Public Safety

February 16, 2016

Safety & Reform Community Advisory Council



Honorable Judge John A. West


Judge West

UC Perceptions of Policing Survey

Dr. Robin S. Engel. V.P. for Safety & Reform

Debrief Community Forum

S. Gregory Baker, Director of Police Community Relations

Introduction of Exiger Consulting Team

Dr. Engel

Remarks by Exiger Team

CAC Members Q & A Regarding Review Effort

Wrap Up

Judge West

*Agenda items not completed at the February meeting will be held over to the March meeting.

Next meeting:

  • Tuesday, March 22, 2016 from 5:00 – 7:00 PM in 320 University Pavilion
  • Tuesday, April 26, 2016 from 5:00 – 7:00 PM in 320 University Pavilion



CAC Members

  • Judge John West, Chairman
  • Eric Abercrumbie
  • Doug Barge
  • Marcus Bethay
  • Bobby Hilton
  • Chara Jackson
  • Doloris Learmonth
  • Jack Martin
  • Janet Moore
  • Andrew Naab
  • James Schwab
  • KZ Smith
  • Terri Theetge

UC Administration

  • S. Gregory Baker
  • Robin Engel
  • Bleuzette Marshall
  • James Whalen

CAC Members Not in Attendance

  • Dejanay Drummonds
  • Michael Ealy
  • Peg Fox
  • Aaron Greenlea
  • Ennis Tait
  • Charlene Ventura

Exiger Review Team Members

  • Elizabeth Carreño
  • Beth Corriea
  • Patrick Harnett
  • Nola Joyce
  • James McShane
  • Mark Porter
  • Chuck Ramsey
  • Jeff Schlanger
  • John Thomas
  • Roberto Villaseñor
This table lists topics discussed at the meeting that need further action taken, the name of the person responsible for completing the action and the date that the action needs to be completed.
Action Items Responsible Person(s) Due Date
Send minutes of 2/16/16 meeting to CAC Engel/Morris 3/8/16
Next Meeting is Tuesday,March 29th, 5:00-6:30 PM, University Pavilion 320
All 3/29/16


Judge John West

  • Thanked members for their willingness to change the date of the February CAC meeting in order to meet with the Exiger team.
  • Discussed agenda, noting that after short update from Dr. Engel, meeting will focus on Exiger introductions, then Q & A session with team.

Safety and Reform

Vice President Robin Engel

Discussed Perceptions of Policing Survey

  • Survey release delayed two days due to technical issue with emails. Will be released on Feb. 17th to all UC students, faculty/staff.
  • This is the first wave of this survey type – it is designed to establish a baseline of perceptions of policing by the UCPD and the CPD on and around campus.
  • Survey designed by experts from the School of Criminal Justice and the Institute for Policy Research.
  • It is an extensive survey. There are 62 total questions if the respondent answers all questions. Some questions are related specifically to face-to-face contact with UCPD, including stops, arrests, etc. Most people will be prompted to skip questions if this area of contact does not apply to them.
  • Survey focuses on UCPD activity but also asks about general satisfaction with CPD.
  • This online survey is completely anonymous, and uses a survey ID number solely to ensure the survey is only taken once.
  • As for specific topics covered, the survey assesses general satisfaction of UCPD, perceptions regarding UCPD, experience with UCPD dispatch and UCPD officers (face to face). The survey then asks about general satisfaction and perceptions regarding the CPD patrols near UC. The third topic covered by the survey is then the perception of the shooting of Samuel DuBose and the university’s responses since that time. The survey concludes with questions about respondents’ demographics.
  • The purpose of the survey is to establish baseline measures that can be used to measure our progress over time regarding increasing community trust and perceptions of legitimacy.

Introduction of / Remarks by Exiger Team

Robin Engel introduced the Exiger team lead, Jeff Schlanger, President of Exiger Advisory.

