By Monotreme
In today's installment of "As Ogden Turns", the Mayor makes two fundamental errors, one of them a whopper of a logical fallacy, the other a political misstep of the first water.
1. The "I've done it before, and no one ever cared" argument. This one doesn't work when you're five, and it doesn't work with the taxpayers.
Let's compare:
I've shoplifted from this store 18 times before and never got caught. I've been doing it for three years. If they were serious about catching me, they'd have installed security cameras or something. It shows that I have a deal with the store owner, and he's going to let me take whatever I want whenever I want because of my precious character.vs.
The administration lobbied for or against 18 other bills during the 2008 legislative session that were never discussed with the entire [just my friends; emphasis mine] city council and didn't generate controversy, Godfrey said.2. I've chaired boards before, and worked with lots of committees, and Mayor, let me give you a piece of unsolicited advice: when the council comes out publicly with a 5-2 count going against you, the way to Win Friends and Influence People is not to start calling them names and attacking their character. The way to do this is to make nice and try to allay their concerns.
"We have been operating this way for the past three years, and there has never been a problem...that should tell all of us that, despite their current claim, it's not the process they are bothered about, it's the passage of the bill that bothers them."
You even got Mr. Johnson to indicate to the paper, in a very public way, that he didn't like the way you pulled a fast one on the council. Not a good move on your part.
20 comments:
I've been on the Council/RDA Board two years, five months and 6 days and I'm not aware that we have even once threatened to fire the Mayor as Executive Director since I've been on the Council/Board. Godfrey is performing in his usual manner.
Mono:
Truly an astonishing piece this morning in the SE. Or, considering the Mayor's past performance, maybe not. Still, his attempt to re-write the history of his Administration's relations with the Council is... well, chutzpah on steroids.
First: the Mayor's failure to inform the Council, or to seek its input, on what issues Ogden's lobbyist works on at the Legislature is what prompted the Council to insist on an agreement with the Mayor that he and the Council would have to agree on the issues the city's [not Mayor Godfrey's personal] lobbyist would pursue. So the claim of "there were not problems before" is false.
As is the Mayor's claim that, gosh darn it, he learned of Bramble's so late, he just couldn't find time to consult with the Council:
Godfrey said the city’s administration didn’t learn until shortly before the 2008 legislative session was scheduled to end that Bramble intended to introduce an RDA bill and didn’t have enough time to consult with the city council regarding the amendment.
This is arrant nonsense. He learned of it, he says, just before the legislative session. And in the ensuing weeks, he couldn't find time to let the Council know that, not only was Bramble going to do it, but that the Ogden City lobbyist was working on getting the measure inserted into a bill and passed. Yeah, right. As I recall, there are regular meetings scheduled between the Mayor and the Council leadership. And I'm fairly certain the Mayor has a cell phone and the Council members have phone numbers. Honest, they do. Really. Not to mention that the Mayor has a staff at his disposal, and would merely have had to task a staffer with informing the Council of what was going on. That's what a Mayor with even a minimal grasp of what ethical conduct in office required would have done. It was of course not what Mayor Godfrey did.
Johnson and Stephens think the lobbyist has, on the whole, done a good job for the city and should continue. Granting that to be so, there was a solution to the problem of the Mayor's ignoring his agreement with the Council and continuing to use Mr. Jolly as his personal lobbyist that might have worked: that was to have the City's lobbyist be made a member of the Council's staff, hired by the Council and reporting primarily to it. Responsibility for adhering to the agreement that the Mayor recently violated --- that city lobbyist's agenda would be decided on by both the Mayor and Council--- would be in the Council's hands then. However, Mayor Godfrey took that possibility off the table by signing a new one year contract with Mr. Jolly--- without the Council's prior knowledge, even though the budget line covering the lobbyist's pay had not yet been approved by the Council.
Finally, let us hope the public remembers the Mayor's "in your face" approach to his relations with the Council... as opposed to the FOMs [Friends of Matt]on the council... the next time Hizzonah starts whining about the Council's being hostile to him, and not willing to cooperate with him.
He really is, as Mono noted, not a particularly good administrator or public executive. Whether he likes it or not, and clearly he does not, the members of the Council are as much elected officials and representatives of the public as he is, and "my way or the highway" is rarely an effective strategy for elected executive officials when dealing with elected legislative ones.
