Council Candidate Offers Apology -- Part Deux

Phipps "mistakenly named an education official as a supporter;” but we have it on good authority that an Ogden City department director’s name is also on the mailer... and the city official denies giving permission

By George K.

Our ace reporter at the Standard Examiner, Scott Schwebke, reported Sunday morning that David Phipps, who is running for At-Large Council Seat B, said that ”he will send postcards to about 1,000 voters apologizing for mistakenly listing a local education official on a campaign mailer as a supporter.”

Phipps is quoted as saying, “I have made the centerpiece of my campaign an open and accountable Ogden city government ...” and “I truly believe in being accountable to…the residents of Ogden, so to correct this misinformation and to show it was an honest mistake – I would like to apologize publicly.”

If he is truly apologetic why did he name only Karen Thurber as mistakenly appearing on his mailer? Mark Johnson, Management Services Director for Ogden City, notified the Council last Tuesday after the mailer had been sent that he did not give permission for his name to be used on the mailer. If that is the case, we think that Mr. Johnson would have followed through and also informed Phipps that he did not have permission to use his name. According to the Hatch Act, government employees are not allowed to endorse any candidate publicly. If he/she does endorse, campaign for or support a candidate publicly, he/she risks losing his/her job.

For those who haven't seen the offending mailer, you can view it here with your own eyes, in electronic Adobe PDF form. (Scroll down to the address page for an eye-full)

We wonder what kind of lame excuse Phipps will use this time to cover up this blunder.

Is this the kind of irresponsible behavior we want in our next council representative? Or is Mr. Johnson tempting fate and hoping that no one on the Council or a public resident would file charges against him?

Who will be the first to respond to the latest in this series of campaign shenanigans?

Are we going to have a rerun of questionable campaign tactics as we did in 2007?