Yesterday, Mayor Jim Suttle gave his State of the City address.  In that address, he urged the city council to pass the police contract as soon as possible.  After the speech, the Omaha World-Herald caught up with city councilman Pete Festersen.  Here’s an excerpt from the World-Herald story.

Councilman Pete Festersen, who was in the audience for Suttle’s address, said he’s in no hurry to approve the contract. He suggested waiting until the council names a replacement for Councilman Chuck Sigerson, who resigned last week to continue recovering from a stroke and heart attack.

If the council waits until Sigerson is replaced, Festersen said, the council will “have all parts of the city represented” when a contract vote is taken.

“We need to make sure we get it right,” he said. “To make the wrong decision would be the worst outcome.”

I’ll concede the last statement to Festersen; it’s important to make the right decision, but Festersen is trying to find as many excuses as possible to delay the vote on the council contract.  He’s looking to play out a politically calculated maneuver.  Festersen is an ambitious young man with aspirations for higher office – he wants to be mayor.  When you have higher office in mind, every decision you make has to be carefully calculated.  The decision to delay the police contract has been carefully calculated and here’s how it works.

Up until now, Festersen has voted against every single proposal that involves a tax increase, and Festersen wants to keep it that way.  Festersen is similar to Jean Stothert; he votes against controversial things without presenting an alternative way to fix the problem.  I have no problem with someone voting against tax increases, but you can’t bash a tax increase when you’ve presented nothing to avoid the tax increase.

Festersen wants to keep his unblemished record intact.  When he runs for mayor, Festersen can brag about never voting for a tax increase and never voting for something that puts the budget in jeopardy.

One important aspect of the police contract deals with the pension shortfall.  The Bates Commission (which I talked about in a previous post) recommended that the city and police equally split the pension shortfall.  The new contract comes pretty close to that; there is some bickering about whether the police can contribute there portion in reduced pension benefits versus cash payments.  For your sake, I won’t get into that.

So, what is Festersen’s problem with the contract?  If you follow the recommendation of the Bates Commission, then the city needs to come up with roughly $13 million annually to cover it’s portion of the pension shortfall.  The city doesn’t have that money sitting around and needs to look at ways to raise the money.  The city is already operating on a bare-bones budget so cutting $13 million out of the budget is out of the question.  The Bates Commission laid out ways to raise the money – a garbage fee or sales tax increase.  If Festersen votes for the contract, he’s basically admitting that the city needs to find ways to pay for it.

Festersen is trying to delay the vote so he can vote against the contract.

On Festersen’s campaign website, he says one of his top priorities is to “resolve police and fire pension shortfalls”.  He hasn’t presented any alternative to the current police contract or to the Bates Commission recommendations that doesn’t involve some type of revenue enhancement (that means tax increase for all of you that hate euphemisms).  It’s perfectly acceptable to bash the s*** out of the police and fire contracts, but when you don’t have a better idea of how to do things, that’s when I have a problem.

As I’ve said before, when you have political aspirations, every vote is important.  If the vote were held without an additional council person, it would be very risky for Festersen to vote against it.  Whether he’d admit it or not, Festersen is a Democrat and a “no” vote would definitely hurt him with a sizable constituent – unions.  Festersen is currently the deciding vote and he wants to skirt that responsibility.

If the city council were to appoint a city council person who would vote for the contract, Festersen would be off the hook.  The council could then approve the contract with Festersen voting “no”.  It’s a dream scenario for Festersen.  Actually, Festersen’s dream scenario would be to appoint a Republican to the vacant seat who would then vote for the contract.  But, that’s about as likely as Jamaica winning an Olympic medal in bobsledding.

So, Festersen has come up with some absurd excuses to delay a vote.  The excuse he touted to the OWH claims that if a replacement is chosen, then all parts of the city will be represented when a contract vote is taken.  This is an extremely hypocritical excuse.  Sigerson has been absent for almost six months, and in those six months, the city council has gone about its business without Sigerson.  The city council voted on an extremely important and controversial budget when Sigerson was absent.  Did Festersen complain? Did Festersen delay this vote? No.

It’s also absurd to think that casting a “yes” or “no” vote on the police contract amounts to representation for District 7.  The person selected by the council to represent this district will basically be thrown to the wolves if they’re expected to cast an informed vote on the police contract.  That person is also being appointed by the council and not voted in by the people.  And to truly bring the new council person up to speed on a complex police contract could take three months or more.  Is Festersen willing to delay the vote until May? Yes, as long as he can vote “no”.

