Latest / Brian Thomas / Citizen Watchdog - Todd Zinser

Transcript

Citizen Watchdog - Todd Zinser · Brian Thomas

0:02
Speaker 1: 7-0-6 here, 55KRCD Talk Station. Very happy Friday to everybody,
0:06
Speaker 1: and a happy Halloween Eve. And I am pleased to
0:09
Speaker 1: look up and see in studio Todd Zinser. We call
0:12
Speaker 1: him Citizen Watchdog. He was a former Inspector General for
0:14
Speaker 1: the United States of America, bringing his, well, Inspector General
0:18
Speaker 1: talents to the greater Cincinnati area in following the shenanigans,
0:22
Speaker 1: and I'll call it shenanigans, the Cincinnati City Council. And Todd,
0:26
Speaker 1: you've got a whole bunch of quite revealing topics to
0:28
Speaker 1: go over with my listening audience and me this morning.
0:31
Speaker 1: First off, let me start by thanking you for the
0:33
Speaker 1: work that you do because it is quite revealing, my friend.
0:36
Speaker 1: Welcome back to The Morning Show.
0:37
Speaker 2: Hi, Brian. Happy to be here again.
0:39
Speaker 1: I'm glad. And let's start with the Auditor of State letter.
0:43
Speaker 3: Right.
0:43
Speaker 2: Well, you know, I take a look at the financial
0:45
Speaker 2: statement audits for the city, and the Auditor of State
0:51
Speaker 2: has to sign off on the financial statement audit. And
0:55
Speaker 2: so they send a cover letter when they do that.
0:58
Speaker 2: And this year, there's a sentence in there that they
1:01
Speaker 2: inserted in the letter that said there's an ongoing investigation,
1:05
Speaker 2: but it doesn't say anything else. And so I went down.
1:09
Speaker 1: To- Well, wait a minute. It didn't certify the results.
1:12
Speaker 1: It didn't say they're not good enough or they are
1:14
Speaker 1: good enough. It just said there's an ongoing investigation.
1:17
Speaker 2: It never renders an opinion on the financial statements, but
1:22
Speaker 2: it didn't indicate that whatever investigation was going on had
1:26
Speaker 2: any kind of effect on the financial statements themselves. So
1:31
Speaker 2: it's just a notification to the city that his office
1:35
Speaker 2: has some type of investigation going on.
1:38
Speaker 1: Does the city know what he's talking about when he
1:40
Speaker 1: references this unspecific or nonspecific ongoing investigation?
1:44
Speaker 2: Well, it's very strange because I go down to city council.
1:49
Speaker 2: And I tell them these things because I don't think
1:51
Speaker 2: they really do know. I don't think they really pay
1:53
Speaker 2: attention to what's going on with the administration.
1:56
Speaker 1: Well, there's a lot of reasons you could come to
1:58
Speaker 1: that conclusion, Todd, but go ahead as it relates to
2:01
Speaker 1: this one.
2:02
Speaker 2: So I said they should find out what it is,
2:05
Speaker 2: but I had submitted a records request asking for documents
2:10
Speaker 2: about this.
2:12
Speaker 1: To the auditor?
2:13
Speaker 3: No.
2:13
Speaker 1: Oh, to the city.
2:14
Speaker 2: No, to both the auditor and the city. The city
2:17
Speaker 2: got back to me. And they don't know what I'm
2:20
Speaker 2: talking about.
2:23
Speaker 1: Did you attach the letter that mentions the ongoing investigation?
2:26
Speaker 1: It's like, no, that's what the letter says. What does
2:28
Speaker 1: this refer to? Right.
2:31
Speaker 2: So, no, and I haven't heard from the auditor of
2:33
Speaker 2: state either. I may not hear from him. I don't know.
2:36
Speaker 1: Does the auditor have an obligation to respond to something
2:38
Speaker 1: like that?
2:39
Speaker 2: Well, they should at least say they can't respond. They
2:43
Speaker 2: could at least say, well, it is an ongoing investigation
2:45
Speaker 2: and we can't.
2:46
Speaker 1: This is an elected office. What they should do and
2:49
Speaker 1: what they're obligated under the law to do are two
2:51
Speaker 1: different things. So is there an obligation for the auditor's
2:54
Speaker 1: office to respond to your request?
2:56
Speaker 2: They should respond, but I don't know that I would
2:58
Speaker 2: get any kind of.
2:59
Speaker 1: No details.
3:00
Speaker 2: No details, right.
3:01
Speaker 1: Just got your letter and whatever.
3:03
Speaker 2: Exactly.
3:04
Speaker 1: So this is just a swirling mystery.
3:06
Speaker 2: Right now it is, yeah.
3:08
Speaker 1: Huh. Hey, Joe, see if you can get the auditor
3:11
Speaker 1: on the phone. We'll figure this one out. Get Todd's
3:14
Speaker 1: records request taken care of. Okay. Right after Houston's campaign
3:21
Speaker 1: gets back with you? That hasn't happened either, Todd.
3:24
Speaker 2: I can't believe that.
3:25
Speaker 1: I sent a message to Josh Girt this morning. I said,
3:28
Speaker 1: what's the story? Joe has reached out every single time
3:31
Speaker 1: he gets a communication from Houston's campaign. Respond to the
3:34
Speaker 1: person sending it out. Hey, we need to get John
3:36
Speaker 1: on the program. Talk about the campaign. Raise elevation of awareness.
3:40
Speaker 1: I mean, we've got a serious race here. Silence every
3:43
Speaker 1: single time. It really has me irked. I don't know
3:45
Speaker 1: if they're mad at me or something for something I've done.
3:47
Speaker 1: I can't imagine, but whatever.
3:49
Speaker 2: You never know.
