Including a stunning mayoral endorsement from the Standard-Examiner
It's all official now gentle readers. The Standard-Examiner's mayoral candidate endorsement is out, right there on their editorial page. Our hometown newspaper... the Official Boss Godfrey House Propaganda Organ... has endorsed...
Boss Godfrey.
Surprise of surprises, eh?
We won't go into a laborious discussion about this ho-hum development, except to say this: The Standard-Examiner has devoted much editorial ink to the subject of Boss Godfrey's pathological devotion to government secrecy over the years. The Std-Ex editors have griped endlessly and publicly about the hassle of obtaining information by GRAMA request after GRAMA request. From the Standard-Examiner's perspective, prying even the simplest bits of information from Boss Godfrey's administration is and has been the journalistic equivalent of "pulling teeth." Thus we say, with a slight degree of "snark," that this must be the way the Std-Ex likes it.
This morning we'll stay on the topic of candidate endorsements, for a few more paragraphs at least. Inasmuch as the Std-Ex has put in its two cents, we'll add a little spare change of our own. And it's in that connection that we link the following three items, reader submissions and contributions from a few our gentle readers and fellow Emerald City lumpencitizens:
First we'll put the spotlight on a contribution from gentle reader Kathy Gambles. This short piece fits into the category of letters the Std-Ex declined to print.
Our second featured endorsement comes from Ogden City Councilwoman Dorrene Jeske. The Std-Ex editors wouldn't print this one either, although a little birdy told us that it may yet be coming up on the Standard-Examiner pages -- as a paid ad.
And finally, we'll highlight a blockbuster endorsement from Sonja Jorgenson, who granted us permission just this morning to publish a letter that she's been informally circulating in her east bench neigborhood for the past several days. For an insider's glimpse of the truly cold-hearted and sinister nature of our sitting incumbent mayor and his administration team, we know none of you will want to miss this one.
That's it for the moment, gentle readers, although we do intend to post another blockbuster revelation later this afternoon.
Comments, anyone?
Let the fun begin.
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
40 comments:
"In Ogden's mayoral race, ironically, the candidates cancel out each other on the topic of open government -- they've both failed the test."
"Cancel out" would mean an equal amount, yet all they have on Van Hooser is:
"Her first vote on the council was one to remove from public view information about herself and other applicants for council vacancies"
Cancel out????
or to look at it another way, when she has been given the chance to be open, she has been 100% closed.
The Jorgenson episode underscores what this election is about: integrity. We have a mayor who regularly engages in deception, ridicule, personal attacks, and now outright threats. It's time for a new mayor.
But here on the blog there's another angle we need to address. For many months (years?), our humble blogmeister had a personal attack against Kent Jorgenson posted prominently in the right sidebar of the Weber County Forum home page. While it's fine to disagree with someone, and even to hold him accountable for a broken promise, the tone of that attack was uncalled for and it's time, Rudi, for you to publicly apologize.
Public figures are constantly faced with ethical dilemmas. Kent Jorgenson has been no exception. It's easy, from the sidelines, to see things in black and white and conclude, when an official makes a decision we disagree with, that the official lacks integrity and deserves nothing but our contempt. Sometimes the conclusion is justified. But Rudi and many others on this blog are far too hasty in jumping to this conclusion.
One of the reasons to get in the habit of using a civil tone, and avoiding personal attacks, is that we rarely know the whole story behind someone's decision. Even when a decision is wrong, an individual may have made it for an understandable reason.
I disagreed with several of the decisions that Jorgenson made as a council member, and I'm sure I'll continue to disagree with him from time to time. But his courageous endorsement of Van Hooser, while under all the pressure he faces, shows that he is fundamentally a man of integrity who deserves our highest respect.
Well, I, uh, don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up, stats.
On the decision to withhold city council applicant files from the newspaper:
The Standard-Examiner is telling a little fib when they say that Van Hooser voted to withhold information about herself. By the time the vote was taken, it had absolutely no effect on her own file which was then a public record because she was a sitting council member. Her vote affected only the files of the other applicants, and I can see how she would have felt awkward voting to disclose their private information, after she had just beaten them out for the position.
The unanimous position of the council was that it should be up to the applicants themselves, not the city, to decide what information to release to the public. I happen to disagree with this position, but I can see their point, since candidates who run in a normal election aren't required to disclose their entire resumes. I think the policy should be to clearly tell candidates not to include any information on the applications that they don't want disclosed, and then to make the applications public. If there's any need to gather private data such as social security numbers, this information can easily be redacted (blacked out) when the documents are released.
It's also worth pointing out that when the council made this decision they were acting on the advice of city attorney Gary Williams. It would be quite bold for a new council member, in her very first meeting, to disregard the advice of the city attorney. This may be another example of why the city council needs its own attorney, rather than one who is hired to serve the mayor's interests.
On the broader issue of openness, I would encourage everyone to compare Van Hooser's web site to Godfrey's.
Godfrey continues to show only the city's own crime statistics, which have been discredited on this blog and in the newspaper. Van Hooser puts Godfrey's statistics in context, shows data from all the available sources, and admits that the increase she has referred to is only part of the overall picture.
