Remember... the world wide blogosphere is sitting on the edge of its seat, waiting to find out what our gentle WCF readers think
In accordance with our regular practice of providing advance notice of pending
Council/RDA Board agenda items, we'll provide a heads up concerning several items of interest coming up for tomorrow night's
Council/RDA meetings:
1) BDO Bond refinancing. According to tomorrow night's council packets, the Administration will be delivering reports at both a
Special RDA Meeting and the regular Council Meeting, concerning an Administration-proposed refinancing of
Business Depot Ogden (BDO) bonding. For your convenience, we'll display both council information packets here:
At first glance, the Administration's proposal seems innocuous enough. Although the principal loan balance will increase to around $6,150,000 from the current $5.79 mil after the refi, with interest reductions the whole deal is projected to save the taxpayers around $120 thousand.
So what about it gentle readers? Is this a good deal for the taxpayers... or are we
missin' somethin'?
2) Capital Improvement Rules Revamp. Among other things, the Administration proposes to raise the threshold for discretionary Administration capital expenditures from the current $10,000 to $30,000 before the administration is required to go to the City Council for permission to spend additional taxpayer dough. Another troubling feature of the Administration proposal... the establishment of an array of
"slush funds," a frightening proposition, given the
Little Lord's well demonstrated
"spending propensities," we believe. How about it gentle readers? We invite you to read the applicable City Council packet, and tell us what you think about this:
3) Non Discrimination Ordinance. In the wake of
last month's chirpy announcement that Boss Godfrey was finally onboard with
Ogden City's long-awaited anti-discrimination ordinance, it seems that the Administration has now thrown a wrench into the works. As set forth in the
Council Work Session Packet (linked directly above), the Administration has now suggested amended language to the still in-the-works ordinance, which would create a legal loophole for
"moral or religious" objections.
Rather than go through he whole rigmarole, we'll link to this gay activist website, which forcefully (even if not elegantly) explains the main issue which now seems to be on the table:
Here's the suspect language in Boss Godfrey's newly-proposed ordinance text:
This chapter shall not be construed to limit or prohibit the expression of a person’s moral or religious beliefs, opinions or views. Evidence of a person’s moral or religious beliefs, opinions or views, or expression thereof, shall be inadmissible to prove violation of this chapter.
At risk of seeming overly long-winded, here's our additional take on this new wrinkle in the anti-discriminitation ordinance story. The above carefully-crafted language would unfairly prevent a complainant from offering evidence of moral or religious bigotry to prove discrimination under that ordinance; yet there's nothing in the proposed language to prevent an accused respondent from offering the same evidence to prove any act of discrimination does not fall within the ordinance. That's our interpretation, in any event. In legal parlance, the ordinance as proposed, would allow the respondent to use the ordinance
"as a shield," while a complainant would be prevented from citing an incidence of
moral or religious discrimination
"as a sword."
We do hope our City Council is careful with this. Boss Godfrey's newly proposed ordinance
"exception," would render the new ordinance entirely unenforceable as practical matter, wethinks. It would be a real shame to see a council which has been working on an ordinance for almost a year, to ultimately enact one with no teeth.
Please don't hesitate to chime in on any of the subjects relating to tomorrow night's Council RDA meetings.
Remember... the
world wide blogosphere is sitting on the edge of its seat, waiting to find out what our
gentle WCF readers think.
