Thursday, June 18, 2009

Ogden's #1 Drama Queen Doesn't Know What He'll Do Yet; But He Swears He'll Do Something Dramatic

"Council policy threatens the executive powers of the mayor's office," Boss Godfrey whines

By Jim Hutchins

The Standard-Examiner is reporting reporting this morning that Mayor Godfrey is threatening the council with either a veto or legal action.

Read these sections of the Utah Code and tell the S-E and this blog what you think. You're an adult. Don't just take the Mayor's or the Council's word. Read for yourself and make up your own mind:
Utah Code Section 10-3b-202
Utah Code Section 10-3b-203
Who will be the first to comment?


Austin Accent said...

So, the mayor is going to drag the city through the courts again, just because he doesn't get his way?

Its time to do to the mayor what my dad always did to our pups, after they get out of the yard one too many times.


althepal said...

10-3b-202. Mayor in council-mayor form of government.
(1) The mayor in a municipality operating under the council-mayor form of government:...
(c) shall:...
(ii) execute the policies adopted by the council...

Case closed.

Dan B. said...

Godfrey: Ogden Drama Queen Numero Uno.

RudiZink said...

For those interested in some detailed backgound on the forms of government used in Utah history, take a look at this most excellent scholarly tome, by Utah lawyer David Church:


Among other things, Mr. Church notes that reference to the term "strong mayor form of government" no longer exists in the Utah Code (see page four of the pdf):

"In 1975 the Legislature repealed the Strong Mayor Form of Government Act" and enacted substantially similar provisions in what is now known as the Optional Forms of Municipal Government Act. The Act provided for optional forms of government known as council- mayor and council- manager forms and made them available to all municipalities, regardless of their classification. A municipality adopting the council- mayor form vests the executive and legislative powers in the Mayor and the municipal council."

Nevertheless, Boss Godfrey continues to use this old terminology in this morning's Std-Ex story. The subconscious psychological implications are obvious, I'll suggest:

"The city council's policy is a serious attempt to alter a voter-approved "strong mayor" form of government that has been in place in Ogden since 1992, Godfrey said."

Why doen't Godfrey just come out and say it (as long as he continues to make stuff up)? Here's my suggested re-phrasing, for possible future use by my ol' friend Matt.:

"The city council's policy is a serious attempt to alter a voter-approved "weak council" form of government that has been in place in Ogden since 1992, Godfrey said."

Yeah... that's the ticket, methinks.

Bill C. said...

Rudi, your little buddy, lying little matty should truely give serious consideration to any future actions he may take regarding this.
He is going to expose the total ineptitude of his City attorneys staff, and it just may come out that despite what they tell him, he simply ignores them.
I hope in t he future that someone in the legal department will impress on him that there are specific procedures and protocols that dictate how he's supposed to function. So far, he doesn't get it.

George K said...

In reading through the State Code on the mayor-council form of government, it is my conclusion that Godfrey has not interpreted the code correctly. The Council was well within its rights to issue such an ordinance as it did with the budget. The 10-3b-203 Code reads:
Council in a council-mayor form of government.
(1) The council in a municipality operating under a council-mayor form of government:
(a) shall:
(B)(ii) pass ordinances, appropriate funds, and review municipal administration;
Also the Legislature further defined the Council’s responsibility in “Utah State Code 10-3-1219.5. Council-mayor form – Ordinances on transfer of municipal property and regulation of subdivisions or annexations.
“In the council-mayor form of government, the council shall, by ordinance, provide for the manner in which municipal property is bought, sold, traded, encumbered or otherwise transferred; and (1) subdivisions, or annexations are approved, disapproved or otherwise regulated.”
Enacted by Chapter 39, 1979 General Session
The Mayor’s responsibility is to manage the day-to-day routine and employees of the city as described in Utah Code 10-3b-202: Mayor in council-mayor form of government.
(1) The mayor in a municipality operating under the council-mayor form of government:
(a) is the chief executive and administrative officer of the municipality;
(b) exercises the executive and administrative powers and performs or supervises the performance of the executive and administrative duties and functions of the municipality;” He is also obligated to enact the ordinances that the Council passes as Rudi posted above.

He does have two options for action: 1) Veto the ordinance or 2) Pursue litigation and clarification of responsibilities of the mayor’s office and the council’s role in the mayor-council form of government.
Since he is the one who is intent on usurping authority from the council, I believe it would be well worth going to court and receiving a ruling on the issue of the separation of power between the two entities. Then and only then can the citizens of Ogden hope for a somewhat peaceful and productive co-existence of their city officials. Godfrey since taking office in 2001 has gradually taken much of the power and authority from the Council. It is amazing that he thinks he has the right to take over the duties of the council and then cries “Foul” on the council when they do assert their rights.

blackrulon said...

