December 18, 2025 • 35 mins
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 (00:07):
Just I have seven O six here fifty five ker
Ce Detalk station. Very Happy Friday Eve to him he
had extra special in studios. Citizen watchdog TODDS. Zenser, former
Inspector General from the United States of America, is keenly
interested in what I always like to jokingly refer to
as shenanigans going on in the city of downtown Cincinnati.
Of course, he follows the figures, follows the money, finds
(00:28):
out where money is being allocated, most notably those pesky
NGOs that seem to suck up a lot of cash
and then don't provide information about what they've actually done
with it. So I'm suggesting maybe that those handouts of
money rewards for political favoritism. And a little bird told
me over the break there, and I was looking for
facts or information surrounding why. And this is not related
to a conversation we're having with Todd Zenzer, but good
(00:49):
to see again, Todd Zenzer, thank you for coming in
the dismissal of the murder case against Elwood Jones after
having been convicted and affirmed on appeal through the state
level all the way through the federal level. Wondering why
it is that Connie Pillach and Judge Wendy Cross decided
we were going to ditch this, Wendy Cross issuing an
order saying he was entitled to retrial, follow by Connie
(01:11):
Pillage saying no, we're dismissing all charges against them. He's
been released. He is obviously guilty. Look at what Joe
Deeters had to say about it, former prosecutor apparently at
the press conference doing this. Iris Rawley was there. So
I was looking for a political reality of why would
they go through all the trouble to dismiss the charges
against this murderer clearly guilty without question, and basically having
(01:35):
Pillage lie to her constituents, the Hamilton County voters who
put her in office, distorted the evidence, distorted the underlying
record yesterday in the press conference. Maybe that's it, Scott
iris Rawley's fingerprints on it. I'll let you decide. Moving over,
Thank you Todd Zenzer for the work that you do
on behalf of the taxpayers of the city Cincinnati. Right
(01:56):
out of the gate man, what you show, it's really frightening.
Let's start with the mayor. Okay, Now, last time you
were on the show, you pointed out that their a
have to have provoal is a board member? Now you
found it. It's on several organizations. Am I right on
that too?
Speaker 2 (02:12):
So far that I found okay?
Speaker 1 (02:14):
And under the ethical rules of being a mayor that
governed the mayor's office, is he an obligated to report
where his you know, these board memberships just as a
matter of public disclosure.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
Yeah. The financial disclosures that the Ohio Ethics Commission requires
has a section where you have to disclose any other
organizations where you have a fiduciary role, which board members
absolutely have a fiduciary role. And so I actually looked
at his financial disclosures in connection with those repossessions to
(02:48):
see what.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
Is all the car repossessions.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
Yeah, so I got those, and when I was looking
at the forums, this section on fiduciary does not contain
the his board membership for Centrifus. And I had three
years of disclosure and none of those are reporting his
board membership of Centrifus, which I had already found. And
(03:13):
then there's a second nonprofit that he is a board
member for and they also get money from the city.
They get about fifty thousand dollars a year an outfit
called Compass and Centrifews has gotten between two hundred and
two hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
No, okay, I just referenced the NGOs that get money
and the question marks swirling around whether or not we
get any return for the money they're given. But we
all know that money is given to a variety of
different non governmental organizations from the city coffers. He sits
on two boards of directors for independent companies, the ones
(03:55):
that you just mentioned that receive those types of outs
from the city taxpayers. Yes, how I mean that is
that is a conflict of interest? Well, I believe I
mean establish this. Let's point out that does mayor have
to have purwalls have some or any say in where
these funds are handed to whom these funds are given
(04:18):
or handed out. I know the city managers integrally involved
in that. We've been down this process before. But the
mayor does have some authority over that, right.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
Yes, if you look at the authorities of the mayor
and the authorities of the city manager, they the I
have a memo that from the former solicitor that basically
says that the mayor and the city manager share the
responsibility of formulating the budget, so he's involved in formulating
a budget in general that has all of these leverage
(04:49):
support payments is what they are. Grants is what they
call it. And then there's a process, and I've criticized
the city council for this to their face. Yeah, where
the city council members and the mayor will recommend additions
to whatever the city manager is recommending for these leverage
(05:12):
support recipients. The city council members and the mayor can
actually propose adding or subtracting from those amounts. And there's
one year, for example, where the mayor himself inserts himself
in the leverage support for centrifuse, where he adds twenty
five thousand dollars to the grant level that the city
(05:35):
manager had already recommended. And he is sitting on.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
Their board, on the board effectively voting money or directing money.
This isn't even a vote, This doesn't require since a
council approval majority or otherwise does it.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
Well, it's part of the overall budget, so yeah, they
vote on it. Oh, they don't have to vote, well,
I guess they do vote on the overall budgets oh yes.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
So they effectively stamp of approval. They wait, they make
a list of ones that they want to get money,
these different various NGOs. So city council is involved in
that process along with the city manager. And then after
they do that, oh wait a second, I want to
add this company on the list of recipients, in this
particular case, twenty five thousand dollars to a company that
(06:16):
he sits on the board of directors. So they add that.
The council later approves the budget. That's correct, which it
contains the additions that they didn't recommend in the first place.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
That's correct.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
So he has complete control and authority over this type
of addition. It sounds like, now they could have reject
the budget based upon the addition of that one NGO,
but they clearly didn't.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
That's right.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
That is I mean, that's an open and shutcase of
conflict of interest.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
Yeah, it's kind of an ethics one on one thing.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
I mean purely. That's why I really wanted to focus
on where the authority lies. Who has the authority to
ensure that you know, he well this, So what do
you take in response to this, I guess supposedly or
I suppose to. The first quick question is what action
can be taken? I mean, first of all, he isn't
complying with his obligations on the disclosures that's right, Is
(07:04):
that actionable? Does that mean? Is it subjected to exposure
to a penalty or a fine or public right, the
condemnation or anything.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
All of that would fall under the jurisdiction of the
Ohio Ethics Commission, and so you know they have they
have ways to enforce their rules. And whether or not
mister Purval becomes subject to those enforcement efforts is a
different question.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
Well, that requires someone to bring it to the Ethics
boards attention by way of a formal request or complaint.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
That would that would be the start of the process.
Speaker 1 (07:44):
Yeah, okay, is that like a crisp any kind of
thing or no.
Speaker 2 (07:48):
Any any citizen can file a complaint with.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
The including a citizen watch talk.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
Yeah they could, he could.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
I'm looking at Utah's insert.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
Just asking I see that brain.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
I know, I just ask him for the listening audience.
So I don't know where to go with that. One
is calling ethical vote.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
Well, I've well, first of all, I have I have
raised this issue to the city council in public comments
about how screwy this system is where they make recommendations
on top of the city manager. And so I told
him one time, I said, the least you could do
is when you send your memos in with these requests,
(08:31):
the least you could do is have a little attestation
at the bottom of the memo saying that you do
not have a conflict of interest with any of these organizations.
So I made that recommendations earlier this year, or that
recommendation earlier this year. We'll see whether they do that.
