Thursday, August 27, 2009

More Whining Emanates From The Ninth Floor Boss Godfrey Throne room

Mark Johnson and his lobbyist buddy, Mr. Jolley, really could use some serious baby sitting

The Standard-Examiner reports this morning that there's more whining emanating from the ninth floor Boss Godfrey throne room, due to the recent disclosure that the Ogden City Council is in the process of hiring its own lobbyist to represent its interests during Utah's 2010 legislative session. Read Scott Swebke's full story here:
Two lobbyists for Ogden?
The big spending Boss Godfrey, who employs his own lobbyist to the tune of $40 thousand per year, gripes that the council will be wasting taxpayer money, by agreeing to a further $10 thousand annual lobbyist stipend.

And Godfrey has the further audacity to suggest that the council can share the lobbying services of lobbyist Robert Jolley, who's already on the administration payroll. Godfrey apparently has a short memory. The last time the council tried that course of action, it didn't work out very well at all. Some outspoken folks even suggested at the time that that the behavior of Mssrs. Godfrey and Jolley had been downright sneaky. Imagine that.

Yessirree. We're four-square behind the council on this. We interpret the council's apparent decision to hire its own lobbyist as a healthy sign that our council is heartily embracing its newly rediscovered role as a separate and coequal branch of city government.

Not only that, we believe Mr. Johnson hit the nail on the head. Mark Johnson and his lobbyist buddy, Mr. Jolley, really could use some serious baby sitting.

That's it for now.

The floor is open for your ever-cunning commentary.

37 comments:

Curmudgeon said...

Rudi, Rudi, Rudi, you are so judgmental. Here our Mayor, Matthew "Last Of The Big Time Spenders" Godfrey, who thinks nothing of paying out six figure amounts in public money regularly to subsidize his cronies at The Junction, has suddenly become cost conscious, and is all hot and bothered that the Council may spend $10,000 a year to hire a lobbyist to pursue matters of importance to Ogden City [as opposed to matters of importance, personally, to the Mayor, like rendering him immune from removal as RDA board head]. I would think you'd applaud the Mayor's sudden discovery of fiscal conservatism in these tough budget times.

And so, in the spirit of municipal cooperation, I have a proposal for our newly frugal Mayor Godfrey. Since he's convinced the city needs only one lobbyist at the legislature and that it's foolish to pay for two of them, here's what he should do: Support the Council's hiring a lobbyist for $10K a year, and when the contract is signed, the Mayor can let his own personal pet lobbyist, Mr. Jolley, who is being paid $40K a year in public funds, go. The city will save $30K a year! And I'm sure when it comes time to instruct the City's new lobbyist, the Council will give the Mayor's opinions about what the lobbyist ought to work on the same consideration the Mayor gave the Council's opinions when he was instructing Mr. Jolley. In fact, I'm absolutely certain of that.

What could he possibly object to? The City would have only one lobbyist, which is what he wants. The lobbyist would be paid $30K less than Mr. Jolley is being paid, saving a bundle, which is what he says he wants. And the lobbyist would be tasked by the Council just as the Mayor tasked Mr. Jolley, and he cannot possibly object to that. What could the Mayor possibly not like about the idea?

I think I'll write to him suggesting the above. Maybe we all ought to. He loves to hear from the public. We know that. He's told us so.

RudiZink said...

LOL!

Too Funny!

Dorrene Jeske said...

FY2010 Budget is the third year that the Council has not provided funds for a state lobbyist. Mr. Jolley told me when I attended a legislative session at the State Capitol in 2006 that he did what the Mayor told him to do and that he didn’t have any obligation to the Council. He has pushed at least three bills to which the Council has been opposed.

Mr. Mark Johnson’s remarks in the SE article this morning, are ridiculous and egotistical. Hiring a lobbyist to babysit him would be a waste of taxpayer monies, and the Council has more important issues with which to be concerned. His remarks were meant to discredit the Council. (Remember Mark Johnson was elected as a council member at the same time as Amy Wicks and Kent Jorgenson were. But he was the first elected official to succumb to Godfrey’s offers of a juicy salary. I know what I think of such indiscretions for personal gain so I wouldn’t waste the time or money to have a lobbyist “babysit” such an immoral person.) He seems to be concerned with the fact that the council and administration are not united. What impudence when he is Godfrey’s instrument for creating such disharmony.

