That's right, folks. Muncipal Ward 1 council candidate Pamela Shupe Stevens and At-large Seat "B" candidate Courtney Jon White have been disqualified from their respective races, due to their failures to file their third set of financial disclosures with the Ogden City Recorders Office by the required October 29, 2013 5:00 p.m. deadline. Barring last-minute legal action by either of these candidates (and Mr. White informed your blogmeister yesterday afternoon that he planned to take no such action), each of these candidates will have their names removed from your Tuesday ballots, and any votes that have been already cast either by early voting, or via absentee ballots, will remain uncounted.
As a result, Muncipal Ward1 incumbent Neil K. Garner and At-large "B" incumbent Bart Blair will cruise to easy Tuesday victories by default, thanks to an Ogden City administrative decision to enforce the applicable requirements of Utah statutory and "controlling" case law, which, read together, require strict adherence to the financial disclosure reporting deadlines provided under the Utah Municipal Code:
- Title 10 Chapter 3 Section 208 - Campaign finance disclosure in municipal election
- PUGH v. DRAPER CITY - Utah Suprem Court (2005)
And this outcome does not bode well for our Ogden City Council for the upcoming 2014-16 Council wethinks, as these two council incumbents again effortlessly accede to the council dais, whilst owing their very offices to the Mike Caldwell administration, the same administration who'll be seeking their support for the next two years or more. Whether the Caldwell administration had any actual legal discretion in enforcing the applicable rules we won't speculate, although we will conjecture that this current unfortunate situation will not enhance the trust of the Ogden lumpencitizens for a council which is suspected by some disgruntled Ogden citizens of already being overly deferential (shall we say?) to the Mayor's Office.
That's the story as it stands this morning, O Gentle Ones.
Special thanks to WCF readers Dan S. and Actuary321 for helping us round up the above-linked Utah statutory and court citations.
So who'll be the first to offer their thoughts on "the meaning of all this?"
36 comments:
Perhaps this would have worked out better if City Council candidates were chosen by a caucus system.
I don't think it would have been much of a battle anyway, and I knew that going into it. I really just wanted to make Bart work for his seat, which he did. If he wasn't campaigning, we wouldn't have seen that large donation he just received.
I'll be back, but hopefully with more time to actually campaign one of these years.
I think their was no funny business here, but I would like to know, other than who the Mayor has chosen to leave at their post, where you believe the council should have been more adversarial with this mayor. Unlike the last one this mayor is going out of his way to sway the council and include them a lot more in discussions. I am curious to know. No judgements here, just a question...
James, the whole water rate revision process was a great example of how the administration still calls all the shots and merely tries to create the illusion that the council is in control. Of course the mayor himself didn't participate at all in that process.
Okay. Let's throw out your question for reader discussion. Comments anyone? Ferris?
Here's another example: Planning for transit and associated land use. The council, so far as I can tell, would love to see a transit overlay zone that encourages higher densities along transit corridors. But the administration has no inclination to draft such an ordinance, so it won't happen.
Right! In truth, anyone who deals even tangentially with Ogden City government understands that "Mayor Ten-speed" is merely a mere figurehead, and that "holdover" Godfrey "A" Team Member Mark Johnson, (whom Caldwell ought to have "canned" is "callin' all the shots."
Third example: Chickens.
Thanks for your service to your City, Courtney!
ok, but wasn't this water rate plan created and approved in 2009 under the last Administration?
That's why I asked the question...Thanks for making it more of a topic...
ok. I see your point here Dan, but I do think we will see a major transit initiative and plan come from the council soon. I can see why you are skeptical though.
The whole chickens thing I just don't understand. As I have spoken with council members, most seem not to want chickens as part of the domestic approved pet list. I understand there has been vigorous debate on the subject, but the council seems divided on the issue. I could see this as an Administration/ council battle if the council was in favor but not acting because of the Administration. So far that does not seem to be the case.
I really appreciate this discussion. It is helping a lot to understand a few posters here.
The previous rates were approved in late 2007, and one detail was modified in the late summer of 2008. Then in mid-2011, Godfrey asked the council to modify the rates again, but they refused. Instead they decided to do a new comprehensive rate study, which began in early 2012. But the administration then hijacked that study via its handpicked consultant, and called the shots from then on.
The administration will not allow the council to take any initiative on land use planning. Instead the administration handles it on a project-by-project basis, asking the council for ad hoc rezones as they see fit.
It's the administration that's against chickens, and so far they've succeeded in making a majority of the council afraid of chickens. Fear-mongering is the administration's strong suit, and most of the council is too weak to resist.
ok, I see that point of view sir.