Godfrey has a cartoon that tries to explain how RDA debt works. Van Hooser has a verbatim copy of the page from the city's financial statement stating that "the City is financially accountable for the RDA". (This is the page that Godfrey held up during the last debate, claiming it said the exact opposite of what Van Hooser had stated.)
Godfrey say's he's reduced property taxes three times, but doesn't say how big the reductions actually were. Van Hooser points out that because of increasing assessments, most people's taxes have actually gone up--and that city utility bills have gone up even more.
Open Observation of the Standard Examiner’ Endorsement
First, the SE stated that Susie’s first vote on the council was to remove from public view, information submitted by those that applied for the vacant council seat that she ultimately was appointed. As I recall, the council did this because personal information was provided in the applications that could have lead to identity theft (some applicants apparently provided SS#, employers, and other personal information that was endangering). One of the applicants’ even submitted information that was so detailed that it even included high school grades! The council felt that they should not endanger those that had applied for this position to this kind of risk nor did they feel that it was appropriate to expose that information of those not chosen after the fact (not being chosen meant they would not be public officials). I didn’t disagree with the council’s decision on this vote and as I recall at the time, neither did the Standard Examiner after some deliberation, so I find it Two Faced of the Standard to now label her vote on this issue as Two Faced.
Second, if this is as strong of an endorsement as the Standard Examiner is willing to provide to Godfrey, it tells me that they aren’t sold on Godfrey either and that they aren’t confident in his re-election. They definitely were torn as to who to endorse. I think this speaks volumes for Susie who is new on the political scene, to have nearly stolen the paper’s endorsement from the incumbent who has a close relationship with the Standard’s management.
I think the Standard senses a change in the administration of the city.
When I first moved to Ogden I was shocked that so many of my new neighbors referred to the Standard Examiner as the "Substandard Exaggerator". Now I understand!
Of course I fully expected the paper to endorse Godfrey - but it's the logic of their argument that is so tragically flawed.
Godfrey has not - nor will he ever listen to his constituents! I've heard from many of his key supporters continued rumors that the sale of Mt. Ogden park is NOT off the table. And if he is really against a publicly funded gondola, then WHY is he using public funds to pay for a study?
The citizens of this community want REAL transit solutions, ones that have been proven in demographically similar cities to Ogden, to provide viable economic development and to create vibrant urban centers.
And, one vote by Van Hooser to protect the privacy of the other Council Candidates hardly cancels out all of the outright lies and incredibly unethical behavior that Godfrey has engaged in for the past 8 years – and continues to engage in during the election process!
The “free press” has failed us!
To make it's endorsement of Godfrey, the SE Board managed to fix a large set of blinders, firmly in place, not unlike those put on race horses that get spooked by noticing the real world around them.
For example, from the editorial: We agree that the polarizing effect of the gondola debate has been a corrosive issue in Ogden. But Godfrey has since pledged not to sell the golf course or surrounding park lands and trails owned by the city, and that any urban gondola would have to be funded through private capital. The move showed that Godfrey does listen to his constituents and the issue has receded -- even though his constant critics have attempted, without much success, to keep it alive.
Has the SE noticed that the Mayor's "declaration" protecting the park and trail lands... "all of them" he said on the record at the Mt. Ogden Community plan meeting... exempts from coverage some of the very city parkland near the head of 36th Street he pledged at the meeting to protect? If the SE has noticed that, it has not reported it to its readers, nor has it reported in fact any of the content of the "document" that supposedly protects the city parkland the Mayor so recently tried to sell.
The SE takes the Mayor's pledge, made as a result of polls indicating the issue of the park sale was hurting him, as a reliable one. It presumes that his word, given mid-campaign, is good. I wonder why the Board assumes that. We know now, it has been documented, that during Mayor Godfrey's last campaign for re-election he was already planning the gondola project yet he never so much as mentioned it during the campaign. until he was re-elected, and then he sprang them on an unsuspecting public... with as the SE concedes unhappy results for the city. It hardly bespeaks a high degree of integrity on the Mayor's part, nor does it suggest his word can be trusted once the voters are in and he's not worried about voters anymore. But that seems not to matter to the SE Board. Did the Board not notice that its own paper recently reported that the Mayor had signed a contract to have UTA spend a quarter of a million dollars conducting still more gondola-as-transit studies? I know the Mayor did that. I read about it in the Standard Examiner. The Mayor doesn't seem to think the gondola is dead. Nor do two of the Council members the SE endorsed --- Petersen and Johnson --- nor does the Chamber of Commerce --- which is still, by the way, supporting sale of the Parklands and having its CEO and President write op-eds opposing Hooser. That newspaper men an women... and print guys... could take a promise made by an elected official in trouble for re-election, and one with a demonstrated record of dissembling on the campaign trail... as a sufficient guarantee of future good conduct following an eight year record in office of the opposite I find odd, to say the least. I expect such naivety from freshman students. Not from the editors of a daily newspaper. And absolutely not from the editors of my daily newspaper.
