## Facts

- The Omaha City Council adopted an ordinance codified at Omaha Municipal Code § 25-9 creating the office of a public safety auditor to review citizen complaints against Omaha police officers and firefighters.
- The ordinance stated the auditor “shall be appropriated funds in the normal city budgeting process similar to other city departments” and included within police and fire department budgets.
- Omaha had not employed a public safety auditor since November 2006 and did not appropriate funds for the auditor position in the 2008 budget.
- Two Omaha residents and taxpayers sought a writ of mandamus to compel the City Council to appropriate funds and employ an auditor as allegedly required by § 25-9.
- The district court denied relief after issuing an alternative writ, concluding the relators lacked standing and that § 25-9 did not impose a ministerial duty enforceable by mandamus.

## Issues

1. Whether the relators, as citizens and taxpayers, had standing to seek mandamus to compel funding and employment of a public safety auditor.
2. Whether Omaha Municipal Code § 25-9 imposed a purely ministerial duty on the City Council to appropriate funds for and employ a public safety auditor, such that mandamus would lie.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the denial of mandamus.
- The court held the relators failed to show a clear legal right to the requested relief.
- The court concluded § 25-9 did not impose a purely ministerial duty to fund and employ an auditor; appropriation decisions occur within a legislative budgeting process involving discretion.
- Because mandamus cannot control legislative discretion and no clear duty existed, mandamus relief was unavailable, regardless of standing.

## Legal Principles

- Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when (1) the relator has a clear legal right, (2) the respondent has a corresponding clear duty to act, and (3) no adequate legal remedy exists.
- A ministerial duty is one performed in a prescribed manner under legal mandate, without the officer’s judgment as to whether or how to act.
- Mandamus does not lie to control or review discretionary legislative or quasi-legislative functions, including budgetary appropriations.
- Ordinance language using “shall” does not necessarily create an enforceable ministerial duty when the provision operates within a discretionary budgeting framework.
- Standing for mandamus requires more than a generalized citizen or taxpayer interest; the relator must show a legally protectable interest and personal stake tied to a clear legal right.

## Conclusion

The court refused to compel the Omaha City Council to fund and staff the public safety auditor because the ordinance placed funding decisions within the discretionary city budgeting process, leaving no ministerial duty and no clear legal right enforceable by mandamus.


State ex rel. Parks v. Council of the City of Omaha, 277 Neb. 919, 766 N.W.2d 134 (Neb. 2009)