3:50
Speaker 1: Not necessarily a well-oiled machine, which is not something we
3:52
Speaker 1: need to deal with right now. All right. So this
3:56
Speaker 1: is just an open thing with no end in sight,
3:58
Speaker 1: and we're just all left with question marks.
3:59
Speaker 2: Right. We just learned of that in June, and I
4:05
Speaker 2: just found out about it last week.
4:07
Speaker 1: All right. Well, I see we have an IRS penalty
4:10
Speaker 1: we need to talk about, but given that we only
4:12
Speaker 1: have a few more minutes in this segment, which topic
4:15
Speaker 1: is it easier to get through in a few moments?
4:16
Speaker 1: The hiring practices, the TIF issues, the... three reading rule,
4:20
Speaker 1: the change to leverage support fund. I mean, we've got
4:23
Speaker 1: railroad investments to talk about. Zinsser, come on, give me one.
4:25
Speaker 2: Let's talk about the suspending the three reading rule.
4:28
Speaker 1: Oh, this is insane. This is absolutely insane. Go ahead.
4:32
Speaker 2: You know, I've been calling this, I've started calling the
4:34
Speaker 2: city council a juggernaut because nothing gets in their way.
4:39
Speaker 2: Even rules like this, where they're supposed to do three
4:42
Speaker 2: readings and On three separate days so that the public
4:45
Speaker 2: has an opportunity to keep track of what's going on.
4:48
Speaker 1: So they have a proposed ordinance. It's going to change
4:51
Speaker 1: some aspect of how a city is managed to run
4:54
Speaker 1: or govern or whatever.
4:55
Speaker 2: Or spend money or whatever.
4:56
Speaker 1: The law, the rules require them to read it three
5:00
Speaker 1: separate times and I guess give the public advance notice
5:03
Speaker 1: of the reading so they know where they need to
5:04
Speaker 1: be to show.
5:05
Speaker 2: Up and find out. It shows up on the agenda
5:07
Speaker 2: for the.
5:07
Speaker 1: Meetings, yes. Okay, so it is on the agenda. But
5:10
Speaker 1: that hasn't happened. Now, if they're obligated, Todd Zinsser, if
5:14
Speaker 1: they're obligated to read any given change three times, that
5:19
Speaker 1: means that, of course, they normally do that, right?
5:23
Speaker 2: You would hope so, yes.
5:24
Speaker 1: Under what circumstances, Todd Zinsser, are they allowed to waive
5:28
Speaker 1: the three-reading rule?
5:30
Speaker 2: There's no criteria like that. It just gives the city
5:33
Speaker 2: council the authority to waive. to suspend the three readings,
5:36
Speaker 2: and they take a vote on that, and that's all
5:38
Speaker 2: it takes.
5:39
Speaker 1: It doesn't have to be an emergency. It doesn't have
5:41
Speaker 1: to be some sort of outlier ordinance. There's no carve-out.
5:44
Speaker 2: The emergency is another problem.
5:46
Speaker 1: Oh, okay. All right, pause. Keep emergency in the back
5:49
Speaker 1: of your mind, folks. So now, how many ordinances this
5:54
Speaker 1: calendar year so far, and how many times did they
5:57
Speaker 1: suspend the three-reading rule?
5:59
Speaker 2: Well, I went through the agendas for... From January to
6:05
Speaker 2: September this year.
6:06
Speaker 1: Yeah.
6:07
Speaker 2: There were 438 ordinances enacted, and 100% of them suspended.
6:13
Speaker 2: They suspended the three readings rule.
6:15
Speaker 1: So the public never got notice.
6:17
Speaker 2: Well, they get notice on the agenda, and the agenda
6:20
Speaker 2: comes out the day before the meeting. So if there's
6:23
Speaker 2: something that is really kind of problematic for the public,
6:28
Speaker 2: it's too late. They don't have time to really protest that.
6:33
Speaker 1: Yeah. City Council is supposed to be a form of
6:38
Speaker 1: representative government, correct? I'm baby-stepping here.
6:42
Speaker 2: I'm mansplaining. That's what I hear.
6:43
Speaker 1: I'm just going to make this so damn obvious to everybody.
6:46
Speaker 1: All the voters in the city of Cincinnati can be
6:48
Speaker 1: impacted by any one of these. They don't give advance notice,
6:51
Speaker 1: minimalist advance notice, and they never give the opportunity for
6:54
Speaker 1: three readings.
6:55
Speaker 2: Huh.
6:56
Speaker 1: Wow. What if the general public has a, let's say,
7:00
Speaker 1: a majority objection to it, like an overwhelming majority. Like
7:03
Speaker 1: the people in Hyde Park who got the zoning law changed.
7:05
Speaker 1: They came out in huge numbers to actually propose a
7:08
Speaker 1: ballot initiative to unring the bell of what council did
7:11
Speaker 1: underneath their radar. This is the same kind of thing.
7:13
Speaker 2: Isn't it? Yes, but what's interesting about the Hyde Park
7:17
Speaker 2: issue is that that zoning change was not passed as
7:22
Speaker 2: an emergency, and that gave the citizens the ability to...
7:29
Speaker 2: amount of referendum against that.
7:30
Speaker 1: Yeah. And the council members, we went over this when
7:33
Speaker 1: that was happening, Todd. The council members were painfully aware
7:37
Speaker 1: of the objections from the Hyde Park residents. They had
7:39
Speaker 1: shown up during one of these readings and said, no,
7:42
Speaker 1: this is not a path you can take.
7:43
Speaker 2: So the other- That's.
7:46
Speaker 1: A lesson they learned. We can't do this.
7:48
Speaker 2: That's right. The other analysis is how many emergency ordinances
7:53
Speaker 2: there are. They're all They're not all. I don't have 100%,
7:55
Speaker 2: but I did the analysis one time. It's up in
8:00
Speaker 2: the 90% tile.
