Hot News!
• U.C. Study Approves Streetcar Boondoggle
• Chabot v. Driehaus, The Cincinnati NAACP, and Black Votes
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
Events
 Monday, September 8 4:30 – 5:30 PM: Women In Black Vigils
|
Tuesday, Sept. 9 Tri-State Suicide Prevention Coalition’s all day symposium: “Youth and Young Adult Suicide...Prevention, Crisis Response, and Postvention” will be held from 8 AM to 4:15 PM on Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2008, at the Northern Kentucky Convention Center, 1 West RiverCenter Blvd, Covington, KY 41011. A brochure is available on-line. |
Tuesday, September 9 7:00 PM: Cincinnati Chapter of Ohioans to Stop Execution
|
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Chris Bortz is Wrong: OTR Sheriff Patrols NOT Covered by Collaborative Agreement
Posted by Michael Earl Patton
Photo courtesy of here.
At the Urban League forum on October 18, I was asked my opinion of the Collaborative Agreement. Among other things, I stated that the sheriff patrols in Over-the-Rhine were not covered and that this was a problem. Chris Bortz strongly criticized me and said I was completely wrong—that the sheriff patrols were in fact covered by the Collaborative Agreement and that city council would never have approved the patrols if they weren’t. Well, Chris Bortz is the one who is completely wrong.
Actually, it is hard to understand how Chris Bortz could be so wrong about his facts. I admit I was taken aback by his criticism—could the media and all the people to whom I had talked be so far off? But I have since had time to thoroughly check out the facts, and they are so clear it seems impossible that Mr. Bortz could simply have been mistaken.
First, a little clarification: the Collaborative Agreement was a five-year contract that expired in August. But the city manager has ordered the police to continue certain aspects of the agreement such as the Citizens Complaint Authority (CCA) and the CPOP program. And the sheriff’s department is not under the authority of the city manager. But, in theory, Sheriff Leis could have ordered his department to voluntarily cooperate with the CCA for any complaints against his deputies. He did not do so, as is clear from the agreement he did reach with the city (par. 4 of the settlement). There is only limited cooperation promised—Leis agrees that his deputies can be interviewed during investigations of Cincinnati police officers, but themselves are not subject to investigations by the CCA. And there are exceptions to even that limited cooperation.
The Cincinnati Beacon, contacted the Chief Investigator of the CCA, who confirmed this. He stated that they have no authority to investigate any complaints against the sheriff department.
As for CPOP, a community-police partnership to reduce crime, the settlement avoids any commitment by the sheriff department to participate. The city and the ACLU merely agree to keep the sheriff department informed “as appropriate.”
So it is very clear that the sheriff patrols in Over-the-Rhine are NOT covered by the provisions of the Collaborative Agreement and never were. Any additional patrols in other parts of the city would also not be covered. But Mr. Bortz insists that these were pre-conditions to council’s approval of the patrols in the first place. So, taking him at his word, we can expect him to work vigorously to include the sheriff deputies into the provisions of the Collaborative Agreement.
• Share This Article!
Listen to this article
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
28 Oct 2007 at 09:32 pm | #
.
Chris is clueless. The sheriff sued and they are not part of the agreement.
Why do you think they have established a police state in OTR and the powers to be want it that way.
They have to keep those (boys) in the hood in their place.
.
28 Oct 2007 at 10:03 pm | #
Thank god the Sheriff’s patrol is not covered by this agreement. Now maybe we can get some of the human filth cleaned up in OTR. Si, we need your Deputy’s in Westwood, Price Hill and Covedale, as District 3’s officers have sat on their fat asses and allowed these neighborhoods to go to hell.
29 Oct 2007 at 06:07 am | #
I want a Police State in my neighborhood, too.
29 Oct 2007 at 06:17 am | #
We know, you want to start the Clifton Heights Militia.
But this post is not about police. It is about Chris Bortz being dead wrong on the facts.
You might like the OTR patrols, but that has nothing to do with Bortz’s complete inability to get his facts straight.
Or did he willfully misrepresent them? If so, that’s even worse!
29 Oct 2007 at 08:21 am | #
JH #4: “We know, you want to start the Clifton Heights Militia.”
What I want is for my neighborhood to be free of crime. If the Sheriff is not able to come to Clifton Heights, and the Police have to continue to kowtow to the Coercive Agreement, the need for citizens to protect our own becomes much more real.
JH #4: “You might like the OTR patrols, but that has nothing to do with Bortz’s complete inability to get his facts straight.”
That would be a singular fact; and as far as accuracy goes MEP has a much more impressive record of speaking without benefit of the facts. Remember Fountain Square! You know, when he repeatedly said the steps violated Handicap Accessibility law, and they didn’t.
29 Oct 2007 at 09:04 am | #
I for one cant wait until you hold the beacon to the same standard
29 Oct 2007 at 11:18 am | #
Abort Bortz and his lies. He is a lawyer and knows the facts about the collaborative agreement. More obfuscation by weak ass leadership. Oust the incumbents and clean house.
29 Oct 2007 at 12:22 pm | #
I stand by what I said on the accessibility issues, and quoted from the standards to prove my point. When the ice-skating rink is erected it blocks the ramp. That is a violation of the ADA (American with Disabilities Act). Other steps lack handrails—that is a violation of the building code. The steps by the corner of Fifth and Vine lack both handrails (code violation) and color contrast when seen from above. That may or may not be a code violation, but it sure violates common sense.