Godfrey’s comment that he is disappointed that we didn’t inform him of the council’s intent to hire Mr. Peterson is laughable. He has done so many things without telling the council that in a decent and respectful working relationship would have been told to us. It is surprising that he believes we still have a working joint resolution regarding a lobbyist since he has ignored it as long as I have been on the council. But then maybe he considers it as a one-sided agreement that favors his side. I don’t know how he can call it a joint resolution when there have been no meetings since 2006 to discuss joint lobbying efforts.

According to Godfrey everything the council does is imprudent. I guess he doesn’t consider misappropriating the water bonds money from 46th St. to 36th St. imprudent. Or telling the Marshall White ladies that they didn’t need to worry about the swimming pool at the Center because they were hearing just rumors that the city was not in negotiations with anyone to take over the MWC when it comes out the next week that an agreement with OWCAP to manage the center was in its final stages.

The SE just provided an instrument to disseminate more Godfrey propaganda this morning.

Curmudgeon said...

Dorrene:

While I agree completely with your description of how the Mayor has ignored his agreement with the Council about both branches having to agree on what Mr. Jolley would work on --- Mr. Jolley is not Ogden City's lobbyist, he is Mayor Godfrey's personal lobbyist, though being paid with public funds --- I think you're wrong to dismiss today's article as merely "an instrument to disseminate more Godfrey propaganda."

First, the fact that the Council is negotiating to hire a lobbyist for Ogden City is news. We haven't had one for a while, after all. If I were the editor, I'd have published the story, absolutely.

And the story did point out, fairly quickly, the Mayor's ignoring the Council on the matter of Jolley getting the legislature to cementing Godfrey, personally, into the job of RDA Board exec. Most of the Mayor's whining came much further down in the story.

So while your take on the Mayor on this issue is, I think, dead on, your complaint about the article itself is not. It was news. And it pointed out why the Council is looking to do this. It was not all Godfrey spin.

candy said...

Why, Oh why, is the council and the mayor spending money for a lobbist? When they have given both Bill Cook and Mark Johnson big 100 thousand plus pay checks and neither one of them know how to do their jobs. Which is to go to the capitol and do lobbing. I see them every year at the capitol on fridays and yet they need to pay some one else to do the job that they should be doing? Give me a break. Let's throw all the bums out and get some peoople in there that know what their duties are and quit wasting all of our tax dollars.

Dorrene Jeske said...

Curm,

You're right! I am just disgusted that Scott Schwebke interviews council members and then asks for the mayor's response to our comments so that the mayor always gets the last word and the articles that Schwebke writes do promote the mayor's propaganda. It is news and Bill Cook's email to the council yesterday was news to me. I agree with Mr. Cook that it should not have been disclosed until after negotiations were finalized with Mr. Peterson. I'm concerned that $10K will be sufficient to obtain the results that we want and the fact that Mr. Peterson is a lobbyists for so many other agencies.
The Mayor has kept cutting our Technical/Professional budget, but it seems that his Technical/Professional budget hasn't suffered the same cuts.
I very much liked your tongue-in-cheek post above. Thanks!

Biker Babe said...

Again, I have nothing to say that would not be immediately removed by the blog administrator!

BB

Jennifer Neil said...

This serious breach of communication and back-biting between the administration and the council that seems to never stop ...

The finger pointing and whining, and Statements such as "Mr. Jolley told me when I attended a legislative session at the State Capitol in 2006 that he did what the Mayor told him to do and that he didn’t have any obligation to the Council." [D Jeske] - and - "He has done so many things without telling the council that in a decent and respectful working relationship would have been told to us. It is surprising that [Godfrey] believes we still have a working joint resolution regarding a lobbyist since he has ignored it as long as I have been on the council. But then maybe he considers it as a one-sided agreement that favors his side. I don’t know how he can call it a joint resolution when there have been no meetings since 2006 to discuss joint lobbying efforts." [D. Jeske] - and - "According to Godfrey everything the council does is imprudent." [D. Jeske] ....

