Will Davis Get Rid of Its Ombudsman?

Remember, the firefighters pumped in $30,000 into the last campaign to reelection Councilmembers Don Saylor and Stephen Souza.

In the third tier, they would cut the position by two-thirds.

In effect, even the first tier would be castrophic to the position as it is likely that Mr. Aaronson would resign at that point.  Is that what the city wants?

At the meeting on Tuesday, Mayor Ruth Asmundson suggested that she believes that the city could find someone else that could do the job for more hours and for less.  With all due respect–that is just ludicrous.

There are not many qualified people that can be a qualified investigator that have the experience and expertise to do this job.  Mr. Aaronson has for the most part not only performed his job over two years, he has done it well.

He arrived in late 2006 to a fractured and disharmonious police department that was coming off a highly contentious and polarized year with some in the public.  The well publicized Buzayan case among others convinced a skeptical council that they needed to make some changes to regain the trust of some in the public.

And although it did not go as far as some in the community, myself included, wanted, it was a step in the right direction.

To illustrate that point, Police Chief Landy Black told the Vanguard that while he believes his department is honorable and above the board, he views the Ombudsman as a crucial tool to help improve communication with the public and enable many in the public to have confidence in the operations of the police department.

He has strongly recommended retaining Mr. Aaronson as the Ombudsman.

Unfortunately Mr. Aaronson became it seems a controversial figure in the city during his pursuit of the Grand Jury investigation into the fire department.  There is an overwhelming sense that Mr. Aaronson’s performance at the January 13 City Council meeting where he seemed to contradict the City Manager in his assessment of the City Manager’s depiction of his report, may have created conflict with City Hall.

Mr. Emlen could not have been happy that Mr. Aaronson nearly torpedoed Mr. Emlen’s attempts to paper over the severity of the Grand Jury incident.

The fire department threw all of their political weight against the release of this report as it would have been extremely damaging to them.  They used their political capital and influence to move against Mr. Aaronson.  The City Manager has apparently capitulated in this battle.

However, they could not simply remove Mr. Aaronson as that would create an appearance of impropriety.  So they have used the budget crisis as their rationale to insulate themselves and give their scheme plausible deniability.

But there can be no doubt that the reason for this action is retribution for Mr. Aaronson not being the team player that they had hoped.  Mr. Aaronson conducted a forthright and honest investigation and clearly found elements within the fire department that those in charge of City Hall would prefer to have kept hidden.

There is little doubt that the City Manager will respond that this is simply one idea among many.  That we are in the position that we have to cut the budget, and that means we will have to at least consider getting rid of programs that we might like during better economic times, but perhaps cannot afford right now.

Sadly, Mayor Ruth Asmundson has in the past expressed apprehension at the operations of the fire department–believing that their finances have gotten out of control.  And yet she is going to clear the way for the fire department to get rid of one of their chief nemeses. 

She somehow believes that we can get the same service for less.  What she failed to really understand is that the only reason we are paying as little as we have is that the Ombudsman himself has undercharged the city for the routine work he does.

But even more than that, Aaronson just completed a lengthy investigation that cost the city $35,000, and that is again under-charging the city.  To do a thorough and complete investigation, one of these would probably cost $100,000.  How is the city going to pay less than $60,000 to a professional investigator that can have the respect and support of the department he oversees?

The bottom line here is that the city is threatening to put us right back where we were in April of 2006 with the residents polarized and tensions high.  We need to stop and think before we do something rash.  Things have improved greatly.  Part of the reason for that is the new Police Chief is not instigating trouble like the previous one.  But another key component is that Mr. Aaronson and the office of the Ombudsman serves as a key buffer and indeed liaison between the police department and segments of the community.  If we eliminate that, who knows what the result will be.

The bottom line here is that the city better get some introspection quickly and figure out their motivations here, because they are doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.

—David M. Greenwald reporting