If the mayor challenges city council actions in court where does money come from? Does the funding come from the mayor's funding or from general funds? Will the city attorney represent Godfrey or is he responsible to the city? By the way what is the status of police chief Greiner and the conflict in having both a state senator position and the chief of police job? When can we expect a ruling? If the decision is against chief Greiner and he wants both jobs where will the money come from? Will he be forced to make a choice between the two positions?

Steven R. said...


To answer your questions: 1. The mayor obtains his money from the General Fund; 2, Williams does not usually go to court. To defend the Mayor, the city has to have someone who is sharp. 3. I believe Chief Greiner was fined, and I am assuming the city (taxpayers) is paying it. My last answer should answer your remaining questions.

drewmeister said...

Please, I beg you, President Obama, pick Mayor Godfrey to be in some non-influential, administrative position in the federal government where he can be lost in the seas of Washington DC bureaucracy. Some nice post like "Cabinet Undersecretary of Cabinets" or something. Please, take him away from here. And never let him back. Now THAT'S change we can believe in.

Curmudgeon said...

Since folks seem to be delving deep into the statutes and customary procedures of municipal government in Utah this morning, perhaps someone knows the answer to this question:

Suppose Hizzonah, Mayor Godfrey, vetoes the budget passed by the Council Tuesday night. And suppose the Council cannot muster the super-majority [5 votes] necessary to over-ride. What happens then?

The state-mandated date for the city's having a budget in place is rapidly approaching. If the Mayor won't accept the Council-passed budget, and the Council cannot over-ride the Mayor's veto, what then?

Anyone know?

Jim Hutchins said...

Legal action is never a good thing. However, in this case, it may be the best option for Ogden City.

In my opinion, the Council has been hampered for some time by relying on legal advice provided by attorneys who are beholden to the Mayor.

If nothing else, a Mayor-Council legal tussle would force both parties to obtain independent legal advice.

My only concern is that the local legal establishment sometimes makes irrational decisions based (apparently) on outside influences.

Still, I think the Council should welcome a lawsuit filed by the Mayor and argued by independent, outside counsel. The outcome would clarify matters greatly.

Polyanna said...

I thought Godfrey wanted to maintain services at the center. So why would he object to it saying so in the budget?

Tell me, Mayor Godfrey, why are you complaining so much?

It couldn't be that you were lying, could it? Say it ain't so, Matt.

Anonymous said...

When only once one allows ones own children a permission to perpetrate a vigorous swing session from the drawing room drapery, the child will assume stealthy ownership of the newly bequeathed terrain, using it at will, only surrendering it with kicking and screaming prejudice.

And similarly with our Mayor.

For the Record said...

Godfrey never lies; and he's always right.

Candy said...

I am the mayor and what I say goes. So there. Wa Wa WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA Wa Wa WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA. Where is the wambulance. Take me away.

OgdenLover said...

Once again, it is not about what is best for Ogden, it's what Godfrey wants.

Someone Who's Worked with Godfrey said...

I hope you weren't serious when you said that Godfrey never lies. Since I've known him pretty well for a number of years, I can say: He only lies when his lips are moving.

Joe Jones said...

You guys are still "crying foul" over the way Godfrey interprets State Codes regarding his role in municipal government and what a very naughty boy he is. And this statement of Bill C's "so far he just doesn't get it" is ludicrous.

He gets it all right, to the tune of 3 terms as Mayor and being so damn far in front of the Council on about every move that they seem more bewildered than this forum does on how he does it. In fact, he gets it to the point that the majority of you guys and the CC don't even know there's a game on.

Ozboy said...

Sorry Drew, hate to rain on your parade, but the Obama Administration requires at least some semblance of integrity and competence before they will appoint someone to even the lowest job. This would leave our Dear Leaders, both Ogden's and No. Korea's, off the list. (Interesting that they are both short with tall foreheads, just to name one of many similarities!)

The era of the Rove Republican method of secretive and dishonest governance has past in the good old U.S.of A, at least in Washington, in spite of how short it may be before its return. It is too bad and soo sad that the disgraced RoveRep method still lives on in the Democratic Republic of Ogden and in the Utah State so called Legislature - the last bastions of the dying dinosaurs - hopefully.