From the editorial: And both are taking a wait-and-see approach to an estimated $138 million in needed repairs to the city's decrepit water and sewer infrastructure.
Really? When the SE reported this very week that the Council had decided on the first stages of the sewer and water repair plan and the bonding and taxes needed for it. It must be true; I read it in the Standard Examiner. And the same paper has been reporting for some months now, the Council's Water Horizons plans and meetings --- over the Mayor's objections I might add --- and its bringing in expert consultants to help determine the best way to proceed. And Ms. Van Hooser, on the Council, supported all of that, much of it over the Mayor's opposition. Again, it must be so, I read it in the Standard Examiner.
And from all that, reported in its own news columns, the SE Board decides both Godfrey and Van Hooser have taken the same stand: "wait and see." I'm beginning to think we here at WCF ought to chip in and buy the SE Editorial Board members a subscription to their own paper. They don't seem to read it much.
From the editorial: In Ogden's mayoral race, ironically, the candidates cancel out each other on the topic of open government -- they've both failed the test.
To obtain public information from Mayor Matthew Godfrey's administration, this newspaper has been forced to file open-record requests via the Government Records Access and Management Act.
And as for challenger Susan Van Hooser, appointed to the city council a year ago: Her first vote on the council was one to remove from public view information about herself and other applicants for council vacancies, which makes her criticism of Godfrey for hostility toward open government nothing short of two-faced.
Granted, the Council's decision to remove the personal information of applicants for Council vacancies from the public record was unwise, and all the Council members who voted for it, including Ms. Van Hooser, were criticized properly for it by the SE and by many here on WCF.
However, there seems to me to be a considerable difference between a council member voting to keep personal information about applicants to fill vacancies on the council out of the public record on the one hand, and an administration with an eight-year record of consistent and repeated efforts to avoid disclosure and to keep its activities secret on the other. I know the Godfrey Administration has done that, because I read about it in the Standard Examiner. I read about the Mayor's arranging a secret handshake deal with one of his cronies to sidestep rules and so hugely increase his compensation upon leaving one city job to take another, without informing the Council... a move so grossly wrong the Council promptly changed the rules to make sure the Mayor couldn't do it again. I know the Godfrey Administration refused to tell the Council who it wanted to sell the Bootjack properties to, a bit of concealment so brazen that the Council, including Councilman Stephenson[!], voted to change RDA procedures to make sure the Mayor couldn't do it again. I know the Godfrey administration wrote emails about how important it was to keep its plans to have UTA pay its gondola consultant secret from the Council and the public and the press. And so on and so on. It was all in the papers... in The Standard Examiner.
That the SE Editorial Board managed to equate the Van Hooser record on open government [one vote to not reveal personal information about applicants for a vacant council seat] to a long and consistent record of concealment and secrecy in the conduct of the public's business constitutes a severe judgment on the Board's collective intelligence and fairness. Particularly since Ms. Van Hooser has pushed for, and voted for, greater openness in City government consistently since.
And the editorial endorsement manages to not so much as mention the problem of Godfrey administration cronyism. The special handshake deals unknown to the Council for the mayor's friends. The sale of public property to the Mayor's cronies, without taking public bids, and finally, sold to a crony for a price less than was offered by another buyer, not a crony of the Mayor. Who gets a license in timely fashion to open a business in the River Project area and who doesn't seems to depend to some extent on whether the applicant is a crony of the Mayor and supporter of his re-election or not. The administration had apparently no problem permitting the attorney for the Mayor's ally in his plan to sell Mt. Ogdne park, Mr. Chris Peterson, draft an ordinance specifically crafted to suit Mr. Peterson's planned real estate development on those parklands. And so on. All this evidence of cronyism, much of it reported in the Standard Examiner, yet the Editorial Board had nothing whatever to say about it. Imagine that....
In a column yesterday, the managing editor of the SE, Andy Howell, quoted columnist and reporter Charles Trentelman as saying that the SE's decision to renew making election endorsements would, in Trentelman's view, increase the public's respect for the paper's professionalism. Permit to suggest, Mr. Trentelman... and to Mr. Howell... that much of the reasoning [politely so called] offered in today's editorial endorsing Mr. Godfrey is likely to do the opposite.
The approach they took in today's editorial was particularly striking in contrast to the three editorials on the council candidates.
In the council endorsements they either didn't mention their chosen candidate's opponent, or, in one case, they paid him a mild compliment.
But approximately half of today's editorial was actually an attack on Van Hooser. And in pure Karl Rove fashion, they attacked hear greatest strength: her integrity.
This shows that the Standard-Examiner has become even more a part of the problem, contributing to the divisiveness in our community.
Anyone who has met Van Hooser knows that her integrity is beyond question. And although her campaign materials have challenged Godfrey in several ways, she hasn't lowered herself to the personal attacks that we're now receiving from his campaign.
I was talking earlier this week with a very uninformed voter who said she would vote for whichever candidate was less negative. If there are enough others like her out there, then Van Hooser is sure to win on Tuesday.
