Memo to City Hall re Collaborative Agreement Refresh (10.19.26)

/in
I learned that while I was away last week, the City announced that it was going to “Refresh” the Collaborative Agreement (CA).
Before they do that, they should determine what happened to the 2017 CA Refresh. It seems that it somehow got derailed. And a key contract deliverable was never delivered by the contractor, as far as I can tell.
The City Council should find out what happened to the 2017 CA Refresh so that any 2026 (or future) CA Refresh does not suffer the same fate.
I wrote a memo to the City Council about that earlier tonight. It is posted below along with documents refernces in the memo.

Observations provided to the City’s External Auditor 7.9.26

/in

 

Email to CSH 7.9.26

Final Letter to CSH 7.9.26

We sent 49 pages of documentation to Clark Schaefer Hackett with our observations and supporting documents about the City’s internal control environment, governance processes and oversight mechanisms.  Clark Schaefer Hackett has been retained by the City to conduct the annual audit of its financial statements.

When people hear “audit,” they naturally think of getting and reporting their numbers correctly, balancing the books, following the money, etc. But audits conducted according to Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS) must also examine an auditee’s internal control environment and any risks of fraud, waste and abuse.

Our observations fall into the “control environment” and “fraud risk” categories.  We are hopeful that Clark Schaefer Hackett’s audit of the City’s FY 2026 financial statements will include audit procedures to examine some of the areas that we have highlighted.

Our observations are organized into seven categories:

  1. Lack of Oversight of External Funding
  2. Railroad Money
  3. Council-Directed Funding and Earmarks
  4. Internal Audit Independence and Municipal Code Compliance
  5. Procurement Controls and Moral Obligations
  6. Governance and Conflict-of-Interest Controls
  7. Contract Administration and Monitoring

Attached to the memorandum are 18 exhibits supporting our observations.

All are posted at the links above.

Records Request regarding a 6 year old Bias-Free Policing contract with UC

/in

Zinser Public records request 6.28.26

UC Proposal December 2, 2019

UC Proposal on Bias Free Policing Analytical Framework

Bias-free-update-memo-20201125 UC

 

I have previously reported that the city contracted with the University of Cincinnati, Institute of Crime Science, in or around February 2019. The project was called, “Developing an Analytical Framework for Assessing Bias-Free Policing in the City of Cincinnati.”

The model would address criticism in a 2017 report from the former court-appointed monitor of the Collaborative Agreement who was brought back to assess the city’s progress on the  Agreement.

I have been unable to find any documentation about the project after 2020, so I have submitted a records request to try to determine what happened to the contract and the project?

According to the November 2020 “Update Memo posted below,” UC anticipated a final report on or around March 1, 2021. There were 4 PhDs on the project with extensive credentials.

I have posted the records request and documents from the University of Cincinnati above. I will let you know what happens.

City Handling of Railway Trust Distributions — Commingling and Investment Practices

/in

Memo to CSRT Board 2.4.26a

 

City Finance Letter to CSRT Board 1.23.26

Letter to the CSRT Board of Trustees: Follow up to a Local 12 News December 10 report

/in

 

I sent a letter to the Board of Trustees of the Cincinnati Southern Railway Trust about the issue reported by Local 12 news on December 10, 2025. This the link to the Local 12 report:

https://local12.com/news/local/why-hasnt-cincinnati-spent-over-30-million-allocated-street-repairs-across-city-otr-queen-city-price-hill-fairmount-billions-railroad-sale-money-cost-repair-fix-issues-bridges-infrastructure-cars-traffic-wrecks-pothole-potholes

My letter is posted below as well as excerpt from the meeting minutes from the Board’s February meeting where this issue was raised directly with the Board

Ltr to CSRT 12.17.25

 

Excerpt of meeting minutes CSRT 2.11.25 highlighted

 

 

Public Comments Follow up Email 12.1.25

/in

 

Public comments follow up email 12.1.25

 

I offered public comments at yesterday’s meeting (12.1.25) of the City Council’s Budget & Finance Committee. As far as I know, public comments are not included in the minutes of city council meetings. So, I sent a follow up email to the committee last night to document my comments. I included a statement on my email about a provision in the municpal code that requires the internal audit manager submit her budget request directly to th city council, bypassing the city manager. Unfortunately, the city does not comply wih this requirement.

Public records request related to the city’s renegotiated contract with Iris Roley, LLC.

/in

This morning, based on reports that the city has negotiated a new contract with Iris Roley LLC, or more than one new contract, I have requested copies of the contract(s) and associated records. I will let you know of any response from the city.

 

Letter to City Council Concerning Contracts with Iris Roley LLC

/in

 

 

 

Earlier today, I sent a letter to the City Council with my assessment of the city’s contracts with Iris Roley LLC.  The letter details five observations:

  1. The contracts are “Unauthorized Commitments,” for lack of sufficient justification.
  2. There is no evidence that the contract terms obtained best value for the taxpayer.
  3. The Government Square Initiative (GSI) should be a separate, competitive contract.
  4. Under the procurement rules, Iris Roley LLC is disqualified from the GSI contract.
  5. There are gaps in the invoices and a lack of documentation and timekeeping

Zinser Ltr 10.6.25

Letter to City Hall re: Conflict-of-Interest Concerns with a “Leveraged Support” Recipient

/in

 

Ethics Letter to City Hall 92325_compressed

City of Cincinnati Budget Book Update Approved FY25 Leveraged Support 

 

I sent a letter to the mayor and city hall today with a concern about a conflict of interest created by the Mayor’s membership on the Board of Directors of Cintrifuse.

During Mayor Pureval’s term, Cintrifuse  has received more than $1 million from the city .

When I first saw the “Leveraged Support” table in the city’s budget, alarms went off, asking myself, “How can the city possibly oversee all of those Leveraged Support and Program Support recipients (54) and assure themselves that  the millions of dollars in public funds are being properly spent?”  Since that time, I found that there are even more nonprofit organizations receiving city funding – nearly 200, as a result of the Green Cincinnati Plan (71) and Act for Cincy (64).

When I looked at the list of leveraged support recipients, two organizations stood out. One was Cintrifuse, a 501c3 nonprofit that helps start-ups and entrepreneurs. The other is CincyTech, a 501c4 non-profit, which is actually a venture capitalist.  It seemed unusual for those particular nonprofits to be receiving substantial funds from the city.

So, that is where I started. As a 501c3 nonprofit, Cintrifuse files public financial reports with the IRS. As a 501c4, CincyTech’s IRS filings are not public.

I visited Cintrifuse and examined the documents that 501c3 organizations are required to make public upon request.

That is when I found that Mayor Pureval was a member of the Cintrifuse Board of Directors. The most recent IRS filing available at Cintrifuse at the time was for 2023, so I sent a letter to Cintrifuse on September 3rd and received confirmation that the mayor remains a member of the Board.

My letter to the mayor and city council suggests corrective action that the city council and mayor could take to remedy the situation.