By Curmudgeon
Today's Standard-Examiner features a Scott Schwebke lead story, about the new council members pledging to try to heal the divisions in the city, and particularly the prickly relationship of late between Hizzonah Mayor Godfrey and the Council.
From the story:
Blain H. Johnson, who will occupy at-large Seat A, and Caitlin K. Gochnour, who will represent Municipal Ward 4, are cautiously optimistic they can help thaw the chilly relationship between the council and administration.Then Mr. Schwebke asked Mayor Godfrey for his views on the matter. And Hizzonah offered this:
“I’m completely independent,” Gochnour said. “I want to be able to communicate openly with them (the city’s administration) when I support them and when I’m not supporting them. I feel like we can disagree in a dignified fashion and still respect each other.”
Johnson said he doesn’t believe in finger-pointing over past differences between the council and administration. However, he hopes to be a catalyst to foster a better relationship between the two bodies. “I’m only one person, but I know I will do what I can,” he said. “We need to get both sides together.
Mayor Matthew Godfrey said he’s encouraged that Johnson and Gochnour want to engage in open communication. He hopes other council members, particularlyThus signaling his willingness to try to mend fences and create a more cooperative relationship with the Council by promptly attacking two of the City Council members [one week after telling the Std-Ex that Council Chair, a third member, was lying about a private conversation he'd had with the Mayor]. One sentence stating his hopes for a better relationship, followed by an immediate attack on Council members who had the effrontery to disagree with him and to say so publicly.
Dorrene Jeske and Amy Wicks, the council’s vice chairwoman who was elected to
another term last month, will follow suit.
Godfrey said Wicks and Jeske have refused to meet with him individually to voice concerns, but have repeatedly taken his administration to task for being uncooperative and secretive.
“It’s tough when you have that kind of situation,” said Godfrey, who won re-election to a third term last month by defeating challenger City Councilwoman Susan Van Hooser. “I can’t force them to communicate with me.”
And the beat goes on... .
37 comments:
There was this in the article as well:
Geiger said he plans to plead not guilty and believes the charges are politically motivated.
“This is a clear case of harassment of a private citizen by a state representative and the vice chair of our city council,” he said in an e-mail to the Standard-Examiner. “The election of Mayor Godfrey is something that they are struggling to come to terms with.”
I am reminded of Rudi's advice that no one, regardless of the circumstances, should comment on pending litigation. You pay attorneys to do that for you. Regardless of their veracity, Mr. Geiger hurt himself greatly with these remarks.
I have been asked by Captain Geiger's lawyers for a medical opinion on his case. I have advised them that Mr. Geiger should plead "not guilty"...
"by reason of insanity".
Dr. Sigmund Freud
Vienna
We already knew Johnson was a fence mender for the Godfrey crew, but is Godfrey capable of mending fences while he is taking jabs at the council all of the time?
I think not.
In booby's case,
“This is a clear case of harassment of a private citizen by a state representative and the vice chair of our city council,” he said in an e-mail to the Standard-Examiner. “The election of Mayor Godfrey is something that they are struggling to come to terms with.”
I have to think how does Hansen harass Geiger, when it was Geiger that had taken down Hansen signs and put up Godfrey's sign and it was Geiger that told Hansen if I'm breaking the law then have me arrested, which Hansen did. so bobby get you head on straight and face the music.
Please, will a child psychologist please come to short decks aid. Not only can he not see the error of his ways, he's blaming the victems of his actions for the predicament he's in.
Both cases were filed long before the final outcome of the election and he was caught red-handed in both instances.
This lost soul may need a 90 psychological evaluation at the point of the mountain to determine if he's competant to stand trial for his transgressions.
Two of the main definers of a sociopath are: 1. Having no empathy for their victim, and 2. Blaming their victims for the crimes.
Bald face lying of course is another factor.
Seems like Bobby, has at least three of the five or so factors that make up the sociopath personality.
All a psychiatrist has to do is read the numerous emails that Bobby sends to the world wherein he attacks members of the Council and jumps to unfounded conclusions that they've committed horrendous crimes against the mayor to know that he is one very mentally disturbed individual.
