Oddball Standard-Examiner Editorial: Say No to Lobbyists

Query: Does the Standard-Examiner Editorial Board actually read their own newspaper?

By Curmudgeon

A newspaper's editorials are, plainly, expressions of opinion, and in the nature of things, the SE will publish, now and then, editorials with which sensible, sober readers will disagree. That is to be expected. But this morning, the Standard-Examiner editorial board has embarrassed itself, the paper, and, sadly, the city it serves with a lead editorial that leaves me wondering if the Editorial Board reads their own newspaper. It's going to take them a while to live this one down:

• OUR VIEW: Say no to lobbyists

The editorial considers the Council's plan to hire its own lobbyist. The SE does not like that idea. It rightly finds the origins of the idea in the Mayor's tasking the lobbyist he pays, Mr. Jolley, to work for legislation to give Mayor Matthew Godfrey "firm control over the Ogden Redevelopment Agency." Council members, the editorial explains, "said the action was taken without their knowledge or approval." No. The action was taken without their knowledge or approval. The Mayor didn't deny it. He said he didn't have time to let them know. This was reported in the SE. So there is no "he said/she said" element to this. It was done without the Council's knowledge or approval. I read it in The Standard Examiner.

So, what is the SE's solution to the problem? That Ogden should have no paid lobbyist at the legislature. That City officials should represent Ogden before the legislature, and that Mr. Jolley should be let go at a savings of $40K a year to the city. What the editorial dos not so much as mention is that this is precisely the solution advocated by the Council last budget year when it zeroed out the budget line for Mr. Jolley's pay. Cut it out entirely. At which point the Mayor hired him again anyway, paying him out of the the Mayor's discretionary funds. The Council adopted the SE's solution; the Mayor ignored it and unilaterally decided to keep his personal lobbyist on the city payroll. I know that happened. I read it in The Standard Examiner. The editorial board must have skipped that issue.

But it gets worse. [Hard to believe, I know. But it does.] The editorial suggests that Ogden will "look ridiculous" if it has two lobbyists working at cross purposes, and that the Mayor and Council should agree on what they want to lobby the legislature for. Well, first of all, the Mayor and Council did agree that Mr. Jolley would work only on matters both the Council and Mayor agreed he should work on. The Mayor promptly violated that agreement to, as the editorial puts it, give himself "firm control over the Ogden Redevelopment Agency."

So, the Council endorsed the idea of no lobbyist, and it agreed with the Mayor to joint lobbying goals --- note, precisely what the editorial calls for. The Mayor ignored the "no lobbyist" idea by re-hiring Mr. Jolley when the Council cut funds to do that, and by ignoring the council when giving Mr. Jolley his marching orders. But does the editorial then conclude that the problem is the Mayor? It does not.

As for Ogden "looking ridiculous" if the Council and Mayor disagree before the legislature? Nonsense. If they disagree about proposed legislation, the legislators need to know that so they don't assume Mayor Godfrey's personal wishes represent the views of Ogden City Government. The founders embraced the principles of "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" for good reasons. The SE Editorial Board seems unfamiliar with either concept. Either they all slept through high school civics, or a majority of the board was raised in Brigham City and had Rob Bishop for a history teacher. That would explain the Editorial Board's appalling ignorance of these fundamental principles of American government. It would not excuse it.

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.

More Sunday Morning Whining From Boss Godfrey

A short essay on a few things our Ogden City Mayor fails to "get"

Can we see by a show of hands how many of our readers nearly lost their breakfast after opening up this morning's Standard-Examiner hard-copy edition? There was Boss Godfrey's grinning mug right their on the front page, whining and complaining about the Ogden City Council yet again. We'll incorporate a few text passages from this morning's Ace Reporter Schwebke story:

OGDEN — The city council’s periodic use of a private law firm to render opinions on municipal issues is adversely impacting its relationship with the administration, says Mayor Matthew Godfrey.
Godfrey said he’s troubled by the “secretive nature” of the Salt Lake City firm of Chapman and Cutler, which has been retained by the city council.
He also complained the administration is kept in the dark regarding the law firm’s work on the council’s behalf.