  • Each team member introduced themselves and shared their experience and area of expertise. Team members present included: Jeff Schlanger, John Thomas, Nola Joyce, Mark Porter, Roberto Villaseñor, Patrick Harnett, James McShane, Beth Corriea, and Elizabeth Carreño

Specific Questions/Answers/Comments Regarding Review Effort

  • Q: When review is completed, who will decide whether or not to implement the recommendations since the review was not mandated? A: UC has not worked through the entire process to date. Exiger recommendations will be provided to President Ono. Robin Engel assured council that regardless of mandate, we will be innovative. Once recommendations are received, we will be able to review progress made on a monthly basis. UC will have a specific implementation process worked out prior to review completion and will work as a team to decide how we will move forward. CAC will see complete report with all recommendations, as the entire report will be made public. CAC will discuss ideas on how to move forward at future meetings.
  • Q: How does Exiger feel they have the most experience in community engagement and how will they reach out to community? A: In previous jobs, Exiger has had multiple outreach forums in different areas of the community. Due to a shorter time frame here at UC, they will have less time to work with the community. While Cincinnati is unique, there are similarities to other communities they have worked in. They have joined in on youth organizations, campuses, etc., and have worked on both sides of law enforcement, they have a connection to both campus and local policing. They will also utilize and/or recommend the free training available from Policing in the 21st Century to help ensure trust.
  • Q: What drew Exiger to this specific project? A: Exiger has an opportunity to shape how a voluntary review of an institution, instead of a mandated review, can be done. This can set trends for other police departments on how to deal with a crisis. University policing can have implications for policing nationwide.
  • Q: Will Exiger examine the Kroll report and further investigate the officer-involved shooting incident? A: Exiger is reviewing the UCPD, but not specifically the officer-involved shooting incident that was already conducted by Kroll, the Cincinnati Police Department, and the Hamilton Co. Prosecutor’s Office. They will however, review the complaint process and disciplinary process. In regards to community trust issues with UCPD and the entire review, Exiger will win their trust by providing a thorough review and precise recommendations for reform. UC and UCPD leadership will then have to prove their commitment by implementing recommendations.
  • Q: Will Exiger examine organizational and structural issues during their review? A: Yes. Exiger will discuss with UC leadership their findings and will relay concerns. Exiger will report id thinks something needs to be reviewed, or leadership needs to be reevaluated. The integrity of the company is based on this practice of honest, straightforward reports and recommendations.
  • Q: Will Exiger address the issue of the low number of African Americans on the UCPD? Will there be recommendations on how to increase these numbers? A: This is a key focus of review. Exiger indicated that everyone interviewed thus far acknowledged the need for a more diverse workforce. Exiger will provide specific recommendations in this regard.
  • Q: How do you address community concerns that Exiger is “police heavy” and may not be able to relate to community concerns? A: While the Exiger team has a number of police professionals, the subject matter expertise that this teams brings will strengthen findings and recommendations. This team was created specifically based on the reported needs of UC through the request for proposals. The team includes current and former police officers from universities and urban areas. If Exiger feel that other experts are needed while performing review, they will add to the team. Also, half of team includes non-sworn officers (civilians) who are involved in policing reform.
  • Q: How can the community address the Exiger team with questions or suggestions? A: Jeff Schlanger gave his business card to community members at forum to reach him directly. He understands that some community members may be skeptical, but that Exiger will earn their trust.
  • Q: Since Exiger team members have full time jobs, what accountability mechanism is in place to assure this project stays on course and timeline is met? A: The team will look at the list of deliverables and its schedule to ensure the time line is on track. They have weekly meetings to provide updates on individual consultant areas of review. It is ultimately Jeff Schlanger’s responsibility to keep the team on schedule. The team is comprised of professionals who are used to tight deadlines. Robin Engel added that if during the review, other substantive areas not included in the initial RFP need to be addressed, she will make the call regarding the need to extend the timeline, otherwise, she will hold Exiger on task.
