I just can't understand how somebody in that kind of position would put their livelihood at risk by going to a strip club with coworkers on a work trip. It's not that I necessarily have a problem with it, but it's that other people will. Why risk it?

 

Successful people usually get away with all sorts of crap that would bring down more upstanding people. 

I watched the news tonight with my grandmother, who is 91 or 92.  I think it was Channel 19.  They showed stock footage of the inside of some strip club somewhere with a fuzzed-out dancer.  It was hilarious.  My grandmother saw right through the Cranley smear job. 

If only it could be so...

  https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/naacp-floats-idea-of-recalling-cranley-over-black-feud

^One can only think this may be ruining Cranley's chances for higher office, especially if Council sticks to keeping Harry and he roots out whatever rogue elements are going on in the police department and else where, which if true, Cranley is obviously linked to.

 

Did anyone ever listen to the tape of Black's call with Dan Hils that Hils taped?  It was really interesting that Black was saying: "Dan, you know what you are doing and I know what you are doing, don't bull**** me.  You want to keep the status quo" ... Hils: "Oh yeah, what is the status quo?" ... Black: "The old boys network, you know exactly what I am talking about." ... Hils: "No I don't, tell me what you are talking about." ... Black: "I am talking about police corruption, Dan."

Ughhh.  From today's Enquirer:

 

 

• Charter reform is a hot topic around town, and many are wondering whether the corporate community will step in and push for a ballot initiative in support of a full-on strong mayor system. Top biz leaders are staying quiet right now, but don't be surprised if the Cincinnati Business Committee, Cincinnati Regional Business Committee and Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber at least give this serious consideration after this week's chaos at City Hall. The business community has gone down this road before, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a strong mayor ballot initiative in 1995. How'd that work out? Here's what then-Enquirer political expert Howard Wilkinson wrote at the time: "The CBC ran Issue 1 up the flag pole to see who would salute. If you consider the ol' Bronx cheer a salute, they did well. It went down 2-to-1, which is astronomical in politics. Candidates and issues get more votes than that by accident." The CBC has totally different leadership these days, and has a strong track record on campaigns and community projects under CEO Gary Lindgren.

Newsflash for anyone believes that the government should "run like a business" ... businesses spend money on their employees going to strip clubs all the time.

 

Not that we’re in disagreement that this is a total nothingburger. But...Which companies are these?

 

Start wrapping your head around the power struggle that is apparently going on and who would be in the Mayor’s corner. Looking at that phone call transcript above tells me that Black has some real moxy.

 

 

WHo cares if the guy goes to a strip club. As long as he is using his own dollar bills instead of the city's to stuff in the stripper's G-string, I don't see a problem with this. If anything, it should be appreciated that the guy has a personality and is not some self righteous prick.

For the council members who are on record as being against firing Black (PG, Young, Dennard, and Seelbach), do they truly support Harry Black, or is this just one of the instances where they oppose whatever Cranley wants?  Over the past 4+ years, have those four shown support toward Black?

Newsflash for anyone believes that the government should "run like a business" ... businesses spend money on their employees going to strip clubs all the time.

 

Not that we’re in disagreement that this is a total nothingburger. But...Which companies are these?

 

Start wrapping your head around the power struggle that is apparently going on and who would be in the Mayor’s corner. Looking at that phone call transcript above tells me that Black has some real moxy.

 

 

 

Yeah, who does have the power, that's the interesting question.  It honestly seems like Black does, and Cranley is outnumbered.  I thought it was interesting that Harry Black said in essence: "There will be a smear campaign and I am willing to struggle through it, because through the support of my peers, I feel I am meant to be in Cincinnati."

 

Now, I think it all boils down to, is Council willing to stick to it's guns in the fire?  You would think yes.

 

The following is all my opinion, call it conspiracy, who knows:

 

In the police department, Hils and the FOP has Cranley's back, but their top dude Bailey got canned in Cranley, the FOP's, and Deters attempt to keep the status quo as they saw it was being rooted out behind Black's no none-sense approach.  They attempted to undermine him from within, and also create false law suites against him and his "retalitory" behavior to make a case to fire him, though I would guess on all those that there is no legal way any of those lawsuites would ever prevail.  Black had Isaac's back and rooted out their henchman in Bailey in a completely legal and ethical way, and now they are going full steam smear campaign to try to oust them as they know Black must have some serious dirt on them or at least, some serious dirt that is being protected that needs to be cleaned, and they don't want to lose their power.