... are some of the reasons I have decided to run for City Council Seat B. I think people at the state level, as well as most generally people that live anywhere near us in the state, have the same sentiment as Johnson, as he stated in the article: "It will make us (the council and administration) look like we are not united from a state perspective." [excerpt from S-E article]

I could write more, but this is sufficient to cover this issue for now -- please visit My Blog for more comprehensive discussions on my concerns for the city.

Jennifer Neil

beaver said...

Jennifer:

Just to clarify, are you suggesting Councilwoman Jeske's post above represents "finger pointing and whining?"

Just asking.

Curmudgeon said...

JN:

I'm with Beaver on this. A tad confused. I understand you hope to end the bad working relationship between Ogden's various levels of government --- don't we all. But I'm a little vague on where you think you'd stand on the lobbyist matter.

I could agree, would agree, Ogden City ought only to have one professional lobbyist on the hill in SL provided he or she worked on matters that both the Mayor and the Council agreed should be pursued. Both. [For the record, the Council worked out just such an agreement with Mayor Godfrey, which the Mayor promptly broke.]

So long as Mayor Godfrey considers the lobbyist he pays [with public funds] answerable only to him, and subject to instruction only by him, then it seems to me that a second lobbyist, paid by the Council and answerable to it, would be a wise thing to have.

As for the claim by Godfrey appointee Johnson that having two lobbyists "will make us (the council and administration) look like we are not united from a state perspective." --- a sentiment you say your share --- I'd say this: if there are legislative matters on which the Mayor and Council disagree, then the legislators [and Ogden] would be best served by being made aware of that disagreement rather than being led to believe by the Mayor's personal lobbyist that his view is Ogden's view.

So I'm with Beaver on this one: I think you need to clarify a bit what you think your stand on the lobbyist matter would be if you won a seat on the Council.

Ed J said...

Jennifer
What the hell are you suggesting?

Political Suicide said...

Jennifer wrote, "I could write more"

Don't bother.

I think you have dug this hole deep enough.

one vote said...

Jennifer you need to clarify yoouur statment from above, I am not sure where you are coming from in regards to the lobbyist, and the communication problem.

I also have to question someone who thinks that they will restore the communication problems with the Mayor and Council.

It is my opinion that we have elected some very intelligent people to the council with great comunication skills who can not communicate with the Mayor. The problem is that the Mayor wont communicate, then he blames the council.

I believe that until we elect someone to the position of Mayor who will work and play with others in an honest open manor, we are screwed.

So Jennifer please expound on your skills to re-establish and repair communications.

And what are your views about the lobbyists.

Just the facts, ma'am said...

A correction to Councilwoman Jeske's comment regarding the term Mark Johnson served on the Ogden City Council. Mr. Johnson's term started in January 2002 and he resigned in January 2004, Councilwoman Wicks had only been serving on the Ogden City Council for a few weeks when this occurred. Councilman Kent Jorgenson was elected at the same time as Johnson and completed his full term.

Mr. Johnson is supposed to serve as the Management Services Director, but it seems he fancies himself as a lobbyist and spends much of his time (at taxpayer expense) in SLC when the legislature is in session. For the sake of Ogden City taxpayers and those picking up his slack at the city during his absence during those 45 days, perhaps he should resign and follow his true calling as a lobbyist. He has the morals to do it and seems well connected.

Ogden Dem said...

Jennifer Neil - your insufficient blog leaves too many of us confused. Your My Blog site brings nothing additional.

Wouldn't we all love to have a city council and mayor that would communicate openly and honestly with each other, and sorry folks but changing city council members isn't going to make that happen either, unless of course they are all Godfrey toadies, another thing that isn't going to happen.

We all know what is needed and that is a true mayor that gives a damn about the entire city of Ogden, not just some on the east bench or south end of the city. We still have a downtown, namely Washington Blvd, that is an embarrassment to the city - and yet Godfrey's business and economic development team appears to do nothing to get businesses into those vacant buildings, another reason Godfrey needs to fade into the sunset, or perhaps he could just move to Sunset.

Conscientious Voter said...