He says he is being harrassed -- what a joke! I've seen him harrass Sharon Beech and Councilwoman Jeske more than once! He definitely needs a mental evaluation and confinement with psycological treatment.
Isn't it interesting that the SE didn't report on the charges against Bobby, but we had to read about it in the SL Tribune and see it on KSL news? I wonder whether it was the SE's "impartial" (laugh) reporting policy that stopped them reporting the incident -- we all know how they go for the jugglar when any one in the public view does anything questionable, or if the mayor intervened so that it was not in the SE.
A newsman in Salt Lake made the comment recently that "Politics in Ogden is never dull!" Must agree when we have a mayor like Godfrey.
Schwebke's article, as others have commented, demonstrates how sincere the mayor is about "mending fences." He is so vindictive that all he can think about is getting even and having the last word. He doesn't realize that his comments reveal his "true character" and how bare it is of genuine decency.
I'm sure Scott wrote the article to try and elevate the mayor in the eyes of Ogden residents, but he couldn't achieve that because of the mayor's defective reasoning and moral fiber. When he was re-elected, it meant another 4 years of his devious and sneaky antics behind the Council's back, no matter who the Council members are.
Agatha
The following is from "The Psychopath Amongst Us"
It defines criteria for the "Sociopathic and Psychopathic" personality.
Does any of these remind you of anyone in power in Emerald City?
(1) They are habitual liars. They seem incapable of either knowing or telling the truth about anything.
(2) They are egotistical to the point of narcissism. They really believe they are set apart from the rest of humanity by some special grace.
(3) They scapegoat; they are incapable of either having the insight or willingness to accept responsibility for anything they do. Whatever the problem, it is always someone else's fault.
(4) They are remorselessly vindictive when thwarted or exposed.
(5) Genuine religious, moral, or other values play no part in their lives. They have no empathy for others. Under older psychological terminology, they fall into the category of psychopath or sociopath, but unlike the typical psychopath, their behavior is masked by a superficial social facade.
do what is right -
I understand geiger's position completely..
In a narcissist's mind anybody that complains about what they are illegally doing to anyone else enuff for that someone to actually file a police report is harrassment in their opinion and you will never convince them that it is not.
That view of society is the narcissist's version of right and wrong.
I learned from personal experience. I made the mistake of marrying one.
The only way Godfrey will mend fences is if those thinking differently from him:
1. Undergo frontal lobotomies
2. Grovel while begging forgiveness for daring to think for themselves
3. Kiss his ring, feet, etc.
4. Drink lots of Kool-Ade.
Anything less will NOT constitute "mending fences".
Wants Integrity:
You wrote: I'm sure Scott wrote the article to try and elevate the mayor in the eyes of Ogden residents...
Sorry, but I don't see any evidence of that in the story at all. Looks like pretty straight post-election reporting to me.
Cletus:
Yup. I am afraid there are only two ways in which the abrasive relations between the council and the mayor are now likely to be overcome.
1. We get a different mayor, one who understands that we have the mayor/council form of government in which it is the council's job to examine, test and ask questions about administrative actions and proposals.
2. Mayor Godfrey gets a rubber stamp Council which refuses to ask questions or exercise its independent judgment on anything coming down from the administration.
This is very unfortunate, and not good for Ogden. But given the Mayor's statements to Mr. Schwebke, it seems pretty clear that he is only interested in the Council finding ways to cooperate with him, and not at all interested in his finding ways to cooperate with the Council. I had hoped that the closeness of the election, and the election of two council candidate he did not endorse would have convinced him that it would be in his own best interest to dial down the acrimony and look for ways to create a better working relationship with the Council. Really unfortunate for Ogden that he seems uninterested in doing that.
What about the timing of this piece? It also represents almost the most words allowed in recent memory, for anything of Schwebke authorship. Why even have the inclussion of short decks delinquent dilemma? Short deck has nothing to do with the Council Adinistration relationship. He represent a criminally mischievious element in our community that believes the can do and say whatever they feel will accomplish their own objectives. His words and actions display a total lack of any moral compass or concideration of others.
