Where Does the Chief Washington Case Stand? (8.25.26)

/in

Annotated Outline of District Court Summary-Judgment Decision dtd

Washington_Case_Where_It_Stands_REVISED dtd

Washington_Charge_1_Chronology_Table dtd

Washington-v.-City-of-Cincinnati_-2025-U.S.-Dist.-LEXIS

Washington-v.-Cincinnati-Appeals-Court-8.13.26

 

I have found that not only is the Chief Washington case very important for Chief Washington and for the City,  but it is also very complicated.

Now that the 6th Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals has remanded the case back to the U.S. District Court, I wanted to know exactly what that means and where the case stands.

What I found is that former Chief Washington won a significant ruling that City Manager Long violated his Constitutional rights in this process, but now the District Court will determine whether or not the city even had “cause” to fire him in the first place.

I created 2 tables, with the help of AI. One is a timeline about the Women Helping Women (WHW) “training” program, which played a  central role in the City Manager’s case against Chief Washington. I have raised questions as to whether the City Manager “weaponized” WHW against Chief Washington.

The other table shows where the case stands for each of the issues being litigated. The column on the left, represents the outline of the same structure used by the District Court in their August 2025 decision. The middle and right columns show the status and significance.

The third analysis is a more detailed explanation of the status of rhe case.

I have reviewed the District Court and Appellate decisions, and I found that the tables and more detailed explanation are accurate.

Did the City Manager Weaponize ‘Women Helping Women’ Training in the Chief Washington Matter?

/in

FYI memo 3.24.23 Chief Washington

FYI Memo 3.24.23 attachment Chief Washington

Fired chief allowed ‘boys club mentality’ at fire department, Cincinnati Enquirer, March 26, 2023 annotated

Lawsuit Pureval, Long conspired to fire Washington April 27 2023 annotated

City payments to Women Helping Women 2022-2026

WHW President Compensation 2019 – 2025

 

If you go back and look at news reports about City Manager Sheryl Long’s firing of Chief Washington, there is an “Evaluation Report,” by  Cincinnati Non-profit organization, “Women Helping Women,” that apparently played a central role in the City Manager’s decision to fire the Chief.

In a memo dated March 24, 2023, the City Manager  informed the City Council of her termination of Chief Washington. Attached to the memo was the executive summary of the Evaluation Report. According to the summary, “there were key discussions by officers that fell into three main themes.”

The third theme was,  “ Sentiments that the problem lies with key leadership, namely Fire Chief, and that needs to be addressed in a comprehensive way before it can be modeled across the Department.” The problem cited by Women Helping Women was that an “umbrella of gender-based violence are present in the Department. “

I have been unable to find the entire “Evaluation Report,” online but I am sure there must be a complete report somewhere.

As it stands, the City Manager enlisted a non-profit, for which the city is a major benefactor, to conduct “training” for the Fire Department concerning cultural issues and then used the summary of an “Evaluation Report” as a basis to remove the Chief. At least that was how the Enquirer reported it.

According to Ohio Checkbook (https://checkbook.ohio.gov),  during the period 2022  to present, the city has made payments to Women Helping Women of more than $1.5 million, including $1 million in Leveraged support, which are essentailly operating subsidies.

According to IRS filings, during that same approximate period, the compensation of the president of Women Helping Women increased 109% ,  from $106,143 in 2019 to $222,292 in 2025.

In my opinion, it looks like Women Helping Women may have been used by the City Manager to do her bidding with respect to Chief Washington. I hope this arrangement is the subject of a formal  investigation.

AI Assisted Comparison of the March 2023 Deferred Maintenance List and Cincy on Track

/in ,

Deferred maintenance List March 2023

Cincy on Track Proposed Spending Plan

Cincy_on_Track_Crosswalk_Analysis

After the Eastside neighborhoods experienced such serious flooding earlier this summer, I was surprised to find that Cincy on Track, the city’s infrastructure spending plan for the railroad money, does not include any projects for sewers, water or stormwater management. Notwithstanding any explanation, that was a surprising finding.

That revelation got me wondering what other deferred maintenance may have been left out of Cincy on Track. I first wanted to check the city’s list of deferred maintenance. I asked AI to do a crosswalk analysis of two documents:

1) a deferred maintenance list issued by the city administration in March 2023, pursuant to a request from the city council which totals appx.$250 million; and

2) the Cincy on Track Plan, which also totals appx $250 million.

