More Evidence That SE's Publisher and His Editors Don't Read Their Own Paper

If the Publisher of the Standard Examiner is going to foist this kind of editorial embarrassment on readers, not to mention his staff, he should have the courage to sign his own name to the drivel

By Curmudgeon

Having just read the Standard-Examiner's Sunday morning editorial over my morning coffee --- the coffee at least was good --- I am forced to wonder, yet again, if the SE's publisher and his editors read their own paper. It seems they do not.

Today's editorial takes the Council leadership to task for [allegedly] refusing to communicate with the Mayor. But didn't the SE print an editorial just a while ago berating the Mayor for springing the contract to privatize operation of the Marshall White Center [and to close its pool] on the Council by surprise. Playing "Gotcha!" the SE then told the Mayor, was no way to keep the Council informed on important matters.

Then, going back a bit, there was the Mayor's secret instructions to Ogden's legislative lobbyist to encourage a bill removing the Council's ability to choose the head of Ogden's RDA [then Mayor Godfrey]. He had to keep the instructions secret, because he'd agreed with the Council earlier that the city's lobbyist would work only on legislation that both the Council and Mayor agreed he should work on. How do I know that happened? I read it in the Standard Examiner.

Going back a bit futher, there were the Godfrey team emails stressing the importance of not letting the Council know the Mayor was trying to get UTA to launder federal grant funds to pay off a consultant he'd hired to do a gondola report. How do I know that happened? I read it in the Standard Examiner. [After of course Dan S. discovered the emails via GRAMA request, and Weber County Forum made them public.]

And going back just a bit further... Godfrey has a long history displaying plainly his lack of interest in communicating anything to the Council other than orders... there was the time Godfrey wanted the city to sell some RDA property downtown to a particular buyer [who had not, by the way, made the highest offer for it]. The infamous "Bootjack" matter. The Council asked who the Mayor wanted to sell the property to, and the Administration told the Council not only that it wouldn't tell them, but that they had no right to ask. How do I know that happened? I read it in the Standard Examiner.

But now, the SE editors have decided the problem is the Council, not the Mayor. Do they read their own paper at all? Seems not.

And then we come this shameful bit of pandering to the Mayor:

We are also concerned with the accessibility of Council Chairwoman Wicks. By her own admission, she frequently is not available until after 5 p.m. Given her position in Ogden city, she needs to follow the example of hundreds of her colleagues across the state and be available more often for the city administration and news media inquiries. We respect Wicks' work responsibilities, but if they interfere with her council chair responsibilities, maybe someone else should do the job.

Well, let's see now. Ogden has a full-time Mayor who we pay a six figure salary to do a full time job. The Council chair gets about $9K a year to work part time for the city, mostly evenings, while holding a full time day job. So, if someone has to go out of their way to schedule a meeting the other can attend, who should it be? Our six figure full time Mayor? Or our part time Councilwoman? Why, the Councilwoman of course, says the Standard Examiner.

If the Publisher of the Standard Examiner is going to foist this kind of editorial embarrassment on readers, not to mention his staff, he should have the courage to sign his own name to the drivel.