Reader comments
Censuring councilman petty

Shane Siwik is not about increasing the budget, that is why he took a back door on this. He supported a candidate that won telling people that taxes were going to be raised because SSL had TOO MANY police. It is ironic that Shane was so opposed to using the Unified Dispatch but now supports using the Salt Lake County Sherriff.
The bottom line is he did the wrong thing. It is being blown out of proportion, but he has gone to far once again. Go figure why people are mad.

I find it interesting that Siwik is being censured by the Council for telling a constituent to go to the media while Buttars who made a racist comment during a session of the legislature isn't being censured for his comments. Maybe if Siwik will only apologize this will all go away! Or maybe those who think its wrong to try to subvert the democratic process as Siwik did will speak up and demand that Buttars is censured for doing the same sort of thing. Indeed, Siwik's actions were inappropriate yet why should he be censured for his actions when Senator Buttars isn't. How can elected officials know what they can and can't do if there are double standards?

Buttars makes racist comments during a session of the legislature isn't censured while Siwik sends a constituent to the media even though his actions weren't during a session of the Council is censured. It seems as though our elected officials are left in doubt about the rules, ethics and conduct they can take part in. These "ordinary people" with "ordinary families" are being asked to make tough decisions and yet one standard is applied to a Councilman and another to a Senator.

More double standards�Just as an FYI�I don�t know how involved you are with SSL politics, but this is not the first, second, or third time for that matter that Siwik has demonstrated this kind of unscrupulous behavior. Unfortunately, this �other� side of the story is not so lucid the way this editorial has sided with Siwik.

Also, I know that censure seems like an immensely threatening word, but all it really means is that the remaining council members make a statement (resolution) in a council meeting stating they do not find Siwik�s behavior tolerable for a public official�that is it. He still has all of his privileges, and voting powers�basically, it�s a little slap on the hand. The mayor and council cannot make Siwik resign or take any of his powers away afforded him as a councilmember. The only people that can do that are his constituents and that is called a recall. I think the way this story has been reported it sounds like they are going to take some unfair measure against this poor picked on, just trying to do some good lone councilman. Nope�not the case!

Just as a side note�Siwik admitted to orchestrating this �grass roots� movement to disband the police and fire departments to further his personal political agenda (future bid for mayor). This admission was made to fellow councilmember Weaver and is included in Weavers comments in the emergency council meeting minutes of 2-21-08 and is available to the public. Another point that has been conveniently left out is the fact that Goldhardt presented his idea to councilmember Weaver and Weaver told him he would have his plan added to the next council meeting agenda. It was after this meeting of Goldhardt and Weaver that Siwik went to the media, gave them the story and then told them to call Goldhardt.

I don�t know Buttars or followed any of his views or actions but I don�t believe in this case, you can compare Buttars to Siwik. I believe Buttars mistakenly said something horribly inappropriate but, Siwik knew full well what he was doing it was not an accident or an oversight it was something he has been working on behind the scenes since November, it was his every fraudulent intention.