October 28, 2025 • 18 mins
Sloanie talks with Jason Phillabaum about what to expect from the situation surrounding the Cincinnati Police Chief position.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now your chance to win one thousand dollars entered this
nationwide keyword on our website. Bank that's bank. You enter
it now to an American.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Thanks, so join it at Scott's thowing here on seven
hundred WW and V the iHeartRadio app Take is wherever
you Go. So the news breaking not long ago that
the City of Cincinnati is paying a local law firm,
Frost Brown Todd forty k to investigate police Terry Thigi's
performance after they fired her. Normally you investigate the performance
(00:31):
and go okay. They got to go this is completely backwards,
and they expect the law firm to be finished by
the end of the year. So it's going to cost
us forty grand and the city is still shelling out
the full salary and benefits to Terry Fiji of in
excess of two hundred thousand dollars. Because of this nonsense,
she hired her own employment lawyer, Stephen m and he
(00:53):
has no intention of allowing her to resign because she
said there's nothing negative. Thirty five years on the job
to the date when she was removed. Thirty five years,
nothing significant, nothing minor. In her jacket, pretty exemplary, thirty
five year law career that she's had, so why now.
And also there's some developing news overnight regarding the scope
(01:14):
of the investigation what the law firm is going to
look for. Specifically, joining the show is attorney Jason Philibaum,
who's been around the block a few times. Jason, welcome,
how are.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
You, good morning? Thank you doing well?
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Yeah, this whole thing right away, it just just screams
like wrongful dismissal in a sense, because before we get
into the intricacies of at Jason Phillim, I look at
this and go, Okay, I've been on the job for
thirty five years, and on my thirty fifth anniversary, I
get noticed that I'm now on paid administratively, if I'm
in Denver, Colorado, I get summoned back from this conference
to Cincinnati because I'm probably gonna get fired. And she
(01:47):
wasn't technically fired. She's on paid leave, and it wasn't
because of something happened. I mean the Fountain Square issue.
It happened days a couple of days after she left
for Denver, so nothing new was going on here. And
then furthermore, they come in and go, Okay, we're going
to put you on leave. We're going to name an
interim chief, by the way, not a temporary position, but
(02:08):
interim generally means between the past into the future. If
it was someone let's say that Scott forbid she were sick,
there would be someone temporarily there, right, So that would
be someone who is not an interim chief. There'd be
another adjective for that, it'd be acting chief. And so
they even chose the words incorrectly here. If you're not firing,
(02:29):
if she's not fired, then why I have an interim chief?
Does that not help the legal case against the city
from Terry Thiji, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
I think so. I think this looks like a witch hut.
It reminds me of this guy that had one hundred
arrows in the side of his barn and he would
ask how he did it, and he said, it was easy.
I shoot an arrow into the side of the barn
and then I go ahead and paint the bull's eye
around it. And you know what I think you have
here is you have a situation where you know they
they want her gone. I mean that's clear. And instead
(02:58):
of just terminating and worrying about whether they have to
pay out a contract or not, they then hire a
law firm, you know, approximately one hundred to one hundred
and twenty hours of work to essentially investigate her. And
you know, I can tell you, you know, being around
the block. As you say, you know, if you start
investigating someone that has thirty five years of experience, you know,
(03:22):
you may not find something illegal. But I'm pretty sure
you're going to find some policy that's been broken that
everybody breaks, and then that's going to be their linch pin.
But it sounds to me like there's some issues in
Cincinnati and they're using her as escapegoat.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
Well, it's not easy to dismissible gig. Well, we investigated
and we found this in your jacket, which should be
you know, essentially it's already something that's known but didn't
rise the level of termination. As a matter of fact,
the argument from Steve and m would be, well, not
only did you know this because it's part of you
also promoted her in rank to the chief of police,
so you're complicit in this whole thing. You're finding her
for something you had no problem that she did at
(03:58):
the time. You can't that's revision.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
You can't do that.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
I mean that that's going to cost the money in't it.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
Yeah, And that's the that's the process I think they're
they're going down here that I'm not sure is going
to be wise what they're trying to do. I mean,
they want or gone. Like you said, they even use
the word interim, so she's gone, she's not going to resign,
and so they're going to want a terminator. Now in Ohio,
we'ren't at will state, so you can terminate someone as
(04:26):
long as it's not based on some you know, illegal reason, race, gender,
national origin, et cetera. But she is probably under a contract.