Ogden Lover - How true, it is all about what the mayor wants! The citizens be damned! But you must remember that the Mayor, our Dear Leader, is divinely inspired and is pursuing God's will - just like most petty tyrants have done throughout history.

They only see dissent and citizen outrage as obstacles to be over come or circumvented. The tougher the challenges one faces while doing God's work, the higher the glory in heaven for having overcome. A man on a divine mission is not inclined to negotiate with the Devil who is at work in all the opposition, naysayers and restless natives. Pretty dogmatic stuff, but that is our reality here in the land of Oz.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Joe, I know exactly how he "does it" and for the record, he is really not that good at it.
If he were better at it, we would give him props for his being accomplished at it. But, he aint that good; good at it.

If his vision for Ogden was better executed, we might allow him to have his way more often.
But he is pro-destruction of animal habitat, and anti-conservation of our children's wildlife resources.

For now, he is going to have to be satisfied with what he has.
He is not getting anymore of it.

We define it as "being a scoundrel".

And believe you me, he aint even playing AAA ball, let alone being good "at it".

Ozboy said...

Joe Jones

Wow, you sure hit the nail on the head with that one! The mayor is like a well trained sheep dog with the flock, always about three steps ahead of the collective council although there are some individual members that have his number and understand his game. Unfortunately they are for the most part powerless to deal with him and his sycophants.

Joe Jones said...

SaintSteven, really now, when the hell was the last time he didn't get his way. He may be a scoundrel, but he gets what he goes after.

And I don't think you can either allow or disallow the mayor a thing. When and what have you?
Seems to me, he gets just what he wants and usually when he wants it (the tram excepted, of course-but he's still hustling the thing, isn't he).

Joe Jones said...

Yup, Ozboy, it's like the mayor's so far out in front of the CC that they aren't even aware that a game's on.

Triple A ball? Heck, old Matt's a major leaguer playing in a pick-up sandlot game.

Those who really knew what's up disappeared long ago, leaving Mr. Godfrey to his own devices.

Bill C. said...

Joe, first off, a gondola is not a tram. Any true blue gondola worshipper would be offended.
As for lying little matty's perspective being that it's just a game, I'll concede that that's probably how he views it. But it's a serious game, with some hard fast rules that is played for keeps.
Any lack of extreme caution on his part could result in his re-uniting with his mentor, the one that also approached everything as a game and lost. Val Southwick could be able to reendoctrinate him to a new game, survival in the joint.
I wonder if matty visits on Sundays to get a few pointers.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your timely response, Joe.
Please perform the oblation of spelling the name: saintstephen, rather.
That's one word, not capitalized, and not necessarily a complement.
But whatever.

First, I like much of what has been accomplished while Ogden has had Mayor Godfrey in office.

The point i was making, and which I would defend, is that in the scoundrel department, he is short of master, in fact, he aspires yet to adepthood; and, good thing.

Mayor Godfrey actually has gotten little of what he actually desires.
My knowledge as to the actual angle of his behind-closed-doors prostrating, prostrating necessitated by his inept charlatanry allows me a certain smugness and, when combined with gnosis of pre-paid slush money on the line for each of his real estate promises on which he may fail to deliver, one might become positively frightened for his emotional health.

You have no idea as to what his actual scheme might be, and how much of it has been scuttled and scaled back.
As I have said since I first became aware from afar of the Taylor Canyon Proposal, "there is no way, Matt, that you can give away the mouth of Taylors Canyon; Ogden has developed as far up the bench as will occur for a few generations. Work on downtown, and leave alone the old bones".

I say it here again, all serious like.

Fed Up With the Little Twerp said...

"Work on downtown, and leave alone the old bones."

Amen, SaintStephen!

The Shadow said...

saintstephen AKA Svengali light.

Brett said...

Joe Jones,

There are several things that the Council has outsmarted Godfrey on and he hasn't gotten what he wanted:
1) The extra two floors on the Wells Fargo Bldg. If he had his way we would be paying $400,000. a month in rent and he would have the check book for the BDO funds.
2) He hasn't been able to obtain the golf course for Chris Peterson.
3) He doesn't have the ice tower!
4) His campground on Park Blvd. bit the dust!
5) He didn't get St. Anne;s moved to 12th Street.
6) The Union Station has the old candy bldg. on Wall and 26th, not the tile company that he wanted.
7) He didn't get to keep the land that the Episcopol Church needed on 24th and Grant for his "Junction."

In fact the only thing he was able to do is the Salomon Center because he had a blind, rubber stamp council!