Dan S. I have to disagree with you...if you have attended the debates, and I know you have, it is Van Hooser who is actaully far more negative. Her whole vibe has been one of negativity. And while I know you answer from ears that support her, I've heard this from many who were undecided. they were shocked at how negative she came accross and how much is sounded like she had a chip on her shoulder.
The letter has been sent to al tv stations and the Trib....yestersay and just now!
WE can get on KNRS 730 am tomorrow, 5 to 9 am...but don't call close to 9, you won't get on the air. and the Doug Wright show on KSL(noon?) and tell the truth about Godfrey and especially his threats to Kent's livlihood.
Kent is courageous and so is his wife. His integrity seem so be higher than anyone else's in the 9th floor room!
Also Dan, the whole discussion about page 50 is disingenious as well...you can't talk aobut about page 50 without talking aobut page 51. Sure the city is accountable for the financial statments, but page 50 says nothing about the taxpayers being responsible about the debt.
The truth of the matter is that in the heat of the campaigning Susie has made quite a few mistakes. And while they may be a result of her being inexperienced, they are also in areas that I would expect a council member, one year or two months, to know about.
Also, your comments about the council vote....the problem with that whole issue was that the council went against their established and printed procedures. Again, in the interest of open government, they chose not to be open. You explaination indicates that we shouldn't even have a council, we should just do what an attorney says. Well I would think they would have had an attorney review their prodeedures for coucil replacement prior to going through the process.
depends,
Actually I agree with you about the debates. Van Hooser was not at her best, and her tone did tend to be negative.
This was not true, however, at the quasi-debate held at the Eccles Art Center. Her tone was very positive there. And that's been true of most of the other times I've seen her as well.
Look, you can't run against an incumbent without saying some negative things about his record. But we've never seen anything from Van Hooser that compares to the snide personal attacks that Godfrey has made in the paper and that his campaign is now sending out by mail. Have you seen them? He is either incredibly unprincipled or incredibly desperate.
If Van Hooser wanted to send out similar stuff, personally attacking Godfrey, she would have plenty of material to work with. She could quote from his "downward spiral" speech to the City Council last year, or from his "I think it's a farce" speech at WSU last spring. Or she could remind voters of the Vangate scandal, or of Gadi Leshem's pending felony charges. It would be incredibly easy to find an unflattering photo of Godfrey and print it over and over again.
Depends on your koolaid, you might be somewhat defensive if you had been been verbally attacked before the debate by Godfrey as Van Hooser was at WSU.
BTW have you seen the mailers that Godfrey's campaign has seen out? NOW THERE IS NEGATIVITY AND DIRTY POLITICS TO THE MAX! Every voter in this household were so incensed at the lies and half-truths that were in those mailers. We feel that Susie should seek legal advice about suing Godfrey and his campaign committee. The one that says that she voted for millions of dollars in RDA bonds and indicates that the Mayor had nothing to do with the debt because he doesn't vote is so misleading and one of the lowest tricks we have ever seen in Ogden politics! The RDA Board isn't the one who comes up with the RDA projects == it's that lying MAYOR!! If the Board does not vote for Godfrey's RDA projects or asks too many questions then it is hindering economic growth in Ogden! ALL of Godfrey's campaign brochures that we've received are nothing but LIES AND DECEIT!!
I hope the citizens of Ogden DO vote against the candidate who is the most negative because they would then VOTE FOR SUSIE. We have received Susie's mailers the same day as we have received Godfrey's venomous attacks on Susie and there is no comparison! They are like night and day! The "dark side" against truth and light.
Ogden has been lied to too many times by Godfrey and his administration (and I hope his father-in-law reads this blog so he knows there are a lot of people who KNOW Godfrey lies).
OGDEN NEEDS A NEW MAYOR SO IT CAN BEGIN A HEALING AND UNITING PROCESS. The way Godfrey has divided the community is indefensable and offsets any good that the economic development has done for it.
disagree,
I just read page 51 in its entirety and I don't see anything on the page that directly addresses your point. It does talk about how the city uses separate funds for general expenditures and the RDA. There are also separate funds for water and sewer and a whole bunch of other activities.
I'm no expert on the city's finances, but I do have enough experience to know that there are almost always ways of moving money around between various funds. Just look at the shell game that Godfrey and UTA are playing with the federal bus grant. Part of the debt for the Salomon Center is secured by lease revenue from BDO, which was supposed to be spent on infrastructure upgrades. There are countless other potential projects around the city that could be paid for either by city or RDA funds--whichever is available. When I showed page 50 to my lawyer, she instantly recognized the language as indicating that if a creditor were to bring a lawsuit against the RDA, there's no guarantee that they couldn't go after city general funds as well.
This isn't to say that it's meaningless to distinguish between RDA debt and other city debt. But it's ridiculous for the mayor to say that we should cheer every time the RDA debt goes up. Sometimes, no doubt, we should. It depends on the details.