So if that's the case, then they can only terminate
her from that contract for just cause there's got to
be a good reason why. And it could be policy,
you know, some type of policy being broken. Obviously, it
(04:46):
could be something illegal, or it could just be mismanagement
of the you know, the city. So those are things
that they're going to be looking for. And you know,
the the issue with that too is, you know, we
do know that crime is up, and we know that
violent crime is up. But her Herney said the other
day that she's offered to sit down with the mayor
and the judges to talk about you know, these these
(05:09):
bonds that are being given because that could be one
situation that why crime is up is essentially if someone
gets arrested for a violent crime and is back out
on the street, you know, a few days later, you
know crime is not going to go away, and and
it looks like, you know, election year, you're now having
a situation where the that's let's get rid of the
(05:29):
police chief, and that's why there's all these problems going
on in Cincinnati. Instead, it may be, you know, leadership.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
I don't think you have to be a political analysis
supple political mind like like a Willie Cunningham, James Carvill
or something that right where they for the regular voter,
for the rank and five or the typical constituent, they
see this, they see right through it. I think every
man and woman who doesn't have a jurisd doctorate is
not educated in WAW like like you are. Jason Phillibaum.
(05:55):
I mean I look at him and go, they're doing
a dirty.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
Yeah, And I think that's what a lot of people
are thinking. Now. You know, play Devil's Advocate for a second.
You know, crime is up. We talked about that, is
there something she should have been doing that she's not.
I mean, is she not you know, putting the police
in the right position, or her subordinates telling her that,
you know, you should you should put police here, you
(06:20):
should maybe do some kind of burst here, and then
she just decides she's not doing that, and as a result,
you have this issue on Fountain Square, you have these
other issues. Now that might be a legitimate thing. I mean,
and maybe that's something we don't know. Again just playing
devil's advocate, But even if you look at what her
attorney said, is the FOP I think is backing her.
(06:42):
So I would think that if her subordinates were telling
her to do things and she was just flat out
ignoring them, I'm not sure that they would have that
backing that she has. Now.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
He is attorney Jason Phillibaum the very latest involving Terry
Terry Thigi. Now we're hiring a law from a local
law from Frost Brown Todd pretty confirm that they're going
to do some deep diving and try and find out
the reasons why they fired her before. As you said,
you know, this is shoot first, asked questions later. I
(07:12):
guess the Inquirer came out with this this morning. The
scope of the investigation. This is what the lawyers, the
team for the city outside council is going to investigate.
And now there are four prongs to this thing. Is
she an effective leader and manager of the department, including
personnel and resources? Is she a leader within the context
of city government, meaning does she further the broader goals
and objectives of the administration. Has she committed any infraction
(07:35):
or policitive evolution while serving as a police chief. And
did she disregard best practices in the running a CPD
to the detriment of detriment of public safety and crime prevention. Well,
let's start with the first one. Is she an effective
leader and manager of the department, including personnel and resources.
That seems like an open ended question, like if there
were problems with her management personnel that the previous chief
(07:57):
notoriously had issues with that when this was before Craig
larstly I had problems with that too and it was
public so but believing or heard of that at chiuth Thiji,
you know, the rank and file really split on it,
really didn't care for her all that much. But once
they did what they did to her, they realized they
could come next. And now everyone even her detractors are supporters,
(08:18):
so they rallied them. So to look at this and say,
is she an effective leader or manager? You can say
that of any boss, can't you?
Speaker 1 (08:25):
Right? Exactly? And I call that fuzzy math. You know,
that's the law school exam where it depends on who's
paying me. That's the answer I give you. Know you're
paying me on this one side, I tell you why
she's an effective leader. If you're paying me on the
other side, I'll give you all the reasons why she's not.