Get your facts straight, Joe!

He did unload Union Station because he went behind the Council's back just like he did with the bleachers! If he weren't so devious and underhanded in all his dealings, I'm sure he would be able to accomplish more, but Bill C. is right -- he doesn't get it.

Joe Jones said...

He doesn't get it, huh? That's why you guys, and those he's defeated and left in his wake, are writing blog posts and he's writing initiatives and proposals.

I'm afraid it's you guys who don't get it. Until you do, your energy will be spent here, in a blog wheel spin, complaining about how one spells your names or how the other side interprets code.

So sad.

WCF Historian said...

Wrong, JJ. Godfrey remains in office during his last (third) term for one reason.... to bury his own dead horse.

All of his bad karma is coming back to haunt him this time around.

Godfrey will leave office in December of 2011 in disgrace, with a historical legacy which will forever brand him as the worst Ogden City Mayor ever.

Strange Days said...


You think if you keep repeating this "Great and Powerful Oz" meme, it will eventually come true?

Winged Monkey, indeed.

Anonymous said...

Is it really so much to ask that you spell my name right?

Godfrey is a democratically-elected mayor in a small city, in an odd and out-of-the-way state. Naturally, he writes proposals.
He also self-willed himselves into the position he assumes.
If you are into that sort of thing, I suppose you could say he got a base hit; no big.

Some of us here also write proposals during the employment of our choice; cool it, I don't need or want a fucking gold star.

Many who post here, and who read this blog, are citizens who vote in elections, and who petition their elected officials on various topics.

People use this forum in much the way engaged persons for centuries have used ale houses, kaffe shops, and sewing circles-gentlemans clubs: to discuss yesterday and make plans, form alliances, and take bets on tommorow.

Our money is on you, under a different name, committing more posts with which I disagree.

Tales from the Jurassic said...

"People use this forum in much the way engaged persons for centuries have used ale houses, kaffe shops, and sewing circles-gentlemans clubs: to discuss yesterday and make plans, form alliances, and take bets on tommorow."

Bingo, Stephen.

Tell it to that decrepit old journalistic dinosaur, Charles Trentelman,

Wm III said...

saintstephen said:

"People use this forum in much the way engaged persons for centuries have used ale houses, kaffe shops, and sewing circles-gentlemans clubs: to discuss yesterday and make plans, form alliances, and take bets on tommorow."

Borrowing verbage from Curm, "I wished I'd said that" ...

Nice ...

what will it costs us said...

When will Ogden rate a "Gentlemens Club"? They have awesome ones in the South.

I do think with all of the money some of these bloggers and trail walkers have they could hire an outside attorney to keep Godfrey tied up in court for a long time. No environmental Impact Study for digging up the trails, selling off city property, lease agreements to friends ETC. Injunctions are easy to file and not frivilous. Need an outside attorney who is an expert, not a local attorney that is related or depends on local clients.

OgdenLover said...

Unfortunately our judicial system often seems to be as broken as our municipal one. What you propose is logical, but would it stand a chance? We need to get Godfrey indicted on Federal charges. The Federales don't care what your bishop says about you.

Curmudgeon said...

Besides the questionable propriety of trying to remove someone whose policies you oppose by "getting him indicted on Federal charges," there is the little matter of what federal charges you think could successfully be brought against him. You mention none.

OL, I think Hizzonah has not been good for Ogden and bids fair, if he continues as he has been going, to make worse the serious long-term financial problems for the city he has already created. He's not been a good mayor, nor has he been a particularly effective one and I wish he had not been re-elected.

But calling for him to be indicted on some unspecified vague federal charges seems a bad idea to me. Trying to resolve political disputes via criminal charges is bad idea.

Dan S. said...

Curm: I think there would be a good criminal case against the mayor based on his role with Envision Ogden. Perhaps a separate criminal case could be brought on the basis of his recurrent pattern of operating outside the authority of the council-approved budget. The problem is that such a case would be a political hot potato that no prosecutor in Utah would want to take on. And I doubt that the severity of what he has done would rise to the level where a federal prosecutor would take notice.

WWICU: Environmental Impact Statements, per se, are required only for federal projects, not local ones. There are also applicable state laws, which may or may not have teeth. Your best bet, if you want to stop the city from doing something, is to lobby the city council (and find a few dozen friends to lobby them as well).

Curmudgeon said...


OL was talking about a federal indictment. So far as I can see, no credible grounds for bringing a federal indictment exist.