  • Q: Cincinnati is comparable to other cities, but very unique as well. What does Exiger feel makes Cincinnati unique and poses learning challenges to the team? A: Even with the similarities, every community has unique characteristics and a history that is important to learn. Exiger must learn Cincinnati’s history. While there are challenges, some opportunities lie within. The community seems willing to engage. Accountability is critical, and there is a vocal community which is holding the police department accountable. While race issues are present, the inherit biases that occur over time with law enforcement can be approached with a collaborative response by law enforcement and the community, students, etc. All will benefit by community members working collaboratively.
  • Q: Is the timeline for Exiger too tight for the team to understand the nuances of Cincinnati, especially since most of the work will be performed off-site? A: If this seems to be an issue, Exiger will possibly connect to a local representative to assist with community issues. Even if they lived here for the next 10 weeks, they are still not going to know the issues that everyone who has lived here for years knows. Team relies on discussions with community to gain this knowledge. Each city reviewed is unique – this is factored in to the greatest extent possible.
  • Q: How many reports like this have you written, since Exiger is a fairly new company? A: The number of reports is too numerous to count, as Exiger also writes financial conduct authority for the UK, Washington, DC, and many others.
  • Q: Is the report to UC going to use broad/outdated terms pertaining to racial biases? A: Exiger will pay special attention to the language used when writing the report to UC. Exiger will be conscience of word choices used.
  • Q: Does the broader university culture influence policing? A: Yes. Hopefully this review will help set a new standard for the university. Judge West noted that he will be working with the university on larger issues of diversity and inclusion. It is another/second phase plan for the university separate from this review.
  • Q: If Exiger notices a short-coming for the UCPD and are aware of a way that the community could help with the situation, will this be part of the recommendations? A: Yes. Exiger’s job is to create the report, but it is simply a report until the recommendations are put into practice. It is up to the university and community to implement recommendations. Exiger confirmed that they will be as specific as possible with all recommendations. Robin Engel explained that our expectation is that the review will address the specific questions we included in the request for proposal.
  • Q: Will Exiger address how officers are selected, and training for those officers who are not from areas urban areas about how they engage the community? A: Exiger will examine both the selection process for officers and the training they receive.
  • Q: Will the report include affirmations of the good things that UCPD already has implemented? A: Exiger will note practices that are both strengths and weaknesses, and provide additional recommendations. Exiger will describe UCPD’s strengths and ways to improve, while also discussing areas that are not meeting best practices or industry standards.
  • Q: What is the best practice for patrolling off-campus? A: There is no definitive answer for this question; it is community specific. If the students and community feel that patrolling off-campus is necessary, then the CPD and UCPD must work together and identify the extent of the patrol. In working with other jurisdictions, similar hopes and visions for the policing on and around campus existed and were described to CAC Members.
  • Comment: Discussed topic of individual police officers being suited for the position. Police should be held to higher standard than general public, especially since they carry weapons. Police should elevate themselves to be at a higher level. UCPD could be the perfect example of policing and this tragedy could still could occur. The UC institution has reacted as exemplary as possible in this case. The UCPD will more thoroughly monitor the activities of officers to identify potential outliers who need to be addressed.
  • Comment: Bishop Hilton thanked Judge West for moderating the forum and his time commitment to the CAC. Thanked Robin Engel, Jim Whalen and Greg Baker for the open and honest process. He indicated he was proud to be a part of this reform process and hopeful that the process will be successful. There have been great improvements with CPD and is hopeful that the UCPD will have the same improvements with this process we are currently implementing.
  • Comment: Exiger team was impressed by Community Forum turnout and how informed on policing and involved the community is. Community involvement can help with change, and it was clear the community has embraced collaborative agreement.

Wrap Up

  • Robin Engel confirmed date of second Community Forum to be held at TUC on 3/2/16. Invitation will be emailed to CAC members to distribute to their community members.
  • Director Greg Baker announced availability of tickets to the YWCA Racial Justice Breakfast on 3/8/16. If interested in attending, contact Greg Baker.
  • Mike Ealy announced the Onyx and Ruby Gala on 2/20/16. Thanked Public Safety and Safety and Reform as well as other UC departments, for their sponsorship.

Future Meetings

  • The regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, March 22, 2016 from 5:00 – 7:00 PM in 320 University Pavilion has been rescheduled to Tuesday, March 29, 2016 from 5:00 -7:00 PM in 320 University Pavilion due to UC Spring Break.
  • Tuesday, April 26, 2016 from 5:00 – 7:00 PM in 320 University Pavilion