I mean that's again, I don't think that's what this
is going to fall down on, because again, like you
(08:46):
said that, it's so vague, it's so fuzzy that you know,
if they want to decide that she's not a good leader,
they're gonna they're gonna find reasons to justify that, just
like if you want to find that she's a good leader,
you'd find the So you know the first two that
you mentioned, those prongs, that those both both are very
fuzzy math, fuzzy sort of law school exams where anyone
(09:08):
can answer anything. I think the crux is going to
be number three, which is is there an infraction? You know,
is there something that she did that she not follow
a policy. I don't think there's any allegation of criminal wrongdoing,
So it's going to be something something you know, so
minor that and that's where she's going to then get
into court and say, look, other people have done, you know,
(09:30):
other people forgot to call in on day that they
were taking off and they were allowed to stay. But
I'm getting fired things like that. And then of course
number four, I mean, that's that's I think the one
that's a little bit more serious. You know, there's a
problem in Cincinnati with crime. Whose fault is it? Is
it the mayor's is it the judges? Is it the
(09:52):
police chief? You know? Is it society? I mean, what's
the problem? And I think it'd be interesting to see
if there's something that she should be doing or something
like you said, best practices that she didn't do. That
would be the one that would you know, sell me
yes or no, as opposed to the other three prongs
that you know, they can find out of anybody. Well.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
Jason Philibel, Attorney at law, relative to the four pillars
of this investigation by outside Council for the City of
Cincinnati to towards Terry Thiji. You mentioned number three as
she's committed any infraction policy violation while serving as police chief.
If she had, and it rose to the level of
an impeachable offense, wouldn't we have heard that? I mean, typically,
you know, when someone commits a crime. Let's look at
(10:33):
what happened with the NBA recently. What happened was Cashpttel
the FBI held at press confet. They had the evidence,
they made the charge that Okay, here's we're coming at
these individuals. We're going after Chauncey Bellops are going after
other individuals because this is the evidence we have in
this case. They're going, well, it'd be like them going, yeah, well,
we're suspending Chauncey Bellops and now we're going to do
an investigation to find out what he did wrong. That's
(10:54):
the problem with this is that if you in any
other case, with due process, and I think it applies
here to it, that if you commit an infraction, you
make those charges allegations, you suspend them all, you investigate
the scope and the depths, and then eventually you terminate
that person because now you've gathered the evidence. This is
completely the opposite of.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
That right and That's why I think a lot of
people look at this and say that's not fair. You know,
you don't arrest somebody and say, go find me a crime.
The crimes committed, then you arrest them, and then you
either investigate further or prove or disprove that it happened.
What's not fair is to essentially take someone out of
(11:33):
a position and look for something that they did wrong.
And you know, I would think, you know, if they
did something wrong, you wouldn't have the city manager talking
about what a great thirty five years and what a
great person this is and we wish you the best.
I think I think that was the statement when they
put her on leave, is you know, what a great
(11:54):
sellar career. If there's truly an infraction worthy of dismissal,
that's not the state that you put out there. So
that tells me they probably don't know if there's one,
and they're now looking for one so they can hang
their hat on it.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Yeah. Yeah, our tires at nineteen ninety eight, we're touching
a handicapped spot. Accidentally, she didn't close the cover before striking.
When she was trying to light a candle. Some matches
and she tore the mattress tag off of her ceiling.
Those don't rise to levels the reason you get fired
because everyone does that.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
Right exactly exactly, and that's what they're that's what they're
looking for now again so they can find it for cause.
Now I think again the legitimate, legitimate investigation would be
number four. But again that's not something that I would
do post termination or in this case just suspension. Is
what is this she doing wrong? Why is the city?
(12:46):
You know, and maybe maybe that's a good investigation, you know,
find tell me why Cincinnati crime is going up? And
see if we but to sit there and take the
police chief out and then do that investigation. That seems
again putting a little bit of the cart before the horse.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
Well it seems like, you know, they're turning under a stone,
the stone over. But when they kick the stone, a
lot of things are going to run. I wonder how
much of those those bugs come back to bite after
a pureval Because two and four of this four pillar
investigation by Brown Frost Todd is she too? Is is
she a leader within the context of city government, meaning
furthering the broader goals and objects of the city administration.
(13:23):
Number four is did she regard best practices in the
running of CPD. I don't know if that's just best
practices by police standards. No pot of standards or best
practices is set forth by number two the administration. Because
that's the sticky part is when she interviewed for this
job three years ago, Jason Philbamma was looking at some
of the interviews she did. She said her biggest priority
was to continued diversity, equity and inclusion within the Cincinnati
(13:47):
Police Department, how to lift people up. And she also
had to get the blessing and interview essentially with Iris Rawley,
who we've seen in recent time investigated and get herself
involved between a suspect a subject who was being arrested
for violating probation and was essentially interfering with the business
of a police officer. She had an interview with her
(14:09):
to get this job in the first place. So when
I hear that and then see what's happened with owner
cognisance people cutting their ankle monitor off and there's no
repercussion from the court for that essentially doing what they
say they weren't going to do. Literally within minutes of leaving,
the people who have been jammed up and all this
high profile violence, save maybe the brawl, there's other factors
in there. And now that was handled as a nightmare.