Could it be that Schwebke's boss' is suffering from post election depression, or that they are trying their hardest to invent news, agitate in order to create friction and further their percieved divide?
The new Council is almost 2 months from taking over, lying little matty has taken personal shots at three Council members since the election, the latest courtesy of Schwebke's ill timed convoluted story that is nothing but a hypothetical assumption of a condition that may not ever materialize.
Curmudgeon, Monotreme, and Sharon: You're probably wondering why I never responded to your most recent comments on the thread before last. I won't explain here, but you can ask Rudi if you're curious.
How is it that Geiger is in the story about mending fences of the community? Why has the press even thinking that he is worthy of his attention on this issue? How about really getting to the issue of mending fences and how the little lord has put holes in the fences and hence the mending is required.
Bill and Do What;
You know, sometimes I think Mr. Schwebke can't win for losin'. The story is about a bitterly divided community and whether such divisions are likely to continue under the new Council and Third Term Godfrey. Including the Geiger item seems perfectly appropriate to me as an indication of the kinds of divisions that have, clearly continued past the election. But you guys somehow find it evidence of bias in favor of Hizzonah... or so it seems. If Schwebke had left it out, I suspect you'd offer his leaving it out as evidence of bias in favor of Godfrey.
I suppose the tendency to ferret out ulterior motives in what still seems to me to be a pretty straight-forward post-election bit of reporting could itself be taken as evidence of the continuing divide.
The reason Godfrey and Geiger are joined at their skinny hips is because they are both Sociopathic personalities, IMHO.
Godfrey's just a wee smarter (wily) and that's why he gets Bobby to do his dirty bidding.
There was no valid reason to include Geiger in the story of "Mending Fences". Geiger is not on the Council...unless he'll be influencing Johnson and Stephenson?
Wicks was summoned to the little one's office only to find he was out of town ( a gondola trip to Europe?) and she had not been notified! That's rude.....so she wasted her time in going to the 9th floor, and his staff hadn't the courtesy to tell her beforehand that the little guy wouldn't be around.
Then he has the nerve to tell anyone who will listen that Wicks and Dorrene won't meet with him.
Instead of campaigning for months, he could have been in attendance at meetings with the Council. Van Hooser was in her appointed place.
I didn't see anything in Schwebke's illuminating article about the mayor wanting to mend fences by being open, honest, above board, and actually telling the Council things they should know. Nothing about not cramming his agenda down their collective throat. He usually does this via Harmer who informs the Council whatever is on the agenda must be passed "NOW". Nothing in the article that says he'll stop taking cheap shots at Garcia, Wicks and Jeske.
I implore the Council, this time around, to take their time. ASK questions til they are satisfied they have all the answers and they understand the issues. If something doesn't seem right...trust your gut...it ain't! Move to table...and if that doesn't work...vote "NO"...if it's a valid proposal,. then it can bear further scrutiny. If it's bad, it needs to bear further scrutiny. Everything can be revisited. To do less than this does not serve the people.
And Scott,...stop writing drivel, please. Why didn't you and your editors do a story about Bob and his vandalism before the election? Hmmmm? Wouldn't be that the SE is biased in favor of crooks, now would it?
Dear old(?) Curmudgen, wouldn't it have more genuine if Schwebke had of included the most recent quote of the mayors in which he basically called the Council chairman a liar? Seems more relevant to the issue of Council mayor relations.
Short deck's actions were never even pressed on the mayor publicly, the paper gave him a complete pass.
How about something real germane to the discussion, like the fact that since June no one could communicate with the mayor, unless he happened at their door, campaining.
The guy was awol from his duties, no Council Meeting or work sessions,(with the exception of the one work session he used to subvert serious transit)
And speaking of communication, thats what Council meetings and work sessions are for. The Council can't be blamed for the lying little runts dislike of open public forums being the place for serious two way communication, recorded and on record. Too damned hard to lie, thats lying little matty's take on that one.