On the council candidate applications: The city attorney advised the council that state law overrides their printed procedures. So they voted on that basis. As I said, I think they made the wrong decision. But there really were liability issues involved and it would have been irresponsible to simply disregard the attorney and release the records. I wish they had gotten an outside legal opinion. Or they could have gone through and redacted everything in the documents that might create a liability problem. (I don't know how much information would have had to be redacted to keep the attorney happy.)
In any case, Van Hooser was hardly in a position to take on this thorny legal issue during her very first council meeting. With hindsight, she probably should have abstained from voting.
When (excerpts from Sonja Jorgensen's letter) "Kent received a call from John Patterson, Mayor Godfrey’s Chief Administrative Officer. He asked Kent what he could possibly be thinking in offering his support to Ms. Van Hooser. He went on to say how damaging his endorsement would be to Mayor Godfrey’s campaign. . ." and Kent received intimidating phone calls from Godfrey when he was on the council: "There have been many times when Kent served as city councilman that I had to “bite my tongue.” This is not the first “intimidation call” that has originated from Mr. Godfrey’s administration." Godfrey and Patterson are in violation of Ogden's municipal code that addresses "misusing one's position and authority." They both could and should be charged with this misdeanor and they would be relieved of their offices when convicted. That penalty is also mentioned in that same ordinance mentioned above.
Also, on the RDA debt: it is true that the developer/contractor makes the payment on the debt, but also the taxes collected on the project are returned to him so that he can make the payments. If the developer defaults on the bond payments, the bank may go to the city (as Dan S. states) to collect on the debt. Council was told that the city is not legally obligated to pay the debt, but they are MORALLY obligated to pay it and if they didn't, the city's credit rating would be nil. Another deception that the Godfrey administration fosters.
He has crossed the line and broken the law -- we have the proof with Sonja's letter -- he can and should be removed from office if he is re-elected. He and Patterson need to be charged in order to remove them.
To Disagree,
You state, “the whole discussion about page 50 is disingenious as well...you can't talk aobut about page 50 without talking aobut page 51. Sure the city is accountable for the financial statments, but page 50 says nothing about the taxpayers being responsible about the debt.”
Either you can’t comprehend what you read or you didn’t read beyond the first couple of paragraphs or you just want to misinform, because page 50 clearly establishes the city liability in RDA debt.
Also page 51 presents the following statements (and it’s the only mention on the page about RDA debt) with regards to RDA debt (note - general funds and debt service comments removed)
“The City reports the following major governmental funds:
• Ogden Redevelopment Agency Fund - This special revenue fund accounts for the agency’s redevelopment activities. The Ogden Redevelopment Agency debt is included in this fund.”
This also indicates the city’s recognition of RDA debt as belonging to the city.
You remind me of Godfrey, in the way that you assume that people will not look up what you write (or in his case, says), to determine whether, what you write is the truth.
Chalk up one of my predictions- the SE endorsed Godfrey. Now we get to find out just how influential that miserable rag really is.
But you all seem so infatuated with the reporting of the SE. From my point of view, between the SLTrib and WCForum, I get all the local news I need. In fact, WCForum and the SLTrib scoop the SE on a regular basis. And if you add to that the misinformation and inaccuracies (as reported here and retractions made by the SE), I am left dumbfounded as to why there are as many people who subscribe to the SE.
How many postcards did you receive from the Godfrey campaign Saturday with the endosement by Governor Huntsman for Godfrey that Huntsman's mouth piece says Huntsman did not authorize?
Continuing my infatuation with the Standard-Examiner--but moving beyond today's A section...
There's an article in the Top-o-Utah section on Friday night's council candidate forum.
Perhaps the most useful piece of information in the article is that Johnson and Eccles did not attend. Does anyone know why not? Seems odd that the paper would attack Van Hooser on the front page for declining a suggested debate time, but go so easy on city council candidates for doing the same. As far as I'm aware, Eccles and Johnson have each made exactly one public appearance during the campaign--and very few people even knew about that event.
The article also quotes Wicks on the issue of frequently getting misinformation from Godfrey: "There’s been countless incidences when the council has been provided wrong or inaccurate information from the administration."
And this brings up a question for all you Godfrey supporters out there (including Don Porter): How do you rationalize Godfrey's repeated attempts to mislead the city council? For example, he told them last month that the proposed 1/4 cent tax increase for transportation would raise enough to pay for only $70 million worth of projects, when the actual figure is in the hundreds of millions. He told them in May that the secret gondola study wasn't being funded by the money that Ken Lee lobbied for, when in fact it was. He and his A-team have misled the council about the sale of the Bloom's property to Bootjack (Chris Peterson), the proposed relocation of St. Anne's shelter, and the company that they wanted to buy the Shupe-Williams property. When you endorse Godfrey, are you endorsing this behavior? If not, what should be done about it?
Knows The Law:
You wrote: He has crossed the line and broken the law -- we have the proof with Sonja's letter -- he can and should be removed from office if he is re-elected. He and Patterson need to be charged in order to remove them.