(14:31):
That wasn't on the chief, but everything else was, Like
people who had violent prior criminal offenses that were precluded
from having a gun because they're under disability by law.
It's not her to set those policies. That's on the mayor.
So they're doing this investigation. I wonder how much of
this is going to come back and implicate have to
a peer volunteer.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
Long Yeah, I agree, And if you look at I
think the mayor put out a statement. He put out
a statement that he had nothing to do with his firing. Again,
I find that to be maybe a little disingenuous, because
why in the world with a city manager three weeks
before an election terminate your female police chief without talking
(15:10):
to the mayor. That would be a very dumb move.
So I would think that there was a discussion ahead
of time. But like you said, there's a lot of
factors to consider. You know, is she pushing DEI and
that's why there's not enough police on the street. Maybe
that's a legitimate decision to you know, talk about whether
that's the appropriate way to handle policing, you know, But
(15:30):
recently the city also engaged in a federal settlement where
they are changing the way they're policing. I mean, that's
that could be a very real reason for why things
are going up, you know, having bonds, Like you said,
someone that commits a violent crime and has let out
the next day that that's the that's not on the
police an issue. That's not on her exactly.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
I could see when she's falsifying reports and people aren't
showing up, and she's backdating payroll. I mean, those are
the things you're definitely going to get you and should
get you fired. But essentially the vision by this administration
is criminals are victims too, has led us to this point.
That's not on Terry Thiji. That's on the people who
hire Terry Thiji.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
Exactly. As I said at the beginning of this talk,
sounds to me like a skategoat. It sounds to me like,
you know, we're two weeks out from an election and
I've got to tell the people that there's a problem,
and I fixed the problem. And now by the way,
that's hired these really good attorneys to go in there
and find out what the problem was, and then I
can match it up and say, hey did a good job,
(16:30):
which of course won't come out until after the election anyway.
It's going to take two three months to do a
thorough investigation whether it's legitimate or whether it's brought up
after the facts, So I don't think we're going to
know anything. We'll probably January.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
After the election. Of course, that's what this is about,
buying some time for the election, but it really doesn't
because it makes them looking competent and stupid, and not
the first time either. I would also add this finally,
Jason Philibaum, attorney at law, if you're representing, if you're
on Team Fiji, are your eyes now glazing over with
the millions and millions of dollars should possibly be getting
in because quite honestly, the way this whole thing was executed,
(17:05):
it's seemingly, in addition to the two hundred K she's making,
could wind up getting a help of payout to sign
a non disclosure agreement because if she doesn't sign an NDA,
theyn't force an NDAU, then then she can roll over
on this administration and really let the go south. And
they don't want that.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
Yeah, yes, her attorney's firm is well known for suing
cities and municipalities and going after them and then you know,
that's a lot of expensive lawsuits and if they if
they end up getting, you know, something that they can
hang their hat on, then you've got attorney fees in play,
and that's a pretty penny that the Cincinnati have to
(17:43):
pay out. So yeah, there's there's My guess is there's
going to be a settlement some way through the process,
because otherwise it's going to be expensive for somebody.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
If the Finny law firm or like the Bengals defense,
we wouldn't be having conversations about not making the playoffs
and firing coaches, if you know what me, because they
are tenacious. If anything, he is attorney Jason Phillibaum private
practice of course, attorney himself, just kind of a different view,
a different set of eyes on this issue right now
because it doesn't pass my sniff test, and it certainly
doesn't pass Jason's either. Jason all the best, buddy, thanks
(18:15):
for jumping on this morning.
Speaker 1 (18:17):
I appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
Thank you over at Jonas and Philibam. Thanks again, quick
time out. We'll get a news update and the controversy
that they wish we're kind of I hate when, like,
we've got enough controversy in the world. What is controversial
about what's happening at the White House relative to the
East Wing? Because it feels like people are pushing this
narrative like we should be all worked up into a
froth about this, and I just maybe it's just me.
