This newspaper reported this week that the recall effort against Mayor Jim Suttle is moving forward and likely to head into the “signature gathering” phase soon.
Regardless of your opinion of our mayor, in the absence of some sort of malfeasance, recall elections are a bad idea.
Let's say that one more time. Recall elections are, generally speaking, a bad idea and bad politics.
This editorial page has been plenty critical of Mayor Suttle, largely the poor message management from his office, starting with the infamous red SUV matter as he took office in 2009. He has appeared tone-deaf and inflexible to much of the criticism headed his way. He doesn't seek or listen to advice.
But as you consider signing a petition, remember that Omahans elected him just 16 months ago, in May 2009. Put another way, Omaha had its chance to elect somebody else, and with an embarrassingly low turnout, voters elected Jim Suttle as their mayor.
Mayor Suttle inherited a financial mess that has finally come home to roost in the form of pension obligations, recession-altered tax receipts, spiking, etc. Some say he hasn't negotiated hard enough with the police and fire unions.
Maybe, but the truth is that his immediate options are few. We have editorially opposed a narrow tax aimed at restaurants, and the management of the city's personnel commitments, perhaps most notably in police and fire, leaves something to be desired. Many say that more cost-cutting was possible, but the mayor lacked the will or management skills to get that done.
But the City of Omaha needed to raise revenues. We will continue to argue that the specifics are flawed and that more broad tax plans were preferable, but make no mistake, there was indeed a revenue shortfall that needed to be remedied.
Absent embezzlement, sexual harassment, neglect or other out-of-bounds behavior by office-holders, recall elections are inefficient, expensive and divisive. Omaha needs to do better than that.
As you consider whether to sign a petition, remember the process if a recall effort happens to be successful. As Paul Goodsell recently reported in this newspaper, a recall election would likely be held in January. If it's successful, City Council President Garry Gernandt would become acting mayor immediately following the recall election.
The City Council then could appoint anyone to serve as interim mayor until a general election is held. The election of a mayor to serve the balance of Suttle's term would occur as much as six months following the recall election, or around June 2011.
So for about six months, our city would have interim leadership. We'd have a lame-duck chief executive. During that six-month period, a divisive election would be held to determine the new mayor. It's a messy process. It would get regional and national attention. The question would be asked, “Why did Omaha recall its mayor?” Answer: “He raised our taxes, and we don't like him.” Or, “we changed our minds after he was in office for 16 months.”
Omahans are right to be critical of Mayor Suttle. As we've emphasized before, Omahans are fully justified to pursue many legitimate channels to express their views and voice their opposition. Call the Mayor's Office, show up at City Council meetings, write letters, give voice to your frustration. But Omaha should be above a recall election in this instance. Let's manage through this process.
Remember, there is already a recall election scheduled. It's the regular mayoral election in May 2013.
Copyright ©2012 Omaha World-Herald®. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, displayed or redistributed for any purpose without permission from the Omaha World-Herald.