If follow up on the election is the topic, why not posing more questions to the County officials that still have some real issues to deal with, clean up? Given their total lack of interest in the short deck criminality up to this point, I find it funny they print it now, thats all.
Sharon:
You wrote: I didn't see anything in Schwebke's illuminating article about the mayor wanting to mend fences by being open, honest, above board, and actually telling the Council things they should know.
Of course you didn't since, evidently, the Mayor did not say that to Mr. Schwebke. Don't see what else a reporter could have done on that point. The Mayor didn't say it, so the reporter did not report that he did. I thought the conclusion to be drawn about what Godfrey intends, from reading Mr. Schwebke's story, was not favorable to the Mayor at all.
Bill:
You wrote: Given their total lack of interest in the short deck criminality up to this point, I find it funny they print it now, thats all.
On that point, no argument. But I'd reply that the SE having wrongly not reported the arrests earlier does not justify their not including that information in later stories [where it's relevant]. As it was in Mr. Schwebke's story today, to topic of which was, again, serious divisions likely to continue in Ogden past the election. And the Geiger matter, and his comments, are absolutely relevant to the topic of the article.
Well, Curm....Schwebke could've asked the mayor about complaints that HE is not forthcoming with the Council... Don't you think Schwebke could've brot up concerns from the Council and the citizenry that Godfrey is not cooperative?
Oh yeah, I forgot. Schwebke "doesn't do investigative" work. He just writes what the mayor and his unbiased editors tell him. Heaven forbid that he should ask a penetrating question or a follow-up one.
Hi everyone,
Yesterday's article was typical Standard-Examiner "he said, she said" reporting. As such, it was "balanced" (quotes on each issue from both "sides"). What the article lacked was facts and follow-up questions--in short, depth.
If Schwebke had dug just a little deeper on mayor-council relations, he would have discovered that the problem isn't that some council members sometimes disagree with the mayor and sometimes even (heaven forbid!) vote against the mayor's proposals. The problem is that the mayor routinely withholds information from the council and/or provides the council with incorrect information. This is why most of the council doesn't trust the mayor.
I hope the Standard-Examiner's editors will stop for just a minute and think about why Godfrey is trying to make a big issue out of the fact that some council members prefer not to meet with him one-on-one. From what I've heard, Godfrey uses these one-on-one meetings to coerce council members into supporting his proposals before the full council has seen all the information and before the full council has had a chance to discuss the proposal in an open meeting. Once he has his votes lined up, he doesn't need to publicly disclose details that would embarass him. He got especially used to working this way under what Rudi calls the "gang of six" council, routinely giving Garcia and Wicks the mushroom treatment (keep 'em in the dark) since he didn't need their votes anyway.
Sharon:
He asked the council members attacked for their views and included them. Councilwoman Wicks' statement about why she preferred using the regular leadership conferences which include the Mayor rather than off the record one on one meetings I thought was clear and made good sense. Same for Councilwoman Jeske's report of her private meetings with the Mayor, which the Mayor seemed to think were largely to provide opportunities for him to berate the Councilwoman one on one. It was right that Schwebke asked the members who were attacked by the Mayor for their views, and he included their statements in the story. I am hard put to find much wrong with that.
Sharon, what it seems you wanted Schwebke to write was an attack piece on the Mayor, more suitable for an op-ed than the news columns. Or for an investigative piece on mayor/council relations and how they got that way. This was not the intent of the story, seems to me. We could argue, as Dan does, that the SE should have assigned someone to write that story. I wish it had. But it didn't. Schwebke's story was not an investigative piece, but a very common post election story regarding how the new Council will relate to each other. As such, it wasn't a bad story at all, I thought.
I'm happy enough to pile on when Mr. Schwebke drops the ball on a story, and I have, but he didn't this time. We could quibble about a detail here, or a phrase there, I suppose... but we could do that about any story by any body about any topic any time. I found the story interesting, and welcome in that it laid out, in very clear terms, the mayor's unwillingness to accept the olive branch held out by the two new elected council members specifically, and his intent to continue his confrontational style with respect to the returning and continuing members. I'm glad the paper ran it.