Just the Facts, Ma'am,

I was under the impression that four council seats are elected at the same time; the other three seats are elected at the same time as the mayor. At-large seats A and B are in the current election and at-large seat C (Ms. Wick's seat) ran two years ago when the mayor did. So going back, Johnson and Jorgensen were elected in 2001 and their term started January 2002holding at-large seats A and B. Glasmann and Jeske were elected to those seats in 2005, taking office in January 2006. I believe both you and Ms. Jeske are incorrect in your statements concerning when Ms. Wicks was first elected.

Blain Johnson was elected to at-large A when Ms. Van Hooser abdicated that seat and ran for mayor in 2007. Since this is Ms. Wicks second term, she must have been elected in 2003 and took office January 2004 for her first term. I hope I've clarified when who ran for what.

As for JN's statements, What are you trying to say? How can you hope to encourage communication between the council and mayor when you can't even communicate your own thoughts? It makes one wonder if you are a Godfrey "yes" person. I don't believe Ms. Jeske was whining and pointing the finger at the administration. It seems to me that she was trying to inform people of the council's situation since Schwebke presented only the administration's view point.

Curmudgeon has been studying the issues and workings of our city government and has a realistic understanding of existing conditions. I can't say the same for you, Ms. Neil. I think that I will vote for another candidate.

Moroni McConkie said...

Frankly, I like the tension between the mayor and council. I wish there were much more of it. To say the mayor still gets away with way, way too much is a gross understatement. Jennifer sounds like she would aspire to become one of the mayor's rubber-stamp council members. I am regarding her candidacy with extreme caution.

Jennifer Neil said...

Dorrene: I'm sorry if I gave the impression I was including you in the Whiner/FingerPointing group - I would think you know better than that, but I apolize ten times over.

Beaver: NO, I am not suggesting Ms. Jeske's statements are "finger pointing and back-biting." They merely bring to light some of the stuff that happens that we don't hear or read about ... her statement about the lobbyist telling her he won't do anything for the Council maybe suggests back-biting on the part of the administration/lobbyist ...

I myself interviewed Mr. Godfrey, and he told me he was concerned about the serious breakdown in communication between the administration and the council, and then he told me who on the council was to blame for the breakdown ....

Curm: I cannot single handedly do anything about the current situation in re: communication at the mayor/council level -- I just hope to be a proactive part of a team that may be able to bring everything back to the level it should be in order to restore trust in our City government by the people who elected them ... It would be nice to have ONE lobbyist, who would back both the administration and the council, but we have heard that the ONE we do have claims to work ONLY for the Mayor ... Curm: you said: "if there are legislative matters on which the Mayor and Council disagree, then the legislators [and Ogden] would be best served by being made aware of that disagreement rather than being led to believe by the Mayor's personal lobbyist that his view is Ogden's view" ... I agree with that completely.


Ed J: "What the hell are you suggesting?" ... um, well everyone already knows that Ogden's administration doesn't get along with the council ... why is Godfrey now worried about the people at the state level just now getting that impression?

Political Suicide: no comment

One Vote: "I also have to question someone who thinks that they will restore the communication problems with the Mayor and Council." ... I don't think I can restore the communication problems -- that is not a job for one person, I will work as hard as I can as part of the City Council as a Team to get it back .... If you think the only way to restore the communication is to get a new mayor, then don't vote for any new council members, wait for the next mayoral election and do your due diligence and vote. I will, too ...


Ogden Dem: see my comment to One Vote above.

Conscientious Voter: I am NOT a Godfrey YES person!!!!!!! I also don't believe Ms. Jeske was whining and pointing fingers at the administration. The initial blog post (by the Blogmeister) mentioned the whining and attributed it to the mayor. I completely agree Ms. Jeske was trying to inform people of the council's situation since Schwebke presented only the administration's viewpoint.

MORONi McConkie -- bite your tongue then wash your mouth out with soap! I don't believe in rubber stamping. I believe in researching, knowing the rules and abiding by them.

Everyone:
I was just as upset as the rest of you when I read the article in the paper this morning -- and just wanted to say I agree with the Blogmeister; I'm sorry if my blog doesn't provide enough information for some of you ... I'm doing the best I can and my heart is in the right place. There are rules for a reason, and the rules apply to everyone - including the mayor, and he has demonstrated that he won't follow the rules no matter what. If we have a council that is more united in making sure the rules are adhered to by all parties, I think things will greatly improve in Ogden City Government.

