentary yesterday, was that of someone who is so enraged that they speak before they think – only Safsten WROTE BEFORE HE THOUGHT! MUCH WORSE!! I think that the Council should censor him! I hope he was speaking ONLY for himself and not the whole Council. I don’t believe that he made that clear. In his commentary, he states: “Appeasement or lack of reaction to this kind of despicable motivation and hatred cannot be tolerated by anyone in government or interested in good government. The lawsuit is not based on ethics or politics, it is based on hatred.” MY reaction is TO HIS RIDICULOUS commentary! It most definitely IS based on hatred! When he was chair of the council and Mr. Filiaga was on the Council, I witnessed both of them berating anyone who spoke with a different point of view with degrading and insulting comments. Isn’t it amusing that the VERY things that he accuses Ms. Littrell and the other plaintiffs of are so obvious in his writing? He is the epitome of hatred and everything that he rants against.
Ogdenlover, you said: “Seems there is one set of standards for pro-Godfrey writers and another for people like Dan Schroeder.” That has been the obvious situation for years at the Standard, but Don Porter is the worst abuser of HIS OWN POLICIES!! But when you’re the boss and making the policies, I guess you can do what you want.
I want to know what Godfrey intends to do with the $75,000. – the difference between what R & O Construction reported to the Sate that they donated to Godfrey’s campaign and the amount that he reported on his financial report. Does he plan to put it into his own personal account? If it doesn’t go into his campaign fund, then it is reasonable to assume that he is pocketing it! To me THAT is the ISSUE!! Did he just double his salary for the year?! WHERE IS HIS HONESTY? WHERE IS HIS INTEGRITY?! Can the citizens of Ogden condone such behavior? Safsten totally ignores this or is that the reason for such a ridiculous attack on Ms. Littrell and others – a smoke screen in hopes that no one will notice the real and big issue of the lawsuit?
googleboy you said: “Ogden’s slow, consistent move upward can continue if we’re civil.” I ask you: Don’t you think that the upward movement might be faster if the process were done HONESTLY AND FAIRLY?
I have NEVER seen such a dirty campaign conducted in Ogden politics as this one? And it’s mostly coming from the Mayor’s camp! Bobby Geiger CAUGHT twice while stealing opponents and candidates with opposing views’ campaign signs TWICE!! Two years ago, the attacks against Glasmann’s and Jeske’s campaigns were pretty bad, and Andy Howell reported how he was called a “weeny” by “a top Ogden official” when he did not make public some potentially harmful information about one of the candidates. It seems that this kind of dirty campaigning is par for the Godfrey course.
And for the lawsuit, I do not see that as being filed out of “hatred.” In opposition of Godfrey? Yes, but if Godfrey conducted his affairs honestly, then there would be no cause to question his financial reports. Also, the Rules and Policies of the City state that the Mayor is required to attend City Council meetings even though he cannot vote. I know for a fact, that Godfrey was out campaigning EVERY TUESDAY for two months prior to the Primary Election when he should have been at Council Meeting!
Do the citizens of Ogden want such an unethical person for their Mayor?!
Wants Integrity:
However outraged you are, Safsten has got you discussing Ms. Littrell's motives. Which, as the election comes on, is exactly what Godfreyistas want the public discussing. Not the issues that, in the primary, lost Godfrey 6 votes out of every ten cast.
Look, the only votes in play in this election, or any election, are the "undecideds" and the "soft leanings." The Godfreyista Lift Ogden votes are locked in for Hizzoah. The strongly anti Godfrey or strongly pro Van Hooser votes are locked in as well. The undecideds and soft leanings are what both sides are fighting for now.
Lengthy discussions of, attacks on, and defenses of, the law suit and Ms. Littrell's motives keep the issues that so damaged the mayor in the primary campaign off center stage. It really is that simple.
Wants Integrity (don''t we all?)
The answer to your last question is:
HELL NO!