I wanted the analysis to determine the extent to which the Cincy on Track Plan included items on the deferred maintenance list.  The results are interesting.

I have not yet checked the analysis for accuracy but at first glance I did see that the $40 million upgrade of the Fleet Maintenance Garage is not in Cincy on Track according to the analysis, but the city and the media have reported that the upgrade is in process.  Maybe the city is not using railroad money for the project? We will try to resolve any of those types of discrepancies we find in the analysis.

The entire analysis and source documents have been posted above. Feel free to try your own AI analysis or check for errors or omissions.

There is a lot more work necessary to enable the public to see exactly how the rairoad money is being accounted for and exactly it is being used for being used for – not just the plan.

Last I checked, probably somewhere between $50 million and $80 million is being comingled in the city’s investment account. There needs to be accounting rules in place to ensure compliance with the state law but the city is not cooperating. We want the proceeds from the Trust Fund to be treated like all the other restricted funds but apparently the city wants as few strings attached to the railroad money as possible.

 

Washington v. Cincinnati and Sheryl Long, Individually – Court of Appeals decision 8.13.26

/in

Washington v. Cincinnati Appeals Court 8.13.26

This is a really tragic case. It could not be worse for the City Manager or the City. The decision of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals here in Cincinnati found very serious misconduct by City Manager Long that the City Council will have to deal with.

According to the decision, City Manager Long violated Chief Washington’s civil rights and more than likely defamed him. And on top of that, the Court ruled that Ms. Long did not have qualified immunity for those violations. WOW!

The city’s HR office should already be looking at the potential rule violations by the City Manager, and the City Manager should be recused from anything to do with it.

A question that I have is what kind of government leader disregards advice of the city’s own legal team, that specifically told her that Chief Washington was entitled to a hearing concerning his proposed termination, and then the “leader” turns around and requires that same legal team to defend her violations of civil rights and her possible defamation of Chief Washington?

She should have been required to pay for her own attorneys and should now be required to reimburse the city for all the costs incurred by the Solicitor’s Office in her personal defense.

The document I posted is from the website for the Brian Thomas Show on 55KRC. Today’s “Smithervent” was devoted to this case, and I believe the copy of the decision I have posted is from Christopher Smitherman. There are some very helpful highlights in the document that are worth reading, especially page 16.

 

 

Lawsuit Asserts Violations of Ohio’s Open Meetings Act (8.4.26)

/in

Zinser’s OMA Complaint as filed

This is the complaint as filed in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court on August 4, 2026.  There are additional documents about the lawsuit that I will be posting in connection with Episode 57 of “Citizen Watchdog with Todd Zinser,” coming soon.

Budget, Finance & Governance Agenda and AI analysis for 8.3.26

/in

 

BF&G Agenda 8.3.26

AI Analysis and Plain Language Summary of the August 3 Agenda for BF&G

The agenda for today’s meeting (8.3.26) of the City’s Budget, Finance, and Governance (BF&G) Committee is 19 pages long with 52 agenda items.

Unfortunately, the city council and committee agendas are not understandable to the average citizen. This is a serious transparency issue that is simple to fix.

Also, is the public really expected to believe that the Mayor and Members of City Council spend hours reading, researching and comprehending an entire agenda, 19 page, 52 item agenda ? And this is just one of several committee and city council agendas every week. Personally, I don’t think so.

The point is that the public, as well as the Mayor and City Council, would benefit if the City would publish a plain language summary of their meeting agendas, in addition to the official meeting agendas.

It would be so simple; it would dramatically improve the transparency of the city’s governance; and the necessary time, effort and costs involved would be de minimis.

I gave ChatGPT a prompt to provide a plain language summary of the BF&G along with observations. The AI analysis (8 pages) and the official agenda (19 pages) are posted above.

Westline Flats Development Comming to a Head 8.2.26

/in

 

 

 

Final memo re concerns about the city’s approval process for LDG’s Westline proposal 6.13.26

 

Things are coming to head this week on the Westline Flats, 167 multi-family unit housing development proposed for the former site of the Western Hills Sports Mall.

The summer meeting of the City Council will occur on Wednesday August 5th. City Council  Committees will meet on the 3rd and 4th.

