Omaha Alliance

The Alliance Touts “Focused Deterrence” as Gun Violence Solution

Tracie — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:15:51 +0000

“FOCUSED DETERRENCE” IS “BEST PRACTICE” TO CONTAIN GUN VIOLENCE

Below, see a “Public Pulse” piece from Chip Maxwell, a NYT editorial, and a “White Paper” by Professor Sam Walker describing “focused deterrence.” So far, nothing the City has tried has reduced the gun violence in Omaha. We need some new approaches and solutions to this problem.

NEW APPROACHES TO SOLVE GUN VIOLENCE NEEDED

Mayor Suttle has convened a task force on gun violence. The Omaha Alliance for the Private Sector held a press conference at which University of Nebraska – Omaha Professor Sam Walker explained “focused deterrence.” The Alliance did so because Omaha needs more than the typical gun amnesty or buy-back event. Politicians like such events because TV cameras show a table full of nasty-looking firearms. Look at the danger we’ve removed from your streets, politicians say. But it doesn’t reduce gun violence because perpetrators of gun violence don’t turn in their guns.

The focus should be on humans rather than hardware. Other cities have reduced gun violence by practicing focused deterrence, in which police explain to gang leaders that they know all about them and their activities, and the crackdown is coming. But there is another option: a coordinated program of education, counseling, job training, and other services.

Focused deterrence has worked in other cities because many gang leaders are tired of gang life, but they don’t see any other option. They’ve known nothing but a chaotic struggle for survival. They’ve had no positive adult leadership, no one helping them envision life beyond the dysfunctional violence in which they feel trapped. For the first time they see a realistic path to a “normal” life.

Focused deterrence is a demanding program. It requires intensive and sustained effort by police. It’s not as flashy as a gun collection event, but it yields better results. To learn more, please go to www.omahaalliance.com.

Beyond Stop-and-Frisk

By JAMES FORMAN Jr. and TREVOR STUTZ

Published: April 19, 2012

IN the face of growing anger over the New York Police Department’s stop-and-frisk policy, the commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, has faulted his critics for failing to offer an alternative for fighting crime in minority neighborhoods. “What I haven’t heard is any solution to the violence problems in these communities,” he told the City Council last month.

Mr. Kelly is correct that high levels of violence are intolerable and that those who would challenge stop-and-frisk — in which police officers use thin pretexts for streetside searches — must present credible alternatives. At the Yale Law School Innovations in Policing Clinic, we have been visiting police departments around the country in search of such strategies. One increasingly popular approach, “focused deterrence,” is among the most promising.

Developed by the criminologist David M. Kennedy, focused deterrence is in many ways the opposite of stopping and frisking large sections of the population. Beginning with the recognition that a small cohort of young men are responsible for most of the violent crime in minority neighborhoods, it targets the worst culprits for intensive investigation and criminal prosecution.

Focused deterrence also builds up community trust in the police, who are now going after the real bad guys instead of harassing innocent bystanders in an effort to score easy arrests.

This strategy was responsible for the dramatic decline in Boston’s homicide rate during the 1990s. In 2004, Mr. Kennedy and his colleagues successfully adapted it to combat violent open-air drug markets in the West End neighborhood of High Point, N.C.

Rather than sweep through and stop large numbers of young black men, the police built strong relationships with residents, promising greater responsiveness if they took back the reins of their community and told their sons, nephews and grandsons that the violence and the overt dealing must end. Meanwhile, the police identified the 17 men driving the drug market and built solid cases against each. In one fell swoop, they arrested three with violent records.

The other 14 men were then summoned to a community meeting. Neighborhood residents demanded that they put an end to the violence. Law enforcement officials made credible threats of prosecution, but also told the men they had one last chance to turn their lives around. Meanwhile, social service providers offered them job training, drug treatment and mentoring.

Most of the men listened. The city’s most significant drug market vanished overnight, and it has not come back. Violent crime has fallen by half.

Why did the strategy succeed? The Rev. Sherman Mason, a local minister, told us that a key factor was the decision to involve neighborhood residents in the process. As a result, the police gained legitimacy, and their relationship with the community was transformed.

While focused deterrence is among the most thoroughly researched efforts to reduce crime while building community trust, it is not the only one.

In Seattle longtime adversaries, including the police department and the public defender’s office, are collaborating on a program to authorize police officers to divert drug offenders to treatment.

In Illinois and in Washington State, efforts are under way to train officers in “procedural justice,” in other words, how to operate in a more transparently fair way, as people are more likely to comply with the law if the police treat them with dignity and respect.

New York has a moral imperative to address violence. But stop-and-frisk practices are harming the community in order to protect it, and the costs of those practices can no longer be justified by the claim that nothing else will work. There are other ways.

James Forman Jr. is a clinical professor at Yale Law School and supervises its Innovations in Policing Clinic, where Trevor Stutz, a third-year law student, is a member.

DEVELOPING AN EFFECTIVE RESPONSE TO

OMAHA’S GUN VIOLENCE PROBLEM

Sam Walker

University of Nebraska at Omaha

April 2012

INTRODUCTION

The gun violence problem that erupted in July 2007 continues to this day. Clearly, existing programs are not working effectively to end it. Mayor Jim Suttle’s recently appointed Task Force is charged with developing a strategy based on the recognized best practices in comparable cities.

This report, which summarizes the most important new best practices, is addressed to the Task Force, the Mayor, City Council, and all interested citizens of Omaha.

Much is known about what works and what does not work with regard to gun violence. The emerging consensus on best practices is grounded in the best research by the nation’s leading criminologists.

An essential part of developing an effective response would include inviting some of the top experts to Omaha so that they can explain the best practices in public meetings and also to key officials in private meetings. David Kennedy is today the recognized expert in this area, although he is much in demand and might be difficult to get. Prof. Robin Engel has directed a successful program in Cincinnati and she would also be a good choice. There are, of course, others.

WHAT DOES NOT WORK

Developing an effective strategy begins with clearing the deck regarding what does not work.

There is now a near universal consensus of opinion that traditional “get tough” enforcement policies do not work. They not only fail to reduce gun violence and other criminal activity but they are counterproductive, alienating important parts of the community and creating barriers to effective programs.

The traditional enforcement policies include: saturation police patrol and heavy use of traffic stops and field stops and frisks. Another policy includes attempting to “get guns off the street” through gun buy backs, seizures as an adjunct to arrest, and increased penalties for people convicted of gun crimes.

All the traditional policies seem to embody common sense. If police patrol deters crime, won’t more patrol deter it more effectively. Criminal justice is not that simple, however. Research decades ago demolished the assumption that more patrol reduces crime. Regarding intensive traffic stops, meanwhile, research has also consistently shown that the “hit rate” is very low, in terms of major offenders arrested and guns seized. More seriously, it creates resentment among law abiding residents of high crime neighborhoods, far off-setting any deterrent effect that might occur.

With respect to guns, the fact is that there are an estimated 97 million hand guns out there in American society. Removing a few from the street is about like trying to bail out the Atlantic Ocean. Evaluations have consistently found that gun buy-back programs have no impact on crime. Major offenders do not turn in their guns. The illegal gun market is huge, and anyone who wants a gun for a criminal purpose can easily get one. Raising the penalties for crimes involving guns has also not reduced crime rates. Serious criminals are not rational actors and do not sit around calculating the consequences of a harsher penalty if they are caught.

WHAT DOES WORK: FOCUSED DETERRENCE

There is a small but growing body of evidence that crime reduction programs based on the principle of focused deterrence can have a positive impact on gun crimes and gang-related crimes.

The key element is focus – focus on a limited list of offenses and focus on a small group of targeted offenders.