But there's no there's no oversight of any of this
NGO spending.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
They they well, I suppose there theoretically could be oversight
if he accurately filled out his finiancial disclosure forms, because
then the information will be public and it will be incumbent,
perhaps arguably on the city council members when these requests
are made to look at the disclosures to find out
if he has any connection with the money of the
organizations that are getting money. If he's not there, he
(09:15):
has no connection. One could logically conclude, that is if
he's being honest with his financial disclosure forms. But here
we have a situa where he's not taking away the
ability of anybody to check whether this is an ethical violation.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
That's right on papal enter Todd Zinzer on paper right
now with the financial disclosures, no indication that he sits
on the board of Centrifuse, But I have confirmation from
the CEO of Centrifus that he is sitting on the board.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
Fine pivoting over to the other entity where he did
disclose he was a board member, they too received money
as well, which negates my point about the city council
actually doing its job and checking into these things on
its own. Yes.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
Well, here's another thing, Brian early On, I asked for
the financial disclosure forms. They that the officials in Cincinnati
file with the city, that there's a separate financial disclosure
that they file with the city. So I requested those
and the city did not give them give me any
of them.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
Did they provide you with an explanation of why that
information was not forthcoming?
Speaker 2 (10:18):
Todds censer, Well, I can't remember exactly what they say,
but they don't give a lot of explanation on public
records requests. When they deny it, it just says it's overbroad
or we don't do research for you, or you know,
excuses like that it's a problem. This public disclosure or
this public records request process for the city is terrible.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
Which is how it always ends up in court. Yes,
and how they always end up losing in court. Yes,
and how that money that they went and fought in
court was coming from the taxpayer of the City of Cincinnati.
Litigation is expensive.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
Yes, but their first instinct is to withhold, and somehow
we've got to turn that around. Their first instinct should
be to disclose the records.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
He recently had an opportunity to turn things around, but
one in four voters in the sea just showed up
and we know what we got out of that with Yes, sir, massive, massive,
But let's do it all over again more with todds Inzer.
We've got lots more Shenanigans. Call out right coming up
at seven sixteen right now. Todds Ens are in studio.
Citizen Watchdog's name of the podcast. He is a citizen Watchdog.
(11:21):
You can follo him on Facebook. You can listen to
the podcast produced by Joe Strecker. Of course todds Ends
you would mentioned and I don't want to let it
go without following up on it. I think the board
membership that after parvol is involved with here, I think
is a greater and more problematic problem than after Pervoll's
(11:43):
personal expense issues. But he didn't pay his monthly car payment,
resulting in the repossession of his automobile. They actually repossessed it,
that's my understanding. Yes, that was widely reported, and he
even had a press conference following day saying, ah, ye
I was an oversight.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
Yeah, he was interviewed. I can't remember who interviewed him,
But he did make public statements that there was a
problem with his auto pay.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
Right auto pay, So you set up and it makes
an automatic payment. Fine, I'll acknowledge, and I'll just go
ahead and admit fine, he has auto pay. But he
didn't say, no, my car was not repossessed. I mean,
that's that's an admission of fact right there, right, Okay,
With that in mind, who out there really truly believes
that he didn't get multiple notices in advance before his
(12:29):
car was actually towed away. I mean, nobody wants tow
away a car if it was mere oversight. Oh, I'm sorry.
Here's the money from last month, and by the way,
here's my payment for this month. Great, we don't have
to get a tow truck out there. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
People I spoke to didn't find it credible.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
So incredible, not believable. Right, Maybe one could characterize that
as a lie, if we want to go so far
as to put a pejorative term on it.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
You could say that, Okay, all right, So here's here's
the thing about it.
Speaker 1 (12:59):
Look the ethical picture here in total, So we're moving
from one ethical problem to another. Lying to the constituents
to me is an ethical breach.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
Well, just on the financial disclosures and his failure to
comply with the rules.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
There.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
What happens is, let's say there's somebody else who has
to file financial disclosures who haven't done that. It gets
caught up in some kind of a gratuity issue or
bribery issue, and you're not going to be able to
punish him for any of those disclosure problems because all
he has to do is point to the mayor and
say he's he's not complying, why should I comply? So
(13:35):
that's one issue.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
The other issue point.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
The other issue is that it shows everybody that we're
operating in a catch me. If you can operation, which
is very common where the people heading up these public
agencies they don't follow the rules and when they're caught,
they say, oh, I'm sorry, I just we won't do
it again. And that's that's the kind of culture that
(13:58):
seems to be at play here in Cincinnati.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
Which is why you're such a thorn on their side.
There's so many catch me if you can things going
on out there, and you seem to be the only
one that's even interested in getting to the bottom of
how they are getting away with it or holding them
accountable for violating the rule.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
I really criticize the City council for that because that's
their job. Their job is to oversee the administration. And
for example, on this eight million dollars settlement, not one
member of city council ask the solicitor, how did you
arrive at eight million dollars? How did you arrive at
twelve or thirteen thousand dollars for each of the members
(14:38):
of the class.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
This is the settlement for the curfew violation arrests.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
Yeah, for the law for the civil rights lawsuit that
was filed. Yes, and they're not doing The city Council
does not do any oversight that I can see right now.
All they do is spend money. That's basically what they do.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
Well, using your disclosure rule as an illustration, if you
don't know the rules, you're probably not going to comply
with them. Is it possible, Todd zendser, that the folks
that have been elected to the Cincinni City Council just
really don't know what they're doing insofar as they have
(15:18):
that responsibility for oversight.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
Well, thereby law they must take an ethics course going
going into their term of office. But in the case
of the mayor, I didn't bring up with me today,
but he actually signed a code of conduct that talks
about he has to know the conflict of interest rules,
he has to go to ethics training every year, and
(15:43):
he has to agree not to retaliate against anybody that's
blowing a whistle.
Speaker 1 (15:48):
Okay, and then at some point there should be a
failure to abide by the foregoing result in some consequence.
What might that consequence be? I know you said you
can report somebody to the ethics board, which probably has
been done if I mean, I'm just saying it out loud,
so I'm probably has been done. Or refer to the
prosecutor's office or whatever. But is there any accountability in
that ethics mandate or edict that he issued.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
No, it's just it's just to him signing that he
will do do all that.
Speaker 1 (16:14):
All right. See folks seven twenty five fifty five k
c DE talk station. We'll find out where in the
hell is that Repy Thursday, to you Brian Thomas with
Citizen Watchdog. Todd's Inzer and studio for the hour, one
revelation after another, and Todd, you know, I I commented
to you off the brick. I cannot thank you enough
for the work that you're doing. It's got you. You're
fighting this Sissophian challenge to you know, right, the wrongs
(16:39):
that are going on each and every day, and you're
met with such resistance at every single turn. You didn't
follow all of these rules. You were derelicting your duty
from way back to this point in time. You ask
for the information, they resist giving you the information. And
then when you when you pully fully pull the carpet
out from under them or reveal the facts and information,
(17:00):
then they just say, whoops, I'm sorry, that's right, and
continue to do it in all other areas of government. Right.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
So the first red flag to me was when I
first started looking at the city. I looked at their
internal audit operation and on their website it said that
they do a risk assessment every six months or twice
a year. So I asked to see that. I put
a record's request in to see it, and they come
back and they say, oh, well, we don't do that.
We don't have the resources to do a risk assessment,
(17:28):
which means that they haven't done any work to see
what's on the horizon that could hurt the city. That's
the purpose of the risk assessment is to find out
where your weaknesses are that you have to work on
to protect the city.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
So spending what I would argue is a small amount
of money to protect the financial future of the City
of Cincinnati generally speaking, has gone by the wayside because
they claim they don't have enough money to do that
while giving away money to outside organizations, some of whom
Mayoraburvall sits on the board directors. Yeah, okay, great, So.
Speaker 2 (18:02):
That was a big red flag for me because it
doesn't really cost any money. All they have to do
is go to each department head ask what are your
biggest challenges? What are your biggest concerns? You ask the
department heads what risks do you face to complete your work?
