Chief Theetge investigation report

It is too bad that this “investigation” involving Chief Theetge is such a serious matter and that the city has allowed what looks like a management problem to be handled (or mishandled) in such a public way.

I am not going to criticize the attorneys who carried out the investigation except to say that they do not appear to have spent much time around the police and the “police culture.”  Despite that,  there is no benchmarking in the report to indicate that the culture they found in the CPD is any different than other police departments. Nor is there any other context about city politics provided by the report.

Who knew that cops complain about their bosses? Or that policing is characterized by a command and control culture? Nowadays, the issue is not whether police departments have a culture of command and control but rather, “is the command and control excessive?” The report does not seem to make that case.

The report uses the word “believes” and its various iterations, between at least 40 and 50 times in a 9 page memo.  Throughout the memo, the investigators report that, “the witness believes,” “many witnesses believe”, “some witnesses believe,” a majority of witnesses believe,” etc.

Usually investigative reports use terms such as “we found,” or “our findings show,” etc. The report draws conclusions, but the conclusions are based strictly on perceptions.

As a result, the city has been provided what is referred to as a “perception-based” investigation, not evidence-based.  In other words, the report is a (very expensive) cultural assessment for which the city already knew the results.

Unfortunately, for the mayor and city manager, unpopular ≠ ineffective. There is zero data in the report concerning Chief Theetge’s alleged ineffectiveness. With respect to the brawl on 4^th street, the report comes across as finger pointing.

One reported “belief,” shared by “many” concerned a claim of nepotism because a nephew of Chief Theetge, who was already on the force and had recently obtained his law license, was promoted, or assigned, by  Chief Theetge as the CPD’s legal liaison. But the investigators made no finding as to whether the situation constituted nepotism or not. Nepotism, in many cases, is not clear cut when the evidence is applied against the rule.  The report makes no finding either way.

There must be a full report beyond the 9-page memo, including whatever evidence the law firm gathered. At a minimum there should be transcripts of the interviews conducted by the law firm. But the public will likely not get access to those records until the matter has been finally adjudicated.

For those who are predicting that this matter will result in a law suit against the city, that the city will lose, I think they are right.

Most Frequently Funded External Recipients 3.8.26

For the past 7 -10 years, Cincinnati  has steadily outsourced city functions to nonprofit organizations. Since 2020, the city’s budget has evolved to include tables in the annual budget for “Leveraged Support,” “Funding for Competitive Grant Programs,” and “City Operations Programmatic Support and Recipients.”

These categories represent funding for external organizations to carry out governmental functions.  This is not a slight against nonprofit organizations. But this outsourcing makes it much more difficult for taxpayers to know what is happening with public funds. i.e., transparency and accountability.

We have developed a data base of funding for those three categories of external support based on city budget documents for the period 2020 to 2026.

The first thing you notice is that many of the same organizations receive funding every year. Meaning: the process is not a true competition and more significantly, these organizations are essentially part of the city government without the transparency and accountability.

The link above will take yo to the list of “Most Frequently Funded Recipients.” We will be posting additional analysis that could be of interest.

Episode 41 of “Citizen Watchdog with Todd Zinser,” discusses the increase in the property tax milage rate approved by the city council in 2022, just in time to maximize the tax revenues anticipated from the reassessment of property values hitting homeowners at the time.  The council raised the rate to the maximum 6.1% and it has remained there since.

In putting Episode 41 together, I came across a motion submitted by Mayor Pureval on December 14, 2022, indicating how he intended to spend the increased tax revenues. The motion is posted below. I annotated the Mayor’s motion to show how his proposed spending ties directly back to the tax increase.

The motion also required a report from the Administration “on detailed funding and implementation of these programs before April 15, 2023.”  (4 months to get it done)

On January 7, 2026, I submitted a records request for the report. Today, (2.11.26) the city responded indicating that no report was ever submitted to council.  That has happened before on other reports, like the justification for closing CPD District 5.

The problem is that the council’s request is actually a request on behalf of the council’s constituents. It is just ignored and the council does not bother to follow up. It gives the impression that these types of request are just made for show.

Also, ICYMI, the Mayor and council missed the deadline for certifying a tax increase measure for the May 5^th ballot. The deadline was February 4^th.

Center Hill Landfill presentation

Center Hill Transmittal, city manager 

The city council is fixin to approve $12 million at tomorrow’s meeting (1.22.26) for another solar energy project.  Remember, the city already has the New Market solar farm. The location for this new project is the Center Hill landfill.

I’m still trying to gather information about what the city council is doing except it doesn’t seem that they’ve made a very good business case for spending $12 million.  By their own admission, it is all about the Green Cincinnati Plan and achieving “carbon neutrality” by 2050. Some, including me, call that a colossal waste of money.

We need to know what due diligence, if any, was carried out by the city council.  For example, good luck trying to find out performance or financial information about the city’s existing solar farm.  How is that working out? Is it performing as projected? Shouldn’t that part of the city council’s due diligence.

Twelve million dollars could cover a lot of neighborhood quality of life needs, maintenance and upgrade of public housing for seniors, food delivery programs. Or greater financial support for the pension system for city employees that is $800 million in the hole.  It just does not make sense to me.

We are looking into Cincinnati’s use of State & Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, which were the pandemic relief funds specifically directed to local governments

Most people are probably under the impression that the “COVID money” for cities were intended to help the cities just “keep the lights on.”  That is not the case.

The Treasury Department used a formula to determine what cities received, not a calculation of a city’s fiscal needs.  As a result, during the COVID years, Cincinnati received more than $150 million in discretionary funds to spend within very loose eligibility requirements.

This is Cincinnati’s original 2021 plan for the COVID money. A records request has been submitted for a more detailed accounting of how those funds were used.

Funding Priorities for Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund 3.24.21

Funding Priorities for Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund Attachment reconciliation highlighted

Funding Priorities for Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund 4.8.21