Jennifer Neil said...

Note on My Blog: If you don't think I give adequate information in my blog, please leave comments in the comments section ... ask me questions ... tell me if I missed something ... I would sincerely like the feedback, but WCF might not be the best place for it -- PLEASE comment to my blog posts on my blog, I will do my best to address and and all issues from anyone.

Thank you,
Jennifer Neil

Curmudgeon said...

Well, it's early days yet, campaign wise, and having myself posted hastily and unclearly on occasion [no, we will not count how many times], I give JN some chops for coming back to respond, and for taking part in the WCF free for all. Not a lot of candidates --- or Council members --- do. Ms. Jeske does, looking on posting here as one way to keep constituents informed [good on her], and Ms. Wicks less often, but sometimes, particularly to fill in information that's been asked for, or to clarify something not clear in an SE story. Or wrongly reported.

By way of making more information about the candidates available to the public, the Ogden Group of the Sierra Club sent out questionnaires to all council candidates. A majority replied and in just a few days, the Ogden Group will have a link up on its website leading to those replies. They'll be posted in full, verbatim as the candidates submitted them, and without comment so folks can compare and contrast the candidates' replies on a variety of issues and draw their own conclusions. As soon as the link goes active, WCF readers will know about it. In the words of the late lamented Justin Wilson, "Ah garahntee..."

Ray Vaughn said...

It seems both the mayor and the city council have gone past what is best for the city. What is now occurring is a power struggle. Neither side will give in or attempt to work together. On a somewhat related inquiry what should a voter bring with him/her to the voting booth? What identification will be necessary to avoid being challenged or turned away? Since the mayor and his cronies had success last election I wish to be ready with all necessary documentation.

RudiZink said...

Moroni McConkie said...

"Jennifer sounds like she would aspire to become one of the mayor's rubber-stamp council members."

Don't leap too fast to conclusions with regard to The Lovely Jennifer Mr. McConkie; and I say the same to the several others about this one female candidate who can go toe-to-toe with Boss Godfrey in any arena.

Perhaps her earlier posts were a little too imprecise. Despite her top-flight academic traing (WSU - Math & Economics), perhaps she learned some rookie political lessons today on this blog about weighing every word a candidate puts up on a public blogsite.

Neverthelss, MM and our other gentle readers though, don't attack the only woman in the race who could kick Boss Godfrey's ass in a fair back-alley fight.

I'll say at this still early juncture that I guarantee Jennifer Neil is NOT a Godfreyite.

We'll have more later on this, BTW.

monotreme said...

No one seems to have noticed or commented on the fact that Councilman Stephenson seems to be on a different page from Mayor Godfrey in this matter.

Mirabile dictu.

OgdenLover said...

Conscientious Voter said:
"Blain Johnson was elected to at-large A when Ms. Van Hooser abdicated that seat and ran for mayor in 2007."

Ms. Van Hooser completed the term that the Council appointed her to fill. You make it sound as if she Palined in midstream. That's not the case at all.

Curmudgeon said...

Ray:

The fly in the ointment of arguing that neither side [Mayor or Council] is willing to cooperate is this: The Council and Mayor negotiated an agreement which provided that the city lobbyist, Mr. Jolley, would work only on matters both the Mayor and Council agreed he should work on. It was a step toward a more cooperative relationship between the Mayor and Council, and it might have proven to be a first step with more to follow --- until the Mayor directed Mr. Jolley to lobby for a bill removing the Council's power as RDA Board to remove him as RDA Exec. He not only did not seek the Council's agreement, he never bothered to inform the Council that he'd ordered Mr. Jolley to lobby for that law. [The Mayor's explanation? He didn't have time to notify the Council.] The law passed, the Council learned what the Mayor had done -- reneged secretly on his agreement with the Council --- and whatever faint buds of a more cooperative relationship that may have emerged withered and died instantly.

In politics and city management, it is difficult to the point of impossibility to work cooperatively with someone who has proven in so public a way, as Mayor Godfrey did, that his word is no good.

Trying to sort candidates out said...

Jennifer,

Did you think to ask the Mayor if perhaps the communication problem lies with him and his CAO? I can think of many times the Council has been intentionally kept out of the loop or even given misinformation. That environment does not breed trust or openness. You seriously think you can fix that?