8:01
Speaker 1: Well, if they waive the three-reading rule for just run-of-the-mill
8:04
Speaker 1: everyday ordinances, as you said, how does an emergency ordinance differ?
8:08
Speaker 1: What is it required to be labeled emergency, and what
8:10
Speaker 1: does that cause by way of process change?
8:12
Speaker 2: Well, they come up with all these bogus reasons why
8:15
Speaker 2: it has to be an emergency. Basically, the reason is
8:18
Speaker 2: because we have to spend the money right away or
8:20
Speaker 2: we have to do it right away. And so what
8:23
Speaker 2: happens with an emergency ordinance is that the public has
8:25
Speaker 2: no opportunity to organize a referendum to challenge that ordinance.
8:35
Speaker 1: Wow.
8:38
Speaker 2: That's why I call him a juggernaut.
8:41
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, it's a legitimate conclusion, Todd. I'm just, you know,
8:44
Speaker 1: what bothers me so much about this is they just
8:46
Speaker 1: don't seem, or they obviously do not care what people think.
8:51
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're on a mission. I'm calling them uber-activists.
8:57
Speaker 1: And just the sheer volume of ordinance changes, that sounds
9:01
Speaker 1: ridiculously large in one single, not even a full calendar
9:04
Speaker 1: year right now. Hundreds and hundreds of them.
9:07
Speaker 2: Yeah, the problem is I haven't really looked into it,
9:09
Speaker 2: but they have to pass an ordinance to do anything.
9:13
Speaker 2: So if they want to accept a $ 500 donation from
9:17
Speaker 2: somebody for the police, for example— They have to pass
9:20
Speaker 2: an ordinance to do that.
9:21
Speaker 1: Well, at least it has it on record.
9:23
Speaker 2: That's right.
9:23
Speaker 1: I guess it's a good thing. In the final analysis,
9:25
Speaker 1: it sounds like they're doing way too much. But if
9:28
Speaker 1: that is the reason there are so many of them,
9:30
Speaker 1: then I'm glad that's in place.
9:32
Speaker 2: Well, it's for anything. Anything that the city council wants
9:36
Speaker 2: to get done, they have to pass an ordinance to
9:38
Speaker 2: do it.
9:39
Speaker 1: And it sure helps when you don't let the public
9:40
Speaker 1: know about it.
9:41
Speaker 2: It sure does. Makes things easier, that's for sure, for them.
9:44
Speaker 1: Coming up on 716, more with Citizen Watchdog, Todd Zinser.
9:46
Speaker 1: You can find him on Facebook, Todd. At KRC, the
9:49
Speaker 1: talk station. 720-55, KRC, the talk station. Happy Friday. Todd Zinser,
9:54
Speaker 1: Citizen Watchdog in studio, former Inspector General. Spending his retirement
9:58
Speaker 1: being an Inspector General volunteer. for all of us in
10:01
Speaker 1: the greater Cincinnati area. And as we focus on what
10:04
Speaker 1: I call shenanigans in downtown Cincinnati. So clearly they don't
10:07
Speaker 1: like to engage in the representative government process, suspending the
10:10
Speaker 1: three reading rule all of the time. And then we
10:13
Speaker 1: pivot over and I see the word penalty, IRS penalty.
10:16
Speaker 1: That's not, You owe me X number of dollars for taxes.
10:21
Speaker 1: That is, you failed to pay a sufficient amount of
10:23
Speaker 1: taxes resulting in a penalty of $ 353, 000, Todd? Yes. That's
10:29
Speaker 1: a penalty?
10:30
Speaker 2: That's a penalty.
10:31
Speaker 1: What the hell do they do?
10:32
Speaker 2: Well, that's another thing. We don't know.
10:34
Speaker 1: What?
10:35
Speaker 2: And I don't think the city council knows either.
10:41
Speaker 1: Well, how did you learn about the penalty in the
10:43
Speaker 1: first instance?
10:44
Speaker 2: Well, there's when.
10:47
Speaker 2: Outside auditor issues their financial statement audit report. It includes
10:53
Speaker 2: what they call a management letter. And the management letter
10:56
Speaker 2: is supposed to outline issues or problems that the city
11:02
Speaker 2: should be aware of and take care of, but they
11:04
Speaker 2: don't rise to the level of affecting the financial statement
11:07
Speaker 2: or the financial situation of the city. These are just
11:10
Speaker 2: like weaknesses in internal controls.
11:13
Speaker 1: Okay. Like tips for best practices kind of thing? You
11:17
Speaker 1: need to readjust your machinery to deal with these challenges?
11:20
Speaker 2: A little more strict than that. But I couldn't find
11:25
Speaker 2: a management letter when I looked. And so I found
11:29
Speaker 2: out that in order to get this letter.
11:31
Speaker 1: This penalty letter.
11:32
Speaker 2: This management letter that includes these areas of internal control problems,
11:38
Speaker 2: you have to go to the auditor of state. So
11:41
Speaker 2: I did. And this is a letter I got back,
11:44
Speaker 2: and it lists four areas, one of which is this
11:47
Speaker 2: IRS penalty that was paid in 2025.
11:51
Speaker 1: So the Auditor of State letter that said that there's
11:54
Speaker 1: an ongoing investigation with no fill-in-the-blank details, that's different from
11:57
Speaker 1: this letter, which I identify?
11:58
Speaker 2: Well, as far as we know. Maybe it's the same thing,
12:02
Speaker 2: but we can't tell. But I think if it wasn't significant,
12:07
Speaker 2: it wouldn't be in this management letter.
12:10
Speaker 1: I guess I'd have to agree. And how does one
12:12
Speaker 1: rack up a $ 353, 000 IRS penalty?
12:15
Speaker 2: Well, there was something when the city manager went to
12:20
Speaker 2: council to get approval to pay this, they characterized it
12:24
Speaker 2: as a assessment or something under appeal. We're dealing with
12:29
Speaker 2: a potential penalty and it's under appeal or something like that.