Memo to Boss Godfrey: Chapman & Cutler are the council's lawyers. The "secretive" part involves attorney-client confidentiality. Ask your lawyer, Gary Williams, to explain it.

And then there's the issue of conflict of interest... you know... those occasions where Boss Godfrey's lawyer (Gary Williams) can't ethically represent both the Administration and the Council. Council Director Bill Cook obviously "gets it":

Bill Cook, the city council’s executive director, defended keeping Chapman and Cutler on retainer. The city council uses the law firm sparingly when it believes the municipality’s legal staff has a conflict of interest because it’s already advising the administration on a particular issue or when it wants a second opinion, Cook said.
“The city’s legal staff does a great job,” said Cook. “It (the use of Chapman and Cutler) is only done if it’s better that an outside attorney is involved.”

City Attorney Gary Williams "gets it" too:

Gary Williams, the city’s attorney, said his responsibility is to impartially advise the administration and city council on legal issues.
There are times (conflict of interest situations) when it may be appropriate for the council to seek outside legal advice, said Williams, declining to explain when that could occur. [parenthesis added]

Query: How come Godfrey can't "get it?" Learning-disabled, we guess.

And one more crucial question: How come Boss Godfrey tattles to the Standard-Examiner any time he doesn't get exactly what he wants?

Even a cold heart like Godfrey needs an occasional warm shoulder to cry on, we suppose.

And here are a few other Schwebke passages we also really liked:

Several council members expressed displeasure during a recent work session that they learned after the fact that Rob Jolley, the city’s lobbyist, and Ogden Management Services Director Mark Johnson succeeded in amending Senate Bill 294.
The amendment gives Godfrey complete executive control over the RDA.
“It’s a big issue for me,” City Councilwoman Caitlin K. Gochnour told Godfrey during the council work session, expressing disappointment that she didn’t know about the amendment in advance. “It’s a big issue for Ogden.”

A Weber County Forum Tip O' the Hat to Councilwoman Gochnour for sticking to her guns, and refusing to pick up the tab for Mr. Jolley, Boss Godfrey's ethically-challenged legislative lobbyist. Caitlin's another grownup who obviously "gets it."

And before closing, we'll briefly comment on the $20,000 retainer the council is currently negotiating with current private counsel, Chapman and Cutler. Here's our advice to the council: Jump on it. Judging from the council's excellent performance since they hooked up two years ago with their own private attorneys, we believe these Big City lawyers are worth every dime they get.

The floor is open to our readers' ever-gentle comments.

Council Leans Toward Cutting Off Lobbyist Funding

"Let the council be damned," Boss Godfrey retorts

We're informed by this morning's Standard-Examiner that a majority of the city council is apparently leaning toward the course of action which we recommended on May 24, i.e., cutting turncoat lobbyist Rob Jolley's $50 thousand salary allocation from the 2009 Ogden City budget. Scott Schwebke's lead paragraphs provide the essential facts:

OGDEN — A majority of city council members said during a Thursday night work session they won’t allocate $50,000 in the municipality’s fiscal 2009 budget for lobbyist Rob Jolley because the administration hasn’t kept them informed about legislative efforts at the state Capitol.
A formal vote wasn’t taken, but city council members Amy Wicks, Jesse M. Garcia, Dorrene Jeske, Caitlin K. Gochnour and Brandon Stephenson said they won’t include funding for Jolley in the budget that may be approved Tuesday.
Remaining council members Doug Stephens and Blain Johnson opposed eliminating funding for Jolley.
All council members agreed language should be included in the budget requesting that the administration present a proposal to keep them better informed regarding legislative issues.
The final straw prompting the elimination of funding for lobbying stems from the apparent failure of Jolley and Mark Johnson, the city’s management services director, to get permission from the council before securing a bill amendment giving Mayor Matthew Godfrey complete executive control over the Ogden Redevelopment Agency.