Focused deterrence programs all derive from the well-known Boston Gun Project in the 1990s, which reduced gun violence in the city. The project consisted of several elements, but the one that has inspired important further developments was the “call-in” or “notification” meetings.

A call-in meeting is relatively simple in concept but very difficult to execute properly, and requires very careful planning and constant managerial attention.

It begins by developing a relatively short list of people who are believed to be active offenders with regard to gun crimes and gang activity. The list is developed using all of the information available to the police, probation and parole officials, and community residents. (Important note: The reliability of all this information, and how it is evaluated is crucial and requires very careful planning and management.) The key to focused deterrence, after all, is that it is truly focused on currently active offenders, and only them. The sharper the focus, the more effective the program is likely to be. Putting the wrong people on the list weakens the impact. Putting too many people on the list also weakens the impact.

A call in meeting consists of two parts. First, law enforcement officials deliver the hard line: we know about you, we are watching, and we will arrest you the next time you break the law. (More about this later, but the key point here is that the deterrence message is delivered in person to those on the list.) Second, social service providers step forward and describe the programs they have available: basic education, substance abuse, job preparation, family counseling, and so on. Their message is: if you want to get out of the life, we are here to help you, but the decision is yours.

Three points need to be emphasized. First, the list of offenders has to be relatively short and clearly focused. Second, the social service offers must accompany the law enforcement message. Third, the promises must be kept: both the threat of enforcement and the actual delivery of social services.

Adoptions – and a Warning

The success of the Boston Gun Project inspired many cities to adopt it, or at least important parts of it. Some put the figure at about 25 cities. (You have to be careful with these claims, because many programs did not include all the crucial elements.) Some of the most well-known include High Point, North Carolina, Indianapolis, Baltimore, and Cincinnati.

Success is not guaranteed. Some of the programs based on the Boston Gun Project failed. Even worse, the Boston Gun Project itself eventually collapsed, and homicides returned to high levels. What went wrong? Several things. Leaders took their eye off the ball. Some key figures won well-deserved promotions. Certain political factors intervened. Eventually, the great success story was in ruins. This should be a major warning for Omaha and other communities. Success is not guaranteed.

A related problem is that many communities adopt incomplete or poorly managed versions of focused deterrence. As a result they often lack some of the key elements that make the program work. Many are just poorly managed. Some of the elements have been tried before in Omaha and been dropped. Some continue in incomplete form. A serious effort in Omaha will require a close review of existing programs, utilizing consultants from outside the city, to see what exists, what needs to be strengthened.

Recent Case Study: Cincinnati CIR

The most recent example of the impact of call-in or notification meetings is from CIR, the Cincinnati Initiative to Reduce Violence. Between July 2007 and July 2010 there were 20 call-in sessions involving 488 “violent group members” (40% of whom attended more than one session). In addition, there were a series of smaller meetings with people on probation.

The meetings were supplemented by a set of Alternatives to Violence programs, including providing social services, mentoring, and violence interruption efforts. The important point here is that no single program is likely to be effective unless it is part of a broader coordinated community effort.

The evaluation of CIR used several measures, including all homicides, group/gang member involved (GMI) homicides, and non-GMI homicides. GMI homicides declined 34.8 % in the months following the first notification meeting, while non-GMI homicides increased 34.6 % in the same period. In short, there was a sharp difference between the targeted and non-targeted groups of homicides.

WHAT HAS TO STOP

For a focused deterrence program to work, some common practices have to stop.

Most important, the police have to stop abusive practices that alienate law abiding people in high crime and people of color neighborhoods. These include indiscriminate traffic stops, indiscriminate field stops and frisks, abusive language, unnecessary use of force, and other practices.

Unacceptable police practices are not only often illegal and/or in violation of police department policy, but they undermine public confidence in the police. People talk about their bad experiences, and the impact of any one incident spreads far beyond the people directly involved. Very bad incidents that make the news media have an enormous and lasting impact.

Indiscriminate traffic stops, for example, sweep up law-abiding people in high crime neighborhoods. These are precisely the people who can provide invaluable information to the police. It has long been a truism in policing that the police cannot do it all themselves. They need the public to report crimes, report suspicious activities, provide information about neighborhood problems, and be witnesses in criminal cases.

In Cincinnati, bad police practices sparked a riot in 2000, which prompted martial law, and led to two federal law suits. The settlement of one of the suits required the Cincinnati Police Department to improve its internal accountability procedures to reduce officer misconduct. The second settlement required the police department to change how it polices: to end aggressive “get tough” policies and adopt community focused problem-oriented policing.

A second practice that has to stop is the development of indiscriminate lists of gang members. One of the key elements of focused deterrence is the careful focus on a short list of suspected currently active violent offenders. Indiscriminately increasing the size of the list inevitably dilutes the impact of program: you are spending a lot of time and effort on people who are not your major problem.

CONCLUSION

Omaha faces a serious and continuing problem of gun violence. After five years it is time to explore the recognized best practices from around the country. The best research indicates that focused deterrence programs, accompanied by supporting programs and an end to police practices that undermine good community relations, can be effective. It is time for Omaha to take a good hard look at these programs.

FOR FURTHER READING

The Boston Gun Project

Anthony Braga, et al., Reducing Gun Violence: The Boston Project’s Operation Ceasefire. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 2001.

Essential. Brief, written for the layperson. Available on the web.

Cincinnati CIR

Robin Engel, at. al, Evaluation of the Cincinnati Initiative to Reduce Violence (CIR), October 20, 2010. Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati Policing Institute, 2010.

Important. Requires some command of statistics to fully grasp the evaluation, but the narrative description of the program is short and accessible for the layperson. Available on the web.

Focused Deterrence

Anthony A. Braga and David L. Weisburd, “The Effects of Focused Deterrence Strategies on Crime: A systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Evidence.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, (2011): 1-36.

Strictly for scholars. You need a strong command of statistics and research methods for this one. But among scholars it is the best summary, and the findings are positive.

Focused Deterrence in Lowell, MA

Anthony M. Braga, et al., “The Strategic Prevention of Gun Violence Among Gang-Involved Offenders,” Justice Quarterly 25 (March 2008): 132-162.

Focused Deterrence in Indianapolis, IN

E. McGarrell, et al., “Reducing Homicide Through a ‘Lever Pulling’ Strategy,” Justice Quarterly 23 (2006): 213-229

Reducing Gun Violence

David M. Kennedy, Don’t Shoot: One Man, A Street Fellowship, and the End of Violence in Inner-City America. New York: Bloomsbury, 2011.

Essential. Kennedy has been a major figure in developments in Boston, Cincinnati, and other cities. This book is written for the general audience.

Crime Policy

Samuel Walker, Sense and Nonsense About Crime, Drugs, and Communities. 7^th edition. Belmont, CA: Cengage, 2011.

Very readable overview of the full range of crime policies. Explains the assumptions underlying both conservative and liberal policies. Now in its 7^th edition, it has been updated regularly since 1985.

STATES AROUND THE COUNTRY GRAPPLING WITH PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PENSION SHORTFALLS

Tracie — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:47:08 +0000

WHAT ARE STATES AROUND THE COUNTRY DOING TO ALLEVIATE PENSION DEBT?

Below is a link to a Workforce Management article which surveys the pension reform efforts in various states across the country. The survey illustrates a number of issues: 1) How dramatic and widespread unfunded pensions are to states and localities; 2) How difficult reform is as public employee unions and their contracts trapped many unwary elected officials, leaving taxpayers on the hook; and 3) The apparent unwillingness of public employee unions to bargain back benefits to reasonable amounts.