So, that explains Festersen’s stall tactics, but let’s take a very quick look at Festersen’s overall political strategy.

As I’ve said, Festersen is looking to run for mayor soon, but Festersen is increasingly a councilman without a constituency and without a party.  The unions really aren’t thrilled with him.  It may be a populist move to bash the unions, but if you’re a Democrat aiming for higher office, it’s not the smartest move to piss them off.

It’s no secret that Festersen is a lapdog for the Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce.  His BFF is the executive director of the Chamber – David Brown.  When David Brown says “jump”, Festersen says “how high”?  Festersen is relying heavily on Chamber support for future political runs.  Unfortunately, he has misplaced loyalties.  Let’s put it this way, the Chamber is like that obnoxious person at weddings or networking functions that will talk to you but is scanning the room for someone more important to talk to.  Festersen is loyal to the Chamber, but the Chamber is not loyal to Festersen.  If Festersen ran for mayor against a legitimate Republican opponent, the Chamber is going to support the Republican.  If Festersen is relying on the Chamber to punch his meal ticket, then he’s in for a rude awakening.

What’s ironic is David Brown sat on the Bates Commission and signed off on the recommendations for police contract I’ve explained previously.  I wonder what Brown is telling Festersen in those daily phone calls they have with each other.

As you’ve seen in the past, we here at the Omaha Blog are dedicated to analyzing the most exciting issues in this city.  Today, we tackle a crowd favorite – union contracts.

We’ve got ourselves a heavy weight fight brewing in Omaha, but this fight looks more like a Royal Rumble.  Let’s throw a bunch of people in the ring and see who comes out on top.  We’ve got the firefighters, the police, the mayor, the city council, outside interest groups, and more.

One of the most interesting characters to emerge from the union spat is Jean Stothert.  She stands 5′ 8″ and weighs in at… ok, time to end the metaphor.

First, let’s take a look at where we stand on the union contracts.  I’m going to focus more on the police contract and the negotiation process.  I’ll probably do a more detailed post about the fire contract later on.

The current fight over union contracts is starting to look an awful lot like the national health care debate.  There are a lot of sub-plots and characters to watch over the coming weeks.

The police contract is much further along than the fire contract.  The police contract has been negotiated, approved by union members, and is now waiting council approval.  The council has sent the contract to a labor lawyer for review and feedback.

Last year, The Bates Commission (a group of gray haired business men) came out with a series of recommendations on the upcoming union contracts.  Almost all the recommendations were met in the police contract.  I can’t comment on the fire contract because it hasn’t been released.  That doesn’t stop some people from criticizing the fire contract – I’ll talk about that later.

Chuck Sigerson sat on the Bates Commission.  If he was to vote on the police contract, he would probably vote “yes”.  In a negation, neither party gets everything it wants – that’s why it’s called a negotiation.  Financially, this contract is much better for the city than the old one.

Spiking has been eliminated.  Well, I take that back.  It depends on your definition of spiking.  Jean Stothert and her ever changing definition of “spiking” has led her to question the new police contract.  The new contract averages a police officers pay over their entire career to determine pension benefits.  A police officer can no longer work a lot of overtime right before retirement to “spike” benefits.

Last week, Mayor Suttle released examples of why he thinks his plan eliminates spiking.

One example showed a 22-year officer who retired two years ago with pay spiked to a 12-month high of $133,000. That officer is getting a pension topping $84,000 per year. Suttle’s plan said that if that officer retired under the new contract, the pension would only be about $57,000.

What did critics have to say?  Dave Nabity – “Our first glance at the numbers, they don’t look right to us. We’re going to study them.” A week later, still no word from Nabity on whether the numbers are right or not.  Stothert didn’t even bother to criticize the numbers.  She stuck with the company line – “I don’t think that spiking is eliminated”.  She doesn’t elaborate on why she “thinks” that or what her definition of “spiking” is.

Jean Stothert’s other issue with the police contract is its length.  The contract covers five years.  In reality, the contract is retroactive; it covers 2009 and the next four years.  A four year contract is useful because it’s impossible to negotiate a contract during an election year – just ask Mike Fahey.  The current contract has taken over a year to negotiate.  Do you want your elected officials to be perpetually negotiating union contracts when there are other important issues to tackle?  If the contract is good for the city, there is no reason it shouldn’t be 5 years or longer.  The “length” argument is bogus political cover.