(18:40):
I don't see it, and I'll tell you why next
seven hundred WLW
Now your chance to win one thousand dollars entered this
nationwide keyword on our website. Bank that's bank. You enter
it now to an American.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Thanks, so join it at Scott's thowing here on seven
hundred WW and V the iHeartRadio app Take is wherever
you Go. So the news breaking not long ago that
the City of Cincinnati is paying a local law firm,
Frost Brown Todd forty k to investigate police Terry Thigi's
performance after they fired her. Normally you investigate the performance
(00:31):
and go okay. They got to go this is completely backwards,
and they expect the law firm to be finished by
the end of the year. So it's going to cost
us forty grand and the city is still shelling out
the full salary and benefits to Terry Fiji of in
excess of two hundred thousand dollars. Because of this nonsense,
she hired her own employment lawyer, Stephen m and he
(00:53):
has no intention of allowing her to resign because she
said there's nothing negative. Thirty five years on the job
to the date when she was removed. Thirty five years,
nothing significant, nothing minor. In her jacket, pretty exemplary, thirty
five year law career that she's had, so why now.
And also there's some developing news overnight regarding the scope
(01:14):
of the investigation what the law firm is going to
look for. Specifically, joining the show is attorney Jason Philibaum,
who's been around the block a few times. Jason, welcome,
how are.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
You, good morning? Thank you doing well?
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Yeah, this whole thing right away, it just just screams
like wrongful dismissal in a sense, because before we get
into the intricacies of at Jason Phillim, I look at
this and go, Okay, I've been on the job for
thirty five years, and on my thirty fifth anniversary, I
get noticed that I'm now on paid administratively, if I'm
in Denver, Colorado, I get summoned back from this conference
to Cincinnati because I'm probably gonna get fired. And she
(01:47):
wasn't technically fired. She's on paid leave, and it wasn't
because of something happened. I mean the Fountain Square issue.
It happened days a couple of days after she left
for Denver, so nothing new was going on here. And
then furthermore, they come in and go, Okay, we're going
to put you on leave. We're going to name an
interim chief, by the way, not a temporary position, but
(02:08):
interim generally means between the past into the future. If
it was someone let's say that Scott forbid she were sick,
there would be someone temporarily there, right, So that would
be someone who is not an interim chief. There'd be
another adjective for that, it'd be acting chief. And so
they even chose the words incorrectly here. If you're not firing,
(02:29):
if she's not fired, then why I have an interim chief?
Does that not help the legal case against the city
from Terry Thiji, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
I think so. I think this looks like a witch hut.
It reminds me of this guy that had one hundred
arrows in the side of his barn and he would
ask how he did it, and he said, it was easy.
I shoot an arrow into the side of the barn
and then I go ahead and paint the bull's eye
around it. And you know what I think you have
here is you have a situation where you know they
they want her gone. I mean that's clear. And instead
(02:58):
of just terminating and worrying about whether they have to
pay out a contract or not, they then hire a
law firm, you know, approximately one hundred to one hundred
and twenty hours of work to essentially investigate her. And
you know, I can tell you, you know, being around
the block. As you say, you know, if you start
investigating someone that has thirty five years of experience, you know,
(03:22):
you may not find something illegal. But I'm pretty sure
you're going to find some policy that's been broken that
everybody breaks, and then that's going to be their linch pin.
But it sounds to me like there's some issues in
Cincinnati and they're using her as escapegoat.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
Well, it's not easy to dismissible gig. Well, we investigated
and we found this in your jacket, which should be
you know, essentially it's already something that's known but didn't
rise the level of termination. As a matter of fact,
the argument from Steve and m would be, well, not
only did you know this because it's part of you
also promoted her in rank to the chief of police,
so you're complicit in this whole thing. You're finding her
for something you had no problem that she did at
(03:58):
the time. You can't that's revision.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
You can't do that.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
I mean that that's going to cost the money in't it.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
Yeah, And that's the that's the process I think they're
they're going down here that I'm not sure is going
to be wise what they're trying to do. I mean,
they want or gone. Like you said, they even use
the word interim, so she's gone, she's not going to resign,
and so they're going to want a terminator. Now in Ohio,
we'ren't at will state, so you can terminate someone as
(04:26):
long as it's not based on some you know, illegal reason, race, gender,
national origin, et cetera. But she is probably under a contract.
