Boss Godfrey receives more blowback in this morning's Standard-Examiner, resulting from the leaked email which he evidently "planted" in the 3/1/08 Std-Ex, in an apparent effort to discredit Emerald City Council Chairwoman Amy Wicks. This morning's letters column has a letter by Ogden's own David Smith, asking a few pointed questions... and providing some proposed answers, none of which are flattering to Boss Godfrey:
This newspaper recently ran a story about Ogden Mayor Matt Godfrey’s claims that Council Chairperson Amy Wicks won’t meet with him privately (March 1 news story, "A communications battle brewing in Ogden"). Amy’s response was that she meets with him all the time, in regular public meetings. But the Mayor, for some reason, is obsessed with meeting with her alone.As our WCF readers without short-term memory deficit will recall (not you, Viktor), we also discussed Irene Voit's letter yesterday.
A couple of questions come to mind. First, what does the mayor wish to say to her in private that he doesn’t want heard in public? Second, does the mayor think he is the Godfather, and that all whom he summons must come, under penalty of public pillory if they don’t?
Amy Wicks was recently re-elected by the largest margin of any candidate in the council races. She was immediately elected to be chairwoman by the other council members. She is one of the most polite and considerate of persons, keenly interested in the opinions of others, and one who fills her public stewardship with both energy and skill. This newspaper endorsed her, as well.
The present situation is reminiscent of a few months ago, when the Godfrey administration was attacking Jesse Garcia, who was the council chairman at the time. Now that she is council chairperson, it appears it is now Amy’s turn for this treatment.
She ran on a platform of being independent, which she is. I suspect that characteristic is the real problem the mayor has with her.
By our count, Boss Godfrey is now batting 0-2 (.000) with the general public. Godfrey is definitely taking his lumps from the lumpencitizens.
Looking into our trusty crystal ball, we're going to go out on a limb and predict that Boss Godfrey will soon be moseying down to the paddock, and saddling up one of his letter-writing warhorses to respond in some way to these two highly critical letters. As we all know, Mayor Godfrey is one of those folks who thinks he's right about everything. Surely he won't allow the Voit and Smith letters to stand unaddressed.
And who will be the trusty Godfrey-lackey to be put in harness to defend Boss Godfrey's "honor," gentle readers? One of the Ballantynes? Little Bobby Geiger? The sway-back old nag Jay Cavendish? We'll be pulling up our political Barca-loungers, waiting to find out.
For our part, we'll be sitting on the edge of our seat, awaiting some articulate rationale, explaining why ANY city council member should meet privately with Boss Godfrey, in defiance of the principle of Open Government.
Take it away, gentle readers. We know you're out there; we can hear you breathing.
4 comments:
Rudi:
Much as I think the letter-writers are right, as is Councilwoman Wicks, and that Hizzonah's mass-mailed [and leaked] note to the Council members was intended to undermine Wicks and sow dissension on the Council, I'm afraid two letters to the SE do not constitute the tactic "backfiring." I'm glad to see people standing up for Ms. Wicks in this matter, since she's right, but I'd warrant that if you stopped people in the mall on a Saturday afternoon and asked them about they Mayor's email, not two in ten... if that... would have any idea what in the world you were talking about.
Public issue blogs necessarily draw as readers and posters policy and politics wonks of one degree or another. Most voters, and even more residents, aren't and barely notice what is happening in city government unless their particular ox is in the process of being gored [Powderville e.g.], or an election is imminent. Wish that was not so, but I'm afraid it is.
Curm,
Like Rob Bishop has said (not orginially) "Government is done by those who show up."
The people who care read these things, and they often read the letters first, or only.
If the Mayor intended to intimidate the council, then it should be clear to the council that his tactic is just that, and they can ignore it, which I suspect they were already planning to do.
And what a comment for you to make, inferring letters to the editor are of no importance. Yes, let's read letters to see what the Constitution means (but don't read the Constitution), but then let's not read letters to see what the public thinks. Do you come up with this stuff just to stir the pot?
BTW, does anybody remember me asking why, two weeks ago, gas stations weren't raising prices? Well now they are. The thing is, even at $3.15 they are just today a penny over wholesale plus tax. Get ready for more price hikes to come.
Thank you President Bush, from a Bush family in service to the oil people, especially the Saudis, who give dear Daddy all those “consulting” contracts. Increasing the price of energy is Bush’s primary accomplishment. Second, is doubling the public debt.
Danny:
I didn't say letters to the editors were of no importance. Nor did I imply that. I write them myself. I said two letters appearing is hardly evidence that the Mayor's scheme has backfired. That's all.
And, just for the record, I have never suggested , here or anywhere else, that we "not read the constitution."
Danny, there are portions of the Constitution that are completely unambiguous and about which neither the founders or those who followed them have no disagreements. Like the requirement that the President must be at least 35 years old.
But there are other portions which are now, and were to the founders, ambiguous. Everyone knew, and knows, what those ambiguous portions say. They did not agree about what they mean. You seem to assume the meaning of every line in the document is plain as written. It is not.
Let me give you just one example. The Constitution forbids the states from passing any laws which "impair the obligation of contracts." Well, did that mean the states could not pass bankruptcy laws? [What could interfere with the obligation of contracts more than bankruptcy and the judicial elimination of debt under bankruptcy statutes?] The founders disagreed about that, about the meaning of the contract clause, almost immediately after ratification. Some argued state bankruptcy laws were now void. Others argued they were not. It had to be fought out and settled in the courts, which found in the end that the contracts clause of the Constitution did not invalidate state bankruptcy laws.
The words are there. All could read them, as can you and I. But there was no agreement then about what the words mean. Such questions can not, as a rule, be settled by "just read the document" because the disagreements are not about what it says, but about what it means.
Now, that said, you and I are absolutely on the same page about the hippocracy of the Bush administration on matters economic.
Speaking of mendacity, an article from the March 5, 2008 NY Times Packed Powder as a Corporate Amenity says "City officials are also studying the possibility of building a gondola to carry skiers directly from downtown Ogden to nearby slopes."
That means that City Officials are studying this possiblity on our tax dollar. Where did I put my torch and pitchfork?
Post a Comment