Just thinking out loud, do you think lying little matty's approach to locking up the park, golf course and open space could involve some eort of deed transfer to the Ogden Community foundation, like the CAN fiasco?
Which issues were those, Curm?
I don't recall any widespread discussions going on...only people's dislike (not HATE) of the mayor, his untrustworthiness, city employees wishing they could speak up without fear of reprisal.. People tended to speak of Godfrey's personality, such as it is, but hard issues?
I don't think so. Where would non WCF bloggers get info on the issues? The SE did you say? Surely you jest.
Just ask the average Ogdenite about Godfrey...and they'll say, 'well, I guess he's fixing up the old mall'....or, 'my daughter knows him'...the worst of all, "he's in my ward....I know his father-in-law"...or some such inane uninformed response.
Only the people who have actually dealt with him, the ones not on the receiving end of the bribes and cronyism, know the real Godfrey.
That's why it's important for the FACTS to come out on this guy.
With all your self proclaimed "eavesdropping", Curm....do you inject yourself into these conversations and set the record straight? Seems like you get around town, either on foot, or by bus, quite a bit.
Curmudgeon, you stated that by talking about the lawsuit, we are doing what the Godfreyites want us to do, but you ignored the issue that I did bring up. Let's discuss it. "I want to know what Godfrey intends to do with the $75,000. – the difference between what R & O Construction reported to the State that they donated to Godfrey’s campaign and the amount that he reported on his financial report. Does he plan to put it into his own personal account? If it doesn’t go into his campaign fund, then it is reasonable to assume that he is pocketing it! To me THAT is the ISSUE!! Did he just double his salary for the year?!"
Curmudgeon, does anyone else feel that this is a big issue? How do we get Godfrey to anwer those questions?
Wants Integrity:
R & O gave Godfrey Ten Thousand dollars. Godfrey only reported $2500.....leaving $7500. (Not 75 thousand) unaccounted for.
$7500. or $75,000. unaccounted for....cheating is cheating isn't it?
Seems like the holy editors at the SE would think that's newsworthy.
Curm, your unwillingness to acknowledge that I and others are not haggling over the lawsuit, but only would like to see the nefarious facts in the paper for all to read, reminds me of a puppy with his sharp teeth caught in a sock and he can't shake it loose.
Give it up, pls. Thatta boy.
Curm you said.
Ms. Littrell's unfortunate lawsuit has as its goal removing a candidate from the November ballot who the voters put on that ballot. In a democracy, that is not a good thing. The wishes of the voters needs to be respected.
This whole issue of ms. Littell's goes back before the primary and this should have taken Godfrey off the ballot of the primary and then Hansen would be the one facing Van Hooser. But as you know the little guy put it off and is still trying to put it off till the election, because as you said.
That is the argument he is going to use. I wish Nixon didn't do what he did but that is ok because the people voted for him so we should have left him alone? get real...
In case you didn't know there is a 3rd branch of our government for the check and balances that the other 2 don't provide or are to stupid to enact. That is where Dorothy is going with this, to ask the courts for the check and balance of the laws. So lay off it and let this thing run its course.
Should Rick Saften decide to do something about this with his check and balance power. Then he too would be left with out excuse, but he just might be wearing an orange suit when this is all said and done.
Sharon:
You wrote: . Where would non WCF bloggers get info on the issues? The SE did you say? Surely you jest.
Not jesting at all. They'd get much from the SE. The SE reported on what Dan S. GRAM request turned up... the secret emails... and it reported about the Mayor's attempts, carried out in secret, to have UTA commit to another public funded gondola study. And it reported the results of the two state audits of the American Can property matter, and it reported the second audit's criticizing the administration for trying to pretend the Foundation was a private organization to withhold its documents. And it printed editorials on those matters. And it has reported the Mt. Ogden Community plan matter since it began two years ago.