Well Mr. Curm, I'm just sorry that your expectations and demands you place on our elected officials and the responsibility and role played by our local press have dropped so low.Lying little matty and squirrel patroller lee carter at the standard have succeeded in lowering the bar so low, that any mention or notice in print is welcomed and praised, despite it's complete lack of detail, depth and unmotivated exploration.
Why should you have to search your memory to piece together all the unprinted details of importance?
For 2 or 3 years almost 30% of a Schwebke piece contained the same background paragraph so the reader would be appraised of the official party line.
Oh and Curm, something you, I and the paper forgot to mention about the Water meeting last thurs.
The complete administration was absent. Are we supposed to read something into that? My memory tells me they were opposed to going thru the proccess.
Bill:
You wrote: I'm just sorry that your expectations and demands you place on our elected officials and the responsibility and role played by our local press have dropped so low.
First, I don't see how anything I posted indicates dropping standards for what I expect... for what all citizens should expect... of elected officials. Damned if I can see how you got that out of my posts on this.
Second: I've gone after the SE repeatedly for its tendency to take press releases of elected officials [and candidates] at face value, for its refusal to fact check them, etc. Been on them for two years now about that. Haven't dropped what I expect a good paper... and my home-town paper... should do and be one iota. But every story isn't, can't be, and shouldn't be a "stop the presses rip the roof off this town" expose'.
Stories should be judged as they are presented, and different standards have to be used to judge different kinds of stories. And this story, in terms of what was intended, was not bad. It raised an important question... will the new Council and Mayor work better together than the existing one? It took the statements of the two new council members as its starting point. It queried the Mayor, and included comments from him that made it painfully plain he does not intend to move so much as a pinkie to grasp any olive branches that might be extended, and it included comments from the two sitting Council members the Mayor attacked, and presented, I thought, their clear, cogent and very much on point replies. And it brought in at the end the Geiger Trails and his statement as evidence of the deep and heated divisions that have survived the vote. Not a bad story at all I think.
Sometimes, book reviewers do a bad job when they end up complaining that the author whose work they are reviewing did not write the book the reviewer would have written. I think there's a little bit of that going on here. Yes, you and Sharon and Dan [and I] would have approached this topic very differently and would have done more of a history-based research piece. But this one was not that kind of story and it's not right, I think, to judge it as if it had been.
Again, overall, I'm glad the SE printed it and I think Mr. Schwebke handled it reasonably well, and certainly shouldn't be catching all this heat for not having written either a deeply researched piece or an anti-Godfrey attack piece, the first of which he was not [I'd bet] asked to write, and the second of which it would have not been appropriate for him to write.
Thank You Curm, for your detailed a well stated interpritation of the latest Schwebke offering. You did well in filling in some of the blanks for readers with shorter, or non existant memories. I hope as Scott reads your post he'll see clearly what could be incorporated into the body of his writings. Please excuse me for using you to test my new found short deck given powers, I have been reluctant to try them out since finding that they were bestowed on me in one of his spam like e-mails to the standard editorial board.
You see now that I have been elevated to the level of being able to incite others to hate speach and general vitriol, I'll have to be more carefull in my rantings. I don't believe you rose to the level short deck attributed my power to be capable of, but you are the most even handed of naysayers.
Again, my sincerest apologies.
Oh, Curm, Curm, Curm....where did I say that Schwebke was to write a hate piece on the mayor?
I wanted Scott to tell both sides....starting with withholding info on Ernest Health...one week into their new Council membership. That was an egregious act of hubris on Godfrey's part...Bill Cook wasn't forthcoming either. The Council was polite and handled themselves well.
Godfrey used that manipulated faisco to let peple know, for two years now, that HE is the injured party....and not the other way around. Scott could have told about BootJack LLC, and the keeping of THAT secret!
If Scott and his editors had a smidgen of journalistic integrity and honesty, they would tell the whole story, not just selected bits.
Are you sure you aren't auditioning for a spot on the SE staff? :)
Sharon, please exercize caution, you too have been listed as one with these powers, your name appeared before mine in short decks decree.