But beyond the specifics, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of using indictments as a means of reversing elections, which is clearly the end OL seeks. Indictments should be used only to bring to justice those who have committed crimes --- and yes, of course that includes officeholders. But they should never be used primarily as political tools to take out those we disagree with politically.

What I'm uncomfortable about, I guess, is the motive for bringing charges. To bring an alleged criminal to court, absolutely. To remove a political adversary from office, no. It was a bad idea when Republicans tried to bring Clinton down by indictment. It was a bad idea when Bush succeeded in Alabama. It was a bad idea when the Bush administration pressured Federal attorneys to bring political indictments before an election, and tried to remove those who refused.

So, I'm afraid, I think the motive behind bringing indictments matters, and calling for politically-motivated indictments makes me very uncomfortable, regardless of who the target may be.

Bill C. said...

Dan, I almost agree but need to add that, how we select our leaders and representatives is the foundation of our system. So many constantly go on and on about how our way of governing is the best in the history of mankind. So to them I ask, If it's small petty and not of significant consequence to uphold and enforce our campain and election laws, just how good os our system? Along those lines and keeping with the brilliant gary williams legal interpretation, I ask, if once elected and found guilty of even minor infractions of established law, should our elected officials not be held to the highest standard rather than a simple cure that allows the infraction to be overlooked?

Dan S. said...


I think I completely agree with you regarding the use of criminal charges for political motives. At the same time, elected officials should not be above the law. This especially applies to laws on abuse of power and campaign finance, which were written specifically for elected officials (and candidates). And if an elected official has violated a law, the motive of the person who points it out is simply irrelevant to whether there should be a criminal prosecution.

To me, the removal of an elected official from office for a criminal act would be purely incidental. Clearly, the punishment should fit the crime and elected officials should not be removed from office for relatively minor crimes that have little to do with their official conduct.

As for whether any federal charges could be brought against Godfrey, I'm aware of two applicable federal laws that were violated by Envision Ogden and its associates: tax law for 527 organizations, and money laundering. I have no evidence that Godfrey was personally involved in violating either of these two particular laws, although I wouldn't be surprised if an investigation turned up such evidence. Meanwhile, I can easily point to non-federal laws (communications fraud, charitable solicitations act, use of government property for political purposes) that Godfrey violated personally.

Dan S. said...

Getting back to the separation of powers issue...

Has anyone else noticed the following spin on the new Ogden City web site?

The Mayor retains administrative authority and is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the City, including the annual budget. The City Council must approve many administrative actions and has investigative powers.

Joe Jones said...

Strange Days-r u a Doors fan?

StSteven & BillyC-what I was attempting to get across to you is your basic lack of substantive response to a post that occassionally crops up that is contrary to your political opinion or is pro-administration. Once that occurs, it seems that you respond by criticizing the poster's spelling, finding some kind of personal fault, etc., all the while failing to debate the premise of the afore mentioned post that got you so wound up. It's called going "off-track."

Now, Ozboy seems to get it; Curmudgeon goes on and on and on, but usually submits substance; and there are a few others who spar well. But you guys? You guys try to get cute with off the issue carping, throwing in a pseudo-cool European word like "kaffe," in an sad attempt to appear hip and cosmopolitan, and or personally insulting the poster.

Bret came back quite well, even though he missed a few FACTS:

1-right on about the Wells Fargo Bldg;
2-the MOGC issue ain't over yet;
3-the ice tower thing was and is idiocy;
4 & 5-the Park Blvd campground and St Annes are relatively minor political fodder issues that probably don't belong in this discourse;
6-actually, it's the old Laundry Bldg, NOT the old candy bldg that the Union Station Foundation has. The USF DID purchase the vacant site where the candy bldg once stood- that site did belong to the City & RDA and was not contested by the Mayor or Executive Director when sold to the USF;
7-the issue of the vacant land east of the Episcopal Church was merely one of many negotiations between the City/RDA and area property owners-that property was traded for the corner lot across the street and the transaction shouldn't be entered into a "Win or Loose" column as it was simply a business deal with the Church rightly acquiring a land parcel that would benefit its needs, just as the City/RDA did.

Those are the facts, Brett and I appreciate your thoughtful response as it made for good, sound debate of the issues instead of a meaningless "spell my name right and huddle at a Kaffe Shop" retort.

Brett said...

Joe Jones,
You’re absolutely right about the ice tower: “the ice tower thing was and is idiocy;”
The Mayor and John Patterson were serious enough about moving St. Anne’s that they asked the Council to ask the Legislature for $1 million to help with the move, and lied about the fact that St. Anne’s Executive Board really did not want or approve the move.

