Additional 5/30/06 Council Session Tid-bits

Many Ogden political junkies watched last night's council vote with acute interest. As Dian remarks, "I thought that if any issue would show where the Council Members are coming from, this one would do it. And it did, but in a surprising way given the statements some candidates made during their campaigns. But be that as it may..."

As our long-time gentle readers will recall, Councilman Glasmann was elected in November on a platform strongly opposing the participation of Ogden government in traditionally private business affairs like real estate development. Similarly, councilman Stephens' campaign was, in large part, predicated on a pledge to support government frugality and fiscal responsibility. Yet last night, each of these council members stood on the side of more government involvement and minimal aversion to taxpayer risk.

And ironically, Councilman Safsten, who had served during the 2001-2005 council as the Weber County Forum poster child for government intervention and slavish adherence to Blessed Matthew Godfrey's vision of converting Ogden city government into a giant real estate development company, stunned the audience in last night's council session by casting the decisive nay swing vote.

Indeed, Comrade Councilman Safsten framed the major division in last night's debate perfectly, in one of his comments. He accurately characterized the division of last night's council as a division between the risk-takers and the risk-averse. "How much risk are we willing to take?" he asked the council at one point. In the end, and to the amazement of all in attendance, he sided with the faction who believed the risk of this particular project outweighed the potential benefit.

In point of fact, "risk tolerance" was the major theme in last night's council deliberation, and Councilman Safsten had focused on the issue even earlier on, when he asked the adminstration spokesman, David Harmer, a simple but crucial question [paraphrased]:

"If the Boyer Company doesn't favor a six-story building, why should the council adopt a contrary position?" Councilman Safsten asked.

Harmer's reply was innocently forthright -- and quite astonishing -- coming from a public servant. Here is the gist of it:

A city can take greater risk than a private developer can. Whereas a private company has to please its stockholders and deliver profits within a reasonable period of time, a city like Ogden's expectation of a return on investment necessarily involves a longer time horizen. Once the taxpayers are committed to a public project, in other words, they're stuck with it for decades, whether they like it or not. Unlike shareholders in a private company, taxpayers can't simply pull out their investment and depart.

Councilwoman Jeske was particularly effective and well-prepared last night, and she pounced on Harmer's statements without hesitation.

"The taxpayers are our shareholders in Ogden City," she chided, "and I don't think they're going away." "But they can express their displeasure at the polls," she reminded Mr. Harmer, as he sheepishly bowed his head, backed away slightly from the podium and acknowledged, "That's true."

Among the numerous and spirited interchanges last night, another one stands out, in our view.

Toward the end of the discussion, Councilman Stevenson tried to rally the council -- cheerleader-fashion.

Turning the risk taker/risk avoider theme on its head, he attempted to re-characterise it as a dispute between the optimists and the pessimists.

"We must remain optimistic," Councilman Stevenson reminded everyone. "People around the state are watching what we do here in Ogden," he said. "We must demonstrate our commitment to optimism," he passionately intoned.

Councilwoman Wicks made short work of Mr. Stevenson with her succinct retort:

"Optimism doesn't fill empty rental space," she wryly quipped.

The highlight of the evening debate for your humble blogmeister, of course was the reaction of Blessed Visionary Godfrey, upon the casting of Councilman Safsten's decisive "nay" vote.

He stared at Councilman Safsten, and his jaw physically dropped. His face turned pale, and he had the look of man betrayed -- like some poor schmuck who'd just caught his best gal in the arms of "bubba," down at the local No-Tell Motel.

We got the sense that Mayor Godfrey, for the first time in his political career, felt the reins of authoritarian political power slipping from his grip. For the first time, we believe, he publicly displayed the look of a man who recognised his political lame-duck status.

And one additional side-note:

Last night's council debate was impassioned and robust. For the most part, all but one of the City Council (Glasmann*) appeared to have arrived at the council session ready for deliberation and discussion, without having had their minds previously made up. We believe the individual council members enjoyed the discussion and debate as much as those citizens who watched from the audience section.

We believe this is a good sign for the future of Ogden City government.

---------------

*Glasmann had reportedly spent much of the day lobbying his council colleagues to vote in favor of the mayor's resolution.