Stothert has made it abundantly clear that she is no friend of the unions.  The unions aren’t very popular in the city right now, and Stothert is taking advantage of that.  In the coming days and weeks, watch Stothert’s criticism of the union contracts closely.  Stothert’s criticism won’t contain much substance.  She’s mastered the art of speaking in platitudes.  She’ll say a five year contract is bad, but not explain why this five year contract is bad.  She’ll say spiking hasn’t ended, but you won’t hear her definition of “spiking” or her solution.

Her new talking point is “how are we going to pay for this”.  Her criticism is not how to pay for the new police union contract, it’s how to pay for the pension shortfall.  These are two related but separate issues.  In its recommendations, The Bates Commission wanted the unions to cover half of the pension shortfall and the city to pay for the other half.  The police contract comes close to that split.  The city is on the hook for some of the pension shortfall – it’s just a matter of how much.  The question of “how are we going to pay for this” is a whole different debate and a whole separate blog post.

It’s also critical to watch the vote on the police contract because it will directly impact the fire contract.  The fire union is stalling.  They are waiting to see how the police union contract goes over with the council.  If the police contract is voted down, the fire union will likely walk away from the negotiating table.  Then things will get interesting.  Right now, I’ll assume the police contract will pass.

The council vote on the police contract is when things start to get politically delicate for Stothert.  If the police contract passes the council with Stothert opposing it, she loses all credibility when it comes to criticizing the fire contract.  If she votes “yes” on the police contract, she can come out publicly and say I have no problems with unions but I have a huge problem with the fire union contract.  If you know for a fact that someone is going to vote “no” on something without even looking at it, what’s the point in having that person in the room.  While shaping health care legislation, Democrats kept most Republicans out of the room for this very reason.  Voting “yes” on the police union contract keeps Stothert in the room and gives her weight she can throw around during the fire contract debate.

If Stothert can convince other council members to vote “no” on either contract, then the contract dispute might head to the Nebraska Commission of Industrial Relations (CIR).  The CIR has consistently sided with unions in most labor disputes.  So, the contract coming out of the CIR would likely be better for the unions and worse for the tax payers – that’s the great irony in all of this.  By blocking the contracts, the council could actually be doing the unions a favor, and that is why this situation is so politically delicate.

Another interesting character to develop during the contract debate is Dave Nabity from the Omaha Alliance For The Private Sector (OAPS).  Nabity doesn’t like the negotiation process and wants to bring in Donald Trump to represent the city. Omaha Alliance For The Private Sector is group with about 20 members.  I don’t think any of them have ever been a part of a union contract negotiation on behalf of a city, but I could be wrong.  They apparently speak with authority on contract relations because they are bizzznass people.

I’m all for constructive criticism, but it’s hard to take a group seriously when one of their criticisms of the current fire contract is it’s too many pages.  Yes, they’re upset that it’s too many pages.  It’s ironic that a bizznass man would criticize a contract for being to thorough.  Apparently, with David Nabity and OAPS bigger is never better. [Hey, you there, get your head out of the gutter.]  This is a political ploy taken right from the health care debate.  People criticized the health care bill because it was 1,000+.  It didn’t matter what was in it; it was bad because it was big.

Stothert doesn’t like the police contract because its length in years, and Nabity doesn’t like the fire contract because its length in pages.  The Republicans are anti-length.

At the time of the press release, Nabity wanted the city to cease all negotiations and start from scratch.  Here’s a quote from a KPTM story.  “What we are asking the mayor and city council to do, is hire an independent negotiator. Someone who has a background in legal documents, and has no interest in the outcome of the contract,” said Nabity.

The notion that there is a Donald Trump-like figure that could be brought in to negotiate a better deal for the city is ridiculous.  Actually, there is no such thing as an “independent negotiator” who “has no interest in the outcome of the contract”. By definition, a negotiator has an interest in the outcome of the contract.  Nabity is just upset that Mayor Suttle is the person who sets the priorities for the city’s side of the negotiations.  Imagine if Nabity was mayor and someone brought up this idea, he’d call it ridiculous.  God forbid the mayor, an elected official, represent the city’s interest in a negotiation.  Silly democracy.

Nabity is only interested in political theater.  At the time of the press release, Nabity had not seen either contract, but it didn’t stop him from saying the contracts need to be thrown out.  Doesn’t that sound a lot like health care?  Let’s bash the bill before there’s a bill.