29 Oct 2007 at 01:31 pm | #
I agree with Michael. When the ice-skating rink is up it blocks the ramp and is therefore a violation. Also there are safety concerns in the garage that 3CDC has completely failed to deal with even though our reporting lead to a Channel 5 investigation of these problems.
In level 3 and 4 there still is a mess. There are unpainted walls that need to be repaired. I was there the other day and heard somebody complaining that they left their ticket in their car and had to go all the way back down to get it.
I’ve been to two events at lunch time and the square was empty both times. One was a candidate forum and the other was a great band playing.
What a bust and how much did this deal really cost us?
Bortz is wrong about both of these issues.
29 Oct 2007 at 03:56 pm | #
"a great band”...judging by 98ºboy™’s previous work, I greatly question what he considers a “great” band to be.
WOW! A wall needs to be painted! Some asshole can’t read and forgot his ticket in his car!!! It’s today’s Scandal Of The Year!!!!
Get over it 98ºboy™, the Square has changed and there’s no going back. Tough shit for you. And it ‘cost us’ $4 million. And it was worth every penny, even if it was just to hear you squeal with Righteous Outrage!!
29 Oct 2007 at 04:43 pm | #
They didn’t even begin to introduce the sheriff into the city until the gunfire rang out outside city hall…
Bortz is way off and wrongo
29 Oct 2007 at 05:14 pm | #
Wait a minute. Chris Bortz is never wrong. In fact he is the smartest man in any room to which he enters. Don’t believe me? Ask him. Go ahead Ask him. He’ll tell you.
29 Oct 2007 at 08:00 pm | #
JJ#0: “I agree with Michael. When the ice-skating rink is up it blocks the ramp and is therefore a violation.”
The skating rink wasn’t in yet when he started his tirade. His point was that it was built in violation of the law, which it wasn’t
29 Oct 2007 at 08:12 pm | #
So did anyone get arrested for trying to shoehorn your NEIGHBORHOOD RESCUE PLAN BS, into the anti tax press conference?
30 Oct 2007 at 07:36 am | #
The skating rink had been up, and JFD, like Chris Bortz, is clearly throwing out wild statements in the hopes that one will stick. One must wonder why it is so important for Bortz and JFD to try to smear me.
30 Oct 2007 at 10:50 am | #
Yes Michael, you’re correct once again and we have video to prove it.
Bill, you have a bad problem with putting words in peoples mouths and trying to change what people’s points are to what you would like them to be.
You blog here daily and the only original idea we’ve heard from you so far is about starting an armed militia. You’re off topic with uselss drivel and petty smears once again.
Keep it up and you’re going on vacation to Landeck Land.
30 Oct 2007 at 03:35 pm | #
OK so the rink was in. My bad. You started off about the steps with the rail down the middle and complained that they were not built according to accessibility law. The remarks about the rink didn’t come in until later. The bottom line is that the steps are not built in violation of the law.
The last time you accused me of putting words into your mouth was when I was talking about your position paper/Neighborhood Rescue Plan, from your unsuccessful run for mayor. As soon as I started talking in specifics to back up what I had said earlier you disappeared from the scene. Do you want to retract you accusation or would you prefer this statement suffice? If anyone has hijacked the thread, it’s you trying to smear me.
30 Oct 2007 at 08:12 pm | #
This is an old thread, and really has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The article was about Chris Bortz being wrong. He told everyone at the Urban League that the OTR sheriff patrols were covered by the provisions of the Collaborative Agreement. They are not. If JFD disagrees with me, he should provide evidence that they are, in fact, so covered.
Instead he takes up an old argument over handrails. I stand by my statement that there should be handrails at the steps at the corner of Fifth and Vine. JFD’s comments do, though, illustrate that clear safety violations are ignored when 3CDC is involved. Other people are threatened with jail for smaller code violations.
30 Oct 2007 at 10:52 pm | #
CincyCapell, I was signed to Motown, sold 10 million records and worked with Mariah Carey and Stevie Wonder. What are your credentials?
City Council gave up over $130 million in parking garage revenue over the next 40 years for what?
So that the garage could be renovated. The square was a year late, there was no public support for 3CDC’s plan and we were lied to about the cost. (There’s more, but I’ll leave it at that for now.)Now, a corporate shill like you might not see any problem with this, but many of us do.
I won’t get over anything until our people know the truth about the cost and how dangerous it is for the disabled. It didn’t cost us just $4 million you little liar. How much is the estimated garage revenue over the 40 lease?
That squealing is the pigs at the trough that you work for CincyCramerding. Have you seen the cartoon on my MCU? “Dude, it’s totally awesome!!!”
Bill Landeck/JFD, you are wrong again and off topic again. I’ve already given you many warnings about this. I think you need a break from here for a while.
No Bill Landeck, I won’t retract my statement. You did put words in my mouth in that instance as well and I did correct you. I’m too busy right now to constantly correct your off topic rants.
Your comment in #5 was the first really off topic rant on this thread Bill. I’m not trying to smear you, I was trying to get you to stay on topic and have you actually contribute to the conversation. Guess what Bill. You’ve just won a free trip to Landeck Land!!!
Congratulations Bill Landeck. Now we don’t want you to be lonely there, so we’re sending CincyCapell along with you. Bye Bye guys!!!
02 Nov 2007 at 09:53 am | #
Justin,
Where do you think you will place in this council election?
How are you feeling these last few days?