How do YOU propose to work with administration in that type of environment?

drewmeister said...

Trying: I fear the answer may be similar to Stephenson's take on the issue - capitulate to the mayor. I hope I'm wrong.

Jennifer Neil said...

Dear Trying ... :

I did not ask the mayor specific questions; It went something like this:

How do you feel about the current relationship between the administration and the city council?

What do you see is the biggest problem that contributes to that?

What sort of solutions would you suggest to fix the problem(s)?

What would you like to see in any future new council members?

I just let him talk - because if I'm going to be working with him, I wanted to know how he would respond -- I didn't go to the interview with the intention of placing blame or pointing any fingers ... it was just a fact finding mission, as they say.

I also feel the current (and past) council has been intentionally kept out of the loop or given misinformation, or even information after the fact (when it is too late to do anything about it). As I mentioned in an earlier post: I alone cannot FIX the current problem - it is going to require a lot of teamwork and effort from all. It might be a very difficult mountain to climb, but I intend to do my best to foster innovations and improvements in the system or methods of communication in the government. They say if you keep doing something and it keeps not working, stop doing it.

Drewmeister: I have already said in an earlier post, I am not a "YES-man", nor am I a "rubber stamper" - I believe in doing what the people who vote and elect trust that I should do -- what is best for them, they come first!

As I have stated in my blog, I really want the people of Ogden to be able to trust in their elected officials. I cannot be precise about HOW I will accomplish this, other than I will work hard to make it happen. This will depend a lot on the dynamic of the new Council and the attitudes of all involved.

Bill C. said...

Curm, you just used a whole bunch of words to simply state that as you see it, the mayor is in fact, a liar. Is that right?

Curmudgeon said...

Bill:

Not quite.... If you make a commitment, an agreement, and you give your word, you may intend at the time to keep your word. So, not a lie. But if later a situation arises in which you can personally benefit, you think, by breaking your word, and you do it, you have demonstrated that your word is no good. That's devastating for a politician or public official --- demonstrating that your word is no good. It's not quite the same as a lie --- the deliberate statement of something you know to be untrue when you state it.

Hope that helps, Bill.

Bill C. said...

Well Curm, just checking. Some may believe that this lying little mayor knew about this piece of legislation well in advance. You must agree it was done in a very clandestine manner, like so many others, think Powder Mt..
If that were the case, then would not the mayor be outright lying when he entered the agreement on the lobbyist with the Council? At least deceitful and dishonest?
Just wondering , I know we don't yet have the reciept but, what's your take on that hypothetical?
Odds are it could very well be true.

Wm III said...

Jennifer Neal:

I, too, misunderstood your original post ...

I thought you handled the rebuttal pretty well ...

Are you sure you want this?

Sincere good luck ...

Curmudgeon said...

Bill:

If you're trying to get me to agree that Hizzonah was sneaky about his instructing Mr. Jolley to work on the bill without telling the Council, you won't have to try very hard. Of course he was. And if he knew at the time he made the agreement with the Council about joint-tasking for Mr. Jolley that he had no intention of keeping the agreement, then yes, he would have in making the agreement, lied. But I don't know that to be so.

I do know it to be so that he broke the agreement. When I can, I like to limit the conclusions I draw to things about which I have good evidence. [It's the historian in me.] I have that for his breaking the agreement [and so, his word]. I don't for your suggestion that he never intended to keep the agreement, even as he made it.

Dorrene Jeske said...