Tomorrow is a day anonymous blog commenters (ABCs) have been waiting for since election day.  It’s the first official day a recall affidavit can be filed with the election commission.  If an affidavit is filed tomorrow, the signature gathering wouldn’t actually begin until around the first of the year.

Mayor Jim Suttle is the most obvious target for a recall effort, but don’t be surprised if you see a recall affidavit filed against a council person or two.  I’ll examine three key reasons a recall effort against Mayor Suttle won’t gather the necessary signatures.

Reason #1 – 26,642

That’s the magic number.  Once the petition is circulated, organizers will have 30 days to collect 26,642 valid signatures from registered voters in Omaha.  In reality, upwards of 30,000 actual signatures will be needed to offset invalid signatures.

30,000 is no small number. A petition drive administered and executed by volunteers won’t pull this off.  Why? Take a look outside – it’s winter.  A petition effort with paid circulators may be a little more successful, but new laws in Nebraska banning pay-per-signature compensation works against the recall effort.  Send temporary paid circulators out in the middle of winter with no incentive to collect signatures and you have a recipe for disaster.

Reason #2 – No Smoking Gun

Mayor Suttle’s first several months in office have been bumpy. He won’t be getting any awards for his crisis management and public relation skills.  But there’s been no obvious impeachable offense.  I could create a long list of the amateurish blunders, but blunders rarely equal recall.

Where is the doomsday scenario that ABC’s predicted?  The city hasn’t declared bankruptcy and the trash is still getting picked up.  Forbes Magazine is so pessimistic about Omaha’s current situation that it named it the city fastest recovering from the recession.

With no smoking gun, there is no obvious and organized discontent among Omaha citizens.  This statement wouldn’t have been accurate during the budget battle.  Time is a huge asset on Suttle’s side.  If the recall effort had begun during the budget battle, it would have been much more successful.

When the recall effort is initiated, the person initiating the effort must provide (in sixty words or less) the reason or reasons for recall.  This language will be included on the petitions along with a sixty word or less defense statement from the mayor. It’ll be interesting to see how each statement is crafted.  (How long is 60 words?  This paragraph is 67 words).

Reason #3 – No Organized Support

Finally, we get to the most interesting reason why the recall will fail.

The Omaha World-Herald doesn’t want a recall and neither does the Chamber of Commerce.  You could legitimately question whether this matters since their influence over voters is questionable (neither supported Suttle), but a successful recall effort without their support is just that much more difficult.  Omaha is operating on a bare bones budget, and a successful recall could cost the city $1 million – money it doesn’t have.  You don’t think this would be a headline in the World-Herald?

Up until now, I haven’t really examined the “political” aspect of the recall.  Let’s get into some of the interesting political maneuvering behind a recall. (I’m only examining the maneuvering behind the collection of signatures.  If there’s actually a recall election, the political maneuvering on both sides would fill a book and a blog post.)

First, let’s take a look at which Democrats will publicly support the recall.  Well, that was quick.  If you haven’t heard, there are more Democrats in Omaha than Republicans.  A recall effort with no Democratic support is going to be awfully difficult.

There’s also no union support for a recall.  Most unions will publicly come out in opposition, and instruct members to avoid  petitions. A few unions may even try to actively thwart a recall effort.

The business community, unions, and the OWH don’t want it – that’s a rare trifecta.

So, what’s the Republican approach to this recall effort? Well, any strategy will be delicate and covert.

There is a pocket of Republicans that have been clamoring to recall the mayor since election day.  The ABC’s have been pounding away at their keyboards and drumming up support for a recall since election night.  (I believe that was also the same day the ABCs and a KFAB talk show host accused Suttle of being responsible for the death of a 4-year-old girl in a traffic accident. This is just evidence of how petty the initial push for a recall was.  The guy had barely finished his victory speech and the ABCs were looking into how quickly they can start collecting signatures.  Sorry for the aside).

There has been speculation that political positioning and fundraising for a recall began before Suttle even took office.

One of the most important questions is who will be the public “face” of a recall effort?  In order for the recall to succeed, it needs a charismatic and respected spokesperson. Why?  Because there’s no smoking gun.  There isn’t an organized discontent so Republicans will need a spokesperson to manufacture some.

This spokesperson needs to be prominent and respected when it comes to city politics and city issues.  This person doesn’t exist in the Republican Party.  It’s easy to find a prominent Omaha Republican and it’s easy to find a respected one; it’s not easy to find one that’s both.  This is a huge reason Republicans lost the mayor’s race in May.