On August 4th,  the Housing Committee will be considering the approval of  the zoning change necessary for the Westline Flats development to proceed.  If approved by the Committee, it will be on the agenda for the City Council for a final vote on Wednesday, the 5th.

I submitted a briefing paper to the City Council outlining concerns about the project. It is based on input from several of us here in Price Hill.

A fundamental issue is that the City, LDG (the developer)  and even  the Westwood Neighborhood Council and associated development groups, failed to include the West Price Hill neighborhood in the public enaggement for this project in any meaning ful way. The boundary line of West Price Hill and Westwood is appx. 400 feet from the project.

A you can see from the map, West Price Hill will be equally, if not more, impacted by this development, yet West Price has been excluded from the process.

Here are the top level concerns:

  1. Public engagement was unfairly limited and inadequate.
  1. No Traffic Impact Study was Performed despite the history of serious traffic problems in close proximity to the development site.
  1. The Proposed Site Is Already Federally Designated as Distressed — This Award Would Deepen Concentration, Not Reduce It
  1. The developer’s own financial contingency is a disqualifying admission
  1. LDG’s development portfolio concentration in distressed markets is a pattern OHFA should evaluate.

The full briefing paper is available posted above.

If you also have concerns about this housing development and wish to express those concerns to the city council, you can send an email to the city council at  the following address: [email protected].

Eastside Flood Mitigation-Can Railroad Money be Used?

/in

When Eastside neighborhoods were once again seriously and fatally flooded last week, I wondered what capital projects the city had underway or planned for flood mitigation on the Eastside. The short answer seems to be, not many.

In the 6-year (2026-2031) Capital Improvement Program (CIP), enacted in June 2025, there are 111 sewer-related projects, city-wide, totaling more than $1 billion for that period. That list includes 7 projects in  Mt. Lookout, Hyde Park, Oakley and Madisonville, with an estimated total cost of $14.6 million, not necessarily for flood mitigation.

I also looked at a 2023 spreadsheet  of the top 10  “Critical Infrastructure Needs,” identified by each of 5 city departments. The spreadsheet was compiled by the City Manager in response to an October 25, 2022, motion by the  city council (202202015).  The total estimated cost for those critical infrastructure needs was $255,280,000. But the list excluded MSD, GCWW, and SMU. Why?

I also looked at the “Cincy on Track” plan to determine whether the City planned to use the railroad money for costs associated with flood mitigation in these or any other neighborhoods.  There is no mention of flood mitigation in Cincy on Track,

For those businesses and residents in those neighborhoods that were flooded last week, they know that it does not take a 1000-year rainfall to cause flooding to their properties. Flooding is a chronic problem for them.

Apparently, city officials must have discussed the issue amongst themselves and decided that MSD,  GCWW and the SMU are not going to be using any railroad money for capital projects. You  may be as surprised as I was to realize that the City’s plans for using the Railroad Money do not include sewer projects or flood mitigation. Afterall, it is existing infrastructure, maybe more than 100 years old.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that GCWW and MSD are restricted enterprise funds, which means that they are funded by user fees. They are supposed to be self-sufficient. But both MSD and GCWW receive state and federal grant funding. Why not railroad money as well?

In fact, the April 2026 budget presentation of the Stormwater Management Utility cited 3 challenges: 1) fragmented management structure; 2) lack of a strategic comprehensive plan; and 3) financial constraints and rising costs. In other words, SMU needs the money.

The issue may also be complicated for MSD based on governance issues. Hamilton County apparently owns MSD, but Cincinnati operates the system.

Has there been a legal determination that infrastructure projects in MSD and GCWW are not eligible to receive Railroad Money or is it based on a policy decision made by “who knows who?” Those Eastside neighborhoods should find out the answer.

CIP Analysis for Sewer-related projects 2026-2031

202202105 Motion

Critical Infrastructure Report 202300833

202300833 Attachment

City-of-Cincinnati-FY-2026-2027-Biennial-Budget-Vol-II-Capital

Cincy on Track Map of Projects by neighborhood

FY 27 GCWW SMU Budget Presentation Challenges

 

 

Thanks to Campaign Zero, Cincinnati has Egg on its Face

/in

2024-Bias-Free-Policing-Annual-Report New Orleans

NOPD says data shows no racial disparities. We checked it. – Verite News New Orleans

 

I think the problem many people have with the Campaign Zero report on bias-free policing is that, ironically, everyone knows that bias-free policing is not a black & white issue.