Godfrey pulled the same stunt on the firefighters a few years back.
Godfreys' right hand man John Patterson had the firefighters over to his office to "mend the fence" with the mayor. He proposed that the firefighters use their political clout to influence the council members that they had endorsed by endorsing the Gondola plan. In return the Administration would allow the Chief of the fire department to apply for a federal grant to replace the three firefighter positions that Godfrey had eliminated in retaliation for supporting Jesse for Mayor.
The whole time Patterson was attempting to mend the fence and get support for the Gondola from the firefighters, the Mayor had instructed his personal pet play toy lobbyist Rob Jolley to get legislation passed by having Senator Jenkins sponsor a bill to eliminate the Civil Service commission. Patterson denied knowing about the legislation.
The firefighters have always endorsed candidates based on their commitment to public safety and the priority that the city provide the basic tools, equipment and staffing for firefighters to perform their jobs.
The Mayor however, would rather put the public’s safety at risk as a way to retaliate against the firefighters for their lack of political support. He would rather they have faulty equipment, worn out fire apparatus, and less then adequate staffing levels to perform their jobs.
When firefighters confronted the administration publicly about the deal of trading an endorsement for staffing, the Administration denied it, and said it never happened. They accused the firefighters of lying.
After the most recent string of events it's pretty obvious that Godfrey and his A team are the ones who are less than honest, or should I say sneaky?
The games of trading the public’s safety over bad feelings still exist today, after the recent independent Fire management audit; many problems brought out by the audit still have yet to be addressed, because of the Mayors hatred of the firefighters.
Another:
Thanks for the reminder. The duplicitous fast shuffle he pulled with the firemen is yet another example of why Godfrey is having trouble with his Council: he's made it plain his word is no good. And in politics, once it becomes known that your word is no good, that a handshake agreement from you is worthless, it becomes difficult to govern and to achieve what you want to achieve because the people whose cooperation you need no longer trust you. I'd say that's a fair summary of where the Mayor's lack of ethics, paranoid preference for acting in secret and petulant "I want what I want when I want it" approach to dealing with the Council have gotten us.
Even if we take the Mayor at his word, Jolley should still be fired. Hired by the city to lobby on it's behalf, we know that he did not consult with the Council about pushing for this bill, nor (the mayor has claimed) did he consult with him. So, he was just down in SLC "working for the city" by pushing bills that neither the mayor nor the city were aware of? Godfrey's in a corner here. Either he has to admit he knew about what Jolley was up to well in advance, or he has to admit that Jolley was acting as a lobbyist for the city without consulting any of its elected officials.
roack:
Yup. Exactly. But just between you and me, I think the chances that Hizzonah knew nothing at all about what Jolly was up to rank right up there with the chances the Great Pumpkin visits the nation's Most Sincere Pumpkin Patch every Halloween. Or the chances that I will win the Powerball. Twice.
Just to follow up on myself (bad blog form, but here goes):
If you read carefully what has been written in the S-E, Mayor Godfrey is actually 0-7 with the Council on the issue of transparency in his lobbying efforts. That makes his line of attack/defense truly weird.
Even his normal supporters are saying things publicly like, "he didn't communicate with council and he should have".
The two council members who have indicated that they will vote for the continued funding of his personal lobbyist are doing so because the city needs a lobbyist. Right they are. (I'm sad that this is so, but here in Utah, it's an accurate assessment.)
So, two council members have decided, on balance, the need for a lobbyist outweighs the underhanded and duplicitious tactics of the administration. I disagree, but I certainly can see where they're coming from.
No one except the Mayor and his Praetorian Guard think that he's done the right thing here. Not his usual supporters on the council; not the paper; not a single agitated letter-writer. No one. Get that, Mr. Mayor? No one. Nada, zilch, zero, bupkes.
Yes, we all agree on one thing: the city needs a lobbyist. That's you and me, Geigers, G-Train Conductors, ice tower builders, visionaries, naysayers. All of us. The lobbyist needs to work for the common interest of the entire city.
There is simply no disagreement on this point, which makes today's assertions by the mayor all the more shocking.
On a positive note, nice picture. Much better than the old one they were using.