And you ask each department head, they give you the answer,
(18:22):
You write it down, you issue the report. That's a
risk assessment.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
Yeah, that doesn't sound it sounds like a job responsibility
that should be done on a day to day activity
kind of thing. That isn't no additional allocation fun absolutely Wow. Okay,
you quite revealing. Todds Ends are moving over to railway money.
We were promised millions and millions of dollars were rolling
on in and the one limitation they have on using
railway money allegedly is existing infrastructure. But you've run into
(18:47):
some problems with all of that, todds Ends, or explain
that to my listening audience.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
Well, most recently, in fact, I just sent a letter
to the board yesterday because of this report on Local
twelve that they haven't they haven't spent a thirty million
dollars that they're getting for infrastructure work. And the reason
I wrote to the board is because back in February
(19:12):
I went to a board meeting and I asked them,
what are you going to do with the city isn't
able to spend the money that you disperse to them.
It's sitting there in the city coffers doing nothing. Why
don't you make them justify their request and keep that
money in the trust fund until the city actually needs
(19:35):
the money?
Speaker 1 (19:36):
Okay? And when you say their request, who is the
they that you're referring to that has the request. I
just kind of want to get I want to have
clear understanding of this how this works.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
The city gets an automatic disbursement now every quarter of
the railway money, okay, So it goes into the city
coffers and it's.
Speaker 1 (19:58):
In a separate pile trust fund sort of kind oh
you give me the John decide of suspicion on that.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
No, it just goes through the city. They have an account,
they have a line item for it, but they're not
spending it, all right, and so the I can't recall
your question, Ryan.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
So the money requests, where is that coming from? That
it has not been dispersed, it's still sitting in the
city coffers. Well, the.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
Projects that they plan the fund with that money aren't
off the ground. They're not incurring any cost yet, so
that money's just sitting there.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
Okay, So let's say repaving some road requires a construction
crew or an allocation of city construction crew resources. Either
an independent contractor is going to do the work or
the city itself is going to do the work. Right, Yes,
So they're standing there, presumably waiting for money so they
can start work on the project.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
Well, they've got they've already got capital funds that they're
using that are in the budget, and then this extra
money they've got got projects in mind to use. The
railroad money for those projects. And it's those projects that
aren't getting off the ground, and it's the money that's
not being spent, the money to repave the roads. They've
(21:13):
got money to repave the roads, and the railroad money
is a supplement to all those moneys.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
Right. That was the joke behind everything, because money's fungible. Yes,
they have all the tax dollars that come in and
a separate source of revenue we'll just call it. It's
like tax dollars is railroad money that's going to the
same pot. That just gives more money to handle, money
to handle the responsibility that the original taxpayer should have done.
So that gives them an extra thirty million dollars to
(21:39):
play with, right, thirty million dollars to play with it.
Now they can say no, we're getting railroad, We're getting
road repair from that thirty million dollars that the railroad produced,
because that's existing infrastructure. But that takes the weight off
the budget by thirty million dollars for them to go
out and fund some goofy, brand new projects.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
Hot. That's exactly right.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
That's how it's working.
Speaker 2 (22:00):
As far as I can tell.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
Yes, have they identified the road projects that have yet
to be funded that aren't being done right now? That
you were referring to a moment ago, I mean, I mean,
are you if you looked at them when you say, yeah,
that's existing infrastructure. What are we being denied because of
this sort of hold on the fund distribution?
Speaker 2 (22:20):
Well, it's just a matter of the city doesn't have
the infrastructure or the processes and the manpower and the
contracting to get all this money working. So it's just
sitting there until the city can get its act together
in terms of you know, the bidding of contracts and
purchasing of materials, and it's it's all in the it's
(22:43):
all in the queue, and they haven't actually spent the
money yet.
Speaker 1 (22:48):
Because they don't have the resources to do their job.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
Yeah, they they they don't. They don't have the infrastructure
in the city to spend all that.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
That's like your foyer request. Yes, yes, for documents. They
have a legal allegation to produce them. I'm sorry, we
don't have the resources to comply with the law. Well,
that's a really convenient way of getting around the law,
isn't it, Todd.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
Right, So what I've been saying is that they they
turned back money every year from the capital account that
they have not been able to spend because of their
bad processes and things like that. So they already can't
spend the infrastructure money that they had in the general fund.
And then you're going to layer railroad money on top
(23:29):
of that, and they don't have the infrastructure to spend
that either. And that was a big argument of ours
for why we shouldn't be selling a railroad.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
Jeez, this gets worse the longer this conversation goes. Todd,
I just am really struggling with trying to find some
positive and there apparently there are none.
Speaker 2 (23:51):
Well, they did pay Sunset, Brian.
Speaker 1 (23:53):
They paved Sunset. I know they had money for that
after all these many many years decades even yeah, thanks
for that, and you no longer have me to be
able to complain about that. I still have the gift
that keeps on giving along the complaint lines the street car.
Maybe Todd knows something about maybe a new leg of
the street car, because there's been a lot of rumblings
about that one going on seven thirty seven right now,
if you five KRC DE talk station imported cars, whether
(24:15):
they're from Asia or Europe, Chuck Ingram, fifty five KRC
deep Talk station seven forty comes up with seven forty two.
Fifty five KRCD Talk Station Brian Thomas with citizen Watchdog
Todd Zenzer. I stick with the parameters of this budget.
I think I personally was a little confused because I
was thinking, like the federal government's budget this sticking with
the thirty million dollars. So the Railroad Trustee Board allocates
(24:40):
the proceeds and gives the city a sincenty the thirty
million dollars. Yes, the city has budgeted certain programs during
the budgeting process for the prior year where that money
is going to go, as you've explained it, based upon
their inability to get these projects off the ground, issuing RFPs,
going through the process of you know, selecting contras, actors, whatever.
(25:00):
They don't have the resources to do that. So the
money remains unspent. Yes, moving into the next county year.
The federal government, in the way their budget process works, it's
use it or lose it.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
That's absolutely correct.
Speaker 1 (25:11):
You have to spend the money during that fiscal year,
that's right. That's not the case for the city. No,
that's not so the money remains in the account. Yes.
Is the city under an obligation in the following year,
the new budget to honor the commitments made under the
prior year budget to do those certain projects that were identified,
or is it can they start from scratch?
Speaker 2 (25:32):
Well that's a good question, Brian. I think they can
basically move that money to whatever projects are the priority
at the moment. And what I suggested to the board
this week.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
The trustees that monitor the investment from the railroad sale.
That board, not one of the ones after have pro
ball sitting on sorry head to make.
Speaker 2 (25:51):
This is this is the railroad the Railroad board. What
I suggested this week is that they adopt a draw
down system like the Federal Highway Administration has where the
states come in and they draw down money from the
federal government account as they need it. They don't get
all this money up front. They have to put claims
(26:13):
into the federal government to draw down money from their account.
Speaker 1 (26:16):
It's like an attorney working off a retainer. Yes, you
get a lump sum upfront, you can only draw money
after you've done the hour's work.
Speaker 2 (26:22):
Right, So what I suggested to the board in a
letter this week is that they adopt a draw down
system where the city has to come and make specific
requests for specific sums of money for specific projects, and
that's when the board can transfer money to them.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
Because the issue is not ripe for transfer of money
until they have a set in stone project that's right,
funding parameters.
Speaker 2 (26:49):
Until they have something they're going to spend that money
on in a timely way. That money should stay in
the trust fund earning returns.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
Or earning Yeah, that's the other that's the benefit from that.