I've read the letter you're talking about. Hard put to see anything in it that involves the Mayor in breaking a law. One of his underlings, perhaps, but even that is not clear. Seems to me folks are way too eager to start alleging that office holders they don't like are criminals.
The letter does report what I think is clearly unethical and highly hypocritical conduct on the part of Mr. Patterson... I note he had no objections to a UTA employee taking part in electoral politics, running for and serving on the city council, and taking stands on public matters there, just so long as the person was generally supportive of the Mayor and his policies; only after that person began opposing the Mayor's excesses did Mr. Patterson conclude that he was a problem and pick up the phone.
But I don't see anything in the letter suggesting illegal conduct on the Mayor's part.
Godfrey has done some good things. When his original [and bad] idea of making Ogden into the new Silicon Valley tanked, his re-marketing Ogden as an outdoor industries and recreation center was a good one. Had he and those he relies on done that and behaved ethically over the past eight years, and had he not gotten himself bedazzled by gondolas and gated vacation villas on the city's parklands, and had he not shown a consistent and continuing preference for duplicity and doing the public's business in secret to benefit cronies and allies, I might have voted for another term for him myself.
That's an awful lot of "ifs," though. And the Mayor has not behaved honorably in office; he did try to sell of the city's parks to benefit his crony; he did pitch the city into tumultuous division over his gondola obsession; and he has run us heavily into debt for projects that may... or may not... succeed; he has treated the council, the public and the press with contempt and disembling; he has treated Ogden's supposedly "community" cable channel as his personal play thing; he did keep insisting on the city website that this gondola/gondola scheme would connect downtown Ogden with Snow Basin long long after insisted, over and over again, that it would not. And he has not taken care of the day-to-day mundane business that a Mayor is supposed to take care of as job one: maintaining and improving city services. I'll leave aside his more embarrassing escapades, like following a police officer's wife around downtown because she opposed his policies, or ranting at WSU for daring to put the University's interests ahead of the Mayor's gondola obsession.
All of that makes him an unwise choice for a third term and so I will not vote for him. It doesn't, however, make him a criminal. As Dan S. said in an earlier post on this thread, a key issue in this race is integrity, and in particular, the Mayor's lack of it. And those opposed to him should campaign, hard, to see that he is not returned to office.
But there are limits to hard campaigning that decent people will observe, even if their opponents do not. Charles Trentelman's column today in the SE has something to say on the rising level of personal invective now infecting political disagreement and discussion in the US. It's worth a read, I think. It can be found here.
dan s.-
Do not ever forget the Mayor's announcement regarding Ernest Health.
Godfrey made a big thing very recently about informing us that Ernest Health is now coming to town after secret negotiations have gone on for months.
The problem is that the City Council never voted on bringing Ernest Health to town because the Council could never get answers to their questions.
I am no psychiatrist but my amateur observations lead me to believe that Mayor Godfrey has a problem with honest open dealings about anything.
curmudgeon:
The Chief Operating Officer of a city does not call UTA about a former City Councilman's support of a political rival for Mayor without the incumbent Mayor's knowledge and approval.
Get your head out of the sand.
FYI, e-mail from Smart Growth:
MAYOR'S DECLARATION DOES NOT PROTECT PARK IN PERPETUITY
November 1, 2007
Smart Growth Ogden has asked several attorneys to review the Declaration
of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Mt. Ogden Park that Mayor
Godfrey signed on October 25. Among the attorneys is J. Craig Smith of
Salt Lake City, an expert in land use and real estate law. All of the
attorneys we spoke with, including Smith, are in general agreement over
the following assessment of the Declaration.
While this document appears to be a positive step toward better protecting
the park, and we appreciate the mayor's good intentions in signing it, we have four concerns:
1. According to the Ogden City Code, the mayor may not place an
encumbrance such as this upon a significant piece of real property without
first giving 14 days notice to the city council and the public, and then
holding a public hearing on the proposed encumbrance. Ogden City Code 4-3A-5(C). Because no such notice or public hearing has taken place, it
would appear that the mayor's declaration was not legally executed.
Rather than risk legal challenges to the new restrictions in the future,
we urge the mayor to follow the required procedure.
2. This declaration does not and cannot restrict the use of the parklands
"in perpetuity", because restrictive covenants can always be revoked
through unanimous agreement of the affected property owners. In this case there is only a single property owner--the city--so there is nothing to stop the city from removing the restrictions through the same process by
which they are adopted.
3. The language of the declaration contains a significant loophole,
allowing any "improvements" to the property (including roads and structures) that are considered beneficial to Ogden City. Any of the
existing park features, including the golf course, trails, and open space,
could be reduced or eliminated without violating the language of the declaration.
4. The legal description of the affected property contains numerous errors and, more importantly, excludes the area south of Strong's Canyon around the Ogden City water tanks. This area includes a heavily used portion of the Mt. Ogden Exercise Loop trail. We don't understand why this area was excluded, unless the mayor wishes to leave open the possibility of selling this area for private development.
Meanwhile, the city council has taken a positive step toward protecting
Mt. Ogden Park, by adopting the Mt. Ogden Community Plan with its new
language requiring that the entire park be retained in public ownership.