Yeah, it's a nice photo ... that fails to capture the physical extent of Lying Little Matty Gondola Godfrey's HUGE forehead! It's freaking enormous! And he's so small! "They're mad because now they can't threaten me." Holy Jesus. This Harrisville dork is 37 years old?
THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE
Mono, what a great analysis of Godfrey! Your comments, Curmudgeon, were right on target. Like Councilwoman Jeske said above, which is much more believable than Godfrey’s rants, is he really hasn’t been threatened since she has been on the Council. Just more lies from Godfrey and regime. Does he really think people believe him any more?! As far as I can see he hasn’t matured any or become any wiser in the more than 8 years he has been mayor. How sad! For Godfrey, Ogden and those who work with and for him! He still behaves like a spoiled little brat who throws a tantrum when he doesn’t get his way. Do we attribute this latest accusation on him being paranoid or his “Little-man Syndrome” complex? Also, the way he keeps changing his story about why he needed this legislation shows what a chronic liar he is. This entire thread is a great expose’ of Godfrey.and especially his comments in the SE that exposed himself and his fears to the world.
I've got an idea.
Who wants to submit a GRAMA request for any correspondence between the city administration and Jolley?
Anyone wanna bet me (I'll give odds) that the text of the legislation Bramble introduced was written by city staff?
In fact, the twist this time would be to submit GRAMA requests to Bramble and Godfrey and Jolley, and see if their stories match.
My my folks, shock and outrage because the one known to almost all the top of Utah as lying little matty pinnoccio gondola godfrey lied??? Please, it's to be expected. He's been doing it since the foolish ill informed elected him. What's new?
As for the photo, despite more than 20years of abstinance from hallucinogenic compounds, I had to drop the paper as a rat materialized right in front of me while viewing the photo. Ahh!
Once I'm elected to my new Legislative District 10 House Representive seat, I'll make you all sorry that you spoke insubordinately about my precious!
edgar, edgar, edgar - do you have to shower after you visit your dau & son-in-law?
why did the se feel obliged to publish godfreys response to the original se written story. the orginal story was neither one sided or biased. it simple related what had taken place. seems obvious to me that godfrey has heard too many comments in public about his actions. hes losing his credibility even amoung his followers and he knows it.
I dislike some of the arguments above.
There is a seeping idea that the city needs a lobbyist so it should overlook Godfrey's appalling behavior and fund Godfrey's lobbyist anyway.
Integrity should come first, above all else. The 5 council members were right, the 2 are wrong. When Godfrey acts this way and nothing happens, he views "getting away with it" as justification, perhaps Divine justification.
The council must implement and enforce integrity in the absence of it from the administration, just as they implemented a water plan in the absence of one from Godfrey.
If they place money above ethics, as Stephens and Johnson did, they are no better than the corrupt Godfrey.
Jolley has demonstated that he's Godfrey's lobbyist, not Ogden's. Since Ogden does need a lobbyist, how about getting a new one as soon as feasible, perhaps someone selected with input from the City Council.
OL:
That would have been a good solution, except that the Mayor signed Mr. Jolly to a new one year contract just recently, without consulting with the Council, and before the Council had approved the budget line to pay for the new contract. If the Council now wants its own lobbyist, it will have to find money to fund a second lobbyist position for Ogden, since Hizzonah has said if the Council zeros out the budget line for Jolly, he --- the Mayor --- will find money in his executive budget lines to pay him anyway.
Politically, then, a second City lobbyist does not seem to be a viable option. Zeroing out the budget line for Jolly, leaving him entirely the Mayor's employee --- hired, paid by and reporting to him --- will still leave what is ostensibly the city's lobbyist in the Mayor's pocket. [He's already there, based on past performance, so nothing will really change.] I suspect the hasty signing of Jolly to a new contract was done precisely to preclude the Council making him a Council employee, paid by the Council and reporting to it.
Curm,
That's why I said "as soon as feasible". I know nothing can be done at this time.
Although I do wonder if the Mayor had the authority to offer Jolley the new contract before the CC had approved this year's budget.
Why Not hire Neil Hansen as the city lobbyist, after all he is there at the capitol anyway and used to work for the city. This only makes sense.
By the way, How much of the taxpayers money went from Jolley to the mayors re-election campaign. Isn't this our tax money that he was using to get re-elected?
OL:
Ah, sorry. I was thinking more short term.
Post a Comment