That Godfrey had to back off on the park sale, and then pledge to find some way to prevent his going back on his word are pretty good evidence that issues --- ones not working for him --- were being discussed. And were cutting into his support as the primary approached.
The SE has not done as much coverage on Godfrey as I would like either, but it has notonly published stories favorable to him. It reported [and as I recall editorialized] on the Bootjack fiasco, and on the Council's changing the RDA rules to prevent his stonewalling again --- by unanimous vote. It reported on Gadi L's legal problems in California and his association with the mayor.
Yes, I wish it would do more. Yes, it should have reported on the recent ruling by the Godfrey-appointed GRAMA committee to deny making public gondola related emails [especially when it ran a story two weeks earlier saying the committee was about to report.] But your implication that it has not reported at all on matters not favorable to the major is flat wrong on the evidence. It's reported extensively on gang violence in the city [not a good issue for Hizzonah since he's pretty much ignored it until lately.] And so on.
And, permit me to add, it reported, prominently and rapidly on Ms. Littrell's filing of her lawsuit.
Thanks for the above correction, Sharon. We were in the process of doing this ourself, but got locked up with some RL business:
Here are the operative documents which reveal the $7,500 discrepancy:
R&O Report of Expenditures
Boss Godfrey 8/31/07 Report of Contributions
Obviously trying to get a point accross to Curmudgeon is akin to teaching a fish to tap dance, it just won't happen. Join the ranks of Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and others whom all have at one point or another eeked out a sliver of my admiration... until they sepak again. Any point made that argues his point is ridiculous. I must go create a Golden calf in his image. I will pray to the backside.
do what is right - you don't have a clue.
Nobody could remove anybody off the ballot before the primary because the candidate's financials were not public before the primary.
If you want to be an expert then learn the facts, man.
Do What's Right:
How do we get Godfrey to answer questions about the difference between what R&O says it contributed and what Godfrey says he got? I suspectg Ms. Littrell's lawsuit makes it much less probable the the press or public will be able to force an answer at a public forum. I imagine his attorney will tell him to say, if asked, "that matter is in court and so I cannot speak about it at this time."
Second, excessive zeal can lead people to make mistakes that end up hurting, not helping, the cause they are seeking to advance. Like mistaking $7500 for $75,000.
There is a discrepancy to be explained. It needs to be explained. But you are leaping to the conclusion that the Mayor simply [and illegally] pocketed the money. All we know so far... all we know... is that there is a discrepancy between the two figures. It could be an accounting error or a reporting error. It could be what you and others are clearly eager to assume, financial skullduggery. In any case, the usual penalty applied for mis-reporting campaign funds is a fine. Not removal from the ballot.
Tetris:
I did not say, ever, to you or anyone else, that "any point" argued in opposition to my own view "is ridiculous." Nothing in what I posted to you suggested anything of the kind. I did say that treating [as you did] the suggestion that Ms. Littrell was unwise to have filed her lawsuit as the first step toward turning the US into Iran or Red China was silly. And it is.
“Children of my office. From high matters I spare the time to preside over this gathering. By the favor of our Lord Godfrey, I have the power to grant your wishes, should it please me to do so. Waste no moment in unnecessary babbling or you will incur my anger. Now, lift up your heads, and tell me your desires.”
i'm going fishing...
If no reports are in before the primary then why is the date of the report due on the 31st of aug and the primary is sept 11th. It seems to me you should get out to the boat and dunk you head once in a while, or at least pull your head out of your stomach.
Oh Golden Curmudgeon:
Please forgive me for differing from your wisdom.
Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum.
Amen.
Curmudgeon:
And...your point? You don't have to say anything to get the point across, just read your own posts. You should... you like to hear yourself speak.
Amen
To the Power
I would like the Standard to publish those pictures they have of Mayor Godfrey perfoming unnatural acts with that pet chicken of his.
Cheech:
Maybe he could fund the Gondola project with revenue from a new website.
Read this and understand everyone this is the law!!!