Notal does that make them? You know, you pay money
only for projects that are actually working and being accomplished,
but you continue to earn interest.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
Right, the money should either be working on the infrastructure
or working by earning gains in the trust fund.
Speaker 1 (27:15):
Have you heard back from the board on that concept.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
No, I just sent the letter the other day.
Speaker 1 (27:19):
Okay, do they you think they have the ability to
implement a drawdown procedure along those lines.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
Absolutely, that's my read of it anyway.
Speaker 1 (27:26):
All right, So this isn't intruding on Cincinnati Council's authority
to choose projects or to pick where to allocate where
the funds go. It just merely is demonstrating to the
board who's got the money, that there is a specific
project the money is going to. Right.
Speaker 2 (27:42):
So the board has some very good lawyers that are
sitting on the board. So I don't want to tell them,
you know, legally what they can and cannot do, but
they should. They have a fiduciary duty to make sure
that they are earning the maximum amount they can earn
in that account. And by giving money to the city
that the city isn't in a position to spend, you know,
(28:03):
they're losing that earnings.
Speaker 1 (28:06):
Huh, which might give rise to a cause of action
by any since any taxpayer for breach of fiduciary duty.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (28:15):
Oh, there's another lawsuit somebody out there in the audience.
Can Key, I continua.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
So I'll let people know what they tell me, if
they tell me anything. But the next meeting of the
trust board is in February. So in fact, what I think,
I posted it last night on my Facebook. I went
to the meeting in February of this year of twenty five,
and I raised the issue of the inability of the
(28:41):
city to spend the money that the board was transferring
to them. I said, you, you can't transfer money to
the city and have it just sit there.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
Right.
Speaker 2 (28:53):
So they didn't do anything back in February. We'll see
if they do anything.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
Now, don't hold your breath, Tod. We really like you
and what you're doing for the city in spite of
the fact it's a thorn in the well am Ayer's
side as much as any of the the council members
and the city manager seven forty six right now more
one more with Todd sendsor stick around QC Kinetics will
QC Kinetics SAWCE talk station seven fifty fifty five KRCD
(29:27):
talk Station Brient Thomas Todd Zendser and probably just scratching
the service of all the issues going on in downtown
Cincinnati that Todd is writing heard over. He busily writes
letters issues for your requests and waits and waits and
waits and waits and waits for them to say, I'm sorry,
we don't have time to do it. Kind of just
summarizing your life over the course of the past year.
Todd's endser. One of the things you mentioned on the break,
(29:48):
you've got the ongoing issues. Those are issues you've advanced,
you've sent letters, you've brought to the public's attention, waiting
for follow up, waiting for resolution. So you're keeping track
of them ongoing and I presume ever growing list. But
then you also have, like into the future, what you
want to look into, Right, so there's that list projects
(30:09):
you need to get to. But then you start as
you become more and more popular and more widely known
for what you are doing, this value to the city
that you provide, people are bringing more things to your attention. Yeah,
so you can I summarize by saying you're feeling a
bit overwhelmed with a number of issues that need to
be looked into.
Speaker 2 (30:27):
Todd, Yeah, I think one of the things I have
to do is manage people's expectations about what exactly we
can look into here because we really don't have any
authority to go into places and talk to people like
I did when I was working. But yeah, there are
people that they have their own oversight questions. You know,
(30:48):
the courts for example, and the criminal justice.
Speaker 1 (30:50):
Issues big topic this morning.
Speaker 2 (30:53):
It is a big issue for people. There are people
that have their own lawsuits against the city that they're
calling me about, uh for you know, for my take
on their efforts and things like that. I've got a
phone call today and I got a phone call tomorrow
with some folks. So there's things going on and I
(31:14):
just have to do what I can really well.
Speaker 1 (31:18):
And that leads me to ask you about the process
of your starting this five oh one C three entity
to do this type of work under the umbrella of
an off for profit company. The Cincinnati Oversight Project is
I believe that's what you've named it.
Speaker 2 (31:34):
That's what I've named it, and I want to kind
of model it after a Judicial Watch if you if
you're familiar with that organ site, and you know a
lot of their work is getting records out of the
government that disclose what's really going on. So that's that's
part of the effort. The other effort is to have
a platform to start talking to people about the value
(31:56):
or benefits of having an oversight organization within government here
in Cincinnati, like they do in a lot of states,
and they do in a lot of municipalities.
Speaker 1 (32:07):
That's why we have inspectors general, right.
Speaker 2 (32:09):
That's correct. And you know that if you've seen one
inspector general, you've seen one inspector general. They're all kind
of different. And so Cincinnati is in a position to
build their inspector General operation from the you know, from
the get go, and improve the oversight of the city's operations,
including the city council operation and the and the mayor.
Speaker 1 (32:34):
Well, why would they want to expose themselves to something
that their own internal inspector general office would would expose.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
That's exactly right, Brian. And that's why you don't have
them everywhere, because there's a lot of resistance to that
type of oversight even when they even when they establish
those oversight offices. For example, I interviewed for a position
out West one time for a transit authorities I g
and I went into interview and their proposal gave the
(33:04):
ig no authority. No investigative authority was in the statute.
And I told him that that's not that's not going
to work out, got your teeth, And so they selected
a woman who was friends with the governor, and she
wound up quitting over that issue. In a couple of
years they got in she got into a dispute with
the board and they weren't cooperating with her and she
(33:27):
didn't have any authority to press.
Speaker 1 (33:31):
Well, I'm guessing that you know, if you start the
Cincinnati Oversight Project, you get your five oh one C
three status, you're going to need some help. Is this
an invitation for people who are interested in doing the
type of work you're doing, to help you deal with
all these challenges, including all the items that you have
on your to do list.
Speaker 2 (33:48):
Well, eventually the answer would be yes. And you know,
I haven't really decided whether it would be a five
O one C three or five O one C four.
I'm inclined to maybe not do a thing five oh
one C three because the donors for the five oh
one C three are public and five oh one C
four donors are not public. And I'm thinking that people
(34:11):
that want to donate and get greater oversight of the
city may not want to have their name out front,
like that, So I'm those are the kind of things
I'm I'm looking at.
Speaker 1 (34:21):
Well, look at Signal ninety nine and they did a
background check on her and she wasn't even living in
the greater Cincinnati area at the time. Why do they
do that? Why do they rifle through her records while
she was an employee this insant police department because she's
made posts online and she annoyed our elected officials. Right, Yeah,
you set yourself up with a crosshair. When you do,
you know, open your mouth. And that's why we're proud
(34:42):
of you and happy with what you're doing, because you'll
take the slings and errors from these clowns and you're
you're identifying all the issues that will justify me calling
them clowns. How's that, Todd?
Speaker 2 (34:53):
That's fine. Well, it provides a more healthy government if
you have outside or into and people giving that third
party view of what the operations are doing.
Speaker 1 (35:05):
Todd Zenzer, keep up the great work. A very merry Christmas,
Happy holidays across the board. Well wishes for you and
your family. I know you and I'll be talking a
lot throughout the next calendar year. You're always here, welcome
here on the fifty five Cassy Morning Show. To bring
further to the public's attention the stuff you're doing each
and every day. Follow Todd on Facebook, just look for
Citizen Watchdog and regularly check up on his podcast, because
(35:27):
you will remain enlightened throughout the year. Todd. I don't
en for you, but I appreciate you. Thank you, Brian.
Speaker 2 (35:32):
Merry Christmas to you and everybody out there.
