By Curmudgeon
The Standard-Examiner has an editorial this morning cheering on Ernest's closing on land in the River Project RDA area for its planned rehab hospital. It has some interesting passages in it. For example, this [all emphases in the following are mine]:
Ogden’s officials, including Mayor Matthew Godfrey and city council members, deserve credit for getting Ernest Health back to the city. You’ll recall that in January 2006, Ernest pulled out of the deal after a meeting with Ogden’s RDA board. It was alleged that Ernest took offense at questions about the firm’s investors and finances from board members.The RDA board later apologized and further negotiations resulted in Ernest eventually returning to the deal. This is a great achievement for Ogden. Having the rehab hospital here should be a decades-long benefit to the city.Nice to see the editorial recognizing that the Godfrey narrative [i.e. that irresponsible council members rudely attacked Ernest execs and drove them away, and that only herculean efforts by Hizzonah saved the deal] is not established fact, but only one narrative of what happened. [Note alleged in the editorial.] Since newspapers provide the first draft of history, it's nice to see the editorial board recognizing that the facts of this particular story are still disputed.
And nice to see the Council and Administration both recognized and applauded for making it happen in the end. Interesting what can be done for the city's good when the Mayor decides to work with, rather than around, the Council.
5 comments:
Curmudgeon,
Good post. I obtained a CD of that RDA meeting, and I didn't hear one inappropriate question asked or any rudeness on the part of the Board members. I do remember that Scott Schwebke was not at that meeting, so I surmise that he contacted the Mayor (as he often does after Council meetings). I know that the reason Ernest cooled their heels on the Ogden deal was because they were so ambitious in starting new facilities in various cities, they had over-extended themselves financially. Apparently, it has taken them two-and-half years to get to the point where they are solvent again. It is my opinion, that the Mayor wanted to intimidate the new Council members and have them under his control as the previous Council was. I understand that Councilwoman Jeske was called into his office the next day and he tried to intimidate her, but she stood up to him and he still hasn't managed to subdue her. Thank goodness!
I'm not convinced that the Mayor has learned to work with others including the Cuncil except when it meets his purposes, but some cooperation between the two ELECTED bodies is good for the City and things are accomplished. Too bad it can't be all the time.
Schwebke should be fired immediately by the Standard-Examiner yesterday, if not sooner.
He says he only reports the facts.
Unforunatately, this little fat dipshit has bought into the discussion the latest ethic that will finally flush the traditional print media down the drain of history:
"It's not my job as a reporter to report the facts," suggests Schwebke. My job is to regurgitate the statements made in every press conference I attend with Matt Godfrey, and, present these statements as facts.
Well, a few points worth making, maybe in re: the two posts above.
1. I agree that the questioning did not seem rude or out of place to me, especially given that council members had requested financial information from the mayor in the weeks prior to the meeting and had gotten no reply, leaving them no choice, they believed, but to ask for the information directly from Ernest at the meeting on the one hand, or to proceed to a vote without the information they thought it important to have.
2. As for Mr. Schwebke asking the Mayor for comment following a public meeting of some importance: I imagine he did. He should have. He'd not have been doing his job if he had not sought comment from the Mayor on what happened. Hard put to criticize him for that. I suspect he talked with Council members following the meeting as well. That seems to be his usual practice following Council sessions. And he normally covers those meetings in person, from what I've seen. I wasn't there myself so I can't say for certain, but I'd be surprised to learn he wasn't there.
3. As for the reason you offer for Ernest "cooling its heels" and backing out of the Ogden deal: it certainly is a plausible explanation, but do you have any source for it? Anyone go on the record backing up your reading? From the Company? From the city? From some other source? If not, it remains a surmise only.
4. As for Hizzonah's attempts to intimidate and browbeat Council members, no argument from me. Happily, as you note, it has not worked, and Council resistance to Hizzonah's arrogant contempt for the members and the elected offices they hold has stiffened noticeably over the past two years.
5. One Who Nose: I've been critical of some of Mr. Schwebke's reporting in the past, and probably will be again. But you'll have a hard time establishing on the record that he does nothing but "regurgitate the statements made in every press conference" by the Mayor. He's done stories the Administration cannot have been happy to see in the SE. You're unhappy with a particular story, have at him. But your claim that he reports only pro-Administration drivel just will not stand scrutiny, on the record.
Curmudgeon,
I asked my source for both of the points that you question, and they prefer not to be named, but said it was OK to say that they are a "city official." They also said that it was better to let dead horses lie, but they did affirm that Schwebke was not at the meeting and he did not interview any Council members. If you check there are no quotes from any of the Council members in that article. He has changed his reporting style since that time and he is usually at the council meetings now. It is one thing to interview the Mayor and ask a few questions, but quite another to obtain all his information from the Mayor -- that is why it was so one sided. Think about it. That is the only thing that makes sense even if I hadn't heard it from a "city official." As for Ernest that was common knowledge at City Hall.
You make it very difficult to pay you a compliment and add information to your post. It isn't worth it to have to prove to you that others know things as well as you.
little:
Thanks for checking back on your source. And I'm sorry you were annoyed at my post. I look on WCF, LB, as a chance to have conversations with people I'm not likely to meet otherwise, not simply as a place to post an a opinion and be done with it. As parts of conversations is how I treat most posts I reply to, including yours. And I hope you noted that I agreed with a great deal of what you posted, and said so.
The corroboration matter: I certainly understand why people, particularly those involved in government, would prefer not to go public with comments, etc. Nevertheless, the Web is notorious for the anonymous posting of things on the basis of rumor or hearsay or "everybody knows" that turn out in the end not to be so. All I said about your post on the reason Ernest pulled out of the deal was that, while it certainly was plausible, without some kind of on the record corroboration, it would remain... as it does... a surmise. A completely plausible one, certainly, given that it took Ernest so long to come back into the deal, but a surmise none the less. I'm hard put to see a problem in my saying that or why you would find it offensive, and I'm sorry that you did.
As for the reporting, you say Mr. S. has "changed his reporting style" on Council matters since then for the better. That's good, que no? That means you think reporting in the SE on city affairs has gotten better over the last two years, right?... which counters, I think, One Who Know's post about the current state of SE reporting on city matters. Seems to me you're agreeing with me there.
As for reporting the meeting, you're absolutely right that a reporter using only one source to report a public meeting [other than the official transcript of the meeting's proceedings] would not be good reporting, especially if it was done in such a way as to convey the impression that the reporter had been present when he wasn't. Reporting of meetings and proceedings at which a reporter was not present should make clear, internally in the story, what sources the reporter is using. We seem to agree on that as well.
Off to work. Ciao, LB. Enjoyed the conversation....
Post a Comment