Boss Godfrey, evidently anticipating this council development well in advance, admits through administration sock puppet Mark Johnson (Ogden City Management Services Director) that the administration has already entered into a $45 thousand contract with Mr. Jolley, to secure Jolley's continuing "services" during the 2009 legislative session. Johnson further informs the Standard-Examiner that Boss Godfrey will simply misappropriate Jolley's 2009 blood money from his "operating budget" -- hinting that the council can therefor be damned.

Godfrey of course "could not be reached for comment."

We'll note that it was only last Monday that the Std-Ex published a strong editorial condemning the "sneakiness" of Boss Godfrey's 2008 legislative session maneuver, warily predicting that the inevitable council payback could ultimately result in "sub par governance."

It appears that Ogden City government is now set upon that latter course, as Godfrey adopts further tactics revealing Godfrey's persistent and troubling bunker mentality. Over the course of the next few years Boss Godfrey will necessarily come before our new council seeking council cooperation and indulgence. Yet now, early in the 2008-09 council's new term, it's evident that he's already poisoned that well.

Kudos to the majority of the city council for their tentative hard-nosed stance, by the way. Godfrey threw down the gauntlet on this; and there's no other logical way the council can react. Even councilman Stevensen, usually a staunch Godfrey ally, is evidently appalled enough by Godfrey's juvenile conduct, that he's willing to join with the council grownups.

And make no mistake, Councilwoman Jeske is exactly right when she asserts that its Godfrey is to blame for what appears to be another rocky council-administration relationship. “What it boils down to is that the mayor doesn’t respect the council,” Jeske correctly observes.

And what say our gentle readers about this?

Standard-Examiner: Godfrey's Behavior Was "Sneaky"

Rhetorical Question: Will the city council insist on "payback?"

Now Godfrey's administration has unwisely made itself look sneaky -- because it behaved in a way even the most objective individual would have to describe as ... well, sneaky.

Standard-Examiner
'Kumbaya' on ice
May 30, 2008

The Standard-Examiner editorial board finally chimes in this morning, on the topic we thoroughly discussed on Saturday: Boss Godfrey's "stealth" lobbying activities during the final days of the 2008 legislative session. This morning's lead paragraphs set forth the essential facts:

Remember that promising, positive relationship we saw developing between the Ogden City Council and mayor last week? It might already be time for last rites.
Why? Because council members just found out the mayor's administration outmaneuvered them months ago at the Legislature. The city's lobbyist, Rob Jolley, and the administration's management services director, Mark Johnson, convinced Sen. Curtis Bramble, R-Provo, to insert the following amendment into Senate Bill 294:
"The mayor of a municipality operating under a council-mayor form of government ... (a) serves as the executive director of an agency created by the municipality; and (b) exercises the executive powers of the agency."
The law took effect May 5, and it assures that the Ogden City Council can't remove Godfrey as executive director of the city's redevelopment agency (RDA). Ogden's mayor has traditionally served as the RDA's executive director, but it has always been at the pleasure of the RDA board -- which is made up of the city council membership. In the past, certain council/RDA board members have pondered aloud that they could punish the mayor by removing him from his RDA post.
With SB 294, that option is off the table.

The editorial goes on to properly label Godfrey's conduct as "sneaky," and then rhetorically asks whether there will be council "payback."

And from our point of view we think the Std-Ex raises a mighty good question. What, exactly will our new council do about this, we ask? Will the council finally get off its thumbs and assert itself? Or will the council just sit back and docilely take its lumps? If the actions of previous councils provide any instructive guidance on this, we suspect the council might be content to whine a little bit, and then fall back to the posture of ineffectual dupes.

We do see one bright spot that we haven't seen in previous councils for a good number of years however: Councilwoman Amy Wicks. Amy, in our view, is the smartest and most assertive council leader to have emerged as council chair during the three years that we've been attentive council watchers. If Amy has a mind to set things right, and restore the council's position to one of a true co-equal city government branch, we're confident that Amy is the kind of leader who can get the job done.

And now that we're in the pre-2009 budget run-up, we'd suggest that the immediate "canning" of the ethically-challenged city lobbyist, Mr. Jolley, would be a grand place to start. With the passage of Godfrey's SB294, Godfrey's position as RDA executive director is for the time being secure. That doesn't mean, however that the council can't give the back-stabbing Mr. Jolley "the old heave-ho."