12:32
Speaker 1: I suggest if they're appealing it, then at least the
12:35
Speaker 1: solicitor's office is aware of it and may be involved
12:37
Speaker 1: in legal proceedings. A legal case.
12:41
Speaker 2: Relating to this county? There's a term used in the
12:44
Speaker 2: letter of adjudication. So there's some kind of adjudication that
12:47
Speaker 2: went on. And a month after they received approval to
12:54
Speaker 2: pay this, the city paid $ 353, 000.
12:58
Speaker 1: So would that qualify as existing infrastructure to allow them
13:02
Speaker 1: to tap into railroad dollars to pay for it, Todd?
13:05
Speaker 3: No.
13:06
Speaker 2: You never know, Brian.
13:07
Speaker 1: They got a slush fund for payment of IRS penalties
13:09
Speaker 1: there someplace?
13:10
Speaker 2: Well, I have reported that they're taking interest earned on
13:14
Speaker 2: the unspent railroad money and they're putting it in the
13:17
Speaker 2: general fund.
13:17
Speaker 1: Yeah, we talked about that.
13:19
Speaker 3: Yeah.
13:20
Speaker 1: That's a massive red flag right there because that money
13:22
Speaker 1: should have never been allocated if it's not ready to
13:24
Speaker 1: be spent right away. And the idea that the city
13:25
Speaker 1: can sit on that money and get interest earned on it.
13:29
Speaker 1: Which interest earned is not being spent on existing infrastructure.
13:33
Speaker 1: They wouldn't have had that money in their hand if
13:34
Speaker 1: it wasn't for railroad money and existing infrastructure projects.
13:37
Speaker 2: And you know what's worse is they're not telling the
13:39
Speaker 2: public how much that is, how much they're earning.
13:46
Speaker 1: Why did the word criminal just enter into my mind, Todd?
13:49
Speaker 1: I don't know if this rises the level of criminal activity,
13:51
Speaker 1: but Lord Almighty, it sure sounds like it. At minimum,
13:55
Speaker 1: it's shameless behavior.
13:56
Speaker 2: It is definitely shameless behavior. There's no question about that.
13:59
Speaker 1: That is just a metaphorical middle finger to every single
14:03
Speaker 1: resident of the city of Cincinnati, this hiding of details
14:06
Speaker 1: and this obvious reflection of mismanagement. I mean, you mentioned
14:09
Speaker 1: this external audit management letter, which addresses the $ 353, 000 penalty,
14:15
Speaker 1: but it also says IT security, employee fraud awareness training,
14:19
Speaker 1: and delinquent financial disclosures. Cryptic that, but that's all it says?
14:25
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, it has a little bit of a explanation,
14:29
Speaker 2: but the financial disclosures, they did a sample of 10
14:34
Speaker 2: city officials who are required to file financial disclosure reports
14:39
Speaker 2: by April 15th every year. And again, the audit is
14:43
Speaker 2: all based on sampling, right? They can only look at
14:46
Speaker 2: so many records and be timely. So they do these samples.
14:50
Speaker 2: They sample 10 city officials who were supposed to file
14:54
Speaker 2: their financial disclosures. 100% Did not do that. 100% of
14:59
Speaker 2: their sample did not file their financial disclosures on time. Wow. Yeah.
15:05
Speaker 2: There's absolutely compliance issues all over the place.
15:09
Speaker 1: Is there a penalty that goes along with failure to
15:13
Speaker 1: comply with the law along those.
15:14
Speaker 2: Lines of time? You know, I think there may be, Brian,
15:17
Speaker 2: but I'd have to follow up on that. I do
15:20
Speaker 2: think that that is.
15:23
Speaker 2: Is in the rules, but I'd have to check on that.
15:25
Speaker 1: So we have to rely on the AG to go
15:27
Speaker 1: after them for that?
15:30
Speaker 2: Well, again, this goes to the auditor of state. The
15:33
Speaker 2: auditor of state has investigative powers, as we just talked about.
15:36
Speaker 2: So this letter goes to the auditor of state, but
15:40
Speaker 2: the auditor can investigate anything he or she wants.
15:44
Speaker 1: Well, let's have them get on that, shall we? Well,
15:47
Speaker 1: you know how to get in touch with your auditor?
15:49
Speaker 1: Just search Ohio State. Auditor, and you will find the
15:51
Speaker 1: website and all the communication information you need to get
15:54
Speaker 1: in touch with them about that. Light a fire on
15:55
Speaker 1: them so you think they can't go after this. I mean,
15:57
Speaker 1: that's just, again, I'm going with shameless. Todd Zinser will continue. And, yes,
16:00
Speaker 1: I don't even think we'll be able to exhaust the
16:02
Speaker 1: list that Todd has come up with for this morning's segment.
16:05
Speaker 1: 726 at 55 Care CD Talk Station. Chimney Care Fireplace
16:09
Speaker 1: and Stove. 730 on a Friday, an hour with Todd Zinser,
16:13
Speaker 1: our citizen watchdog. Hours, collectively. donating his time in retirement to, well,
16:18
Speaker 1: ferreting out the craziness going on in downtown Cincinnati, usually
16:21
Speaker 1: coming up empty because that's the way city council intended it.
16:23
Speaker 1: You can't find anything because we're not giving it to you,
16:25
Speaker 1: and apparently they don't even bother following their own rules. Todd,
16:28
Speaker 1: you said you had one more point on the IRS
16:30
Speaker 1: penalty of $ 353, 000, which seems to still be swirling in mystery.
16:35
Speaker 3: Yes.
16:36
Speaker 2: The other mystery is when the external auditor wrote their
16:42
Speaker 2: management letter and brought this issue up, They included in
16:47
Speaker 2: the letter that the city has told them that they've
16:50
Speaker 2: done an evaluation of the issue and have taken corrective measures.