I'll tell yas what's, my friend, James Humphries. I'll make a serious effort to divert this serious discussion right back to Weber County Forum, where it properly belongs
It is not up to the Administration to decide if the council can or cannot do something. I understand the project by project basis the Administration uses, but how does that relate? Clearly this Administration does not have an overall vision for the city, but how do they prevent the council from acting?
So you believe the majority of the council is in favor but won't vote.
I really like this discussion. This is all good information.
Bingo! I think you finally GOT IT, Mister Professional Campaign manager, LOL.
Then it sounds more like maybe the council is not against it, just that no one has been able to put forth an argument that overcomes their concerns where they believe what the administration is saying.
Why must the administration draft the ordinance? Doesn't the council have a staff that can research and draft an ordinance for them? What does their Executive Director do for them if not that?
Here's he short answer A321. Bill Cook, the Council Executive Director, has a severely warped view about the relationship of the City Council, vis-a-vis the City Administration. It's his belief that the council is merely a management level organization, whose purpose is merely to support the Administration. If you want to find out why the City Council has NEVER taken it's role as Ogden's legislature serious, look to the passive-aggressive "guidance" of Bill Cook.
So sorry to hear that.
In principle the council could act on its own; in practice it would be nearly impossible without major structural changes in how the council operates. James, you remember how hard it was for the council to pass the anti-discrimination ordinances. Those were relatively simple ordinances that were drafted by an outside group. To undertake a major city-wide zoning revision would require far more research and analysis by land use and legal experts. The administration could put roadblocks in the way not just through the city attorney's office but also through the planning office which is legally entitled to weigh in. To undertake something like that without the administration's cooperation, the council would have to hire its own experts to draft the legislation. Before it could do that, it would probably have to go through a budget amendment process to get the money to hire the experts. It would be an all-out civil war that nobody on the council has the strength or the stomach for.
See my answer to James above. I'm not aware of any recent examples in which council staff have drafted their own legislation. Perhaps there have been examples, but they would have been minor. Generally ordinances are drafted by the city attorney's office. The city attorney works for the administration, not the council.
I believe the last chicken vote was 3 in favor and 4 against. That was with the administration pulling out all the stops to argue against the proposal. Remember that in city council meetings the administration always has unlimited time to present its point of view and to rebut any 3-minute comments from members of the public with whom they might disagree. So it's highly probable that if the administration changed its position, or even remained neutral, one or more council members would change their vote and chickens would be legalized.
Council meetings are set up so that anyone who wishes to argue against the administration is always badly outgunned. The administration always has multiple opportunities to address the council, first in work sessions, then in the regular meetings, both before and after any public comments which are always limited to 3 minutes. It's as if, at congressional hearings, all the scheduled witnesses were from the White House, anyone from the opposing party were given only three minutes to speak with no question/answer period allowed, and the White House witnesses had unlimited time to rebut any such witness after they had stepped down.
I remember in the past the little mayor would use his unliminited time to rail against any resident who spoke against his proposal during the comment period. Many of Godfreys rants and tantrums, which WCF had available for viewing, were demeaning and insulting to those who had made him angry. .Since Godfrey was allowed the final word citizens had no way to respond to the mayor.
The current administration is far more professional, and hence far more effective. The mayor and CAO almost never speak during council meetings. Instead they send their various minions and consultants to the podium.
I am curious as to who Bill Cook serves. Does he work at the pleasure of the city council or is he hired by the adminstration to work with/for the council? it seems that Mr. Cook mainly takes his direction from the adminstration and represents the mayor in giving input to the council.
Technically he works for the council, as do the rest of the council staff. But their main role as full-time city employees seems to be explaining stuff to the part-time council members. Often this is absolutely necessary, because often the council members are pretty clueless. But I've also observed plenty of instances where the staff went beyond explaining and instead became advocates on behalf of the administration. During one work session on the water rate revision proposal last year, Cook even went so far as to lie to the council about what the administration's proposal entailed. I called him on it after the work session and he just ignored me. More often, the staff simply parrot what the administration says, correct or not, without exercising their critical thinking skills.
Exactly right, Dan. Sadly, most Ogden City lumpencitizens have no idea at all about the length and breadth of Bill Cook's City Council influence.
Riverdale had a late filing but the candidate stayed in the race. How does that happen you ask? Because the City Recorder said 7 days before Tuesday November 5, is Monday October 28.
Someone can't count.
Post a Comment