The article helps to bring into focus the terrifying reality of these debts – California alone is facing over a $600 billion shortfall! How are we going to manage this problem and did or has Nebraska really done enough at the state and local level to solve this crisis? For our Alliance followers, we know that the City is suffering tremendously. Members are increasingly voicing conerns that there is no money to actually run the City because so much of general fund money goes to wages, benefits, and pension payments. More and more cities, municipalities, and even states are considering or actually filing bankruptcy.

Please click on this link for the article:

http://omahalliance.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/SKMBT_C36012041113240.docx

MORE PENSION NEWS

Tracie — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 19:21:21 +0000

Dave Nabity reviews top City of Omaha pay and perks with Councilman Franklin Thompson tomorrow morning at 7 on 1110 KFAB.

NEW YORK Taxpayers United of America has released the top
pension estimates for New York State government teachers and employees…

TUA Receives Excellent Press Coverage
With Release of New York Pension Info

FOR IMMEDIATE
RELEASE

March 29, 2012

Contact: Christina Tobin (312) 320-4101 or (312) 427-5128

NEW YORK Taxpayers United of America has released the top pension estimates for New York State government teachers and employees. We are shedding light at last, on the problems with New York’s government pension system, said Christina Tobin, Vice President of Taxpayers United of America (TUA), and founder and President of Free and Equal Elections. Minimal reform has occurred in New York as legislators consider measures that do little to actually solve the problem. Much more pressure is needed from taxpayers, she said.

The broken government pension system desperately needs reform, and revealing individual names and pension amounts illustrates the problem very clearly, said Tobin. The current system, designed to keep the wrong people in power, is corrupt. It is a system that makes government, and those with whom government negotiates union bosses, politicians, and administrators wealthy on the backs of taxpayers.

There is no fair representation of taxpayers. This is a nationwide
problem that burdens the Left and Right alike, and has fueled the
financial crisis facing taxpayers and retirees. The urgency of this
crisis is illustrated by the excellent press coverage that our government pension reports have received throughout New York.

Tobin, who toured through New York state revealing top government pension estimates to the public, received coverge from Metro New York, TimesUnion.com, and Capitol Confidential. Of particular note was the following story from reporter January Keaton at ABC 10 News.

Tobin stated that while the individual pension amounts have been
eye-opening in the communities that have followed the law and released the pension information requested by Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, TUA will be exploring all options to obtain the information still being withheld by the city government bureaucrats of New York City.

I have hand delivered a letter to Gov. Cuomo and the Legislature, calling for additional pension reform that will be both fair and sustainable. Until pension plans eliminate the possibility of unfunded liabilities that crush taxpayers and threaten payments to the retirees counting on them, pension crises will continue to escalate. TUA is ready to work with legislators who want to do whats in the best interest of the constituency and not the union bosses who fund their reelection.

TUA will be revealing more States pensions across the nation, including those of Colorado and Minnesota in the coming weeks.

For more information, visit http://www.taxpayersunited.org.

THE ALLIANCE RESPONDS TO LANDOW/EBDON OP-ED

Tracie — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 18:51:23 +0000

Omaha’s Future Depends on Leadership, not Commissions

March 15, 2012

By David Nabity

Omaha taxpayers are angry and
frustrated. They feel taken advantage of when they hear fire and police
officials retire at a very young age with large pension checks. In a March 13^th
editorial, Paul Landow and Carol Ebdon suggested ways Omaha, with citizens
working together, might find solutions to this problem. I applaud their
efforts, and the questions they posed are good ones.

However, those questions should have
been asked when Mr. Landow was chief of staff for the mayor in 2003. Omahans
cannot understand why Mr. Landow and the mayor were willing to enter into new
labor contracts (beginning in 2004) that dropped the retirement age to 45 and
increased pension payouts from 55% to 75%. This was a colossal mistake. The
agony we are experiencing right now is directly related to that decision
resulting in huge pension losses and six Police Chiefs in ten years.

Mr. Landow and the mayor should have
tested the contract changes against labor agreements of other cities to see if
these changes were common and reasonable. We did not get that kind of
leadership then, and that kind of leadership is what Omaha needs now.

We do not need a commission. We do
not need another committee. What we need is a mayor and a city council who will
lead this city in the manner its citizens deserve.

The mayor, as our leader, can
organize his staff to provide research. He can arrange for knowledgeable
specialists to study and analyze current labor agreements, and determine what
is needed to increase longevity and establish more reasonable pension packages.

The mayor can travel to other cities
and visit with mayors who have solved some of these problems. He can do the
necessary research to import best practices and then carefully craft a sound
“new” strategy, based on facts, to move the city forward. With this accurate
intelligence and sound reasoning he can approach union leaders and ask for
reasonable concessions to stop the retirement madness in the police and fire
departments. Call it Plan A.

If union leaders refuse to modify
the contracts and bring them back within reason, the mayor must develop a “Plan
B.” Plan B might employ cost cutting measures used by other mayors in other
cities to substantially lower department costs, while maintaining and actually
improving public safety. Some of these measures could include privatization,
greater use of civilian positions, merger or consolidation with the county,
expansion of shared services models and better use of new technologies.

Cost cutting is incredibly important
because these labor contracts are preventing Omaha from investing in our
future. A good example is we collect $31
million through hotel, logging, restaurant and rental car taxes, but only $600,000
is invested back into the very industries those taxes are supposed to fund and
promote. This is way below the 50%
average that other cities reinvest to promote their markets.

Since Omaha is spending that money
elsewhere, we are unable to launch new economic development strategies to help
Omaha expand and make us an amazing destination city, with shops, entertainment
and transportation systems that inspire visitors to spend a few days here.

We cannot move Omaha forward and
embrace the next level of transformation as long as we lack the leadership to
remodel government and find ways to operate more efficiently. We need a new
crew of leaders to step up and lead Omaha, not a commission or committee to
admire the problem. We don’t need another group of people who can only make
suggestions and can’t or won’t take responsibility for remodeling our city.

If we don’t make changes soon, Omaha
will be starved by labor agreements that choke the life and vibrancy out of our
city. If that happens, we will not look any better in 20 years and there’s a
good chance we will look even worse.

Omaha has the potential of becoming
one of the brightest spots in the nation, a key destination city for
conventions, sports and entertainment. However, to make that happen, we must
transform our city government. Instead
of a “commission”, we need to elect reform-minded candidates in 2013 to the
mayor’s office and city council, who show the leadership necessary to embrace
this exciting future.

We have the potential to be that vibrant
and exciting destination city and the time is now, to begin setting a higher
bar for what we expect from our leaders.

Published Tuesday
March 13, 2012

By Paul Landow, Ph.D.,
and Carol Ebdon, Ph.D.

Midlands Voices: Pension issues demand serious study

Landow is a professor in the
Department of Political Science at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. He
served as chief of staff for Mayor Mike Fahey from 2001 to 2008. Ebdon is a
professor in the School of Public Administration at UNO. She served as Omaha
city finance director from 2004 to 2009. They write as individuals, not as
representatives of the university.

Recent Omaha World-Herald editorials
and articles rightly pointed out that police chiefs do not stay long in Omaha
because the terms of their pensions incentivize them to retire.

The police management contract
typically allows retirement with full benefits after 25 years of service and
includes a pension of 75 percent of the officer’s salary. (The exact
calculation for salary and overtime varies from contract to contract.)

It is not unusual for a police
officer to come on the job in his or her early 20s, which is why so many are
eligible to retire before age 50. Former chiefs Thomas Warren and Eric Buske
were both 47 at retirement. Warren had about four years of service as chief and
Buske about 18 months. Alex Hayes, who recently announced his retirement, is 48
with less than three years in the chief’s office.

The fact that chiefs can retire relatively
young with so few years in the top job raises several questions:

>> Is it in the city’s interests to retain senior officers
beyond 25 years?

>> Is it in the city’s interests to raise the retirement age?

>> Is it in the city’s interests to incentivize chiefs to
retire with a short tenure as chief?

>> Is the pension too generous?

The answer to these questions have
citywide interest. One need only to look at the Omaha.com comments to the story
announcing Chief Hayes’ retirement to know that many Omahans are concerned.

Addressing these questions should
not be seen as impugning the integrity or questioning the service of the
recently retired chiefs. The people who become police chief in Omaha have a
lifetime of distinguished law enforcement work behind them. If you look at the
achievements of the past three chiefs (Warren, Buske and Hayes) as well as the
officers who competed against them for the job, you will see smart,
high-caliber individuals who would have succeeded in any police department in
the country.

These chiefs have spent a career in
a dangerous job and have finished that career as the CEO of an organization
larger than most Omaha businesses. OPD has about 1,000 employees (more than 800
sworn officers) and a budget of nearly $120 million a year. It operates 24
hours a day, seven days a week.

The challenge for our city is to
transcend the anger, resentment and red-hot rhetoric of the past few years
while calmly pursuing rational and practical answers to the difficult questions
posed above.

One way this might be done is by
establishing a permanent bipartisan commission that would meet periodically to
hear citizen and expert testimony, debate the various issues and recommend
changes to the city retirement systems. These recommendations would address
retirement provisions for all city employees, including police, fire and
civilian, and would flow directly to those negotiating the labor agreements.

The commission could be established
by executive order of the mayor, or through an ordinance by the mayor and
council. The members of the commission could include the mayor, finance
director, city attorney, human resources director, three City Council members,
the presidents of all city unions, several outside pension experts and some
Omaha citizens.

A variation of this was tried with
some success when Mayor Mike Fahey appointed a commission, chaired by retired
insurance executive Bob Bates, to evaluate the police and fire pension system.
It worked well, and many believe that the resulting recommendations helped pave
the way for the current police rank-and-file contract, which includes
significant pension reforms.

Because all contract changes must be
negotiated, the commission recommendations could not be binding. But the
stature and expertise of the members, plus the fact that the unions, the mayor
and three council members are involved, would mean that any recommendations
that come out of the proceeding would be taken seriously.

Working together is the Omaha way,
and it has paid off time and again. One need only look at the development of
downtown Omaha to see that cooperation and determination among our political,
business and citizen leaders brings spectacular results.

Let’s apply that same drive and
energy to our financial issues by forming a bipartisan commission that will
carefully consider and recommend solutions to our public pension and retirement
challenges. The ultimate goal is a system that is fair and beneficial to Omaha
citizens and the city employees who serve them.

An Open Letter to members of the Local 385 Omaha Firefighters Union

Tracie — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:07:26 +0000

January 12, 2012

Dear Omaha Firefighters,

I want to write to you personally to share a few very important thoughts about the condition and the position your union finds itself in today.

As you know, I have been very outspoken about what I believe has been major wrongdoing within both the firefighters union and the fire department. It appears that the wrongs were committed by a very small group of leaders who have found their way into positions of power and leadership. Much of the wrongdoing, I believe, has been targeted toward the faithful, honest and hardworking firefighters who have avoided becoming close with these leaders and therefore have found themselves “black balled” and “passed over” in favor of others who were willing to turn a blind eye to the harmful agenda that has damaged both the firefighters and the city.

Our organization decided to commission an investigation into all the things we were hearing, and in that effort discovered material you have seen us produce over the past few years. Now that much of this has come to light, I have been told union leaders and their attorney have decided to go on a “witch hunt” attacking those they allege spoke either to me or our investigators. This witch hunt has led them into great error and the harming of innocent individual firefighters.

An example of this is the attack against John Strawn. I met John through the Republican Party and had the opportunity to speak with him personally. I spoke with John about the investigation that took place during the Daub administration regarding misuse of union hours and failure to comply with the labor agreement. The issues during the Daub administration involved proper classification and documentation of union activity, similar to the issues we uncovered that the State Auditor confirmed.

John simply verified for me that both he and Mike McDonnell were investigated during the Daub administration for not properly accounting for their union hours, and that they were almost fired as a result. John did not have specific knowledge of Steve LeClair’s activities, because he was retired and not around when LeClair became president. We were trying to determine how widespread the misuse of union hours had been during past years, and John confirmed there indeed had been a problem during the Daub years and that Mr. McDonnell had been instructed to stop ignoring proper accounting procedures and comply with the labor agreement.

In the lawsuit filed against me, I disclosed that I had been informed Mike McDonnell was assigned to the Bureau when he became fire union president, but that some had said he did not show up for work at the Bureau and that this practice continued when Steve LeClair became fire union president. I also stated that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, this information was confirmed by John Strawn and three other individuals. After conferring with John Strawn, I now believe, although John might have been present when the subject of Steve LeClair had been discussed, John Strawn did not provide information specifically about LeClair, because he was not around while LeClair was president.

Even if John Strawn had provided the information about Steve LeClair being at the union hall on a daily basis, it would be silly to seek retribution from him, because the information was absolutely true and well-known to many. Steve LeClair and his superiors readily admitted during the lawsuit that LeClair worked at the union hall on a daily basis and not the Bureau, confirming exactly what I had been told. The issue of LeClair not showing up at the Bureau was not a focus of ours, considering all of the other things we were uncovering, until I read in the Auditor’s letter that he reported only six hours of union leave. I thought he was caught red-handed, because it was well-known that he was at the union hall on a daily basis.

So, today union officers and their attorney are wrongfully attacking an innocent person, claiming Mr. Strawn maligned LeClair, when he did not. This is a perfect demonstration of their reckless ambushing of an innocent firefighter without any proof. It is similar to the ambush of four highly regarded firefighters in a document produced a few months ago attacking the “four horsemen;” four individuals we have never interviewed and none of whom I would know if I saw them. The behavior of your union officers and legal counsel is promoting firefighter-on-firefighter assault, in my opinion.

Lastly, in order to end the lawsuit with Steve LeClair, Mr. Corrigan clearly communicated to our legal counsel that they were willing to settle the matter without an apology or retraction. They made a settlement demand for the amount of legal fees expended by Mr. LeClair to that point: $18,000. Because that amount was less than the cost of a trial and because an apology was no longer required, our insurance company compelled us to settle the case. We made it clear we would not agree to pay for other parties to sue us by paying their entire legal bill. After negotiation, our insurance company agreed to pay $9,000—half the cost of the legal fees.

Therefore, Steve LeClair should have an outstanding balance of $9,000 on his legal bill. If your union is asked to pay his attorney’s fees, it should not be for anything more than $9,000. LeClair should not make money personally off of a personal lawsuit and expect Local 385 to pay his entire legal bill ($18,000) so he can get free money. It would be wise for your members to watch this activity carefully to see if your union was stuck with the entire bill. Hopefully, this did not occur.

In my opinion, and in the opinion of many leaders within this community, your leadership team has seriously damaged your public reputation and set your union on a course of economic destruction by negotiating unsustainable labor agreements and by personally attacking anyone who questions what has occurred, whether firefighter or private citizen. The citizens of Omaha will not support a union that continues to operate in the manner your union leaders have operated in the past 10 years.

It is critical that your membership replace these individuals with leaders of high moral character and integrity. Otherwise, things will only get worse for your members because the public will no longer stand for what has been happening in our city. Business and community leaders will sooner or later demand massive restructuring of the city’s relationship with your union and the fire department.

Now is the time for you to have the courage to stand up for those who demonstrate disciplined behavior, honesty, integrity, adherence to the rules, reward for true performance, awarding of promotions according to true accomplishment rather than favoritism, and mutual respect for both taxpayers and city leaders. Now is the time to set your union on a course of long-term sustainability and prosperity, in part by retaining legal counsel who won’t drag your members into court, anytime, anywhere, knowing they can, because you will just cough up the money to pay the legal bill.

The citizens of Omaha really do want to hold you in the highest of esteem, and I am confident that community respect will return to your members if you show the resolve needed to replace these leaders with new leaders who know how to build relationships and form alliances–not only with politicians, but with the greater business and taxpaying community.

I and the members of my board are willing to meet with any group of firefighters who would like to learn more about our motives and efforts regarding your labor organization and the city of Omaha. We truly believe the bickering and fighting has got to come to an end. It is time for men and women of character within your union to rise up and begin healing the wounds created by this reckless group of individuals who I believe have used you and your union to advance themselves at the cost of the entire union and at the expense of the City of Omaha.

A new era of leadership is needed and now is the time for your members to set a new course for Local 385 and we would welcome any dialogue that you felt would be fruitful for all concerned.

Sincerely,

David Nabity

Chairman and President

Omaha Alliance for the Private Sector

OPD Compared To Pittsburgh Police Department

Tracie — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:13:04 +0000

OmahaAlliance.com readers: Notice that the early retirement “epidemic” plagues unwary cities who do not pay attention to the well-constructed labor trap of agreeing to these early retirements for police and fire personnel. Unfortunately, many cities, like Omaha under recent regimes, fell for these “sweetheart deals” during negotiations. The net result of these early retirements is the cost of astronomic pensions COUPLED with ineffective departments depleted of experienced rank and file AND leadership. This double whammy is cripling many cities’ budgets as well as their overall security. Who is going to right this course? See below.

Pittsburgh Police are Facing Void of Seasoned Leaders

By Margaret Harding

Former Pittsburgh police Sgt. Leo O’Neill is on the leading edge of what may be a wave of veteran cops — as well as some newcomers — leaving the city in large part for a brighter financial future.

O’Neill, who departed at age 47 in 2010 for the Allegheny County Sheriff’s Office after 22 years with the city, makes about $77,000 a year as a lieutenant, is accruing pension benefits with the county and plans to start cashing city pension checks when he turns 50 next year.

“When the opportunity presented itself, I couldn’t pass it up,” O’Neill said. “Once you hit your time on the job (and become fully vested in the pension), there’s not many incentives to stick around after that.”

With at least half of the city force becoming eligible to retire by 2013, and younger officers leaving, there’s concern among the police union and top brass about what the departures could do to the department in the next few years.

“Essentially, you’re going to have this mass retirement, and you’re not going to have enough veterans to replace them,” said Dan O’Hara, president of the Fraternal Order of Police Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1. “If you continue to lose the newer people, they never become the seasoned veterans. It’s going to be a young, inexperienced department if it continues on this path.”

In part, because of a surge in hiring between 1993 and 1995, about 500 officers will be eligible to leave with fully vested pensions by 2015, O’Hara said. The city had 877 police officers at the end of the year, and Pittsburgh police estimated about 400 are eligible to retire this year.

“These are our best people,” O’Hara said. “They’re seasoned veterans, and they’re leaving, and what it comes down to is there is no benefit to stay once they can vest their pension.”

In 2008, just four city officers left for other employment, according to a city termination report. In 2009, the number was eight. Since 2010, 22 officers have departed for other jobs, including Steve Mitrisin, a military veteran who left after about three years of work and joined Collier police, where first-year officers start at a salary $14,000 a year higher than Pittsburgh officers.

“Everybody wants to make good money and have a good retirement coming,” Mitrisin said. “That was my biggest reason — looking for a better life for my family and myself.”

The issue of officers leaving after 20 years of service is something of an epidemic for larger American cities, said Maki Haberfeld, chairwoman of The Department of Law, Police Science and Criminal Justice Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.

“Truly, at the 20th year, this is when they should be shifted to leadership and management positions,” Haberfeld said. “And instead they leave — and various supervisor positions are open to people with less experience. … If you don’t have experienced leadership, it can cause a host of problems — discipline, integrity, effective deployment — all things that police officers build in their experience over the years.”

In Omaha, a change in pension benefits led to a “mass exodus” of officers between 2008 and 2010, said Samuel Walker, a professor emeritus at the University of Nebraska at Omaha who studies police issues. The result has been a department void of experienced leaders, he said.

“There is a pattern of officer misconduct, and that’s, in part, a result of lack of experienced senior leadership,” Walker said. “It can very much erode the quality of policing.”

O’Neill, whose father and brother were city police officers, said he was happy with his time on the force. He worked in narcotics for nearly 20 years and left in 2010 as a sergeant in Zone 6 when he had the chance to become a lieutenant in the sheriff’s office.

“There never seems to be a light at the end of the tunnel with the city,” O’Neill said. “That always seems like the sentiment.”

From his post in the courthouse, he sees many of his former colleagues when they come to court.

“A lot of guys in my time frame are all taking tests and trying to get out,” O’Neill said. “There’s a ton of people looking.”

Pittsburgh police will increase recruitment and “strategically plan to lessen the impact on the police force of people who are retiring,” Chief Nate Harper said in a statement released by spokeswoman Diane Richard.

“There will always be a concern as we seek to train and maintain the best officers,” the statement said. “However, we cannot stop a member of the bureau from making personal choices that may dictate a better living situation for that officer and his/her families.”

Pittsburgh police officers make $40,896 in their first year, according to 2012 figures. Fourth-year officers get $58,419.

First-year sheriff’s deputies make $30,582 and top out at $69,670 after five years. Lieutenants get about $77,000. Sheriff William P. Mullen said about 400 people took the test to become sheriff’s deputies in December, and he estimated about 75 were Pittsburgh police officers.

Eighty people have applied for positions with Ross police, which held a test for prospective officers on Saturday. Nine of the 14 officers Ross police have hired since 2008 have Pittsburgh police experience, Ross Detective Brian Kohlhepp said. Ross officers start at $53,297 and top out at $76,139 after five years.

Eight of the 24 people whom Allegheny County police hired since 2008 were former Pittsburgh police officers, Superintendent Charles Moffatt said. The county does not recruit city officers; the job interest is there, Moffatt said. Starting salary for a county officer is about $46,000, but officers reach the top pay level of $69,975 after just 18 months of service.

“They’re well-trained,” Moffatt said of city officers. “They have actual street experience, and they can more or less hit the ground running after a short field training experience with us.”

Collier Township pays first-year officers about $54,900. They reach the top pay of $73,236 after five years on patrol. Mitrisin, who worked out of the Zone 2 station in the Hill District for about three years, said he tested with Cranberry, Ross and Collier police before taking the job in Collier.

“A lot of guys will tell you the city is the best place to work,” Mitrisin said. “They love the action. It just depends on the person. I got enough of it in Iraq. I didn’t hate it, but when you sit back and say you can make a lot more money in the suburbs and not deal with what you’re dealing with there, why not?”

It’s “Time” to Fix the Fire Department

Tracie — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 17:36:16 +0000

Mayor wants fingerprint time clocks at Cleveland firehouses

Move follows internal city audit that found some city firefighters collected pay for hours they didn’t work

By Dave Davis
The Plain Dealer

Expert Analysis

Clocking in: A sign of changing times
By Adam K. Thiel

While I think it is uncommon, although certainly not unheard of, for firefighters to formally clock in and clock out of the fire station, I wonder if this story is a sign of changing times (pun intended), or an isolated response to a local situation?

As you can see from the story, and perhaps contrary to what you might think, both labor and management agree on the proposal to install biometric timeclocks in Cleveland firehouses.

And why wouldn’t they?

Continue reading Clocking in: A sign of changing times

CLEVELAND — Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson is moving quickly to install time clocks that read fingerprints in all fire stations to ensure that firefighters are actually on the job on the days they are paid to be.

The move follows an internal city audit, released in mid-November, that found some city firefighters collected pay for hours they didn’t work, including one man who collected two years of pay while working a total of 11 days. Auditors also found that some firefighters failed to record sick time and violated the city’s bereavement policy.

Officials representing Cleveland Fire Fighters Local 93 said late Friday they support the city’s decision to install time clocks that read fingerprints.

“The city is still operating under archaic conditions,” said Joseph W. Diemert, a lawyer for the union. “To monitor — clock in and clock out — is something that the guys think is wonderful and a good thing to do.

“There are mix-ups and there are slip-ups,” Diemert added. “This is something that they could have done long before this and they don’t need union approval to do it.”

Jackson and Cleveland Finance Director Sharon Dumas met with Plain Dealer editors and reporters Friday to discuss the payroll abuses.

Dumas said the city is looking at a time clock system made by Kronos Inc. It’s expected to cost roughly $500,000 and could be installed by early next year, about the same time a second, more in-depth, audit of the Fire Department is out.

At the union, Diemert said firefighters are “100 percent” behind an audit, but would like to see it done by an outside group, such as state or federal officials. Diemert indicated that any problems that might have occurred were mistakes, not deliberate acts of wrongdoing, and he laid the problems squarely at the feet of City Hall, saying the administration’s mismanagement of the Fire Department was largely responsible.

“I’m disappointed that the mayor feels firefighters haven’t been team players,” he added.

Jackson acknowledged that fighting fires is a dangerous job, and that “some people do get hurt.” But he indicated that sick time, shift swaps and overtime had been abused.

The mayor was at times critical of firefighters as a group, saying they haven’t done enough to help the city through its budget shortfall after it lost $38 million in state funding. He added that the Fire Department busts its budget year after year, while other departments work with what they are given.

“How can I close up rec centers on Saturdays?” Jackson asked. “How can I do layoffs of police officers? How do I tell the lady who cleans our bathrooms… They’ve got a family, too.

“There’s no way in the world, with the problems that we have and the sacrifice that other employees have made, that I’m going to allow them to continue this behavior as if they don’t belong to this city,” he added. “That’s not going to happen.”

Jackson promised that those responsible for the abuses would be held accountable. He said administration officials review the Fire Department’s payroll data every two weeks, but have struggled to reform the system because union employees handle the scheduling and payroll in dozens of locations.

“It’s a controlled union shop,” said Jackson, noting that everyone except the top two officials are members.

Dumas said the Fire Department has already exhausted its overtime budget of $5.3 million with two pay periods to go. The department will end this year $1 million to $1.2 million over budget for overtime, she added.

Republished with permission from The Plain Dealer

LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT NEWS

Tracie — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 18:41:52 +0000

LECLAIR vs. NABITY
and OMAHAALLIANCE.COM SETTLE LAWSUIT

December 2, 2011

By now, news outlets have released information about the settlement reached in the above-captioned lawsuit. Below are various statements either entered into by the parties or released from party representatives. As usual, opponents of Dave Nabity and the OmahaAlliance.com accuse private citizens, like Dave Nabity and our organization, of having an “agenda” and being anti-union. WE DO HAVE AN AGENDA – it is to seek reform of our local government and weed out waste, inefficiency, and corruption.

That any public sector union or its supporters can complain or sue or malign that purpose IS THE WHOLE POINT and the reason we seek reform. It is undemocratic to silence objectors, especially those who speak out against any misuse or abuse of power. The Alliance stands for accountability, responsibility, transparency, and the proper use of authority in local government. Please read the following and make up your own mind. We include the deposition of the Fire Chief for the public’s edification. Once you have read it, decide for yourself if his description of how your tax dollars are accounted for in the Fire Department is what you would expect to satisfy accurate payroll records.

Release from Dave Nabity:

Memo to Omaha Alliance Members Regarding Settlement of Defamation Lawsuit

(Omaha, NE) As many of you may know, last year the President of the Firefighters Union filed a lawsuit against me and the Omaha Alliance for the Private Sector (OAPS) after I spoke out against the practices that were exposed when State Auditor Mike Foley investigated the fire department. The main issue regarded the misuse of “detached duty” service and the concerns that a select group of firefighters were not following the labor contract and not properly keeping track of their union hours. On November 29^th, 2011, both parties came to an agreement to settle the lawsuit and not proceed to trial. OAPS agreed to do so for he following reasons:

The OAPS board felt that even if we exposed all of the misdeeds that we believe are happening within the OFD, the Mayor has already shown that he is unwilling to fire anyone who is violating the labor contract or mismanaging the epartment. So, the time, energy, effort and cost would gain virtually nothing.
Our efforts and money would be better spent on working towards influencing the City Council to make sure the labor contract that is currently being negotiated is more comparable with what other cities have offered their firefighters.
We can also work to empower the City Council to demand strict compliance to the labor agreement, so that nobody, including the Chief, OFD employees, or union officers, can take liberties that needlessly cost the taxpayers.
On an individual note, I and many of my peers, believe that the best course of action is to spend our time and financial resources on finding “reform- minded” candidates to run for office in 2013 to replace those who have been willing to upport these horribly expensive labor contracts and department heads who run “fast and furious” with taxpayer resources.

Much of the decision to “settle” the lawsuit was driven by our insurance company. The law explicitly allows liability insurers to settle claims or lawsuits as the insurer “deems expedient.” Thus, if the insurer can pay less to settle a claim than it would cost in attorney fees to defend the case, the insurer can settle the lawsuit. Under no circumstance was I willing to step back from my initial statement and assessment of the situation. Today, I continue to believe that the taxpayers were being taken advantage of by the officers of the fire department and the union. When LeClair’s counsel indicated a willingness to settle the lawsuit without a retraction on my part, I instructed my attorney to proceed with settlement negotiations. We had the option of terminating our insurance coverage and proceeding to trial at our own expense, but it seemed foolish to spend between $25,000 and $50,000 on a trial and possible appeal when the facts of the case were not in dispute. The depositions of both LeClair and McDonnell clearly revealed the games that we believe they were playing to get around the labor contract. Just as I had been told, LeClair worked at the Union Hall on a daily basis and worked almost exclusively on union matters. Through an absurd reading of the labor contract, McDonnell did not require LeClair to account for activities that I believe any reasonable person would understand to be union activities. No trial was needed.

On the one hand, I was looking forward to the trial because we had a great group of witnesses that I am confident would have told the truth and exposed (in my opinion) how a few individuals have so taken advantage of the city that taxpayers have lost in excess of $10,000,000 over the last three years. On the other hand, even if we prove all of this, what changes? The mayor had his opportunity to show he was going to hold people accountable after the Auditor’s Report, and he didn’t. Therefore, the best strategy is to focus our time, effort and money on the future to make sure that Omaha is finally rid of individuals who take advantage of the city, waste significant amounts of money and cover for each other when a light begins to shine on their
activities.

We will be posting on our website the final documents from the suit. You will see, I made no apology and I strongly believe hat I stated was accurate. We will also be posting the actual depositions from both union President Steve Le Clair and Chief Mike McDonnell. You will be shocked at the way they have answered the questions and amazed at how little they can recall in one area and how much they remember of another. These depositions clearly show to me (in my opinion) that they took huge liberties with the labor contacts that no mayor or city council should allow and there should be significant consequences for the Chief for allowing this game to be played. The department has run over budget in the past by $5,000,000 a year and they have done very foolish things that have significantly cost the taxpayers.

It is time to move on from this battle and look toward the most important one, the 2013 elections.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions on these matters and thanks so much for being a part of our organization and roviding us support as we have worked to make Omaha a better managed city.

Sincerely,

David Nabity

Release from Attorney for Dave Nabity and OmahaAlliance.com:

Yesterday, David Nabity and Omaha Alliance for the Private Sector, Inc. settled their lawsuit with Steve LeClair. Attached are the relevant documents.

David Nabity did not apologize for the statements he made on KFAB and he did not retract them. There has been no admission of liability or damages, whatsoever. Neither David Nabity nor Omaha Alliance will pay a single dime to Steve LeClair.
Omaha Alliance’s liability insurer, Great American Insurance Company, made a business decision that it was in the insurance company’s best interest to pay the minimal sum of $9,000.00 as opposed to paying legal fees for a weeklong trial. Right before trial, Steve LeClair was willing to settle his lawsuit for a fraction of what he had paid in attorney’s fees over the last year but he no longer demanded an apology or retraction or public vindication. Up to that point, the insurance company could not compel
Nabity or Omaha Alliance to apologize or retract the statement and would have paid for trial. Until Nebraska enacts some type of loser-pay lawsuit reform, plaintiffs’ attorneys can continue to collect from insurance companies without having to set foot in court and individuals will continue to have money paid on their behalf without having an opportunity to contest liability.

Regards,

Joshua W. Weir
Dornan, Lustgarten & Troia, PC, LLO.

1403 Farnam Street, Suite 232
Omaha, NE 68102

Ph: (402) 884-7044
Fax: (402) 884-7045

Other statements, releases, and depositions on the matter:

Nabity Joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice (2).pdf

Release and Settlement Agreement.pdf

Jointstatement.pdf

Final McDonnell Deposition.pdf

Affidavit of McDonnell

LeClairDeposition.pdf

Be Careful What You Ask For

Tracie — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:51:49 +0000

Be Careful What You Ask For

By Tristan Bonn

Maybe this happens to you: in the morning, I pick up the paper to read and on one side of the page some state or local agency is asking for money – to improve security, or hire more workers, or build a new building or what have you. On the opposite column, that same agency has just given away some enormous amount of money to its employees in benefits I have never even heard of, let alone ever received myself. Okay, maybe that is a slight exaggeration, but not by much! I know this is beginning to sound like a broken record, but just look at the facts or at the very least, look at what the paper is reporting. Here are three more examples of gross waste and mismanagement.

The Millard School District received and is still receiving quite a bit of negative feedback and consternation over a
requested $140.8 million bond they say they need to improve security and put astro-turf on their football fields, among other items. Ballots have gone out and the vote is scheduled in the next days. In Sunday’s Omaha World-Herald, we learned that Millard has or will pay out $24 million in bonuses to teachers who retired over the past 4 years. One teacher will retire at 55 to a nice pension and a quarter a million dollar bonus!! The District justifies this expense as needed to retain good teachers. “School Buyouts Become Bonuses” http://www.omaha.com/article/20111106/NEWS01/711069911

I don’t get it – I thought districts and teachers’ unions told us it is not their fault schools are failing – it is the
parents’ fault. So, why do we need to retain teachers by paying them a bonus? And, isn’t it their job to successfully teach kids – I mean isn’t that what their regular pay is for? How about using the retirement bonuses for school security and astro-turf and give us taxpayers a break?

And, what about the Learning Community? Why is there a tax levy anyway? If you add the amount of retirement
“bonus” pay given out by 8 of the Learning Community’s districts, the total is $65.5 million in retirement bonuses! Then, you throw in superintendent pay – starting with John Mackiel’s $400,000 (can’t wait to see his “bonus”) – and that’s another $2.5 or so and that’s ALMOST 70 MILLION DOLLARS for retirement bonuses for schoolteachers in Omaha, Nebraska – touted as an inexpensive place to live. Wow. Maybe we should have an “Occupy the Learning Community” protest and sit in. “Retirement Buyouts” http://www.omaha.com/article/20111106/NEWS01/711069887

But, the school districts are not alone. The beleaguered Department of Health and Human Services is another reliable actor in the continuing bilking of taxpayers in this state. Just as we are still reeling from the new heinous patient abuse charges that date back to 1974!!, we learn that HHS did not protect itself (meaning taxpayers) in the event it could not perform under the terms of a contract with the private provider Mosaic. While removing patients from Beatrice is long overdue, HHS did not vet its client list to see if there were enough patients to fill the contract beds it bargained for. As a result, HHS is gushing even more taxpayer money – $1.3M since April 2010 for empty beds, not to mention the $25M per year lost while Medicaid payments were withheld pending non-compliance. As for the empty beds, the HHS director can only offer that they will “fill eventually.” “State Pays as Beds Stay Empty’” http://www.omaha.com/article/20111030/NEWS01/710309961

And we cannot overlook the Omaha Police Department, who would like a $50M new police headquarters. I can’t blame them for asking for a new building – they need one – the one they are in is horrible and asbestos filled. They also need a real training budget, a new fleet of vehicles, another hundred officers and some serious technology upgrades, as well. But, they cannot get any of it. Why not? No money. “4 Options, No Funds for HQ” http://www.omaha.com/article/20111107/NEWS01/711079889

But, before you feel too sorry for the police department, remember this is the same department, through their union, that negotiated and took retirements at 46 years of age, spiked their overtime, vacation pay, and got, in some cases over a $100,000 in “unused sick pay” – was that another retirement bonus? So, OPD got the money they asked for, they just put it in their own pockets instead of into the department.

The saddest thing about all of this is, not the poor employees, not the dilapidation of buildings, not the enormous injustice to taxpayers, but the people who were supposed to be served by those dollars: the disabled at Beatrice, the kids in our schools, the victims of crimes. So, the next time you go asking for more money, remember who it is really for.

While you are at it – check out this editorial by Ross Douthart, “Political Fights Weaken Middle Class,” Omaha World Herald, 11/9/2011: http://www.omaha.com/article/20111109/NEWS0802/711099954/-1#ross-douthat-political-fights-weaken-middle-class

THE TIME FOR CHANGE IS NOW

Tracie — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:08:23 +0000

The Time for Change Is Now

By Tristan Bonn

Even if you are not a “watchdog,” in fact, if you are just “watching,” the recent local headlines about state and local governmental agencies is, well, just appalling. Glance at most any news report in the past six weeks or so and you would discover the following:

- After years of lost federal funding and a federal consent decree – the Beatrice State Developmental Center is investigating new allegations of patient abuse, “Bruises Spur Beatrice Center Probe” OWH 9/9/11; and “Beatrice Center Staffers Accused of Abuse,” wherein, Jodi Fenner, director of the Division of Developmental Disabilities for HHS “described the alleged abuse as systematic and borderline sadistic,” OWH 10/6/11;

- HHS may have to find yet another new director to usher it through a failing privatization effort that was attempted to fix a broken state run system, ”Child-Welfare Benchmarks Sought,” wherein, Carol Stitt, director of the Nebraska Foster Care Review Board, “said the auditor’s report was another illustration of the ‘dysfunction’ in the [HHS] reform effort,” OWH 9/11/11;

- OPS, the largest school district in the state, received the worst test scores in 18 years, “Put Academics Above Board at OPS” OWH Editorial 9/25/11; and its controversial and highly-paid superintendent is retiring, “National Search for Mackiel Replacement” OWH 8/17/11; a freshman school board member asked to see an OPS organizational chart and was, well, gleefully refused by the school board president, “OPS Rift: Dispute Over Control” OWH 9/18/11;

- The public learned that Firehouse 56 was described as a “party house” during a 2003 investigation where 4 firefighters confessed to misconduct, which was never disclosed to the public, “Firehouse Called Party House” OWH 9/10/11;

- The Learning Community’s shared levies have been ruled unlawful, “Learning Community Seeks Stay” OWH 9/27/11; parents are incensed about a “truancy” program, which has morphed into an invasive absenteeism check, “Parents Chafe at Truancy Oversight” OWH 10/2/11;

- OPD faces excessive force claims and questions about its lack of training and supervision, “UNO Expert: Officer Should be Fired” OWH 8/31/11;

- The City, forever financially strapped, paid out well over a half million dollars “unused sick pay” to five high ranking police and fire officers per another excessive union contract term that has taxpayers fuming, “Review City Pay Perks” OWH 9/25/11.

Sadly, this is a mere fraction of the bad news just in the past FEW WEEKS! If we can agree with the many experts cited in these accounts that these systems are broken, and I think most people would, then can’t we move quickly to find real solutions? I think it is fair to say that the people working in these systems have fundamentally failed to achieve their objectives. Either, we have a completely incompetent workforce, and most would agree we do not, OR we have a serious structural problem.

What we hear from most of these agencies is that they do not have enough money to do their job. But, the truth is – there is NO MORE money – taxpayers in this state are soaked. They pay so much in taxes and they get so little in services. While nearly every one of these agencies is operated by a union workforce, they almost never have a solution to help fix their troubled departments. Yet, every new contract negotiation spirals up the union demanded employee costs to run these failing systems! With 60 – 90% of general fund monies going to personnel costs alone, there is no money to actually operate these systems – forget about reforming them. In fact, increasingly, taxpayers are eyeing the pay, pensions, and benefits of public sector employees – many of which far exceed their own – and are furious at government workers’ constant demands.

To add insult to injury, these workers are exempted out of the federal pension plan: Social Security. Their retirements are guaranteed unwittingly by taxpayers. So, just when Social Security is about to go bankrupt and all of us will be without or with much less, as taxpayers – we are STILL on the hook for public sector pensions. How can that be? “Well, we have a contract,” public sector workers say. But, what about the very first contract – the mother of all contracts – the promise of fair-dealing between a government and its citizens. Why doesn’t that agreement trump all other agreements?

Still, most union leaders, and many members, just don’t seem to think that these failures or problems are their problem. Public sector unions, despite all the warnings opposing their creation, even from FDR himself, figure they won the fight to unionize long ago. They don’t have to worry about where the money comes from. Not enough? Too bad. And, THAT IS JUST THE WAY IT IS. Unions have painstakingly created a byzantine box, which no taxpayer can now escape. For crying out loud, the Omaha Fire Department is arguing that legislative oversight of the contract bargaining process, in short, DEMOCRACY, is “bad faith,” “Fire Union Sues City” KETV 9/11/11. Union contracts trump the Constitution? This is just plain nonsense.

So, while it is not union-bashing per se that most people espouse, it is union structures, contracts, and actions in fact that have so many taxpayers so enraged. Look, unions could make many, many concessions that would help cities and taxpayers make it through these tough times, and perhaps allow unions to survive, but they just won’t. The “concessions” they offer are so minute in the grand scheme of things that it is impossible to believe they want to work anything out with taxpayers – their only source of revenue. So, what choices are taxpayers left? Well . . . here are some suggestions:

- Start a petition to put an end to collective bargaining on the state ballot. This would cost $1 -2 million and would be opposed by NSEA and all other unions, a scenario like Wisconsin;

- End defined benefits and change to defined contributions. Well, Omaha should have done that back in 1984, when everyone else did, because we don’t have the money now to pay off the current obligation;

- Try the “new” CIR and bargain “incrementally.” Again, this would take YEARS to realize any significant changes;

- Have the City of Omaha file for bankruptcy and modify or discharge union contracts and pensions. Expensive,
complicated, and lots of unintended consequences;

- Get rid of the CIR altogether and force Omaha to deal with its unions, after all, Omaha is the problem, not the rest of the state. This would allow the City to make a last best offer and bargaining would halt. If anyone – public or union – didn’t like it, then change would occur at the ballot box, not the CIR.

The only possible choice worth pursuing, in my estimation, is the last one – abandon the CIR. It doesn’t work and it cannot be fixed (like the Beatrice Center and OPS, it is simply time to admit defeat and rid this community and state of failing systems). In this scenario, unions retain their right to bargain, but a jurisdiction, like Omaha, is not forced to compete with out of state jurisdictions that don’t reflect the standards of this community. Also, this approach will force more local control and more participation in elections, rather than let a tribunal decide what our elected officials should. Citizens need to actively and relentlessly contact their state legislators to make this happen. We must act now or be doomed to this slow economic death at the hands of out-of-control public sector unions. Many states have made these kinds of dramatic changes already. While Wisconsin has been the most contentious, Oklahoma and Tennessee have legislatively prohibited collective bargaining for public sector unions, Indiana has by executive order and Ohio will vote by ballot soon, “Labor Unions Adjust to New Reality Under Obama” OWH 9/4/11.

Speaking of other communities, Omaha, and every other community, is in competition for jobs, new people, and new businesses. While Omaha’s steady and surefooted economy has helped this community weather this recession better than many other communities, we still have some serious deficiencies that were commented on by recent site locators and journalists visiting our city. Our infrastructure, roads, sewers, etc. are dated. Stick around long enough and you will find many city services wanting, OPS is a failed school system, and our police and fire union contracts are exorbitant. All of these problems are exacerbated or created by the constant budget drain of filling outrageous union contract demands. None of these problems will change on their own – we must take action.

The most recent Census Reports also confirm these trends, “Shift to Outskirts Surprises Cities,” OWH 3/2/11. People are moving to where the jobs are – away from top-heavy, expensive labor contract cities and states and to right-to-work cities and states. And, why wouldn’t they? Even many of our police and fire personnel live outside of Omaha to escape the heavy burden their contracts cost those of us who stay. Let’s stop pushing this problem down the road. Let’s act now to fix this. The Alliance is forming taxpayer, business owners, and concerned citizen action groups and committees to cause these changes to happen now – later is just too late. Please join us.

Omaha Alliance

The Alliance Touts “Focused Deterrence” as Gun Violence Solution

Beyond Stop-and-Frisk

By JAMES FORMAN Jr. and TREVOR STUTZ

Published: April 19, 2012

STATES AROUND THE COUNTRY GRAPPLING WITH PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PENSION SHORTFALLS

MORE PENSION NEWS

TUA Receives Excellent Press Coverage With Release of New York Pension Info

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 29, 2012

Contact: Christina Tobin (312) 320-4101 or (312) 427-5128

Tobin, who toured through New York state revealing top government pension estimates to the public, received coverge from Metro New York, TimesUnion.com, and Capitol Confidential. Of particular note was the following story from reporter January Keaton at ABC 10 News.

TUA will be revealing more States pensions across the nation, including those of Colorado and Minnesota in the coming weeks.

For more information, visit http://www.taxpayersunited.org.

THE ALLIANCE RESPONDS TO LANDOW/EBDON OP-ED

An Open Letter to members of the Local 385 Omaha Firefighters Union

OPD Compared To Pittsburgh Police Department

It’s “Time” to Fix the Fire Department

Mayor wants fingerprint time clocks at Cleveland firehouses

Move follows internal city audit that found some city firefighters collected pay for hours they didn’t work

Expert Analysis

LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT NEWS

Be Careful What You Ask For

THE TIME FOR CHANGE IS NOW

TUA Receives Excellent Press Coverage
With Release of New York Pension Info

FOR IMMEDIATE
RELEASE