16:55
Speaker 2: And that's in the management letter from the external auditor.
16:58
Speaker 1: Taken corrective measures. Now, when did that letter from the
17:02
Speaker 1: city go to the outside auditor?
17:04
Speaker 2: Well, that's the outside auditor's letter dated March 27 of 2026.
17:07
Speaker 2: So it was this past March.
17:09
Speaker 3: Okay.
17:10
Speaker 2: But- Just last month in September, the internal auditor for
17:18
Speaker 2: the city did an audit of federal tax withholding, the
17:22
Speaker 2: same subject, different audit period, and came up with, I
17:26
Speaker 2: don't know, half a dozen to a dozen other corrective
17:29
Speaker 2: measures that should be taken. And so you're thinking, well,
17:33
Speaker 2: are these new problems with federal tax withholding or are
17:37
Speaker 2: these the same issues that the external auditor came up with?
17:41
Speaker 2: And if it's the same, Why did the external auditor
17:47
Speaker 2: say that it had already been taken care of?
17:50
Speaker 1: It's got to be a different set of problems then.
17:53
Speaker 1: We don't know, though.
17:54
Speaker 2: Or they misinformed the external auditor.
17:56
Speaker 1: Oh, there's that option, isn't there, Todd Zinser?
18:00
Speaker 2: So it's just very confusing to the public that's trying
18:03
Speaker 2: to track this. exactly what's going on.
18:06
Speaker 1: Confusing to the public if they did enough effort that
18:09
Speaker 1: you did and still have no... Todd, you did all
18:12
Speaker 1: the work, man. You've seen the documents. You don't even know.
18:16
Speaker 2: No, I don't. I'm trying to find out.
18:18
Speaker 1: They don't want the public to even be confused. They
18:20
Speaker 1: don't want the public to even know about it.
18:21
Speaker 2: Well, that's my bottom line, is it does kind of
18:25
Speaker 2: look like a cover-up. Jeez Louise. You know what? It'd
18:29
Speaker 2: be so easy.
18:30
Speaker 1: And they're saying, no, no, it's no cover-up, Mr. Zinsser.
18:32
Speaker 1: It's no Well, if it isn't, then show us the
18:35
Speaker 1: damn documents and prove us wrong.
18:37
Speaker 2: That's right.
18:38
Speaker 1: Meanwhile, while you remain silent and have clearly covered up
18:41
Speaker 1: an entire record here, we're only able to reach one conclusion,
18:45
Speaker 1: that there's something to cover up.
18:47
Speaker 3: Yep. Jeez. What?
18:51
Speaker 2: Ah, shameless.
18:52
Speaker 1: Corruption, I might argue.
18:55
Speaker 2: All right.
18:56
Speaker 1: Moving on. Pick a subject. I've got a list of
18:59
Speaker 1: about 12 of them here. Hiring practices?
19:04
Speaker 2: The hiring practices audit was interesting because it showed me
19:09
Speaker 2: two things. Number one is their documentation is, you know,
19:15
Speaker 2: just terrible. Widespread failures in documentation. And there's two records
19:21
Speaker 2: in particular that for 50%– no, I take that back. 30%
19:26
Speaker 2: of the records for new hires were missing their I-9 forms.
19:33
Speaker 2: So their I-9 forms are those forms that employers have
19:36
Speaker 2: to have completed that verifies that the person is in
19:41
Speaker 2: the United States legally. We're talking this lack of documentation.
19:46
Speaker 1: We are talking about. Sanctuary City, Cincinnati, right, Todd?
19:52
Speaker 3: Well.
19:53
Speaker 1: Okay, I just want to make sure we're clear on
19:54
Speaker 1: the subject matter here.
19:55
Speaker 2: That's right.
19:55
Speaker 1: Okay, go ahead.
19:56
Speaker 2: And then secondly, there were background checks missing.
20:03
Speaker 1: Oh, really?
20:04
Speaker 2: Yeah, out of the sample of 59, 40... or 40,
20:09
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, four background checks were missing. Now, there should
20:12
Speaker 2: be no background checks missing. There should be no I-9
20:16
Speaker 2: forms missing. And I just think that the human services
20:21
Speaker 2: department is struggling, to say the least. I don't think
20:27
Speaker 2: there were recommendations in the hiring practice audit. And for
20:31
Speaker 2: three of those recommendations, the manager's response was, I do
20:35
Speaker 2: not have the staff to implement these recommendations.
20:38
Speaker 1: Sheryl Long said that.
20:40
Speaker 2: Well, the head of the Department of Human Resources said that,
20:44
Speaker 2: who works for Sheryl Long.
20:45
Speaker 1: Who reports directly to Sheryl Long, speaking on basically Sheryl
20:48
Speaker 1: Long's behalf.
20:49
Speaker 3: Right.
20:49
Speaker 1: Since the buck stops at Sheryl Long's desk.
20:51
Speaker 2: That's right.
20:53
Speaker 1: Well, maybe, Todd, and we'll talk about this next, if
20:55
Speaker 1: they didn't spend so much money on nongovernmental organizations, they'd
20:58
Speaker 1: have enough to hire somebody who's competent to do this work.
21:00
Speaker 3: Maybe?
21:01
Speaker 2: Well, I do think there's a conflict between the city's
21:06
Speaker 2: ability or desire to fund the government infrastructure that people needed,
21:13
Speaker 2: the equipment needed, the systems needed, I think that is
21:17
Speaker 2: running into all the money that they spend on these
21:20
Speaker 2: external organizations. They subsidize these external organizations instead of investing
21:26
Speaker 2: in the city's government infrastructure. That's kind of where I'm
21:31
Speaker 2: headed with all this.
21:32
Speaker 1: Well, we're going to elaborate on that because I know
21:33
Speaker 1: you have a– There was a change to leveraged support funding,
21:38
Speaker 1: which is what funds the outside entities. KRC, the talk station.