Hal Daub and Jim Vokal, two of the most prominent leaders in the Omaha Republican Party have obvious deficiencies. Both have some ownership of the city’s problems and both lost to Mayor Suttle.  If either were to lead a recall effort, the term “sore loser” would be liberally thrown around.  In essence, they would be asking the citizens of Omaha to pay $1 million for a do-over – that’s not an easy sell.

Politically, it’s way too risky for any city council person to publicly support a recall. Jean Stothert may be the most likely, but even I can’t create a scenario where this makes sense for her.

Rep. Lee Terry has already indicated he won’t support a recall (you can take that for what it’s worth since Terry isn’t an Omaha resident).

Anyone willing to publicly push a recall has to make an extremely delicate political calculation.  Here are the questions every Republican is asking… What are the chances the recall effort collects enough signatures?  If it does, what are the chances voters actually recall the mayor?  If they recall the mayor, what are the chances a Republican is elected mayor?  Those are a lot of “ifs”.  If all those scenarios don’t work out, there is a 100% chance of the Republican looking like an idiot for supporting the recall.  Politics is hard!

The most likely scenario is a recall effort led by a crazy fringe Republican you’ve never heard of.  The recall will be privately supported by a long list of prominent Republicans too cowardly to publicly support it.  I’d be surprised if the recall effort collected 15,000 signatures.  If the recall succeeds, I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong.

(Photo above courtesy of Old_Sarge)

What do Miley Cyrus and Jim Esch have in common?  Well, keep reading to find out.

The Omaha World-Herald is in a tailspin. Circulation is declining, ad revenue has fallen off a cliff, and employees are being asked to take pay cuts. The World-Herald won’t report on the latter because it isn’t newsworthy.

If that isn’t enough, the quality of reporting has suffered immensely. Over the past month, there have been two rather interesting examples of this decline.

The first dealt with Jim Esch’s party change. Through a Facebook status update, Jim Esch announced his intention to switch his party affiliation. It’s definitely a newsworthy event, but the way in which the OWH wrote about it is quite interesting.

On August 31st, the OWH published a story entitled – Esch says he’s now an independent. Here are a few excerpts…

Esch announced last week on Facebook, a social netowrking Internet site, that he has switched his party affiliation from Democrat to independent.

As an aside, note the spelling of the word “netowrking”. I did not spell the word wrong. It is misspelled on the OWH website and at the time of this post, it is still misspelled. The spell checker must have been on furlough. Anyway, the story continues.

Esch, who has organized a nonpartisan advocacy group, could not immediately be reached for comment.

So, what’s the big deal?  At no point in the entire story does the OWH present any evidence that it has actually confirmed the accuracy of the Facebook status update.  In fact, the OWH does the exact opposite. In the line posted above, the OWH points out that it hasn’t confirmed the story. My motto has always been “if it’s on the internet, it must be true”.

And yesterday, a story on the World-Herald website caught my eye. Miley’s sick; is concert in doubt?

Here’s a line copied directly from the World-Herald’s website.

Cyrus’ Twitter page had this remark posted today: “Keep your fingers crossed Omaha. I am not feeling too good this morning…. Back to sleep. Night night.”

Actually, that’s not entirely accurate. Miley wrote “to good” instead of “too good” but I digress.  If I keep referring to Miley by her first name are readers going to start thinking I’m a fan?  Also, there’s got to be a way to use the phrase “party in the O-M-A” somewhere in the post.  Although, my readership may skew older and not get the reference.

When did newspapers become tabloids? Aren’t newspapers supposed to report the news? Miley’s sick; is concert in doubt? is something you’d see in People Magazine or Entertainment Tonight. Oh wait, this same story was in People.  When did celebrity speculation become news?

There’s no problem using Twitter, Facebook, or YouTwitFace to find news leads. But that’s not what’s going on. The OWH turned what they found on these sites into uncorroborated news stories. The tweet and status update became the story instead of being a news lead requiring further investigation. Are you confused? Let me explain.

In the case of Miley Cyrus, the OWH never actually spoke with anyone with direct knowledge of Miley’s condition. The OWH speculated on her condition.  They created a news story based on a tweet; it wasn’t based on any actual news reporting.  The OWH tried to reach Miley’s reps but didn’t.  Did that stop them from publishing a story based on pure speculation?  No, the tweet is on the internet, it must be true.  To the Omaha World-Herald, the tweet is the news event.  The OWH is quickly becoming a newspaper with the same journalistic standards as People Magazine and TMZ.