It is a “continuous improvement” issue.

A similarly situated police department has done many years of research and has reported on the complexities involved in examining bias-free policing. I am referring to the Annual Reports on Bias-free Policing produced by the New Orleans Police Department.

The NOPD has been producing these reports for a decade. Like Cincinnati, New Orleans was under a consent decree, and they have now had 10 years of documented effort on Bias-Free Policing.

Meanwhile, when it comes to bias-free policing in Cincinnati, the city management and consultants have been caught with egg on their faces. Essentially, the City Manager’s Office dropped the ball.

There is no transparency surrounding what happened to the Collaborative Agreement Refresh which was undertaken in 2017. The Refresh was intended to ensure that the Collaborative Agreement was sustained through a very structured effort at bias-free policing and Community Problem-Oriented Policing. As I have mentioned, there is little, if any, record of efforts on bias-free policing by Cincinnati after 2020.

If Cincinnati had done something similar to New Orleans’s Annual Reports on Bias-free Policing for the past 5 or 6 years, I think it is likely that this Campaign Zero matter would not have happened.

I did a search on Campaign Zero’s website for  anyreports about “New Orleans,” and found “No Results.”

The following quotes are found on pages 1 and 2 of the reportand provide a balanced perspective about  the data.

  1. “The evaluation of bias in policing is difficult as statistics cannot show the subjective, or even unconscious, bias that may play a role in the decision making of an officer.”

 

  1. “While there is no definitive test for determining the actual bias of an officer, the data can be useful in helping the Department identify trends over time that may need to be addressed through training, policy changes, or other corrective action.”

 

  1. “It is important for users of this data to understand that identifying and addressing specific officer misconduct is not the purpose of the audit.”

 

  1. “Although NOPD’s current methodology can conclusively identify disparities, it cannot conclusively identify the causes of the disparities, which may or may not include biased police officers or deployment strategies.”

I am not suggesting that the NOPD and their research are perfect but apparently, New Orleans is still under a consent decree and their Annual Reports are a big part of their case seeking to get out from under thje conset decree.

 

 

What Happened to Cincinnati’s Efforts on Bias-Free Policing?

/in

 

Nov 2017 Mutual Accountability Progress Report

collaborative refresh plan update 2019

 “Bias-Free Policing,” is one of two overarching elements of the Collaborative. The other being” Community Problem Oriented Policing.” After the release of the Campaign Zero report concerning “contact cards,” I researched the city’s website to see what I could find about bias-free policing.

So far, the documents are showing that in June 2017, the city contracted with Former U.S. Attorney in Detroit, Saul Green, to provide the city with a progress report on the Collaborative Agreement. Mr. Green is the former court-appointed monitor of the original agreement.

In a November 2017 report titled, “City of Cincinnati Collaborative Agreement Mutual Accountability of All Parties,” Mr. Green reports the following:

“Perhaps the most critical omission in the current array of data analytic tools is the absence of methods used to assess bias. It is difficult to assess the progress in the Collaboration toward bias-free policing without these tools.”

In other words, the city had not yet developed a methodology to measure police bias using the data they had been collecting with the contact cards.

Then, in the 2018-2019 timeframe, (which I haven’t nailed down yet),  CPD issued an RFP to develop such an analytical tool to address Mr. Green’s finding. A contract was awarded to the University of Cincinnati, Institute of Crime Science. A kick-off meeting was held July 22, 2019.

There are also references to the effort on “bias-free policing” in a 2019 report from the city manager titled, “City of Cincinnati Office of the City Manager Collaborative Agreement Refresh 2019 Summary.”

After a February 2020 entry on CPD’s “Collaborative Agreement Timeline,” the structure and transparency of the management of the Collaborative Agreement Refresh seemed to fall off a cliff. For example, what happened to the contract with the University of Cincinnati? Did UC develop an analytical tool  for measuring police bias?

We will continue to piece together what happened to the city’s efforts on bias-free policing but the city’s mismanagement of the “Collaborative Agreement Refresh” left the city wide-open like sitting ducks for a group like Campaign Zero to do their hit job.

I’ll be posting relevant documents on my website. There are a lot, so I’ll be adding them over time.