Bill.....I plan to attend Geiger's big day in court next month. Wanna go? Happy New Year!
Oh, humm. After reading the above posts, I've come to the conclusion that Curmudgeon writes the things he does and seems to be arbitrarily contradictive to everything that others write because you all respond to him making him feel important. My advice is "just ignore him." Maybe then this thread could proceed to a worthwhile dialogue.
Bored:
Ignoring posts is always an option. But consider, that one of the things that makes a blog interesting [for me anyway] is that people disagree about matters, and are willing to say why and to discuss their disagreements with those who think differently. Blogs where everyone runs around saying "yeah, I think so too" are generally not much worth the time.
And just for the record, I never, but never, disagree on this blog just for the sake of disagreeing. But if you prefer to read only posts you agree with and to ignore the rest, feel free.
Curmudgeon,
I hate responding to your comments, but you put a slant on my remarks that was not the intent. I have enjoyed reading this blog because usually there is good information provided and it does keep one up on what is happening in Ogden. You are one to whom I am referring that has made some very informative posts. But it seemed that this thread had turned into a tit for tat focused on insignificant details. However, I am inclined to agree with Bill C's, Sharon's, Wants integrity and Monotreme's comments. You know, I doubt that anyone would have thought anything about Geiger or made any comment about his michievious antics if Schwebke had left that paragraph out of the article because it really didn't fit. The only way that Bobby's name should have been mentioned in the article is to say that he and his father, Curt, along with the mayor are the great dividers in Ogden. Let's get back to the issues.
All we can hope for at this time is that Gochour and Johnson really are sincere about being independent, and will make decisions accordingly. We most certainly don't need another Brandon Stephenson on the Council. I wonder if he asks the mayor if it's alright to blow his nose? Johnson is on the Ogden Foundation Board which makes his comments doubtful. Safsten is on that Board, and we are well aware how he endorsed everything that the mayor recommended and questioned anyone who had an opposing opinion. I really don't see that Ogden gained and maybe lost where the council is concerned.
Bored:
Sorry if I misconstrued your meaning. On the council election, my guess is it left the Council pretty much where it was before the election. But we shall see. Be interesting to see how Mr. Johnson reacts to the dismissive treatment the Mayor is used to giving the Council, since the article we are discussing made it [I think] painfully evident that he has no intention of changing his approach.
Curmudgeon
The mayor is very dismissive of the council, but he sure isn't, nor has he ever been, to Stephenson and Safsten. They have been in complete harmony and lock step with the mayor every single bit of the way.
I suspect that the new member in question, the one who already is known to be an insider of the mayor, will fully enjoy the insider position being vacated by Mr. Safsten.
The real question mark, and hope, will be Mrs. Gouchner. If she truly is a person of integrity, and if she really is completely open minded, then it should not take her long to see the real problems that exist in Mr. Godfrey's administration and especially his leadership style as it relates to his ethical choices.
There is another interesting item in Schwebke's article that no one has elaborated on. He points out that "Godfrey said Wicks and Jeske have refused to meet with him individually to voice concerns, but have repeatedly taken his administration to task for being uncooperative and secretive.
“'It’s tough when you have that kind of situation,' said Godfrey, . . . 'I can’t force them to communicate with me.'”
I contend that he is reaping the results of what he has sown. It is a pretty well-known fact that Godfrey has no respect for women and is an abuser of them. I believe in the article Jeske says that he called her on the carpet the second week that she was in office and that he was unpleasant with her and it left her with very little desire to meet with him again. I asked her if he had invited her to his office to meet with him since then, and she said that he had scheduled an appointment for her to meet with him and Brandon Stephenson concerning Chris Peterson's project. She said that she did not go because she that it was inappropriate for the mayor to meet behind closed doors with individual council members when it was more advantageous for the council members to hear the plan as a body and hear each other's responses and questions. She felt that he was evading the open meeting law and violating the spirit of that law. She says when she has questions, she gets the answers but not from Godfrey. Too bad that she didn't point out to Schwebke that the mayor is now reaping what he has sown.
Post a Comment