An agreement with federal officials that ended an investigation of Cincinnati's police department required the city to enact a wide range of policy changes two days ago.

        But now city officials are refusing to talk about some of those changes and are insisting the information is private.

Baker

Martin

        They won't say if all of the policies — ranging from new use-of-force procedures to a new police discipline structure — have been enacted or if they meet U.S. Department of Justice approval.

        They are also refusing to talk about interviews with seven candidates this week who have applied to oversee the police reforms or release their written applications.

        “All of us would love to talk about all of the good things the parties are doing,” said Washington, D.C., lawyer Billy Martin, who represents the city. “We are still trying to implement these agreements.”

        The new policies are among the first of several key deadlines in the U.S. Department of Justice agreement.

        The agreement with the Department of Justice is one of two landmark settlements that the city made following the riots of April 2001. The second agreement ended a federal lawsuit against the city by African-Americans who alleged years of discrimination by officers.

        Some City Council members said Thursday that the process needs to be as open as possible. They said they were unaware of the city's position, but said the spirit of the agreements suggests openness.

        “This needs to be as transparent as possible so that citizens know what we are doing,” Councilman David Pepper said. “I don't want it to be secret.”

        However, he cautioned that when legal issues are involved it may be necessary to keep some things private.

        Councilman Pat DeWine said: “What the city is doing ought to be disclosed.”

        While police officials have previously been eager to talk about these policy changes, on Thursday they refused to release information on most of them.

        Some of the policies, such as a new mental health response team, have already received publicity. And police supervisors and officers are in training about how to use the new policies. They have also been taught about them in roll calls before going on duty.

        And on one of the policies, a new system for handling citizen complaints, police officials have begged for attention. This morning, four assistant chiefs are scheduled to appear on several regional television and radio shows to go over changes.

        S. Gregory Baker, executive manager of the city's new police relations office, referred all questions to the city's legal department. He said they have been told the information about the new policies and the monitor candidates is protected under an order signed by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Dlott.

        That order, however, refers to “drafts of any terms for settlement” not to applications or policy changes. Judge Dlott, who has scheduled a hearing July 18 to review the settlement agreements, did not return calls Thursday.

        City Manager Valerie Lemmie said that the city would meet all of its obligations.

        “I think we have done what we said we were going to do,” she said. “We agreed to these requirements.”

        She said the city's deadline was today. But in a 19-page memo dated May 24 outlining the agreement with the Department of Justice, she indicated the new policies were supposed to be finished July 10. That was 90 days from the April signing of the agreement by U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft.

        U.S. Department of Justice officials refused to comment on the new policies, or on the interviews of candidates for a monitor to oversee police and community reforms.

        Eleven candidates applied for the job, which will cost taxpayers up to $800,000 a year for the next five years. For three days this week, seven of those candidates — including a sitting Ohio Supreme Court justice — were interviewed by lawyers for the city, the police union, the plaintiffs involved in the federal lawsuit and the Department of Justice.

        Lawyers for the police union and plaintiffs did not return repeated phone calls.

        “The parties are not to discuss this matter,” Mr. Martin said, adding that all of the lawyers have agreed not to talk about it. “We are trying to select the monitor and otherwise implement the agreement.”

Urban League rejects boycott
It's easier now to complain about us, police say
No word on new police policies
Questions unanswered on many police changes
Bridge painting not in budget this year
Arguments start in Pendleton man's trial
Ballot petitions appear suspicious
Boats will stay dockside
Divers recover body of crewman
Girl, 11, says she saw man molest friend
Man appears in court after airport ruckus
Obituary: Jim Dixon, 80, served as trustee in Fairfield
Tristate A.M. Report
BRONSON: Before crude
HOWARD: Some Good News
SMITH AMOS: Housing crisis has tenants in turmoil
Court OKs deal for Clinton Co. limestone quarry
Developers file appeal for center
Fairfield rewrites dress code
Former teacher released early
Some in New Miami say it's time for a merger
Teens, community come together for 'A Midsummer Night's Dream'
Warren County rejects state 'kinship' grant
House Dems want new funding law
Kenton Co. OKs homes
Kentucky News Briefs
Lawsuits to remain unsealed
Public pool opening delayed six months in Boone County