April 2007: the agreement between the city and the Ministry of Justice ends; However, the city agreed to an additional year to monitor problem-solving efforts. THE RAND COMPANY was selected by the parties to the agreement to conduct a five-year data analysis to measure efforts to achieve the goal of improved police and community cooperation. The cooperation agreement – and the progress made in community-police relations since its implementation 18 years ago – is a great source of pride for our city. Recently, questions have been raised about the city`s continued commitment to the cooperation agreement. Let us not make a mistake: the values that underpin this historic agreement guide everything we do. Indeed, we are taking more steps than ever in the spirit of the cooperation agreement. However, the main principle was the title of the agreement: cooperation. And although judicial oversight of the agreement ended eight years ago, cooperation has not. He survived three mayors, three city directors and four police chiefs. Gerhardstein warns that the agreement is constantly being considered. On April 12, 2002, the applicants, the City of Cincinnati and the Fraternal Order of Police reached an agreement to resolve the issues raised by the amended complaint proposed in the case of Tychimba v. City of Cincinnati, 1-99-317 (the “Cooperation Agreement” or “CA”). On the same day, the U.S.
Department of Justice and the City of Cincinnati signed an agreement dealing with various police matters relating to the Cincinnati Department of Police (the “Memorandum of Understanding” or “MOA”). Both the cooperation agreement and the agreement invite the applicants, the City of Cincinnati, the Fraternal Order of Police and the United States Department of Justice (together “the parties”) to agree on a monitor for these agreements within 150 days of the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding. (CA 91; MOA 92.) If the parties do not agree on a monitor within the time limit, the agreements require them to submit to the Court “two names of persons with experience in criminal prosecutions, as well as CVs or CV and cost proposals.” (CA 92; MOA 93.) The Court is then empowered to appoint the monitor from the names of the qualified persons submitted. (Id.) Does the nearly two-year-old attempt to refresh the Cincinnati Cooperation Agreement in 2002 still work? Depends on who you`re asking for. The agreement has three main components. The first component radically changed police policy, the second increased transparency about police behaviour to allow for greater accountability. The third component, biased and community-based policing, was implemented to reduce crime and build community confidence. January 2007: Launch of the Cincinnati Initiative for the Reduction of Violence (CIRV) – cooperation within several authorities and municipalities aimed at rapidly and radically reducing gun violence and related homicides.
The CIRV approach includes work to provide positive group pressure, gang identification and public relations, all in the Urban League. After discussions with the parties, the Court found that they were unable to agree on a monitor until the deadline set by the agreement had expired and had been pursued twice by the Court. (See. #93, 94.) As a result, the Court asked each party to submit the names and applications of the most qualified individuals for the position. The Court carefully reviewed the documents provided by the parties and ordered that Alan Kalmanoff, Ph.D. of the Institute of Law and Political Planning, be appointed to monitor the cooperation agreement and the agreement.