These examples also point out OWH’s struggle to stay relevant.

Sure, these may be small examples of shoddy journalism, but that’s what we’ve come to expect (and love) from the World-Herald.

If shoddy journalism isn’t enough, the OWH piles on with questionable story topics.  Who the heck decided that Senator Ben Nelson getting sunburnt was newsworthy?

The vast majority of homeowner’s in Omaha really don’t care about a $50 property tax increase.

It’s a statement based purely on anecdotal evidence – the same reporting method used by every media organization in Omaha.  You show me someone upset about an increase, and I’ll show you someone indifferent.  At a time of major budget problems, we truly don’t know the opinions of Omaha citizens as a whole.  Not a single media organization in Omaha has conducted a scientific poll to access these opinions.

It’s completely reasonable to assume the property tax debate is being controlled by a vocal minority.  Without any real polling data, media organizations rely on an extremely small and extremely biased sample set of citizens to represent the “voice of the people”.  Who do they rely on?  Usually a representative from Nebraska Taxpayers for Freedom, sometimes Jim Vokal and even Hal Daub.  I can’t imagine any of these people having a political agenda.

To get the opinion of John Q. Public, media organizations often turn to man-on-the street interviews, but there’s a good chance the person being interviewed has no idea what “furlough” means (see image above).

So, what’s the point?  Well, depending on how you ask the question, most people may actually support a property tax increase.  Would people support a $50 property tax increase to keep city services at the current level? I think a reasonable majority would say “yes”.

Can anyone prove me wrong?  I’m willing to hear evidence.

Omaha’s 2010 budget is a mess and the Omaha city council still hasn’t produced a realistic budget that would avoid raising taxes.

Pete Festersen, Chuck Sigerson, Jean Stothert and Franklin Thompson announced a plan last week to solve Omaha’s budget problem.  It’s been incorrectly reported that Garry Gernandt is a current supporter of the plan.  Although Gernandt appeared at the press conference announcing this plan, he attended in his role as council president – not as a supporter.

The main component of their plan is a two-week furlough estimated to save the city $7.8 million.  This savings is completely dependent on union approval, and there is no way in hell the unions are going to agree to it.  So, unless hell freezes over, this plan is dead on arrival.  This budget is pure science fiction.

It’s also quite astonishing there hasn’t been any fuss about the public safety implications of this proposal.  When Suttle announced the grounding of the police helicopter for a couple months to deal with the 2009 budget, there was a huge public outcry.  This budget proposal would essentially eliminate 30 police officers from an already under staffed department.  Didn’t all of these council members campaign on making Omaha safer?

It’s sad (and not surprising) there hasn’t been any critical reporting of this budget proposal from any Omaha media outlet.  Every media outlet has reported the plan, but none have actually examined its legitimacy.  They’ve assumed that if five council people gather to present the plan, then it must be legitimate.  Why hasn’t anyone asked these members what’s “Plan B”?  What happens if the main component of their budget falls through?

The political strategy with this budget is quite obvious.  This budget proposal was never intended to be passed.  The members supporting this plan can say “see, we tried presenting a budget with no tax increases”.  The budget has no legitimacy but that doesn’t matter.  When this budget doesn’t pass, these council members will then blame the unions and Mayor Suttle.  If Suttle had presented this budget, these same council members would have called it an enormous step backwards in public safety and they would have pointed out the insurmountable hurdle posed by the unions.  It’s a clear strategy of… “if I present the idea, it’s good but if you present the idea, it’s bad”.

On Sunday, Mayor Suttle appeared on Kaleidoscope.  Suttle said he has two requirements for any budget proposal that crosses his desk – it has to be legal and realistic.  This budget plan fails the reality check.  And if one fantasy budget isn’t good enough for you, then take a look at the new budget proposed by the three Republicans on the council.  Sigerson, Stothert and Thompson have presented a new budget worse than the old.  The new budget relies almost entirely on police and fire cuts.  It’s riddled with the same problems as the previous budget proposal.

******

Remember the hoopla surrounding the $19k golf course consultant?  Watch Kaleidoscope for an explanation on why it’s necessary.  Lee Terry Sr. tried grilling Suttle about the issue and after Suttle finished the explanation, Terry seemed in total agreement with Suttle.