So if that's the case, then they can only terminate
her from that contract for just cause there's got to
be a good reason why. And it could be policy,
you know, some type of policy being broken. Obviously, it
(04:46):
could be something illegal, or it could just be mismanagement
of the you know, the city. So those are things
that they're going to be looking for. And you know,
the the issue with that too is, you know, we
do know that crime is up, and we know that
violent crime is up. But her Herney said the other
day that she's offered to sit down with the mayor
and the judges to talk about you know, these these
(05:09):
bonds that are being given because that could be one
situation that why crime is up is essentially if someone
gets arrested for a violent crime and is back out
on the street, you know, a few days later, you
know crime is not going to go away, and and
it looks like, you know, election year, you're now having
a situation where the that's let's get rid of the
(05:29):
police chief, and that's why there's all these problems going
on in Cincinnati. Instead, it may be, you know, leadership.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
I don't think you have to be a political analysis
supple political mind like like a Willie Cunningham, James Carvill
or something that right where they for the regular voter,
for the rank and five or the typical constituent, they
see this, they see right through it. I think every
man and woman who doesn't have a jurisd doctorate is
not educated in WAW like like you are. Jason Phillibaum.
(05:55):
I mean I look at him and go, they're doing
a dirty.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
Yeah, And I think that's what a lot of people
are thinking. Now. You know, play Devil's Advocate for a second.
You know, crime is up. We talked about that, is
there something she should have been doing that she's not.
I mean, is she not you know, putting the police
in the right position, or her subordinates telling her that,
you know, you should you should put police here, you
(06:20):
should maybe do some kind of burst here, and then
she just decides she's not doing that, and as a result,
you have this issue on Fountain Square, you have these
other issues. Now that might be a legitimate thing. I mean,
and maybe that's something we don't know. Again just playing
devil's advocate, But even if you look at what her
attorney said, is the FOP I think is backing her.
(06:42):
So I would think that if her subordinates were telling
her to do things and she was just flat out
ignoring them, I'm not sure that they would have that
backing that she has. Now.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
He is attorney Jason Phillibaum the very latest involving Terry
Terry Thigi. Now we're hiring a law from a local
law from Frost Brown Todd pretty confirm that they're going
to do some deep diving and try and find out
the reasons why they fired her before. As you said,
you know, this is shoot first, asked questions later. I
(07:12):
guess the Inquirer came out with this this morning. The
scope of the investigation. This is what the lawyers, the
team for the city outside council is going to investigate.
And now there are four prongs to this thing. Is
she an effective leader and manager of the department, including
personnel and resources? Is she a leader within the context
of city government, meaning does she further the broader goals
and objectives of the administration. Has she committed any infraction
(07:35):
or policitive evolution while serving as a police chief. And
did she disregard best practices in the running a CPD
to the detriment of detriment of public safety and crime prevention. Well,
let's start with the first one. Is she an effective
leader and manager of the department, including personnel and resources.
That seems like an open ended question, like if there
were problems with her management personnel that the previous chief
(07:57):
notoriously had issues with that when this was before Craig
larstly I had problems with that too and it was
public so but believing or heard of that at chiuth Thiji,
you know, the rank and file really split on it,
really didn't care for her all that much. But once
they did what they did to her, they realized they
could come next. And now everyone even her detractors are supporters,
(08:18):
so they rallied them. So to look at this and say,
is she an effective leader or manager? You can say
that of any boss, can't you?
Speaker 1 (08:25):
Right? Exactly? And I call that fuzzy math. You know,
that's the law school exam where it depends on who's
paying me. That's the answer I give you. Know you're
paying me on this one side, I tell you why
she's an effective leader. If you're paying me on the
other side, I'll give you all the reasons why she's not.