 

Crazy stuff, I honestly hope Black stays and this gets cleaned up and the old boys network can get exposed.  That may end up being one of the best things to happen to this city, getting Harry Black as City Manager, who would have ever thought.  Cranley should have thought twice about hiring a guy with a reputation to clean up messes from the east coast.

For the council members who are on record as being against firing Black (PG, Young, Dennard, and Seelbach), do they truly support Harry Black, or is this just one of the instances where they oppose whatever Cranley wants?  Over the past 4+ years, have those four shown support toward Black?

 

Any enemy of Cranley is a friend of theirs. If they can give a black eye to the mayor they will take every opportunity to do so. Especially Young and Seelbach, ESPECIALLY Seelbach.

 

Seelbach wanted to fire Black a few years back because he was not happy about him firing the old police commissioner and has had spats with Black and Cranley in other areas over the last 4 years.

 

Personally, I think this whole Black thing is blown out of proportion and he should not be fired, but it is disgusting that someone like Seelbach cant make a decision that does not highlight his pettiness and selfishness in the process.

I wonder if streetcar issues are going to be a part of this. Black might be like, "I tried to fix the issues but Cranley wouldn't let me."

^ Don't forget that this ordeal all started because Bailey leaked a document highlighting extreme misuse of overtime funds, apparently with the blessing of Isaac and Black. They then paid Bailey handsomely to get rid of him. This is known, whereas the claims of a "good old boys network" is a bit of a conspiracy theory started by Black. IMO it's more about control - Black wants Yes Men and is willing to bully anyone else around to get that. Cranley was fine with that when he was doing it in Cranley's good graces, but now that he's gone rogue it's complete chaos on Plum Street.

 

 

^ Don't forget that this ordeal all started because Bailey leaked a document highlighting extreme misuse of overtime funds, apparently with the blessing of Isaac and Black. They then paid Bailey handsomely to get rid of him. This is known, whereas the claims of a "good old boys network" is a bit of a conspiracy theory started by Black. IMO it's more about control - Black wants Yes Men and is willing to bully anyone else around to get that. Cranley was fine with that when he was doing it in Cranley's good graces, but now that he's gone rogue it's complete chaos on Plum Street.

 

 

 

Nevermind, I understand what you are saying, read it wrong the first time.

 

Yes, I guess there are two sides to it, but why did Bailey release the audit without permission and who commissioned the audit?  And if that was the case, why hasn't Cranley stated anything about the blessing of overtime?

 

Also, it makes me wonder when Cranley was asked about racism in the police department, why he didn't refute it, only that in substance "Black was wrong to say there are rogue elements, but there are things that need to be worked on in the police department and in the city in general" in regards to racism.

^ Don't forget that this ordeal all started because Bailey leaked a document highlighting extreme misuse of overtime funds, apparently with the blessing of Isaac and Black. They then paid Bailey handsomely to get rid of him. This is known, whereas the claims of a "good old boys network" is a bit of a conspiracy theory started by Black. IMO it's more about control - Black wants Yes Men and is willing to bully anyone else around to get that. Cranley was fine with that when he was doing it in Cranley's good graces, but now that he's gone rogue it's complete chaos on Plum Street.

 

 

 

 

But Cincinnati is a total good ol' boys town. They just don't call it that because it sounds too Southern or Appalachian.

^ I mean the overtime abuse was blessed by Isaac and Black. Releasing the memo is what pissed them off. Their decision to force him out was disproportionate, when the people they should have been angry at were the ones abusing taxpayer dollars.

^ I mean the overtime abuse was blessed by Isaac and Black. Releasing the memo is what pissed them off. Their decision to force him out was disproportionate, when the people they should have been angry at were the ones abusing taxpayer dollars.

 

The report was released prior to any review by the city manager or the police chief. The report apparently contains inaccuracies concerning the figures cited. Additionally, the individual who is accused of abusing overtime is claiming that she was not kept in the loop on changes to overtime policy that every other district commander was told about just so the good ol boys network could play gotcha with her. There are many sides to this story and frankly I don't trust the mayor or the racists in CPD.