Jennifer,
I take it that it was your post on the blog yesterday that you were referring to at last night’s “Open Space” meeting. Your post was disconcerting when I read it. I am usually an easy-going person and readily forgive, but I am having a difficult time with this. You made it sound as though I was the problem and reason the mayor and council could not work together, and that is why you are running for the council. I know that you apologized a few posts later, but you didn’t explain why you quoted me several times to show that there was a “serious breach of communication and back-biting between the administration and the council that seems to never stop…” Then you side with Mark Johnson’s quote in the paper and then refer to your blog site for “more comprehensive discussions on my concerns for the city.” On your blog site you state that you will work hard to re-establish trust with the fire and police departments. Again inferring that the council doesn’t communicate with them and that we have a poor relationship with the employees of the city. Between those two items, it really does sound as though you feel the council is to blame for the lack of communication between the council and mayor. If you didn’t mean your post the way it sounded, then what point/s were you trying to make? Please explain fully.
I did have to smile at your post when you said: “I myself interviewed Mr. Godfrey, and he told me he was concerned about the serious breakdown in communication between the administration and the council, and then he told me who on the council was to blame for the breakdown ....” It shows how naïve you are and also makes one think that you believed him and is the basis for your post. When Godfrey was running for re-election for his second term, I wrote a letter to the editor pointing out some of the things Godfrey had done during his first term that were not in the best interest of Ogden residents. A woman wrote a letter to the editor defending Godfrey, and said that I had lied about the things he had done. She knew that I had lied because she had called the mayor and asked him if they were true and he had told her no. I laughed at her letter also that anyone was so naïve.

Jennifer Neil said...

Dorrene - if anyone else had made those comments, I probably would have dug myself the same hole. The only reason I used the comments you had the nuggets to make, was to emphasize that your comments revealed what is going on with the administration. In no way did I intend it to decry you or your position on the council.

You told us what Mr. Jolley said about his position as lobbyist for the mayor ... You told us the mayor has done many things without telling the council ... You told us that the mayor has said he thought everything the council does is imprudent. Doesn't this reveal that it's the mayor who is creating the communication barrier and blames it on the council?

Because I heard the mayor say that it is entirely the council's fault for the communication breakdown does most certainly NOT mean I believed him ... come on, give me a break.

I did not side with Mr. Johnson for his quote in the paper "makes us (the council and administration) look like we are not united from a state perspective." I merely reiterated that everyone already knows that fact.

The basis for my post was that it PISSED me off so much that Godfrey had the nuggets to say "he is disappointed that the city council didn't inform the administration in advance that it's considering hiring Peterson." after all the things he's done without the knowledge and/or approval of the council.

The statement in my blog you are referring to: "I will work hard to re-establish a good working relationship with the Police and Fire Departments and do my part to raise citizen confidence levels in regards to safety in Ogden." I'm sorry if that one bothers you, but as I understand it, The Mayor treats both departments like dog doo, and could care less if their buildings are falling down around them -- and that tells me that something is amiss. I don't know how much the current council is involved with either department - I guess I should have asked. But I do know the OPD and the OCFD, for the most part, despise Godfrey for the callous way in which they are treated when it comes to budget allocation time.

In all good faith, I didn't mean to offend you or come off like I believe the mayor isn't to blame for any of the current problems.

Jennifer Neil

Dorrene Jeske said...

O.K., Jennifer,
I am glad that you explained things because your post does not reflect what you are saying now. Your saying that you want "to re-establish a good working relationship with OPD and OCFD" does reflect that the council doesn't have a good relationship with those two departments, because you will be working to achieve that good relationship from the council level. There isn't a thing you can do to improve that relationship between those departments and the mayor. I hope you understand what I'm saying and realize that what you may want to accomplish will be done as a council member. You cannot expect to change or influence the way the mayor does business. That is why your post sounded like you were critical of the council.
Jennifer, the sooner you realize that the existing conditions between the mayor, the council and some council members are very deep rooted and complex and will not be remedied easily or quickly. Hopefully, with this election we will have five or six strong members on the council and Stephenson will be the only one who marches to the mayor's drum. It is hard to have a totally unanimous council when there are such strong and devisive feelings harbored by its members.
Good luck with your efforts to unite everyone. Just remember this saying I found: "Don't be disappointed if you're unable to change others -- just remember how hard it is to change yourself." In classes that I have taken on human behavior we were given the advice that "you really can't change anyone but yourself."

history tells all said...

here is why we should not have government paid lobbyist and this goes on in local and national politics.
the government doles out 50,000 or more bucks for a lobbyist, the lobbyist then works about 20 hours, for that money, the elected official is then up for re- election, the candidate then calls lobbyist for a donation, and tells them to call all his contacts for more donations, or he will not get the contract next time and wo la the elected official has now become corrupt to the money that was ours as taxpayers. end of story and that is why politics is so corrupt today.

Post a Comment

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