I mean that's again, I don't think that's what this
is going to fall down on, because again, like you
(08:46):
said that, it's so vague, it's so fuzzy that you know,
if they want to decide that she's not a good leader,
they're gonna they're gonna find reasons to justify that, just
like if you want to find that she's a good leader,
you'd find the So you know the first two that
you mentioned, those prongs, that those both both are very
fuzzy math, fuzzy sort of law school exams where anyone
(09:08):
can answer anything. I think the crux is going to
be number three, which is is there an infraction? You know,
is there something that she did that she not follow
a policy. I don't think there's any allegation of criminal wrongdoing,
So it's going to be something something you know, so
minor that and that's where she's going to then get
into court and say, look, other people have done, you know,
(09:30):
other people forgot to call in on day that they
were taking off and they were allowed to stay. But
I'm getting fired things like that. And then of course
number four, I mean, that's that's I think the one
that's a little bit more serious. You know, there's a
problem in Cincinnati with crime. Whose fault is it? Is
it the mayor's is it the judges? Is it the
(09:52):
police chief? You know? Is it society? I mean, what's
the problem? And I think it'd be interesting to see
if there's something that she should be doing or something
like you said, best practices that she didn't do. That
would be the one that would you know, sell me
yes or no, as opposed to the other three prongs
that you know, they can find out of anybody. Well.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
Jason Philibel, Attorney at law, relative to the four pillars
of this investigation by outside Council for the City of
Cincinnati to towards Terry Thiji. You mentioned number three as
she's committed any infraction policy violation while serving as police chief.
If she had, and it rose to the level of
an impeachable offense, wouldn't we have heard that? I mean, typically,
you know, when someone commits a crime. Let's look at
(10:33):
what happened with the NBA recently. What happened was Cashpttel
the FBI held at press confet. They had the evidence,
they made the charge that Okay, here's we're coming at
these individuals. We're going after Chauncey Bellops are going after
other individuals because this is the evidence we have in
this case. They're going, well, it'd be like them going, yeah, well,
we're suspending Chauncey Bellops and now we're going to do
an investigation to find out what he did wrong. That's
(10:54):
the problem with this is that if you in any
other case, with due process, and I think it applies
here to it, that if you commit an infraction, you
make those charges allegations, you suspend them all, you investigate
the scope and the depths, and then eventually you terminate
that person because now you've gathered the evidence. This is
completely the opposite of.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
That right and That's why I think a lot of
people look at this and say that's not fair. You know,
you don't arrest somebody and say, go find me a crime.
The crimes committed, then you arrest them, and then you
either investigate further or prove or disprove that it happened.
What's not fair is to essentially take someone out of
(11:33):
a position and look for something that they did wrong.
And you know, I would think, you know, if they
did something wrong, you wouldn't have the city manager talking
about what a great thirty five years and what a
great person this is and we wish you the best.
I think I think that was the statement when they
put her on leave, is you know, what a great
(11:54):
sellar career. If there's truly an infraction worthy of dismissal,
that's not the state that you put out there. So
that tells me they probably don't know if there's one,
and they're now looking for one so they can hang
their hat on it.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Yeah. Yeah, our tires at nineteen ninety eight, we're touching
a handicapped spot. Accidentally, she didn't close the cover before striking.
When she was trying to light a candle. Some matches
and she tore the mattress tag off of her ceiling.
Those don't rise to levels the reason you get fired
because everyone does that.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
Right exactly exactly, and that's what they're that's what they're
looking for now again so they can find it for cause.
Now I think again the legitimate, legitimate investigation would be
number four. But again that's not something that I would
do post termination or in this case just suspension. Is
what is this she doing wrong? Why is the city?
(12:46):
You know, and maybe maybe that's a good investigation, you know,
find tell me why Cincinnati crime is going up? And
see if we but to sit there and take the
police chief out and then do that investigation. That seems
again putting a little bit of the cart before the horse.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
Well it seems like, you know, they're turning under a stone,
the stone over. But when they kick the stone, a
lot of things are going to run. I wonder how
much of those those bugs come back to bite after
a pureval Because two and four of this four pillar
investigation by Brown Frost Todd is she too? Is is
she a leader within the context of city government, meaning
furthering the broader goals and objects of the city administration.
(13:23):
Number four is did she regard best practices in the
running of CPD. I don't know if that's just best
practices by police standards. No pot of standards or best
practices is set forth by number two the administration. Because
that's the sticky part is when she interviewed for this
job three years ago, Jason Philbamma was looking at some
of the interviews she did. She said her biggest priority
was to continued diversity, equity and inclusion within the Cincinnati
(13:47):
Police Department, how to lift people up. And she also
had to get the blessing and interview essentially with Iris Rawley,
who we've seen in recent time investigated and get herself
involved between a suspect a subject who was being arrested
for violating probation and was essentially interfering with the business
of a police officer. She had an interview with her
(14:09):
to get this job in the first place. So when
I hear that and then see what's happened with owner
cognisance people cutting their ankle monitor off and there's no
repercussion from the court for that essentially doing what they
say they weren't going to do. Literally within minutes of leaving,
the people who have been jammed up and all this
high profile violence, save maybe the brawl, there's other factors
in there. And now that was handled as a nightmare.