The City Recorder shall inspect all financial statements within two (2) days after the same are filed. If it appears that any candidate or personal campaign committee has failed to file a statement as required by law or if it appears that the statement does not conform to law or upon complaint in writing by a candidate or by a voter that a statement filed does not conform to law, the City Recorder shall notify the delinquent personal campaign committee or candidate, in writing, requesting compliance with this Chapter.
B. Examination Of Books And Records: Upon the failure of any personal campaign committee or candidate to file a statement, within two (2) days after first receiving written notice under subsection A of this Section, or, if in the exercise of reasonable discretion, the City Recorder questions the accuracy or completeness of such statement, the City Recorder shall request an examination of all books and records of such committee or person. Such books and records shall be produced by the candidate or personal campaign committee for inspection by the City Recorder within one day after request for examination is received.
C. Violation; Notification To City Attorney: If a personal campaign committee or candidate fails to file a statement within two (2) days after receiving notice under subsection A of this Section, or, if any statement filed discloses a violation of this Chapter, or, if the inspection of records discloses a violation of this Chapter, the City Recorder shall notify the City Attorney and shall furnish the City Attorney copies of all papers in the City Recorder's possession relating thereto, and the City Attorney, on such complaint or the complaint of any other person, shall enter forthwith the same in a docket kept for that purpose in his or her office and within ten (10) days thereafter shall examine every case. If the evidence is deemed sufficient by the City Attorney, he or she shall institute such civil or criminal proceedings, as may be appropriate.
1-8-7: PENALTY:
Any person violating any provision of this Chapter is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor, punishable under Chapter 4 of this Title, and no person convicted thereof shall be permitted to take or hold the office to which the person was elected, if any, or receive the emoluments thereof.
Curm...
Then there is the report of the $38,000 from Godfrey's report that he forgot to list from the race 4 years ago and curm you really should read the law. there is no fine, there is a penalty though.
DO what is right;
There are some here that feel the law is a mere triviality. They don't get it.
Kind of a different reality, eh?
Amen, Curm.
Its Integrity:
First, you picked the wrong guy if you expect me to defend the Mayor's integrity in office. I have been a long time consistent critic of his on that point here at WCF. He seems to have a very weak grasp on what public service requires by way of ethical conduct in a public official. As I recall, some years ago he was asked whether there was any difference between what he could do legally and what he should do ethically. I think his reply was that anything the mayor could legally do was something he could ethically do. He refused to agree that something might be legal for him to do as mayor, but not ethical.
And that, if it is his attitude, says it all, since I figure anyone over the age of eight in full possession of his faculties could easily think of many things it is legal to do, but not ethical.
Like, just off the top, voting Republican.
Back to an earlier comment:
Why wasn't that shooting story in the paper this morning? I'm going to take a wild guess and say it's because the police first heard a report about it at 11:30 LAST NIGHT. Not exactly a news cycle-friendly time, after even the late reporters have left for the night, and it's not a big enough story to call a reporter back in and remake a page at that hour.
Honestly, a lot of what people here want to chalk up to "Standard bias" is often more likely bad timing (as in this case) or simply poor reporting by an overworked, underpaid, often not terribly experienced staff. People miss stuff, especially when they're covering more and bigger beats thanks to newsroom cutbacks.
Yes, I used to work there. I'm glad I don't work there now. And I cut the folks who are there a little slack because I know how hard of a job it is.
Do What Is Right:
Thank you for posting the law. I noted that a VOTER or any other person can ask for the record to be analyzed.....
JP,
If the trib. can get the story in their morning paper, then really what is with the se not being able to report it.
Folks, how about if we quit talking about the lawsuit itself for a while (which is what the mayor wants us talking about!), and instead talk about the mayor's response to the lawsuit.
From last Wednesday's article: "It’s disappointing once again to see an effort on my opponents part to avoid public debate and dialogue by, this time, creating bogus claims in an effort to remove me from the ballot," he said.