While this provision could also be repealed in the future through similar
legislative action, we believe it adds an important check and balance
against the mayor's authority to sell city property.
The problem with criminal accusations is that a very high standard of proof is required: "beyond a reasonable doubt". Or as we were taught in school, a person is "innocent until proven guilty".
This principle means that many of the guilty are, technically, innocent. And this subtlety leads to misunderstandings when people like curmudgeon and geez! try to communicate.
Geez:
You wrote: The Chief Operating Officer of a city does not call UTA about a former City Councilman's support of a political rival for Mayor without the incumbent Mayor's knowledge and approval.
Probably not, I agree. But nothing in the letter provides evidence that that is what happened. Nothing specifically involves the Mayor in the calls. [And on occasion, staffers do go off the reservation on their own, though I, like you, doubt that happened in this case.] However, what you and I think happened, or even what you and I are really really really sure happened, amounts to exactly zero evidence that the Mayor was responsible for Mr. Patterson's phone calls [presuming those calls to have violated a law, which I don't know either].
What I said was, nothing in the letter directly implicates the Mayor in criminal conduct. And nothing does, so far as I can see, regardless of what you and I think happened.
You may be right Curm; however the Mayor is ultimately responsible for the actions of his nasty dog. He is Pattersons boss, and he is a representative of the City. Christ if any other City employee pulled that crap they would be kicking horshit down the road in the blink of an eye, remember Officer Jones?
Hell, he's paying Patterson over 120 grand a year to do his dirty work, and using the little bulldog as insulation from the wrong doing.
If I was a betting man, I would put the farm Godfrey knows everything Patterson does, including a full schedule of his potty breaks.
The bottom line is, Patterson is a supporter of Godfrey, what he did was inappropriate and it needs to come to light. This is the only person who has come forward with any real substance of the intimidation Godfrey's groupies are using.
Didn't the SE run several stories about the rumor that Garcia was trying to get people's endorsements for Mayor by promising them jobs with the city - a charge that Garcia denied. So why shouldn't the SE also run a story about Patterson (Godfrey?) threatening someone's job for not endorsing Godfrey?
tk,
The Utah Code has a specific prohibition against bribery in elections. What's not clear to me is whether this law, or some other, also prohibits threats. It would seem odd to outlaw carrots but not sticks.
Thank you, Cato, for that information. All the TV stations have Sonia's letter. They've been asked to run with it. Each of you could call the stations also and give them an earful.
The editors I spoke with had no inkling of what Godfrey has done to this city. ONE did say, "Ogden, the crime capital!".
Guess he hadn't read Greiner and Godfrey's version of the stats,
So, good citizens...call the stations, ask for the news desk and give them the truth and ask for them to bring it to the many viewers they have in Ogden.
Curmudgeon,
Mrs. Jorgensen called Patterson's phone call "intimidating" and states: "There have been many times when Kent served as city councilman that I had to “bite my tongue.” This is not the first “intimidation call” that has originated from Mr. Godfrey’s administration."
To me that is misuse of one's position and power which according to Ogden ordinance is grounds for removal from office.
Also in Mrs. Jorgensen's letter, she goes on to state the Patterson call Mr. Inglish at UTA and more or less coerced him into applying pressure to Kent with the threat of losing his job which she verified was done. There are two incidents where Patterson misused his position and authority to influence another person.
An ordinance in Ogden is the law that governs Ogden. If you understand that, then Patterson broke the law. You are right that Godfrey has Patterson do his dirty work, so he can claim (lie) he didn't know anything about it, like he has so many times. Those who know how Godfrey micromanages everything, know that nobody dare blow their nose without clearing it with him first. His claims that he didn't know wouldn't hold up on a polygraph test or if he had to "swear" in court.
TK, of course the Standard won't report on the Huntsman faux pas or his unethical political shenanigans. The race is too close so they can only report good things which they have done abundantly at no cost to Godfrey. Don Porter's bias is VERY EVIDENT when Rudi prints the letters that expose Godfrey for an unscrupulous rat that Porter won't print. All the editors are just as biased as Porter. So don't expect the real news to be printed in the SE.
Deep Throat:
The political responsibility absolutely resides with the Mayor for Patterson's conduct. What Patterson did was despicable. No decent public office holder would have done it. And Patterson has, clearly, the confidence and support of the Mayor. The political consequences of what the Mayor's staff does, if he does not discipline them for it, should fall to the Mayor. On Tuesday.
And you wrote: Hell, he's paying Patterson over 120 grand a year.... I wish that were so, that Mayor Godfrey was paying his own henchmen. But he's not. We are. Mr. Patterson is on the public payroll.
You wrote: If I was a betting man, I would put the farm Godfrey knows everything Patterson does.... So would I, Deep, so would I. But to return to Geez point for a moment, what you or I would bet on is not evidence of criminal conduct.
The place to hold the Mayor responsible for what his underlings do is the polling both. This Tuesday.