(14:31):
That wasn't on the chief, but everything else was, Like
people who had violent prior criminal offenses that were precluded
from having a gun because they're under disability by law.
It's not her to set those policies. That's on the mayor.
So they're doing this investigation. I wonder how much of
this is going to come back and implicate have to
a peer volunteer.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
Long Yeah, I agree, And if you look at I
think the mayor put out a statement. He put out
a statement that he had nothing to do with his firing. Again,
I find that to be maybe a little disingenuous, because
why in the world with a city manager three weeks
before an election terminate your female police chief without talking
(15:10):
to the mayor. That would be a very dumb move.
So I would think that there was a discussion ahead
of time. But like you said, there's a lot of
factors to consider. You know, is she pushing DEI and
that's why there's not enough police on the street. Maybe
that's a legitimate decision to you know, talk about whether
that's the appropriate way to handle policing, you know, But
(15:30):
recently the city also engaged in a federal settlement where
they are changing the way they're policing. I mean, that's
that could be a very real reason for why things
are going up, you know, having bonds, Like you said,
someone that commits a violent crime and has let out
the next day that that's the that's not on the
police an issue. That's not on her exactly.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
I could see when she's falsifying reports and people aren't
showing up, and she's backdating payroll. I mean, those are
the things you're definitely going to get you and should
get you fired. But essentially the vision by this administration
is criminals are victims too, has led us to this point.
That's not on Terry Thiji. That's on the people who
hire Terry Thiji.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
Exactly. As I said at the beginning of this talk,
sounds to me like a skategoat. It sounds to me like,
you know, we're two weeks out from an election and
I've got to tell the people that there's a problem,
and I fixed the problem. And now by the way,
that's hired these really good attorneys to go in there
and find out what the problem was, and then I
can match it up and say, hey did a good job,
(16:30):
which of course won't come out until after the election anyway.
It's going to take two three months to do a
thorough investigation whether it's legitimate or whether it's brought up
after the facts, So I don't think we're going to
know anything. We'll probably January.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
After the election. Of course, that's what this is about,
buying some time for the election, but it really doesn't
because it makes them looking competent and stupid, and not
the first time either. I would also add this finally,
Jason Philibaum, attorney at law, if you're representing, if you're
on Team Fiji, are your eyes now glazing over with
the millions and millions of dollars should possibly be getting
in because quite honestly, the way this whole thing was executed,
(17:05):
it's seemingly, in addition to the two hundred K she's making,
could wind up getting a help of payout to sign
a non disclosure agreement because if she doesn't sign an NDA,
theyn't force an NDAU, then then she can roll over
on this administration and really let the go south. And
they don't want that.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
Yeah, yes, her attorney's firm is well known for suing
cities and municipalities and going after them and then you know,
that's a lot of expensive lawsuits and if they if
they end up getting, you know, something that they can
hang their hat on, then you've got attorney fees in play,
and that's a pretty penny that the Cincinnati have to
(17:43):
pay out. So yeah, there's there's My guess is there's
going to be a settlement some way through the process,
because otherwise it's going to be expensive for somebody.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
If the Finny law firm or like the Bengals defense,
we wouldn't be having conversations about not making the playoffs
and firing coaches, if you know what me, because they
are tenacious. If anything, he is attorney Jason Phillibaum private
practice of course, attorney himself, just kind of a different view,
a different set of eyes on this issue right now
because it doesn't pass my sniff test, and it certainly
doesn't pass Jason's either. Jason all the best, buddy, thanks
(18:15):
for jumping on this morning.
Speaker 1 (18:17):
I appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
Thank you over at Jonas and Philibam. Thanks again, quick
time out. We'll get a news update and the controversy
that they wish we're kind of I hate when, like,
we've got enough controversy in the world. What is controversial
about what's happening at the White House relative to the
East Wing? Because it feels like people are pushing this
narrative like we should be all worked up into a
froth about this, and I just maybe it's just me.
(18:40):
I don't see it, and I'll tell you why next
seven hundred WLW
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!