Godfrey wanted the campground so much that he did not follow SOP for constructing a project, and would have had it, had not concerned citizens contacted some Council members. It should have been put on the Capitol Improvement Project list. These two projects may be minor to you, but important enough to Godfrey that he felt it necessary to lie and go behind the Councils back.
Sorry, that I did not describe precisely what I meant when I referenced the Shupe-Williams Bldg. Since that building was burned and not enough remained to sell it, it was the vacant lot that Harmer and Patterson (under Godfrey’s direction) insisted that the tile company wanted the land for a new site. It turned out that the tile company didn’t really care about obtaining the land and finally declined the offer the city made to them. The USF has owned the old Laundry Bldg. for years so was never mentioned. The Administration (and especially Godfrey dragged their feet, and Godfrey even proposed the site be sold and used as a “Used Car Lot!” The Council held out for USF to purchase the vacant site where the candy bldg once stood. Yes, half of that site was owned by the City and the other half belonged to the RDA. The Mayor or Executive Director did every thing that he could to keep the USF from buying it.
The vacant land east of the Episcopal Church was a political issue in the 2005 council election. All the new candidates were in support of letting the Church purchase. The incumbents said that the land was needed for income property in the Junction. The Administration asked the three council members-elect to a meeting and told them that the City had plans for that land. In January five of the seven council members voted to let the Church have the land. The city administration negotiationed the details and you were right about the end result.
You can check minute minutes or any of the newly elected council members if you doubt any of the above.I
I guess we will have to wait to see how things turn out regarding the golf course.

Bill C. said...

Well Joe, if you read your post you'll recognize that my response was to your suggestion and what appears to be your acceptance of your statement that governance is just a game. Though it may seem to be to some, there are rules.
If you recall, many have been broken by this mayor and his administration, just recently we've seen a few examples of mis-appropriation of funds. $63,00 on the ice tower, along with their attempt to illegally use ramp funds on the same. Allowing the jackass center to be used for a political fund-raiser to benefit himself and his hand picked slate of candidates was also illegal.
Lies and deceit are his mode of operation, but he crosses the line of legality and that's no laughing matter.
In bringing up Southwick and Leshem I was pointing out his poor judgement as well as suggesting that he finds nothing wrong with criminal behavior. Please go back and read his comments at Southwicks sentencing hearing. He also knew full well of gadi's troubles with the state of California, to which he entered a plea of no-contest to defrauding that state of millions of dollars.
And this is the type of people in is inner circle, intamately involved in the Cities most expensive undertakings.
I am sorry if you're one of the few that believes the end justify the means no matter what. I disagree.

Bill C. said...

Ok, hopefully this can be considered a substantive response, continuing the last post.
Even the most ardent supporters of this mayor acknowlege his dishonesty quite freely. Then fall back on the ends justify the means defence. They constantly make the stupid subjective claim of how much better things are now than before, even though many haven't been around here very long.
Why do we seem to have some questioning response to any comment that is pro-mayor? Are you serious? Can you name one initiative, project or to use your term, proposal, introduced by this mayor that was void of dishonesty, cronism or some ulterior hidden agenda?
Let's look at the water project, his haste to complete his clandestine swicharoo has resulted in mudslides, streem degregation and all other sorts of chaos due to the fact that he felt it would bring him closer to his hidden agenda. Many are unaware that one of the private contractors walked away last December because there wasn't one stake in the ground. He was supposed to be digging the hole for the 5 million gallon subterrainian water tank. He left because he was uncomfortable with the idea he should just pick a spot in the general area.
Do I need to also remind you that this project was slated for the top of 46th st, 10 blocks south of where it's now taking place?
Feel free to continue to follow your belief that the ends justify the means if that's what you feel, but don't get put off if some call you on your embracing immorality, criminality and lack of ethics in coming to your conclussions.

disgusted said...

bill c

you failed to mention the misrepresentation by godfrey / patterson to the council that the repairs to the flow rider and surrounding walls at the rec center were the responsibilty of the city when in fact the contract with the tenant clearly spelled out that once the tenant took lease posession of the property all renovations and repairs would be the tenants responsibilty. these repairs were identified and took place way after the tenant was occupying the property. repairs needed because the tenant had not provided the proper specs to the city for the a/c unit in the first place. yet patterson lied to the council and told them that the city was responsible and the council took his word. that lie cost the city $350,000.

Post a Comment

© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved