Omaha voters will decide on mayor’s out-of-town powers after council reverses course | Politics & Government

The amendment would allow the mayor to remain in power while traveling outside city limits.

The proposal made by Mayor Jean Stothert and approved by members of the City’s Charter Convention wasn’t originally going to be considered by council members for this election cycle.

But Councilman Vinny Palermo moved to include it in Tuesday’s considerations.

“We have certainly heard loud and clear from constituents on how they feel about this and I know that the mayor wanted this to be discussed,” Palermo said.

While Palermo succeeded in bringing the proposed amendment up for consideration, he ultimately voted against putting it before voters. Council members Juanita Johnson and Pete Festersen also voted no.

Council members Aimee Melton, Danny Begley, Brinker Harding and Don Rowe voted to move the amendment forward — meaning the final decision will ultimately be up to voters.

The proposed amendment has prompted a debate on the capabilities and limits of new technology, whether Omaha needs a clear line of mayoral responsibility in times of emergency and highlighted the amount of time Stothert has spent outside the city in recent months.

Currently, the charter requires the City Council president to serve as acting mayor whenever the mayor leaves Omaha.

The change would allow the mayor to remain in power while traveling for up to five days. In cases of an emergency, an acting mayor could step in — but only when the mayor is unavailable by phone for two hours or more.

Meanwhile, council members tabled a separate proposed charter amendment that would have added sexual orientation and gender identities as protected civil rights categories.

Melton and Harding suggested holding off on the proposal until the May 2024 election so the amendment’s language could be reviewed and potentially added to.

“This amendment, which is important and should be acted on at some point, was brought up to the Charter Convention basically at the 11th hour with little discussion,” Harding said.

The decision to hold off on placing the amendment on November’s ballot was unanimously supported by council members and by City Attorney Matt Kuhse.

A layover of the amendment would give the council and city law department time to “craft the charter amendment at its optimal form and also to work on any ordinances that might be affected,” Kuhse said.

Proposals that will be moving forward for voter consideration include:

»An addition that clarifies the line of succession if both the City Council president and vice president are out of the city or unable to preside over council meetings or serve as acting mayor. Succession would go to the longest-serving council member.

»An exception, in the case of a state or federal emergency, to the requirement that the City Council meet at least twice a month.

»A change that would require public notice of initiative petitions to be published in a designated daily newspaper, rather than each of the daily newspapers in the city.

»An increase in the maximum amount of money in the cash reserve to 12% of general appropriations, rather than 8%.

»An increase from $20,000 to $50,000 in the purchasing procedures that require advertisements for sealed, competitive bids.

»An increase in contract amounts that require City Council approval from $20,000 to $50,000.

»The addition of affordable housing and sustainable development as elements of the city’s master plan.

»The deletion of a current requirement that a medical panel must convene to determine the mayor’s ability to serve in the case of a disability.

Those 10 are fewer than the 24 amendments approved by the recently completed city charter convention, which is formed about every 10 years to review and suggest changes to the charter. The convention is made up of members appointed by the mayor and City Council.

The City Council Legislative Affairs Committee narrowed the list of proposed amendments from 24 to 10, arguing that amending all 24 charter sections this November would not be “a manageable number for voters or the Douglas County Election Commission.”