Speaker 1 (35:35):
Thanks much. Seven fifty six fifty five Carsity Talk Station
got time to chime in. If you feel like I
feel free to call me five one three
Just I have seven O six here fifty five ker
Ce Detalk station. Very Happy Friday Eve to him he
had extra special in studios. Citizen watchdog TODDS. Zenser, former
Inspector General from the United States of America, is keenly
interested in what I always like to jokingly refer to
as shenanigans going on in the city of downtown Cincinnati.
Of course, he follows the figures, follows the money, finds
(00:28):
out where money is being allocated, most notably those pesky
NGOs that seem to suck up a lot of cash
and then don't provide information about what they've actually done
with it. So I'm suggesting maybe that those handouts of
money rewards for political favoritism. And a little bird told
me over the break there, and I was looking for
facts or information surrounding why. And this is not related
to a conversation we're having with Todd Zenzer, but good
(00:49):
to see again, Todd Zenzer, thank you for coming in
the dismissal of the murder case against Elwood Jones after
having been convicted and affirmed on appeal through the state
level all the way through the federal level. Wondering why
it is that Connie Pillach and Judge Wendy Cross decided
we were going to ditch this, Wendy Cross issuing an
order saying he was entitled to retrial, follow by Connie
(01:11):
Pillage saying no, we're dismissing all charges against them. He's
been released. He is obviously guilty. Look at what Joe
Deeters had to say about it, former prosecutor apparently at
the press conference doing this. Iris Rawley was there. So
I was looking for a political reality of why would
they go through all the trouble to dismiss the charges
against this murderer clearly guilty without question, and basically having
(01:35):
Pillage lie to her constituents, the Hamilton County voters who
put her in office, distorted the evidence, distorted the underlying
record yesterday in the press conference. Maybe that's it, Scott
iris Rawley's fingerprints on it. I'll let you decide. Moving over,
Thank you Todd Zenzer for the work that you do
on behalf of the taxpayers of the city Cincinnati. Right
(01:56):
out of the gate man, what you show, it's really frightening.
Let's start with the mayor. Okay, Now, last time you
were on the show, you pointed out that their a
have to have provoal is a board member? Now you
found it. It's on several organizations. Am I right on
that too?
Speaker 2 (02:12):
So far that I found okay?
Speaker 1 (02:14):
And under the ethical rules of being a mayor that
governed the mayor's office, is he an obligated to report
where his you know, these board memberships just as a
matter of public disclosure.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
Yeah. The financial disclosures that the Ohio Ethics Commission requires
has a section where you have to disclose any other
organizations where you have a fiduciary role, which board members
absolutely have a fiduciary role. And so I actually looked
at his financial disclosures in connection with those repossessions to
(02:48):
see what.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
Is all the car repossessions.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
Yeah, so I got those, and when I was looking
at the forums, this section on fiduciary does not contain
the his board membership for Centrifus. And I had three
years of disclosure and none of those are reporting his
board membership of Centrifus, which I had already found. And
(03:13):
then there's a second nonprofit that he is a board
member for and they also get money from the city.
They get about fifty thousand dollars a year an outfit
called Compass and Centrifews has gotten between two hundred and
two hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
No, okay, I just referenced the NGOs that get money
and the question marks swirling around whether or not we
get any return for the money they're given. But we
all know that money is given to a variety of
different non governmental organizations from the city coffers. He sits
on two boards of directors for independent companies, the ones
(03:55):
that you just mentioned that receive those types of outs
from the city taxpayers. Yes, how I mean that is
that is a conflict of interest? Well, I believe I
mean establish this. Let's point out that does mayor have
to have purwalls have some or any say in where
these funds are handed to whom these funds are given
(04:18):
or handed out. I know the city managers integrally involved
in that. We've been down this process before. But the
mayor does have some authority over that, right.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
Yes, if you look at the authorities of the mayor
and the authorities of the city manager, they the I
have a memo that from the former solicitor that basically
says that the mayor and the city manager share the
responsibility of formulating the budget, so he's involved in formulating
a budget in general that has all of these leverage
(04:49):
support payments is what they are. Grants is what they
call it. And then there's a process, and I've criticized
the city council for this to their face. Yeah, where
the city council members and the mayor will recommend additions
to whatever the city manager is recommending for these leverage
(05:12):
support recipients. The city council members and the mayor can
actually propose adding or subtracting from those amounts. And there's
one year, for example, where the mayor himself inserts himself
in the leverage support for centrifuse, where he adds twenty
five thousand dollars to the grant level that the city
(05:35):
manager had already recommended. And he is sitting on.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
Their board, on the board effectively voting money or directing money.
This isn't even a vote, This doesn't require since a
council approval majority or otherwise does it.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
Well, it's part of the overall budget, so yeah, they
vote on it. Oh, they don't have to vote, well,
I guess they do vote on the overall budgets oh yes.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
So they effectively stamp of approval. They wait, they make
a list of ones that they want to get money,
these different various NGOs. So city council is involved in
that process along with the city manager. And then after
they do that, oh wait a second, I want to
add this company on the list of recipients, in this
particular case, twenty five thousand dollars to a company that
(06:16):
he sits on the board of directors. So they add that.
The council later approves the budget. That's correct, which it
contains the additions that they didn't recommend in the first place.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
That's correct.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
So he has complete control and authority over this type
of addition. It sounds like, now they could have reject
the budget based upon the addition of that one NGO,
but they clearly didn't.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
That's right.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
That is I mean, that's an open and shutcase of
conflict of interest.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
Yeah, it's kind of an ethics one on one thing.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
I mean purely. That's why I really wanted to focus
on where the authority lies. Who has the authority to
ensure that you know, he well this, So what do
you take in response to this, I guess supposedly or
I suppose to. The first quick question is what action
can be taken? I mean, first of all, he isn't
complying with his obligations on the disclosures that's right, Is
(07:04):
that actionable? Does that mean? Is it subjected to exposure
to a penalty or a fine or public right, the
condemnation or anything.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
All of that would fall under the jurisdiction of the
Ohio Ethics Commission, and so you know they have they
have ways to enforce their rules. And whether or not
mister Purval becomes subject to those enforcement efforts is a
different question.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
Well, that requires someone to bring it to the Ethics
boards attention by way of a formal request or complaint.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
That would that would be the start of the process.
Speaker 1 (07:44):
Yeah, okay, is that like a crisp any kind of
thing or no.
Speaker 2 (07:48):
Any any citizen can file a complaint with.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
The including a citizen watch talk.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
Yeah they could, he could.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
I'm looking at Utah's insert.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
Just asking I see that brain.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
I know, I just ask him for the listening audience.
So I don't know where to go with that. One
is calling ethical vote.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
Well, I've well, first of all, I have I have
raised this issue to the city council in public comments
about how screwy this system is where they make recommendations
on top of the city manager. And so I told
him one time, I said, the least you could do
is when you send your memos in with these requests,
(08:31):
the least you could do is have a little attestation
at the bottom of the memo saying that you do
not have a conflict of interest with any of these organizations.
So I made that recommendations earlier this year, or that
recommendation earlier this year. We'll see whether they do that.
