"The proper standard" was an unsigned editorial posted in the Omaha World-Herald on 03-23-2008
Response to Proper Standard
The Omaha World-Herald said that a recall should only be done against an individual if the recall meets a "responsible, common-sense standard." then they went on to explain their opinion of what such a standard would entail:
"...only for malfeasance, incompetence, or misdeeds that go well beyond normal disputes over policy."
This reasoning is wrong for several reasons.
The very notion of "common sense" is nebulous--at best. It implies that a group of people will look at a given set of circumstances, and most (if not all) of them will come to the same immediate conclusion. How often does that happen? If this were so simple, why are political races often as contentious as they are? The concept of "common sense" requires common experiences and education within a group of people, but it also requires all those in the group to use the same value systems when making decisions.
This means that a group of lawyers will have no "common sense" when it comes to electrical engineering issues. (They have the wrong educational background to be able to have anything even remotely like "common sense" in the field.)
It also means that a group of people who’ve lived their entire lives under totalitarian rule or in a third-world backwoods tribe will have no "common sense" when it comes to issues related to democratic processes. (They have experience backgrounds that will not apply very well to democratic processes.)
And it means that there will be no "common sense" exhibited in a group comprising law-abiding citizens and criminals regarding right and wrong. (They have differences in their value systems.)
So the term "common sense" is a catch-all term used by people who are either unwilling (or unable) to make a real argument for their position.
But there’s an even more fundamental flaw in the World-Herald's position. It completely ignores Nebraska State Statutes that govern recall of elected officials. State law is what governs what Omaha citizens can and cannot do regarding recalls of elected officials–not the wishes of World-Herald editors and management. And that law places NO specific requirement on the reason for a recall. That is exactly as it should be.
Society’s values and mores change over time, and society’s laws change in response to those changes in what society is willing to accept as right or wrong. But those changes in law always lag behind the societal values' changes–often by many years. This can be seen historically in slavery (and its eventual abolition), women’s rights, and civil rights in general.
To require any kind of basis in currently-existing law for the recall of an elected official, is to disallow removal of public officials based on changes in societal values until the law finally catches up with those new values. There was a prime example of that in Madison, Wisconsin in 1977.
In 1976 a 16-year-old girl was raped at Madison West Senior High School. In his comments justifying his sentencing of one of the defendants, Dane County Circuit Judge Archie Simonson said [the boys were] "reacting normally to prevalent sexual permissiveness and to women's provocative clothing... Should we punish a 15- or 16-year-old boy who reacts normally to it?"
The girl was wearing blue jeans, a turtleneck sweater, and sneakers.
There was a public outrage about the judge’s comments. He was recalled in September of 1977.
Had that judge broken any then-existing laws? No.
Had that judge committed malfeasance? No.
Had that judge been incompetent (according to then-existing laws and precedents)? No.
Did his "misdeed" go "well beyond normal disputes over policy"? No.
Judge Simonson was recalled because of his attitude, as indicated by what he had said, and he could not have been recalled if the World-Herald's standards had been forced onto the people of Dane County (Wisconsin), but most of us today would agree that his recall was the appropriate response to his attitude as reflected by his comments.
The World-Herald's "proper standards" for a recall are as inane now as they would have been had they been raised in 1977 in Judge Simonson’s defense.
Another part of the World-Herald's "proper standard" is "misdeeds that go well beyond normal disputes over policy." In other words, the World-Herald is saying that no "policy" decision by the Mayor should ever used as a basis for his (or her) recall. But let’s examine that part of their "standard."
What if the Mayor decided that no automobiles except Fords or Toyotas were to be allowed downtown in the area bounded by Pacific, 30th, and Burt streets, and the river?
That would be "just a policy" decision.
Would that be something we could recall a mayor for?
Apparently not according to the World Herald’s "proper standard."
What if the Mayor decided to raise property tax rates by 50 percent.
That would be "just a policy" decision.
Would that be cause-enough for the public to demand a recall?
Apparently not according to the World Herald’s "proper standard."
So in light of the fact that the World-Herald has been largely supporting the Mayor's NoDo stadium plan, the World-Herald has a very interesting (and not slightly self-serving) idea of what restrictions should be placed on the citizens of Omaha in doing a recall on their Mayor.
Whether by design or chance, the Legislature did craft a fundamentally sound set of recall statutes. And the citizens of Omaha should be thanking their lucky stars that the World-Herald is not controlling things like that for them.
–Greg Lyons
04-27-2008