And what say our gentle readers about this? Does anyone have any other suggestions about the manner in which the council can treat this matter in the future?

The blogosphere awaits our readers' ever-savvy comments.

Our Minds Are Not Made Up

Just when we thought the Senate District 18 race couldn't get any more strange and labyrinthine, we read this morning's Standard-Examiner headline story:

OGDEN - State Senate Democratic candidate Stuart Reid is raising questions about the possible involvement of a lobbyist in the campaign of his Republican opponent Ogden Police Chief Jon Greiner while also doing contract work for the city.
Reid believes Rob Jolley, a Salt Lake City lobbyist who has a $45,000 contract with Ogden, is behind a push poll designed to hurt his election bid while raising campaign funds for Greiner.
The Web site of the National Council on Public Polls defines a push poll as one in which potential voters are provided false and damaging information about a candidate under the guise of taking a poll to see how this information affects voter preferences.
Those activities represent a conflict of interest, he said.
My complaint is that you've got an individual lobbying for the city and raising money for a worker for the city, and then going negative against me, said Reid, who worked as Ogden's community and economic development director before resigning last year to run his own consulting firm.
"He's helping get Jon Greiner elected to look after the city's interests." [Emphasis added.]

At first blush, we confess we don't see the conflict. It seems to us that engaging in political activity for the campaign of the legislator who would best look after Emerald City interests is precisely what a lobbyist for the city is paid to do. Absent some showing that Mr. Jolley owes some special duty to Mr. Reid and/or his campaign, we're not sure we understand all the fuss. In the instant case, Mr. Greiner is the Republican candidate and Mr. Reid is the Democrat, so it seems facially-obvious to us that Mr. Greiner would be more effective in our Republican-dominated legislature, simply by virtue of his party affiliation.

Notwithstanding the lack of readily-apparent merit in Mr. Reid's "conflict of interest" charges, however, all the named "players" seem to be distancing themselves from the subject. Candidate Greiner denies that Jolley is directly involved with his campaign at all. So says Mr. Jolley, too. Boss Godfrey, who is "friendly" with both of the candidates, is keeping his head down and denying involvement in "... in any of this stuff." Interestingly, other lobbyists and players seem to have differing stories.

Mr. Schwebke's report is also unclear as to whether fund-raising or "polling" involvement on Mr. Jolley's part (if any) relates to his employment by Emerald City, or to purely private political or business interests. So we're left to speculate about that. All-in-all, the situation is "muddy" at best, under the meager fact-set reported this morning by Ace Reporter Schwebke.

We'll note in passing (as we've noted before) that we do not approve of the tactic of push-polling. Unfortunately Mr. Schwebke provides no tangible information on the nature of the supposed "negative" or "damaging" information contained within this present instance of alleged quasi-polling. Whether there has occurred an unfair or illegal campaign tactic is a separate question; however Mr. Schwebke's article entirely fails to make that case. So aside from that unaddressed issue, we're having a hard time wrapping our brain around the purported "conflict of interest" problem.

Our minds are certainly not made up on this though, so we're throwing out this story for reader discussion. Let's allow the brilliant and gentle minds of our Weber County Forum readership to sort out the issues here, and to shed more light on the meaning of this story.

So what say our readers about all this? How about a few words from you, Mr. Reid?

Gang-of Six's Last Official Townsfolk-Defiant Act? - Updated

For an example of sheer Orwellian audacity, Ogden townsfolk need look no further than the 2002-2005 Gang-of-Six. In a last-minute gesture of public defiance, the Ogden city council will rubber-stamp tonight (drumroll)...

Emperor Godfrey's Eminent Domain Lobbyist!

Yes, gentle readers. The administration that can't find in the budget the chump change that would be needed to hire a street-sweeper for Ogden's 24th Street pigeon-poop, is set to stick it to the taxpayers with a $45,000/yr professional lobbyist -- with a mission to condemn homes and businesses of some of our fellow citizens, to satisfy the corporate greed of Almighty Walmart.