But there's no there's no oversight of any of this
NGO spending.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
They they well, I suppose there theoretically could be oversight
if he accurately filled out his finiancial disclosure forms, because
then the information will be public and it will be incumbent,
perhaps arguably on the city council members when these requests
are made to look at the disclosures to find out
if he has any connection with the money of the
organizations that are getting money. If he's not there, he
(09:15):
has no connection. One could logically conclude, that is if
he's being honest with his financial disclosure forms. But here
we have a situa where he's not taking away the
ability of anybody to check whether this is an ethical violation.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
That's right on papal enter Todd Zinzer on paper right
now with the financial disclosures, no indication that he sits
on the board of Centrifuse, But I have confirmation from
the CEO of Centrifus that he is sitting on the board.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
Fine pivoting over to the other entity where he did
disclose he was a board member, they too received money
as well, which negates my point about the city council
actually doing its job and checking into these things on
its own. Yes.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
Well, here's another thing, Brian early On, I asked for
the financial disclosure forms. They that the officials in Cincinnati
file with the city, that there's a separate financial disclosure
that they file with the city. So I requested those
and the city did not give them give me any
of them.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
Did they provide you with an explanation of why that
information was not forthcoming?
Speaker 2 (10:18):
Todds censer, Well, I can't remember exactly what they say,
but they don't give a lot of explanation on public
records requests. When they deny it, it just says it's overbroad
or we don't do research for you, or you know,
excuses like that it's a problem. This public disclosure or
this public records request process for the city is terrible.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
Which is how it always ends up in court. Yes,
and how they always end up losing in court. Yes,
and how that money that they went and fought in
court was coming from the taxpayer of the City of Cincinnati.
Litigation is expensive.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
Yes, but their first instinct is to withhold, and somehow
we've got to turn that around. Their first instinct should
be to disclose the records.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
He recently had an opportunity to turn things around, but
one in four voters in the sea just showed up
and we know what we got out of that with Yes, sir, massive, massive,
But let's do it all over again more with todds Inzer.
We've got lots more Shenanigans. Call out right coming up
at seven sixteen right now. Todds Ens are in studio.
Citizen Watchdog's name of the podcast. He is a citizen Watchdog.
(11:21):
You can follo him on Facebook. You can listen to
the podcast produced by Joe Strecker. Of course todds Ends
you would mentioned and I don't want to let it
go without following up on it. I think the board
membership that after parvol is involved with here, I think
is a greater and more problematic problem than after Pervoll's
(11:43):
personal expense issues. But he didn't pay his monthly car payment,
resulting in the repossession of his automobile. They actually repossessed it,
that's my understanding. Yes, that was widely reported, and he
even had a press conference following day saying, ah, ye
I was an oversight.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
Yeah, he was interviewed. I can't remember who interviewed him,
But he did make public statements that there was a
problem with his auto pay.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
Right auto pay, So you set up and it makes
an automatic payment. Fine, I'll acknowledge, and I'll just go
ahead and admit fine, he has auto pay. But he
didn't say, no, my car was not repossessed. I mean,
that's that's an admission of fact right there, right, Okay,
With that in mind, who out there really truly believes
that he didn't get multiple notices in advance before his
(12:29):
car was actually towed away. I mean, nobody wants tow
away a car if it was mere oversight. Oh, I'm sorry.
Here's the money from last month, and by the way,
here's my payment for this month. Great, we don't have
to get a tow truck out there. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
People I spoke to didn't find it credible.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
So incredible, not believable. Right, Maybe one could characterize that
as a lie, if we want to go so far
as to put a pejorative term on it.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
You could say that, Okay, all right, So here's here's
the thing about it.
Speaker 1 (12:59):
Look the ethical picture here in total, So we're moving
from one ethical problem to another. Lying to the constituents
to me is an ethical breach.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
Well, just on the financial disclosures and his failure to
comply with the rules.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
There.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
What happens is, let's say there's somebody else who has
to file financial disclosures who haven't done that. It gets
caught up in some kind of a gratuity issue or
bribery issue, and you're not going to be able to
punish him for any of those disclosure problems because all
he has to do is point to the mayor and
say he's he's not complying, why should I comply? So
(13:35):
that's one issue.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
The other issue point.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
The other issue is that it shows everybody that we're
operating in a catch me. If you can operation, which
is very common where the people heading up these public
agencies they don't follow the rules and when they're caught,
they say, oh, I'm sorry, I just we won't do
it again. And that's that's the kind of culture that
(13:58):
seems to be at play here in Cincinnati.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
Which is why you're such a thorn on their side.
There's so many catch me if you can things going
on out there, and you seem to be the only
one that's even interested in getting to the bottom of
how they are getting away with it or holding them
accountable for violating the rule.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
I really criticize the City council for that because that's
their job. Their job is to oversee the administration. And
for example, on this eight million dollars settlement, not one
member of city council ask the solicitor, how did you
arrive at eight million dollars? How did you arrive at
twelve or thirteen thousand dollars for each of the members
(14:38):
of the class.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
This is the settlement for the curfew violation arrests.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
Yeah, for the law for the civil rights lawsuit that
was filed. Yes, and they're not doing The city Council
does not do any oversight that I can see right now.
All they do is spend money. That's basically what they do.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
Well, using your disclosure rule as an illustration, if you
don't know the rules, you're probably not going to comply
with them. Is it possible, Todd zendser, that the folks
that have been elected to the Cincinni City Council just
really don't know what they're doing insofar as they have
(15:18):
that responsibility for oversight.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
Well, thereby law they must take an ethics course going
going into their term of office. But in the case
of the mayor, I didn't bring up with me today,
but he actually signed a code of conduct that talks
about he has to know the conflict of interest rules,
he has to go to ethics training every year, and
(15:43):
he has to agree not to retaliate against anybody that's
blowing a whistle.
Speaker 1 (15:48):
Okay, and then at some point there should be a
failure to abide by the foregoing result in some consequence.
What might that consequence be? I know you said you
can report somebody to the ethics board, which probably has
been done if I mean, I'm just saying it out loud,
so I'm probably has been done. Or refer to the
prosecutor's office or whatever. But is there any accountability in
that ethics mandate or edict that he issued.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
No, it's just it's just to him signing that he
will do do all that.
Speaker 1 (16:14):
All right. See folks seven twenty five fifty five k
c DE talk station. We'll find out where in the
hell is that Repy Thursday, to you Brian Thomas with
Citizen Watchdog. Todd's Inzer and studio for the hour, one
revelation after another, and Todd, you know, I I commented
to you off the brick. I cannot thank you enough
for the work that you're doing. It's got you. You're
fighting this Sissophian challenge to you know, right, the wrongs
(16:39):
that are going on each and every day, and you're
met with such resistance at every single turn. You didn't
follow all of these rules. You were derelicting your duty
from way back to this point in time. You ask
for the information, they resist giving you the information. And
then when you when you pully fully pull the carpet
out from under them or reveal the facts and information,
(17:00):
then they just say, whoops, I'm sorry, that's right, and
continue to do it in all other areas of government. Right.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
So the first red flag to me was when I
first started looking at the city. I looked at their
internal audit operation and on their website it said that
they do a risk assessment every six months or twice
a year. So I asked to see that. I put
a record's request in to see it, and they come
back and they say, oh, well, we don't do that.
We don't have the resources to do a risk assessment,
(17:28):
which means that they haven't done any work to see
what's on the horizon that could hurt the city. That's
the purpose of the risk assessment is to find out
where your weaknesses are that you have to work on
to protect the city.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
So spending what I would argue is a small amount
of money to protect the financial future of the City
of Cincinnati generally speaking, has gone by the wayside because
they claim they don't have enough money to do that
while giving away money to outside organizations, some of whom
Mayoraburvall sits on the board directors. Yeah, okay, great, So.
Speaker 2 (18:02):
That was a big red flag for me because it
doesn't really cost any money. All they have to do
is go to each department head ask what are your
biggest challenges? What are your biggest concerns? You ask the
department heads what risks do you face to complete your work?