The "avoiding public debate" phrase is an obvious reference to Van Hooser's alleged refusal to debate him--a bogus claim if there ever was one, since the upcoming WSU debate was scheduled before she said no to the Chamber. But even worse, the mayor is insinuating here that Van Hooser herself is connected with the lawsuit. That was pure speculation on his part (at best), and absolutely uncalled for.
And then from Friday's paper: Godfrey said he hopes Van Hooser is sincere in wanting the suit dropped. "I hope she's truly not involved in this," he said. "I wonder if when they discovered that her name would be taken off the ballot as well as mine if the lawsuit were to win, if that didn’t cause an about-face?" In other words, even after Schwebke told Godfrey that Van Hooser said she has nothing to do with the suit, and that she even called Littrell to drop the suit, Godfrey continued to insinuate that he thinks she (or her campaign) is behind it but they were too stupid to realize ahead of time that a similar suit could affect her.
In neither of these cases did the mayor tell an outright lie. But this is pure political mud-slinging: insinuations that are speculative at best, and intentionally deceptive at worst. I wonder if the mayor signed the city's Pledge of Fair Campaign Practices, which states in part: I shall not participate in nor shall I permit the use of any other criticism of any candidate or the candidate's immediate family that I do not believe to be truthful, provable, and relevant to my campaign.
On the other hand, the mayor did tell one outright lie, in Wednesday's article: I have complied both with the letter and spirit of the law in every regard with my campaign filings. We know for a fact that he failed to report his $37,000 carry-over from 2003 on his initial disclosure form, then later amended the form to include the carry-over. Thus, his initial filing was in violation of the letter of the law. I'm not overly concerned about this violation, because he corrected it almost immediately. But I'm very concerned that he lied to the newspaper about his compliance.
Geigers like gondolas!
THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE
Dan
The little feller just can't hep hisself! If it ain't a lie it ain't worth uttering.
Do:
Did the SL Trib story appear in the print edition that was delivered this morning, or was it up only on their on line site? Cases in the past, late breaking items have appeared on line but not in the print edition until the following day. Just asking.
Curmudgeon
The Ogden shooting of last night was reported in this morning's Tribune print addition which was on my driveway at 6AM this morning.
Thanx, Dan for your post.
I wish you would write a commentary outlining the many insinuations, lies, misdealings, etc of this administrtion....with no mention of Dorothy or her lawsuit. I agree that that is not the main focal point now.
You are erudite and have done much research yourself...heck, an elephant with it's legendary memory could write the dang thing!
Or at least recall the details of all the machinations of Godfrey!
Ozboy:
OK. Thanks. Be interesting to know then the latest an item can be inserted in the SE under their normal print schedule. I know for example they reserve space for say a City Council story [predetermined number of column inches, I think, held "open" for the story that has to fit the space held]. But I don't know what the absolute final cut off for inclusion is. Wonder if anybody here knows. If so, maybe they'll post it.
Maybe it's still possible for the SE, someday, to have a Jane Wyman moment. [She described a lot of her early roles as involving tough women reporters who had lines like "Stop the presses! I have a story that'll blow this town wide open!"]
Ah, for the good 'ol days....
Curm, I just returned from the I'm not sure what kind of community meeting, not to pile on but, there were not 2 audits of the Can thing.
There was a quasi (fake) reveiw, signed off on by some lacky at the AG's office, and a limited audit and finding on the $900,000.00 state grant. There has never been a complete accounting of the whole Can fiasco.
Been at it all day, gotta eat something.
Bill C:
You're letting hunger get in the way of blogging? Get a hold of your priorities, man. Snap out of it! [Slap!]
And when the Inner Man has been satisfied, give us an idea of what went on at the "kind of community meeting."
Excuse me, Dan, but just have to point something out to Curmudgeon. He said, "Excessive zeal can lead people to make mistakes that end up hurting, not helping, the cause they are seeking to advance. Like mistaking $7500 for $75,000.