First, I feel Dan S. goes overboard in his criticism of Rudi, for the latter's criticism of Kent Jorgenson. Kent is a brave and it seems, reformed, man, but let's not forget it is thanks to him we have 30 years of BDO revenue spent on Godfrey's downtown fun house. And it is thanks only to Rudi that this town has an alternative news source.
Second, surely anyone who reads Sonja Jorgenson's letter about Godfrey's attempt to intimidate her husband while on the same day reading the SE's endorsement of the master of corruption Godfrey, can only see how contemptible the SE truly is.
Perhaps this is why almost everyone holds the SE editors in contempt!
For many, the paper's endorsement of Godfrey will be the final kiss of death.
Yes, vote for Godfrey so our mayor can be indicted after the election. Great.
Sharon,
Good idea! Everyone needs to call at least 10 people and tell them why Susie Van Hooser, Amy Wicks, Sheila Aardema, and Caitlen Gochnour should be elected. Write a few reasons down before you call. If you need some ideas, read the letters to the editor from Sharon and Basil Beech, and the ones that Rudi printed today that Standard wouldn't. Dan S. and Curmudgeon and many others have given you reasons in their posts. It is imperative that we let everyone know. Also ask them if they are concerned about a gondola floating over Ogden within the next four years, they should call ten people.
Knows..
Remember during the Watergate hearing the question was "what did the president know and if he didn't know why didn't he know?" It all comes down to accountability. Is that not why we have elections?
The whole thing about the Jorgenson letter is that there is some oppression going on and that is what is against the law. It is in the states constitution and the mayor has sworn to uphold that document. So now the story needs to be brought out! Has the mayor violated his oath of office and what about John Patterson? Did he not take an oath of office also? If he didn't then the mayor has not done his job.
Knows the Law:
That Mr. Patterson abused his power [with or without the Mayor's encouragement] I agree absolutely, particularly when he, according to the letter, threatened that the City's cooperation with UTA would be affected if UTA did not silence its employee... and former city councilman. And resident and citizen of Ogden. That there is a city ordinance that covers, specifically, what he did in calling the head of UTA to silence Mr. Jorgensen, I am not sure. May be, for all I know, or maybe not. There's been much posted here that there is an ordinance specifically covering this, and that clearly Mr. Patterson violated it. I'll have to reserve judgment on that until somebody produces the ordinance.
But I don't have to reserve judgment on this: What Mr. Patterson did was despicable, it was an abuse of his office and authority, no decent man would have done it, and the Mayor's failure to call him to account for what he did provides more than enough ground for us to conclude that the Mayor, at the very least, found nothing wrong with what his underling did. And more than enough for us... and more than enough for the SE as well... to conclude that Ogden will not do well under an administration so lacking in integrity and in any sense of what honor definitely demands --- and that Ogden's voters should demand --- of a public official. Any public official.
Councilwoman Jeske wrote an OpEd piece for the Standard that Don Porter refused to run on the opinion page. This seemed a little biased to a few employees in the know because of the frequent space the editorial department has given over to Mayor Godfrey and his backers.
Then a concerned citizen that felt the letter was important to the people stepped forward and payed the Standard the regular page rate of several thousand dollars for a large display ad which will appear in tomorrow's Standard.
Thus Mrs. Jeske's letter which was not good enough for the Standard's Editorial page is plenty good enough for a paid ad!
This paper is more about making money than it is of informing the public. This is just one incident that demonstrates that point.
Excellent letter, Dan!
Wants Integrity: Good suggestion. we can each call ten people. A gal called me last nite about Referendum 1....I asked her if she lived in Ogden and was a registered voter....she's from So. Ogden...so I gave her an earful of Godfrey and asked her to tell her Ogden friends to vote Van Hooser and the 3 other women. Everywhere I go, I ask that question, if they aren't residents, I ask them to tell everyone they know to vote for the 4 women.
Try to call KNRS 730 am tomorrow between 5:30 and 8:30...I think Bob Lonsberry just talks from 5 to 5:30 or so....and then call Doug Wright on KSL...try to get the word out that Godfrey has to go, have a couple talking points ready. Kent Jorgenson's sorry saga should be enuf to turn off anyone decent who is listening.
fly in the news room:
Ms. Jeske is an elected official, a Council member. That status should have been enough to get her her op-ed piece run. However, the parallel you try to draw between something being "not good enough for the Editorial page" and yet "plenty good enough for a paid ad" won't work. If you pay for an ad, you can put what you damn well please in it [within very broad limits] regardless of the quality of the content. The Mayor, for example, on the public's dollar, recently published a campaign press release on the page Ogden City buys from the SE to run public information. An SE editor told me the paper has no control whatsoever over what Godfrey chooses to run on the city-bought page. So, whoever pays for the space gets to run in it whatever they want to. Good or bad. Sensible or not.
However, the SE should have respected the voters who put Ms. Jeske in office enough to have run her piece on the op ed page, as it has offered recently to run a piece by the mayor.
I wonder, just out of curiosity, how many submissions by sitting members of the council the SE has refused over, say, the last year. Or two. Anyone know?
Post a Comment