And you ask each department head, they give you the answer,
(18:22):
You write it down, you issue the report. That's a
risk assessment.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
Yeah, that doesn't sound it sounds like a job responsibility
that should be done on a day to day activity
kind of thing. That isn't no additional allocation fun absolutely Wow. Okay,
you quite revealing. Todds Ends are moving over to railway money.
We were promised millions and millions of dollars were rolling
on in and the one limitation they have on using
railway money allegedly is existing infrastructure. But you've run into
(18:47):
some problems with all of that, todds Ends, or explain
that to my listening audience.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
Well, most recently, in fact, I just sent a letter
to the board yesterday because of this report on Local
twelve that they haven't they haven't spent a thirty million
dollars that they're getting for infrastructure work. And the reason
I wrote to the board is because back in February
(19:12):
I went to a board meeting and I asked them,
what are you going to do with the city isn't
able to spend the money that you disperse to them.
It's sitting there in the city coffers doing nothing. Why
don't you make them justify their request and keep that
money in the trust fund until the city actually needs
(19:35):
the money?
Speaker 1 (19:36):
Okay? And when you say their request, who is the
they that you're referring to that has the request. I
just kind of want to get I want to have
clear understanding of this how this works.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
The city gets an automatic disbursement now every quarter of
the railway money, okay, So it goes into the city
coffers and it's.
Speaker 1 (19:58):
In a separate pile trust fund sort of kind oh
you give me the John decide of suspicion on that.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
No, it just goes through the city. They have an account,
they have a line item for it, but they're not
spending it, all right, and so the I can't recall
your question, Ryan.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
So the money requests, where is that coming from? That
it has not been dispersed, it's still sitting in the
city coffers. Well, the.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
Projects that they plan the fund with that money aren't
off the ground. They're not incurring any cost yet, so
that money's just sitting there.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
Okay, So let's say repaving some road requires a construction
crew or an allocation of city construction crew resources. Either
an independent contractor is going to do the work or
the city itself is going to do the work. Right, Yes,
So they're standing there, presumably waiting for money so they
can start work on the project.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
Well, they've got they've already got capital funds that they're
using that are in the budget, and then this extra
money they've got got projects in mind to use. The
railroad money for those projects. And it's those projects that
aren't getting off the ground, and it's the money that's
not being spent, the money to repave the roads. They've
(21:13):
got money to repave the roads, and the railroad money
is a supplement to all those moneys.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
Right. That was the joke behind everything, because money's fungible. Yes,
they have all the tax dollars that come in and
a separate source of revenue we'll just call it. It's
like tax dollars is railroad money that's going to the
same pot. That just gives more money to handle, money
to handle the responsibility that the original taxpayer should have done.
So that gives them an extra thirty million dollars to
(21:39):
play with, right, thirty million dollars to play with it.
Now they can say no, we're getting railroad, We're getting
road repair from that thirty million dollars that the railroad produced,
because that's existing infrastructure. But that takes the weight off
the budget by thirty million dollars for them to go
out and fund some goofy, brand new projects.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
Hot. That's exactly right.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
That's how it's working.
Speaker 2 (22:00):
As far as I can tell.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
Yes, have they identified the road projects that have yet
to be funded that aren't being done right now? That
you were referring to a moment ago, I mean, I mean,
are you if you looked at them when you say, yeah,
that's existing infrastructure. What are we being denied because of
this sort of hold on the fund distribution?
Speaker 2 (22:20):
Well, it's just a matter of the city doesn't have
the infrastructure or the processes and the manpower and the
contracting to get all this money working. So it's just
sitting there until the city can get its act together
in terms of you know, the bidding of contracts and
purchasing of materials, and it's it's all in the it's
(22:43):
all in the queue, and they haven't actually spent the
money yet.
Speaker 1 (22:48):
Because they don't have the resources to do their job.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
Yeah, they they they don't. They don't have the infrastructure
in the city to spend all that.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
That's like your foyer request. Yes, yes, for documents. They
have a legal allegation to produce them. I'm sorry, we
don't have the resources to comply with the law. Well,
that's a really convenient way of getting around the law,
isn't it, Todd.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
Right, So what I've been saying is that they they
turned back money every year from the capital account that
they have not been able to spend because of their
bad processes and things like that. So they already can't
spend the infrastructure money that they had in the general fund.
And then you're going to layer railroad money on top
(23:29):
of that, and they don't have the infrastructure to spend
that either. And that was a big argument of ours
for why we shouldn't be selling a railroad.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
Jeez, this gets worse the longer this conversation goes. Todd,
I just am really struggling with trying to find some
positive and there apparently there are none.
Speaker 2 (23:51):
Well, they did pay Sunset, Brian.
Speaker 1 (23:53):
They paved Sunset. I know they had money for that
after all these many many years decades even yeah, thanks
for that, and you no longer have me to be
able to complain about that. I still have the gift
that keeps on giving along the complaint lines the street car.
Maybe Todd knows something about maybe a new leg of
the street car, because there's been a lot of rumblings
about that one going on seven thirty seven right now,
if you five KRC DE talk station imported cars, whether
(24:15):
they're from Asia or Europe, Chuck Ingram, fifty five KRC
deep Talk station seven forty comes up with seven forty two.
Fifty five KRCD Talk Station Brian Thomas with citizen Watchdog
Todd Zenzer. I stick with the parameters of this budget.
I think I personally was a little confused because I
was thinking, like the federal government's budget this sticking with
the thirty million dollars. So the Railroad Trustee Board allocates
(24:40):
the proceeds and gives the city a sincenty the thirty
million dollars. Yes, the city has budgeted certain programs during
the budgeting process for the prior year where that money
is going to go, as you've explained it, based upon
their inability to get these projects off the ground, issuing RFPs,
going through the process of you know, selecting contras, actors, whatever.
(25:00):
They don't have the resources to do that. So the
money remains unspent. Yes, moving into the next county year.
The federal government, in the way their budget process works, it's
use it or lose it.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
That's absolutely correct.
Speaker 1 (25:11):
You have to spend the money during that fiscal year,
that's right. That's not the case for the city. No,
that's not so the money remains in the account. Yes.
Is the city under an obligation in the following year,
the new budget to honor the commitments made under the
prior year budget to do those certain projects that were identified,
or is it can they start from scratch?
Speaker 2 (25:32):
Well that's a good question, Brian. I think they can
basically move that money to whatever projects are the priority
at the moment. And what I suggested to the board
this week.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
The trustees that monitor the investment from the railroad sale.
That board, not one of the ones after have pro
ball sitting on sorry head to make.
Speaker 2 (25:51):
This is this is the railroad the Railroad board. What
I suggested this week is that they adopt a draw
down system like the Federal Highway Administration has where the
states come in and they draw down money from the
federal government account as they need it. They don't get
all this money up front. They have to put claims
(26:13):
into the federal government to draw down money from their account.
Speaker 1 (26:16):
It's like an attorney working off a retainer. Yes, you
get a lump sum upfront, you can only draw money
after you've done the hour's work.
Speaker 2 (26:22):
Right, So what I suggested to the board in a
letter this week is that they adopt a draw down
system where the city has to come and make specific
requests for specific sums of money for specific projects, and
that's when the board can transfer money to them.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
Because the issue is not ripe for transfer of money
until they have a set in stone project that's right,
funding parameters.
Speaker 2 (26:49):
Until they have something they're going to spend that money
on in a timely way. That money should stay in
the trust fund earning returns.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
Or earning Yeah, that's the other that's the benefit from that.
Notal does that make them? You know, you pay money
only for projects that are actually working and being accomplished,
but you continue to earn interest.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
Right, the money should either be working on the infrastructure
or working by earning gains in the trust fund.