If it's true that Black crossed the line and behaved inappropriately, he should be fired and should not receive any severance pay. If Black knows he behaved inappropriately and does not want the evidence to come out, he should resign, in which case he also wouldn't receive any severance pay. Cranley's attempt to make a deal directly with Black — "we'll give you a half million dollar golden parachute and keep all of the details private and indemnify you in future lawsuits" — reeks of the Old Boys Club and thankfully isn't going to work this time.

 

So Black has a choice to make. Resign or let the evidence come out and be judged based on the evidence. This back room deal isn't going to fly.

Whatever the truth may be, it's pretty easy to see this as the council majority (led by PG) perpetuating the dysfunction. No one looks good here, and the city looks like a hot mess. Talk radio had a field day today intertwining this, the FC Cincinnati/CPS debacle, and our city's two historical college basketball collapses up as one big sign of Cincinnati's perpetual malaise.

Back in 2013, Cranley told the press that Black was going to be the City Manager before he introduced him to council.  Now he's speaking of him in the past tense even though he's still on the job.   

 

Looks to me like Cranley didn't realize that he wasn't going to be able to intimidate council into capitulating to his demands.  That's a huge mistake on his part, since a crafty group on council is now embarrassing the hell out of him. 

 

Is Cranley already a lame duck?  Did PG just take over? 

 

 

 

Cranley and Black have tons of dirt on each other, so if they want to drag each other through the mud, so be it. They're the only ones making themselves look bad and making sure neither one has a future in politics. PG will come out looking like the adult in the room. And he's going to save the taxpayers close to a half million dollars.

I'm completely on board with the idea that the council majority is drawing a line in the sand and saying "no backroom deal" this time. But the idea that this is being done to save the taxpayers money is a bit much. Jason Williams is right that a "special investigation" could likely run six figures. If Black sues the city then who knows how much that will cost. PG should cut his own deal with Black for 8 months salary and then take an active role in picking the next manager.

I think the council majority looks just as bad, if not worse than Cranley and Black. They're acting under the guise of saving the taxpayer's money, but that's a thin veil - it's clear this is just a power struggle. If this were truly about money, council would just fire black and give him the contractually obligated amount (8 months pay).

 

Ultimately, the city will continue to be dysfunctional if it has a mayor and manager that have animosity for one another and do not want to cooperate. Council is forcing them to work together, against their will, which will cost the city far more long term than the amount Black walks away with in a severance package.

Ultimately, the city will continue to be dysfunctional if it has a mayor and manager that have animosity for one another and do not want to cooperate. Council is forcing them to work together, against their will, which will cost the city far more long term than the amount Black walks away with in a severance package.

 

What's amazing about this is that Black is Cranley's guy, and he had a checkered past in Baltimore.  But it turned out that he actually had standards above what Cranley is willing to operate, especially with regards to Cranley ordering a second raise for union workers literally days after Black gave them a sensible one.  This move by Cranley has, predictably, strained city finances. 

 

I don't get why Cranley centers his entire political strategy around kissing the police department's ass.  Luken didn't do it.  Mallory didn't do it.  They each were reelected without any trouble. 

 

 

Because WLW is always beating the police and fire drum

 

Cranley wants to please as many WLW listeners as possible.

Because WLW is always beating the police and fire drum

 

Cranley wants to please as many WLW listeners as possible.

 

They're blaming the $25 million deficit on...the streetcar, of course, despite the streetcar only costing about $4 million per year. 

 

 

The city certainly looks bad...but this ALL sits squarely on the eyebrows of John Cranley.

I think the council majority looks just as bad, if not worse than Cranley and Black. They're acting under the guise of saving the taxpayer's money, but that's a thin veil - it's clear this is just a power struggle. If this were truly about money, council would just fire black and give him the contractually obligated amount (8 months pay).

 

Ultimately, the city will continue to be dysfunctional if it has a mayor and manager that have animosity for one another and do not want to cooperate. Council is forcing them to work together, against their will, which will cost the city far more long term than the amount Black walks away with in a severance package.

 

Speaking of acting under a guise, one thing that has not actually come out yet is the answer to this question: What is Cranley's real reason for wanting to fire Black?