Although I could rant on for hours about this, our gentle readers will be relieved that I don't have the time for that. I'll be tied up in meetings for most of the day; so I'll leave that all to you.

Please don't hesitate to chime in with your views on the latest Gang-of-Six story. This is a good one to get the ball rolling today, I think.

In the alternative, consider this an open thread.

I'll be back.

Update 12/7/05 8:43 a.m. MT: In yet another demonstration of its disdain for the public weal, the lame duck Gang-of-Six operated as the well-oiled machine its been these past four years, appropriating $45,000 for the hiring of "eminent domain lobbyist" Rob Jolley last night -- by the usual 5-2 vote. For those who may have missed this morning's Standard-Examiner article, you can read the sad story here.

There's no reason on earth that this resolution could not have been delayed until the new council's January 3, 2005 swearing-in, as Councilman Garcia suggests:

"Garcia said the vote should have been delayed until January, given that some of the new council members may sit on Ogden’s Legislative Coordinating Committee. The committee is charged with identifying issues of importance to the city at the state and federal level before making recommendations to the council."

To what extent this resolution may be reversible, I really can't predict. What's likely though, is that the current council, by its action last night, has at least ratified the Jolley contract, thus binding Ogden city for the full $45,000 contract price, regardless of what Mr. Jolley's future agenda may turn out to be.

Whereas many of us had hoped the mayoral administration would adopt a new spirit of cooperation, in the face of its its decisive November 8th election defeat, Boss Godfrey instead demonstrates that he still remains -- and will remain -- the man "in charge."

Rather than extend the new council a simple courtesy, and put this decision off for another three weeks, Mayor Godfrey instead chooses to play political hard-ball. This does not bode well for council-administration relations, as we move into the new year, I would think. This is more than bad political form. It's an insult to the taxpayers of Ogden, and the new council they decisively elected.

And what think our gentle readers about this?

Comments, anyone?

They Just Keep Going, Etc.

As more evidence of the current administration and city council's steely determination, John Wright reports that Ogden City has now hired a professional lobbyist to browbeat members of the Utah legislature into reinstating the condemnation power back to our Ogden RDA. Despite the wide grass-roots popularity of Senator Bramble's S.B. 184, (which stripped the eminent-domain power from the RDA toolbox last spring,) -- and various national polls that demonstrate overwhelming public opposition to the government use of the condemnation power for economic development (in the neighborhood of 95%,) our Ogden City government still continues to "persevere" and blindly "move forward."

It's a short article, so I'll just incorporate it in full:

OGDEN -- City officials have hired a lobbyist, at a cost of $45,000, to represent their interests at the Utah Legislature.
Mayor Matthew Godfrey said the lobbyist, Robert Jolley, of Salt Lake City, will deal with a variety of issues on the city's behalf, including potential changes to state law concerning redevelopment areas and the use of eminent domain.
In the past, the city typically has sent an employee to the Capitol to act as an internal lobbyist, a practice Godfrey described as very disruptive.
Earlier this year, the Legislature passed a bill that eliminated eminent domain as a tool for redeveloping blighted areas.
The bill is blamed for stalling two Ogden projects -- the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter at 21st Street and Wall Avenue and the riverfront development project between 18th Street and 20th Street and Washington Boulevard and Kiesel Avenue.
"There's broad consensus across the state that some of the actions that were taken were damaging," Godfrey said. "My assumption is that will be a main topic this year, and he'll (Jolley will) be key to staying on top of that for us."
City Council Chairman Rick Safsten said the council is supportive of the administration's efforts to ensure that legislators understand Ogden's perspective on RDAs and eminent domain.
"We need this legislation to be able to move forward," Safsten said.
Jolley declined to comment.

I'll give these folks at the City Politburo and Chamber of People's Deputies due credit for one thing -- their actions certainly aren't poll-driven. I'm sure indeed that there is a "broad consensus" within the Utah League Cities and Towns echo-chamber, at least.

"The people be damned," says People's Deputy Safsten. "We're gonna edumacate the legislature this session, and edumacate them good!"

And what say our gentle readers about this? Will Comrade Safsten succeed in educating Senator Bramble and the rest of the state legislature this next go-round?