There is a discrepancy to be explained. It needs to be explained. But you are leaping to the conclusion that the Mayor simply [and illegally] pocketed the money. All we know so far... all we know... is that there is a discrepancy between the two figures. It could be an accounting error or a reporting error. It could be what you and others are clearly eager to assume, financial skullduggery."
Adding an extra zero is an easy mistake to make, and an obvious one that may be accidental or not. I appreciate Sharon, correcting it.
But it's hard to imagine the error to be an accounting or reporting error, as the two amounts are very different and have nothing in common. One would really be hard put to justify that Little Matty isn't using some of that money for his personal affaur,
Isn't it wonderul that we have so many candidates to look at. The newspaper is so wonderful that they print my endorcement of my candidate. Isn't it wonderful...
SO is big dumb rick, going to be on Godfreys new admin team. Since he painted such a rosie portrit of Goofey.
How much will that job pay being on the A team $99k?
You don't just flush a career like mine down the toilet.
Bill C:
Thanks for the summary.
Three different numbers for the size of the OPD? Two from Mayor and a third from the Police Chief?
As Casey Stengal once said of the brand new hapless NY Mets: "Can't anyone here play this game?"
And the Mayor's statement was prepped. He knew he was going to make it and so had time to prep. And he still can't tell us how many police are on the force now? And his number doesn't match the Police Chief's number? And the community meeting was called specificially to discuss crime in Ogden?
I'll take "Mayor's Who Haven't a Clue" for $500, Alex.
Brett:
Well, if people are going to misread a number, they are more likely to misread it in a way that favors their own views than the other way. I don't think there was much likelihood that a Godfrey opponent would have mis read it as $750.
You wrote: But it's hard to imagine the error to be an accounting or reporting error, as the two amounts are very different and have nothing in common. OK, on this we disagree. Accounting errors come in all shapes and sizes. A possibility only.
You wrote: One would really be hard put to justify that Little Matty isn't using some of that money for his personal affairs." One sure would. Which is why I didn't.
I cannot believe the mayor is still touting his "accomplishment" of reducing crime in Ogden when crime is the biggest concern to many area residents, especially over the past several months. What a joke. I'm also curious to how Chief Griener can effectively oversee his police force year long when he is gone 1/4 of the time working as a legislator. Seems to me both of these men care more about their political careers and egos than they do about the consituents and community that they are supposed to serve. I hope people in Ogden realize that this just more disingenuous lip service by the mayor and if re-elected it is back to gondola and more gondola, instead of addressing the real issues that need to be addressed.
glossy:
Great post. How about writing it up as a letter to the editor and sending it to the S-E?
Dan S.:
Thanks Dan. I have so much more to say, but I could never send it to the Standard Examiner: fear of retaliation. The mayor and mayor's supporters are so fervent and over the top with their win at all cost attitude that they consider this a WAR, and any verbal criticism against the mayor is justification for them to wholeheartedly attack, which frankly I don't want to deal with at this point in time.
glossy,
Understood. Perhaps you have friends whom you could encourage to write?
Apparently "Glossy" is well aware of the vindictive atmosphere in and around the city government. It is reminiscent of the soviet style of government. Fear, intimidation and a vast network of informants. Any one that does not toe the party (Godfrey) line in Ogden city government will be purged one way or another.
The Matt Jones affair was a perfect example. Matt even had broad based public support for his cause and yet he was dispatched with a major and concerted effort by Godfrey, Patterson, Greiner and Williams. When things got a little difficult after Matt hired an attorney and fought back, they pulled the big bomb out of their file cabinet and hit him with sexual harassment charges complete with a willing victim from Greiner's stooge list of employees in dispatch. Dirty, dishonest and vicious? You bet, that is the way the high priest leader Godfrey operates. The city is run by fear, it pervades every department in city government.
Post a Comment