21:42
Speaker 1: 740 here, 55 KRC, the talk station. Happy Friday. Todd Zinser,
21:47
Speaker 1: Citizen Watchdog. You can find him on Facebook. You can
21:49
Speaker 1: go to citizenwatchdog.com. Get his podcast and love having him
21:53
Speaker 1: on the 55 KRC morning show. So pivoting off the
21:55
Speaker 1: hiring practices audit where we ultimately conclude, or at least
21:58
Speaker 1: you heard from the city manager's office, that we just
22:02
Speaker 1: don't have sufficient resources. employee resources to follow the law.
22:08
Speaker 2: Yes.
22:08
Speaker 1: Is that really what it boils down to, like the
22:11
Speaker 1: I-9 form?
22:11
Speaker 2: Yes.
22:12
Speaker 1: And it's a legal obligation.
22:14
Speaker 2: And it's not just human services. We looked at the
22:19
Speaker 2: challenges that the departments put in their budget presentations. They
22:22
Speaker 2: were required to include three top challenges. Out of 16 departments,
22:29
Speaker 2: 12 said that staffing was in the top three challenges.
22:36
Speaker 2: Two did not say anything about staffing. One was ambiguous,
22:41
Speaker 2: and one said it didn't have any challenges. So 12
22:43
Speaker 2: out of 16 departments say we've got problems with our staffing,
22:47
Speaker 2: including public services, which resulted in the whole trash pickup
22:52
Speaker 2: problem that occurred.
22:53
Speaker 1: I thought that was an equipment issue.
22:56
Speaker 2: No, no.
22:56
Speaker 1: No, I'm confusing that with the snow removal. I'm sorry, Todd.
22:59
Speaker 2: That's right.
22:59
Speaker 1: My crises mixed up.
23:01
Speaker 2: That's right. So you've got the flooding. You've got the
23:03
Speaker 2: trash removal. You have the snow removal. And I really
23:06
Speaker 2: have come to the conclusion that the city does not
23:09
Speaker 2: have the internal capacity to really even do the basic
23:12
Speaker 2: services of the city.
23:14
Speaker 1: Well, isn't that why they're farming out all kinds of
23:16
Speaker 1: stuff to NGOs, Todd? Or are the NGOs doing something different?
23:21
Speaker 2: Well, I think they're doing something different. I know that.
23:25
Speaker 1: So you talk about this all the time. First off,
23:28
Speaker 1: there's an entity out there that claims it is going
23:31
Speaker 1: to help the city achieve some goal, like juvenile crime.
23:35
Speaker 1: Here we are. We're going to do stuff to help
23:39
Speaker 1: curb juvenile crime.
23:40
Speaker 2: Right.
23:40
Speaker 1: And the city says, okay, here's half a million dollars.
23:43
Speaker 2: That's right.
23:43
Speaker 1: So there's one issue. Okay, people might say, well, that's
23:45
Speaker 1: the way it's supposed to work because the city's not
23:47
Speaker 1: capable of doing everything. Of course, it has to outsource
23:50
Speaker 1: some things. It happens all the time. But there's no
23:53
Speaker 1: following the money once it leaves the building. No one
23:57
Speaker 1: is held accountable for whatever work is supposed to be done.
24:00
Speaker 1: Am I right on that?
24:01
Speaker 2: That's right. And they don't even, in some cases, measure
24:06
Speaker 2: what they're doing.
24:06
Speaker 1: There's no metrics.
24:07
Speaker 2: That's right.
24:08
Speaker 1: So it's trust.
24:10
Speaker 2: That's right.
24:10
Speaker 1: Here's taxpayer dollars. Go do your good work, and we'll
24:12
Speaker 1: trust you with that.
24:13
Speaker 2: And it's optics. Yeah, we care. We give money to
24:17
Speaker 2: these organizations.
24:18
Speaker 1: It's all about your children. I hear you. I hear you.
24:21
Speaker 1: But that's going on regularly. But then again, none of that.
24:25
Speaker 1: Relates to the internal struggles they have. And I'll be
24:28
Speaker 1: the first person to maybe call red flag. Do they
24:30
Speaker 1: really need all that much more staff or could they
24:32
Speaker 1: hire more competent people to get the work done?
24:34
Speaker 2: I think it's B. Because it really, the first thing
24:40
Speaker 2: that came to my mind was the whole 80-20 rule
24:42
Speaker 2: where 80% or 20% of the people are doing 80%
24:45
Speaker 2: of the work. And so the other 80% are underperforming,
24:55
Speaker 2: so to speak.
24:56
Speaker 1: Okay. Well, maybe they should go back to meritocracy.
24:59
Speaker 2: Well, maybe they should. All right.
25:01
Speaker 1: Well, we got that problem solved then, don't we? But
25:03
Speaker 1: we don't have a problem solved concerning this money that
25:07
Speaker 1: flows out to these nonprofit organizations, these nongovernmental organizations. So
25:11
Speaker 1: have they changed that? I see changes to leverage support
25:15
Speaker 1: funding on my list here.
25:16
Speaker 2: Right. So at the past couple of meetings, they've been
25:19
Speaker 2: considering an ordinance to change how they operate or manage
25:25
Speaker 2: the leverage support program, which is basically a grant to
25:29
Speaker 2: local organizations.
25:31
Speaker 1: This is what we just talked about.
25:32
Speaker 3: Right.
25:33
Speaker 2: And in the past, how it worked is the organization
25:37
Speaker 2: would submit an application to the city manager. They would
25:40
Speaker 2: go through certain criteria and they would rank them and
25:44
Speaker 2: and they'd come up with a dollar amount that the
25:47
Speaker 2: organization would receive in a grant. And then it would
25:50
Speaker 2: go to the mayor, and then it would go to
25:51
Speaker 2: the city council. Well, both the mayor and the city
25:54
Speaker 2: council can add money to those grants arbitrarily.