Over the past couple years, Hal Daub has gone through an expensive three-quarters life crisis (Hal’s a little too old to qualify for the mid-life crisis).  Some men are happy with sports cars, Terry Watanabe was fond of the black jack table, but Hal has an ego only elected public office can satisfy.

Daub tapped equity for campaign – Omaha World-Herald

Unfortunately for Daub, money can’t buy elected office (just ask Pete Ricketts), and his journey back to elected public office has drained Daub of his personal savings.  Daub loaned his mayoral campaign $200,000 in the final days of the election.  Add that to the $300,000 of savings spent on an unsuccessful senate run and you have a recipe for financial disaster.  After losing to Jim Suttle in Omaha’s mayoral election, Daub seemed to indicate he’s moving past his three-quarters life crisis.

Last week, former Mayor Mike Fahey held a fundraiser to retire the campaign debt of Jim Vokal.  Fahey hosted a roast-style fundraiser.  In the spirit of creative fundraisers, I believe family, friends, and supporters of Hal Daub should hold an intervention.

It seems Daub is still in denial about how how he got into debt.  An intervention would serve multiple purposes – it would raise money and open Hal’s eyes.  The World-Herald reprinted a few lines from a recent Daub fundraising letter.  The letter was full of denial.  One form of denial – blame others.

We did not want to let our friends, our supporters and Omaha down.

Another form of denial – justification.

The decision to go into debt and borrow against our only equity, our home, was proven to be a good decision as we narrowly lost and could not have expected victory but for this additional financial injection at the eleventh hour.

Daub loaned his campaign $200,000 so he would lose by only 1,400 votes instead of 3,000.  This sounds like a man in trouble.

Omaha, we need to help this man before he seeks another elected office.  It’s time for a Hal Daub intervention.

Are you unemployed and looking for a job? In the State of Nebraska, if your résumé contains the line “Chairman of the Republican Party” you’re almost guaranteed a job.

In July, Governor Dave Heineman appointed Kerry Winterer the CEO of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services. Kerry Winterer served as chairman of the Douglas County Republican Party from 1996-2001. Heineman not only gave the job to Winterer, whose qualifications are extremely questionable, but also gave Winterer an 18% raise over the previous CEO. Winterer started The Benefit Group – a third party administrator of health insurance plans, and when he sold the company it had roughly 50 employees. He now takes over a department with over 5,500 employees and a $2.9 billion budget – and it’s a department in crisis. Winterer has no health care administration experience; Winterer has experience in insurance administration not health care administration – there is a huge difference.  Maybe Winterer has a family member with health care experience.

After the Governor made the announcement, he struggled to explain Winterer’s qualifications. Here’s an excerpt from the Lincoln Journal-Star article covering the announcement.

He [Governor Heineman] found in Winterer a CEO with good leadership and decision-making and communication skills, he said, and someone who understands the value of collaboration and who can improve and increase public-private partnerships with providers, advocacy groups and others.

Not a single mention of his qualifications.

Winterer’s appointment opened up a seat on the state Board of Education; ironically, Winterer was appointed to that seat two years ago by Heineman.

A few days ago, Heineman appointed Mark Quandahl to fill the vacant seat.  Guess what appears on Quandahl’s resume?  He served as chairman of the Nebraska Republican Party from 2005 to 2009.

Cronyism is alive and well in the governor’s office.

If that doesn’t work, we recommend Plan B.  We’ll call it the “Friendly Hire“.

Jim Vokal would love to see Mayor Suttle fail.  That’s why Vokal has been quietly leading the recall effort of Mayor Suttle.

Vokal has tried to remain relevant in Omaha by forming the OMAPAC (not to be confused with OMAGRO – something that actually provides value to Omaha residents).  He has become the official Republican spokesperson of Omaha – anointed by the Omaha World-Herald.  When there’s something strange in the neighborhood, who’s the World-Herald going to call?  Jim Vokal!  OWH would rather talk to an Omaha citizen holding no elected office than a city council member .  Why doesn’t the World-Herald call Randy Brown or Mort Sullivan? Just like Vokal, they didn’t advance to the general election.

Vokal was once a young and awkward city councilman, but he has seemed to grow into what he’s aspired to be – a career politician (although he hasn’t outgrown his awkward phase).  He suffered a road bumb all career politicians fear – not getting elected.  Before giving up his seat on the Omaha city council, colleagues appointed him to MECA.  Bob Kerrey got a bridge; Vokal got a seat on an organization about as transparent as mud.

