Council Grapples With Auditor Ordinance

Save

Changes pending
Posted: 5:21 PM Aug 26, 2008
Last Updated: 7:39 PM Aug 26, 2008

8 comments

A | A | A

Some members of the Omaha City Council aren't happy with the way the public safety auditor position is set up and on Tuesday they moved to put the brakes on it.

This isn't the first time the council has disagreed with issues concerning the public safety auditor. The council voted against funding the position in 2005.

The mayor allotted $125,000 for the auditor position in his 2009 budget. The city council voted Tuesday to move that into its budget and put the hiring of the auditor on hold for now.

The auditor position has been a political hot potato for years. Some say it's crucial for overseeing the police department while others say the position is not needed.

At the public hearing for the mayor's budget proposal earlier this month more than 100 people showed up and many supported bringing back a public safety auditor.

That support was not echoed by six of the seven council members on Tuesday.

Councilman Jim Vokal says, "The current ordinance, as it describes the position today, the majority of the council does not feel comfortable with."

All council members with the exception of Frank Brown voted to remove the funding until a revised ordinance defining the auditor position can be passed.

"And if that doesn't happen, then not only in 2009 but indefinitely the position will not be staffed," Vokal said.

Frank Brown stood by the mayor's proposal, "because I believe that the mayor had this as an idea of a way to fund the auditor. So to put it in contingency means that the city council can use that for different purposes as long as they have four or five votes," he said.

Brown says Omaha needs an independent auditor to protect officers from false claims and to protect citizens.

He says, "It's a matter of people being heard who wouldn't otherwise be heard and justice being initiated. So, it's an extra set of eyes for the public."

A spokesperson for Mayor Fahey says the mayor is fine with the idea that the council wants to work with the auditor ordinance. He will wait to see what becomes of that.

The next step is to get the revised ordinance in front of the council.

More Stories
Weather Cooperates For Fireworks Show

Holiday Weekend Fireworks Displays

Fireworks Injury Victim Warns Others

Woman Stabbed Multiple Times

Update: Owner of Pit Bulls Cited

Barking Upsets Neighbors

Historian Follows In Ancestor's Footsteps

Palin Resigns As Alaska Governor

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.

Posted by: a on Aug 27, 2008 at 07:22 PM
How many of you have been the victim of "police brutality"? The only ones that complain are the ones breaking the law.

Posted by: Anthony on Aug 27, 2008 at 03:48 PM
Thanks, Mr. Brown for clarifying that the city council plans on using that money elsewhere than where it was originally intended (or do you think Mr. Vokel will have any issue getting 4 votes to let them (mis) appropriate the funds intended for this position). I have learned more about how to deceive the Omaha public from this group of councilmen than I thought was legally possible, thanks for that insight! If you just listen to Vokel, you can literally hear the distain for the Omaha public dripping from his lips as he states the council isn't comfortable with the established ordinance. And I bet that this money gets earmarked for those advertised raises they want. The city council should not be allowed to use this money as they see fit when it's original intent was to provide a much needed service for the entire city. Doesn't that alone verify that our city reps aren't acting on our behalf but their own profitable agendas? It's time to clean house & get rid of the excess baggage.

Posted by: Citizen on Aug 27, 2008 at 12:11 PM
The position of Safety Auditor must be PUBLIC in order to truly represent the concerns of the PEOPLE. The fact so many lies have been told by this administration during the stadium fiasco is proof that they will hide the problems brought to their attention. One comment I have read on the web states they have hired a consultant to help improve community relations with the police. Why can't our administration just do what is right without a lawsuit or consultant? The mayor never really planned to fill this position, it just sounds politically correct in light of the action brought about in the courts by the ACLU. The killings in this city are out of control, I have personally been outraged at the treatment by officers in neighborhood situations, it seems that they have no skills at all when it comes to not make a problem worse. I will not call the police and I am sick of telling the city where the graffiti is in their parks & on city buildings. I walk my dog in the safer Iowa parks.

Posted by: Lori on Aug 27, 2008 at 11:38 AM
I don't feel an auditor is needed anyway, but if there has to be one, most definitely that person should be accountable to more people than just the mayor. Typical Fahey...wanting to control the public safety of the city single-handedly. You, sir, will NOT be missed.

Posted by: Farce on Aug 27, 2008 at 09:54 AM
Surprised? You shouldn't be. This present administration doesn't care if gangs are forcing businesses and homeowners out of their neighborhoods or if they are providing adequate city services to all of it's citizens but they do care about how much of a raise they are getting at our expense. And they ALL want to run for mayor (except Gernandt at the moment)! How is it possible that an elected official can totally disregard public sentiment and safety for... well... just about everything? It's not too late to fix this mess but that will only be possible if the players at city hall are replaced by folks who truely have our best interests in mind and are not pursuing personal agendas and gains. If they had done just one thing for the public good that wasn't prompted by overwhelming public outcry or a feature story on WOWT, I might be convinced that there were some integrity left in this group of public servant fakers. But everytime they open their mouth, they remove all doubt!

Posted by: Mike on Aug 27, 2008 at 09:15 AM
What is the city council afraid of?

Posted by: HA! on Aug 27, 2008 at 08:27 AM
Hey Vokal! It supposed to be a PUBLIC SAFETY AUDITOR not a BIASED SAFETY AUDITOR! I bet you are keeping the $125K to give yourself and the rest of the rogue's gallery a raise, eh? Comments like 'indefinitely the position will not be started' strongly suggest that the council is once again disregarding the justifiable concerns of the taxpaying citizen. And you want a raise?! And to be elected mayor?! The plan to move the position under the LAW ENFORCEMENT umbrella makes the job null and void. There is NO WAY that any fair reporting can survive in such an environment. It's going to be the same status-quo but with a paycheck attached. This city administration refuses to do anything in the best interests of this city (if you did, you wouldn't even SUGGEST a raise in light of today's faltering economy). You refuse to present a comprehensive plan to deal with gangland graffiti, improve our roads or pay for your mess (pension finds, NO-DO, etc). Give US a break!

Posted by: Timothy on Aug 27, 2008 at 06:36 AM
"A spokesperson for Mayor Fahey says the mayor is fine with the idea that the council wants to work with the auditor ordinance. He will wait to see what becomes of that." HAHA. Which basically translates to: The mayor is a lame duck now that he's not running for re-election and could care less what the council does.