25:59
Speaker 1: Sphincter-inspired amounts.
26:02
Speaker 2: Yeah, and so what happens is The city doesn't have
26:08
Speaker 2: all the money that they used to have to do
26:09
Speaker 2: these things.
26:10
Speaker 1: Well, how can you keep track of the dollars available
26:12
Speaker 1: if the mayor can go randomly add a whole bunch
26:14
Speaker 1: more in expenditures without the council even being able to
26:16
Speaker 1: budget for it?
26:17
Speaker 2: That's right. That's right. This is insanity. And so I
26:22
Speaker 2: think they're starting to feel the pinch of.
26:27
Speaker 1: Let me guess, the outside organizations pressuring them to give
26:29
Speaker 1: them even more money?
26:30
Speaker 2: Yes, or the same amount of money. I think they
26:33
Speaker 2: have to make some cuts. And so they've set it
26:35
Speaker 2: up now where they're trying to get the city council
26:40
Speaker 2: kind of out of the business of modifying whatever the
26:42
Speaker 2: city manager comes up with.
26:44
Speaker 1: Well, that takes the outside political pressure off of them,
26:48
Speaker 1: doesn't it? There's nothing I can do about it. You
26:51
Speaker 1: used to work with me, says council member XYZ, and
26:53
Speaker 1: then now you've got to work with them.
26:55
Speaker 2: So the five people that voted for this change, that's
26:58
Speaker 2: what they think. And the four people that didn't vote
27:00
Speaker 2: for the change says, this isn't going to work. We're
27:03
Speaker 2: still going to get the same amount of pressure from
27:05
Speaker 2: the public.
27:05
Speaker 1: That's like a divided Supreme court. Maybe we need to
27:09
Speaker 1: pack council with more Republican or some Republicans, right? The ship.
27:13
Speaker 3: Yeah.
27:13
Speaker 2: Well, I don't hold out much prospect.
27:16
Speaker 1: Yeah, we gave up. Somebody brought the flag out long
27:18
Speaker 1: time ago. Todd's insert. Remember, uh, to the voters in
27:21
Speaker 1: the city of Cincinnati, all of this, this ridiculous crap
27:26
Speaker 1: that we're staring at this morning, the Todd's gone walking
27:28
Speaker 1: us through, uh, Democrats have been in charge of the
27:31
Speaker 1: city for how many decades now, Todd?
27:34
Speaker 2: At least four or five.
27:36
Speaker 1: Okay. This wasn't a Republican-created problem. We inherited this from,
27:39
Speaker 1: I don't know, Eugene Ruhlman. 746. One more with Todd Zinsser.
27:45
Speaker 1: We're not going to make it through the whole list.
27:47
Speaker 1: I've got to bring you back. Don't go away, folks.
27:49
Speaker 1: Odor exit. First, Todd Zinsser, hold on, because I got
27:51
Speaker 1: Tiffany Green, Officer Green from the Cincinnati Police Department Crime
27:54
Speaker 1: Stopper Division to help us catch a Crime Stopper Bad
27:56
Speaker 1: Guy of the Week. Welcome back, Officer Green. Thank you
27:58
Speaker 1: for what you do every day, and who are we
27:59
Speaker 1: looking for?
28:01
Speaker 3: Good morning, and thank you, Brian. The Cincinnati Police District
28:05
Speaker 3: 3 Investigative Unit is looking for Diego Robinson.
28:09
Speaker 1: Mr.
28:09
Speaker 3: Robinson is wanted for felony burglary and misdemeanor criminal damaging
28:13
Speaker 3: and misdemeanor aggravated menacing. Investigators say Mr. Robinson climbed through
28:19
Speaker 3: the victim's bedroom, window without the victim's consent. Once inside, Mr.
28:24
Speaker 3: Robinson proceeded to damage the victim's property. Diego Robinson is
28:28
Speaker 3: a black male. He's 23 years old. He's 5'7 and
28:32
Speaker 3: 140 pounds. Diego Robinson has an arrest history of failure
28:36
Speaker 3: to comply with police officer and was last known to
28:40
Speaker 3: live on East Ledge Street in Madisonville. If anyone has
28:44
Speaker 3: information on where police can find Diego Robinson, please call
28:48
Speaker 3: Crime Stoppers at 513- 352-3040, or submit a tip online
28:53
Speaker 3: at crime-stoppers.us.
28:55
Speaker 1: You'll be eligible for cash reward if your tip leaves
28:57
Speaker 1: you an arrest, but you'll let Crime Stoppers keep that.
28:59
Speaker 1: We just want to get this guy off the street
29:00
Speaker 1: because he is clearly a menace to society. Officer Green
29:03
Speaker 1: will be looking for him. His photo's on my blog page, 55krc. iheart. com.
29:08
Speaker 1: Thank you again for the Cincinnati Police Department's work for
29:10
Speaker 1: the community each and every day. God bless each and
29:12
Speaker 1: every one of you. Todd Zinser, I intro'd it. Let's
29:15
Speaker 1: move over to the railroad money.
29:17
Speaker 2: Right, so... A lot of people are looking at how
29:20
Speaker 2: their railroad money is being spent as they should.
29:23
Speaker 3: Right.
29:23
Speaker 2: And we've got problems spending that money. But there's also
29:26
Speaker 2: issues on the investment side. You have to keep an
29:30
Speaker 2: eye on the investment side as well.
29:32
Speaker 1: That's the board is responsible for that.
29:34
Speaker 2: That's correct. That's the board that is responsible for maintaining the–
29:37
Speaker 2: it's up close to $ 2 billion now.
29:39
Speaker 3: Wow.
29:40
Speaker 1: Have a fiduciary obligation to do their best to maximize
29:43
Speaker 1: the return on that investment, do they not?