Along the way, Vokal’s appeal to voters has seemed to wane.  Nobody really knows what he does (apparently he manages a couple people) and nobody really knows what he stands for.  So, Vokal has tried to stay relevant by becoming the poster child of the revolution.  Some would call him a sore loser while he calls himself a watchdog.

His desire to recall Suttle leads Vokal in an awkward position.  He’s rooting for Suttle to screw up which means he’s rooting for Omaha to fail.  Vokal has put his political interests ahead of the interests of Omaha.  Over the past several weeks of budget discussions, Vokal has added nothing of value to the debate.  He’s been quick to criticize while offering no solutions of his own.  During the campaign, the Daub and Vokal camps criticized Suttle for a lack of specifics, and now it’s Vokal who hasn’t come up with a unique thought in several months.  During budget discussions in the 2003 and 2004, former Mayor Mike Fahey was often critical of Vokal and other councilmen for criticizing Fahey’s budget while offering no alternatives of their own.

Vokal didn’t have the political strength to support higher taxes in 2001. Instead he kicked the can down the road, and now it’s Suttle having to deal with the long term consequences of Vokal’s inaction years ago.  During the 2004 budget debate, Vokal backed a plan that would “borrow money from various city accounts, increase tax revenue projections [another term for Enron type creative accounting] and make some budget cuts.”  That plan wouldn’t have solved any problems (and it likely wouldn’t have balanced the 2004 budget).

What’s ironic is Jim Vokal himself predicted the budget situation now being tackled by Mayor Suttle.  Vokal was describing the 2005 budget process

But Vokal went on to describe 2005 as the ‘calm before the storm.’ He and council members Chuck Sigerson and Dan Welch remain critical of how Fahey handled the 2004 budget crisis by deferring employee raises into future years.  The three said large tax increases could be coming in later budget years, especially if the economy falters again.   Omaha World-Herald July 28, 2004.

For eight years, Vokal lacked the political will to make any tough decisions.  Actions speak louder than words, and Vokal is full of words while short on action.  He’s the worst type of politician – the type that only worries about how to get elected.  He’s not concerned about doing what’s right – he’s concerned about doing what’s popular.  Vokal isn’t interested in getting Omaha through it’s financial problems.  Vokal is interested in exploiting Omaha’s financial problems to weaken Mayor Suttle and ultimately have him recalled.

For argument’s sake, let’s pretend Vokal is mayor for a little while (because God knows Vokal falls asleep fantasizing about it on a nightly basis). If Vokal was mayor, he would have raised taxes. Nothing Vokal has said would save the city $14 million.  If Vokal shows a solution that would save the city $14 million without raising taxes (and without kicking the can down the road), then I will be happy to post his press release on this blog.  The truth is Vokal would have raised taxes or he would have kicked the can down the road just like he did in 2001.  Vokal is sitting on the sideline criticizing Suttle while relishing in the fact Suttle is making all the difficult decisions necessary for Omaha’s future financial stability.

Governor Dave Heineman just appointed State Senator Mike Friend the director of the new State Office of Violence Prevention.  Senator Friend replaces McGruff the Crime Dog who has been the de facto director for many years.

Sen. Friend leaves legislature – Omaha World Herald

Senator Friend has absolutely no qualifications for this job except he wrote the bill that created the position.

The World-Herald tried to bolster Friend’s experience by pointing out the following…

He also knows law enforcement through family and friends. Three uncles and three cousins have worked for the Omaha Police Department, including former Deputy Chief Joe Friend.

My mother is a nurse, does that make me qualified to be Director of Nursing in Nebraska?  I have several relatives that farm. Does that qualify me for Ag Secretary?

Friend entered the legislature with a job paying him about $40k a year (this is my estimate but anyone familiar with the salaries of copywriters can tell you $40k is an extremely generous number), and leaves with almost twice the salary.  Did I mention he created the job?  Did I mention he has no qualifications?

Heineman’s appointment is also politically shrewd.  Thanks to term limits, Friend will be out of his Legislative gig next year, and the Governor can appoint whoever he wants to the vacated seat.  That person, guaranteed to be a Republican, will have a leg up if they decide to run for the seat next fall.

My question to the readers… If you were in the legislature, what job would you create for yourself?  Director of Couch Potato Research?  Director of Awesome?  Post your job idea in the comments section.