Speaker 1 (27:15):
Have you heard back from the board on that concept.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
No, I just sent the letter the other day.
Speaker 1 (27:19):
Okay, do they you think they have the ability to
implement a drawdown procedure along those lines.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
Absolutely, that's my read of it anyway.
Speaker 1 (27:26):
All right, So this isn't intruding on Cincinnati Council's authority
to choose projects or to pick where to allocate where
the funds go. It just merely is demonstrating to the
board who's got the money, that there is a specific
project the money is going to. Right.
Speaker 2 (27:42):
So the board has some very good lawyers that are
sitting on the board. So I don't want to tell them,
you know, legally what they can and cannot do, but
they should. They have a fiduciary duty to make sure
that they are earning the maximum amount they can earn
in that account. And by giving money to the city
that the city isn't in a position to spend, you know,
(28:03):
they're losing that earnings.
Speaker 1 (28:06):
Huh, which might give rise to a cause of action
by any since any taxpayer for breach of fiduciary duty.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (28:15):
Oh, there's another lawsuit somebody out there in the audience.
Can Key, I continua.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
So I'll let people know what they tell me, if
they tell me anything. But the next meeting of the
trust board is in February. So in fact, what I think,
I posted it last night on my Facebook. I went
to the meeting in February of this year of twenty five,
and I raised the issue of the inability of the
(28:41):
city to spend the money that the board was transferring
to them. I said, you, you can't transfer money to
the city and have it just sit there.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
Right.
Speaker 2 (28:53):
So they didn't do anything back in February. We'll see
if they do anything.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
Now, don't hold your breath, Tod. We really like you
and what you're doing for the city in spite of
the fact it's a thorn in the well am Ayer's
side as much as any of the the council members
and the city manager seven forty six right now more
one more with Todd sendsor stick around QC Kinetics will
QC Kinetics SAWCE talk station seven fifty fifty five KRCD
(29:27):
talk Station Brient Thomas Todd Zendser and probably just scratching
the service of all the issues going on in downtown
Cincinnati that Todd is writing heard over. He busily writes
letters issues for your requests and waits and waits and
waits and waits and waits for them to say, I'm sorry,
we don't have time to do it. Kind of just
summarizing your life over the course of the past year.
Todd's endser. One of the things you mentioned on the break,
(29:48):
you've got the ongoing issues. Those are issues you've advanced,
you've sent letters, you've brought to the public's attention, waiting
for follow up, waiting for resolution. So you're keeping track
of them ongoing and I presume ever growing list. But
then you also have, like into the future, what you
want to look into, Right, so there's that list projects
(30:09):
you need to get to. But then you start as
you become more and more popular and more widely known
for what you are doing, this value to the city
that you provide, people are bringing more things to your attention. Yeah,
so you can I summarize by saying you're feeling a
bit overwhelmed with a number of issues that need to
be looked into.
Speaker 2 (30:27):
Todd, Yeah, I think one of the things I have
to do is manage people's expectations about what exactly we
can look into here because we really don't have any
authority to go into places and talk to people like
I did when I was working. But yeah, there are
people that they have their own oversight questions. You know,
(30:48):
the courts for example, and the criminal justice.
Speaker 1 (30:50):
Issues big topic this morning.
Speaker 2 (30:53):
It is a big issue for people. There are people
that have their own lawsuits against the city that they're
calling me about, uh for you know, for my take
on their efforts and things like that. I've got a
phone call today and I got a phone call tomorrow
with some folks. So there's things going on and I
(31:14):
just have to do what I can really well.
Speaker 1 (31:18):
And that leads me to ask you about the process
of your starting this five oh one C three entity
to do this type of work under the umbrella of
an off for profit company. The Cincinnati Oversight Project is
I believe that's what you've named it.
Speaker 2 (31:34):
That's what I've named it, and I want to kind
of model it after a Judicial Watch if you if
you're familiar with that organ site, and you know a
lot of their work is getting records out of the
government that disclose what's really going on. So that's that's
part of the effort. The other effort is to have
a platform to start talking to people about the value
(31:56):
or benefits of having an oversight organization within government here
in Cincinnati, like they do in a lot of states,
and they do in a lot of municipalities.
Speaker 1 (32:07):
That's why we have inspectors general, right.
Speaker 2 (32:09):
That's correct. And you know that if you've seen one
inspector general, you've seen one inspector general. They're all kind
of different. And so Cincinnati is in a position to
build their inspector General operation from the you know, from
the get go, and improve the oversight of the city's operations,
including the city council operation and the and the mayor.
Speaker 1 (32:34):
Well, why would they want to expose themselves to something
that their own internal inspector general office would would expose.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
That's exactly right, Brian. And that's why you don't have
them everywhere, because there's a lot of resistance to that
type of oversight even when they even when they establish
those oversight offices. For example, I interviewed for a position
out West one time for a transit authorities I g
and I went into interview and their proposal gave the
(33:04):
ig no authority. No investigative authority was in the statute.
And I told him that that's not that's not going
to work out, got your teeth, And so they selected
a woman who was friends with the governor, and she
wound up quitting over that issue. In a couple of
years they got in she got into a dispute with
the board and they weren't cooperating with her and she
(33:27):
didn't have any authority to press.
Speaker 1 (33:31):
Well, I'm guessing that you know, if you start the
Cincinnati Oversight Project, you get your five oh one C
three status, you're going to need some help. Is this
an invitation for people who are interested in doing the
type of work you're doing, to help you deal with
all these challenges, including all the items that you have
on your to do list.
Speaker 2 (33:48):
Well, eventually the answer would be yes. And you know,
I haven't really decided whether it would be a five
O one C three or five O one C four.
I'm inclined to maybe not do a thing five oh
one C three because the donors for the five oh
one C three are public and five oh one C
four donors are not public. And I'm thinking that people
(34:11):
that want to donate and get greater oversight of the
city may not want to have their name out front,
like that, So I'm those are the kind of things
I'm I'm looking at.
Speaker 1 (34:21):
Well, look at Signal ninety nine and they did a
background check on her and she wasn't even living in
the greater Cincinnati area at the time. Why do they
do that? Why do they rifle through her records while
she was an employee this insant police department because she's
made posts online and she annoyed our elected officials. Right, Yeah,
you set yourself up with a crosshair. When you do,
you know, open your mouth. And that's why we're proud
(34:42):
of you and happy with what you're doing, because you'll
take the slings and errors from these clowns and you're
you're identifying all the issues that will justify me calling
them clowns. How's that, Todd?
Speaker 2 (34:53):
That's fine. Well, it provides a more healthy government if
you have outside or into and people giving that third
party view of what the operations are doing.
Speaker 1 (35:05):
Todd Zenzer, keep up the great work. A very merry Christmas,
Happy holidays across the board. Well wishes for you and
your family. I know you and I'll be talking a
lot throughout the next calendar year. You're always here, welcome
here on the fifty five Cassy Morning Show. To bring
further to the public's attention the stuff you're doing each
and every day. Follow Todd on Facebook, just look for
Citizen Watchdog and regularly check up on his podcast, because
(35:27):
you will remain enlightened throughout the year. Todd. I don't
en for you, but I appreciate you. Thank you, Brian.
Speaker 2 (35:32):
Merry Christmas to you and everybody out there.
Speaker 1 (35:35):
Thanks much. Seven fifty six fifty five Carsity Talk Station
got time to chime in. If you feel like I
feel free to call me five one three
Brian Thomas News
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!