29:44
Speaker 2: That's correct.
29:45
Speaker 1: Okay. Responsibly managed.
29:47
Speaker 2: Responsibly managed. That's correct. So there's three big issues. There's
29:53
Speaker 2: a whole nest of issues involving the board and the
29:57
Speaker 2: investment advisors.
29:58
Speaker 1: Of course there are.
29:59
Speaker 2: But the first one is the board has decided that
30:05
Speaker 2: instead of issuing a standalone financial statement audit, they'll just
30:10
Speaker 2: merge the financial information of the board and the trust
30:15
Speaker 2: into the city's financial statement. So it gets much less
30:21
Speaker 2: treatment than they would with a standalone audit. And I'm
30:27
Speaker 2: not really sure why they're doing that, except that there
30:30
Speaker 2: was some kind of conversation that it would cost an
30:33
Speaker 2: extra $ 30, 000 to have.
30:34
Speaker 1: Well, they can afford a $ 353, 000 IRS penalty. I think
30:38
Speaker 1: they can come up with 30 grand to cover an
30:40
Speaker 1: independent audit.
30:41
Speaker 2: Yeah.
30:41
Speaker 1: And the board is independent and a separate complete entity
30:44
Speaker 1: from the city of Cincinnati, which makes me wonder why
30:46
Speaker 1: in the hell would anyone think including it within a
30:49
Speaker 1: Cincinnati broader audit would be appropriate?
30:51
Speaker 2: The accountants can classify the trust as something called a
30:57
Speaker 2: merged component trust. unit because the rationale is that the
31:03
Speaker 2: trust fund is all about Cincinnati. Cincinnati is the only beneficiary.
31:08
Speaker 2: And so everything- Doesn't make it part of the city.
31:11
Speaker 1: Listen, we live in a time where I can say
31:12
Speaker 1: I'm a girl and people are supposed to swallow that.
31:15
Speaker 2: Right.
31:16
Speaker 1: It doesn't make it true, Todd.
31:17
Speaker 2: So this makes it even worse, Brian. According to the
31:21
Speaker 2: state law that set this whole operation up, the board
31:26
Speaker 2: is supposed to do an audit based on their calendar year. Well,
31:31
Speaker 2: the city does their books on a fiscal year basis.
31:36
Speaker 2: So right off the bat.
31:37
Speaker 1: You can't do it then.
31:38
Speaker 2: Right off the bat, there's a six-month gap.
31:41
Speaker 3: Yes.
31:42
Speaker 2: And I don't know what happened. I don't know how
31:46
Speaker 2: they accounted for the financial transactions during that gap period.
31:50
Speaker 2: And the law requires a calendar year audit. And they're
31:56
Speaker 2: not doing a calendar year audit.
31:58
Speaker 1: I question the word standing comes up, whether someone has
32:01
Speaker 1: standing to go after, maybe litigate some of these issues.
32:05
Speaker 1: Is this something that an outside citizen could pursue? Is
32:09
Speaker 1: this something, again, going back to the Attorney General's office?
32:11
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess I have to wonder, how can
32:14
Speaker 1: they be held accountable? How can they be forced to
32:16
Speaker 1: go back to regularly accepted accounting standards? Because this does
32:19
Speaker 1: not sound like it, Todd.
32:20
Speaker 2: Well, it... It technically does comply with the standards, but
32:25
Speaker 2: what it doesn't comply with is anything to do with
32:27
Speaker 2: transparency about that investment fund. And for example, you look
32:31
Speaker 2: at the investments that the board is making, they've started
32:36
Speaker 2: investing in private credit. And private credit is not like
32:41
Speaker 2: the stock market. Private credit is you're investing in an
32:44
Speaker 2: individual company. But in the case of the board, there
32:47
Speaker 2: are brokers out there that will take your money and
32:51
Speaker 2: put it into private credit, and then what's really shocking
32:57
Speaker 2: is that those managers of those private credit pools, so
33:03
Speaker 2: to speak, they're getting.
33:04
Speaker 1: 1.25% on the value of those investments. So whatever slice of.
33:06
Speaker 2: The $ 2 trillion they throw at private credit, that outside
33:10
Speaker 2: guy gets 1.25%. That's right. That's right. That's outrageous.
33:23
Speaker 1: And does anybody ever vet these outside guys? I mean,
33:26
Speaker 1: determine ahead of time whether there's a conflict of interest
33:28
Speaker 1: between them and the members of the board who make
33:29
Speaker 1: these decisions?
33:30
Speaker 2: Here's the thing. What I recommended to the board that
33:33
Speaker 2: they have completely rejected is that the problem is you
33:37
Speaker 2: have UBS as their investment advisor, right?
33:40
Speaker 3: Yeah.
33:40
Speaker 2: They're the ones that are advising the board to invest
33:44
Speaker 2: in this private credit. Well, the board doesn't know anything
33:48
Speaker 2: about private credit. So who's supposed to Who's supposed to
33:51
Speaker 2: advise them on whether this private credit is worthwhile? The
33:55
Speaker 2: same advisor that's pushing it on them in the first place.
33:59
Speaker 2: There's a conflict there. And I said they should bring
34:01
Speaker 2: in an outside investment advisor to take a look at
34:04
Speaker 2: this whole private credit thing and make sure that it's
34:08
Speaker 2: not too risky. Because if it's too risky, then the
34:11
Speaker 2: board runs into the idea that they're being speculative. And
34:16
Speaker 2: they're not allowed to be speculative.
34:17
Speaker 1: Going back to the fiduciary obligation.
34:18
Speaker 2: That's correct.
34:20
Speaker 3: Wow.
34:20
Speaker 1: Todd Zinser, that is a plate full that you just
34:23
Speaker 1: gave us today here.
34:25
Speaker 3: Yes.