^OR did they ever give a reason for saying it was wrong to fire Bailey or is it now under the guise "It had nothing to do with that" even though it literally happened the day after?

Cranley is still pretending that he wants to fire Black because of his "inappropriate behavior".

 

If that's the real reason, why doesn't he want Black fired? Why does he want to spend a half million dollars on a severance package?

Because the severance would include a clause the neither Harry Black nor John Cranley would disparage each other (or the city, in Harry's case). John doesn't get that protection if he simply submits Harry's firing to Council.

This is the first time we've ever had a Mayor try to fire the sitting City Manager during their term (out of the three strong mayors that Cincinnati has had since it adopted this form of government). We don't really know how bad things might get if we have a Mayor and City Manager that hate eachothers' guts. Things could get really, really dysfunctional if City Council doesn't agree to fire Black and if one of the two doesn't resign.

 

^ I perused the city charter looking for ways a mayor could capitalize on this situation, but I don't see many good options. The mayor's ability to "pocket veto" legislation seems like it might be the primary potential point of dysfunction.

 

Cranley's pal Rayshon Mack says that Cranley should punish the "radical leftists" on City Council by making sure they "never see legislation make it to the calendar for the rest of the term." In other words, pocket veto every proposed piece of legislation any of them put forward until they agree to a severance deal. It would be like a one-man government shutdown. (This is the guy that Cranley tried to appoint to the SORTA board but thankfully was rejected by Council.)

Wendell Young accuses Cranley of bribery:

https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/councilmember-young-accuses-mayor-cranley-of-bribery-says-hell-pursue-charge

I cant imagine that the Mayor would have reached out to Councilman Young if he didnt have to, so I guess he was unsuccessful in getting Councilman Landsman to change either?

 

All John Cranley has to do is be honest and tell us the real reason he wants Harry Black fired, and all the drama will end.

Saying "Harry won't let me run the administration anymore" won't fly....

Wendall Young is a problem. He is just like Charlie Winburn was. This whole bribe nonsense is a waste of time and resources and really is a breach of his fiduciary duty to represent his constituents. All this amounts to is a personal pissing match he is in with Cranley where he does not want to give in to anything with the mayor because of his own personal grudge. Time for him to grow up

Cranley keeps treating people like crap and his fans act appalled when people don't bail him out when he digs himself yet another hole. 

Cranley in college?

 

NSFW

 

Cranley may be a bully, but Young as an elected official needs to find a way to work things out. Allowing personal animosity to get in the way is malfeasance and you are not qualified to hold an elected position if you allow things to get personal.

Young as an elected official needs to find a way to work things out.

 

Cranley caused the problem.  As usual he's acting like other people caused the problem. 

 

He's used to writing checks to make problems go away.  Young actually has some class and isn't taking the bait. 

Around minute 20 Wendell Young digs into Cranley:

https://archive.org/details/10180328Coun

 

Cranley in the middle of it all reminds everyone that he started the Ohio Innocence Project.  Surprised he didn't expand and talk about that summer during high school when his parents paid for him to paint schools and kick soccer balls around with black kids in the Dominican Republic. 

City council approved an 8-month buyout for Harry Black's resignation, as opposed to the two-year buyout initially proposed and championed by Cranley, Pastor, and Smitherman (and supported by Mann and Murray). We'll see if Black takes it.

Thank the "Progressive 5" on Council for saving taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. Assuming that Black resigns.

Harry Black has indicated on multiple occasions he has no intention of resigning (at least, not with just 8 months pay). We'll see if he changes his mind if/when Cranley continues his infantile scorched-earth campaign to bring him down.

Thank the "Progressive 5" on Council for saving taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. Assuming that Black resigns.

 

Or probably not. He has already turned this down, which is going to cause more strife in the city and probably cost much more in the long run. I don't think Cranley came out with the $400k figure on the outset and given that they had agreed in principle to that number, what incentive does the city manager have to take less or significantly less. He does not give a damn about the city, he will take job elsewhere and do the exact same thing

^But what does John Cranley care about? Protecting his interests and his secrets in the CPD and running the city, why the hush money, why not just straight up fire him with 8 months severance?

Cranley cant fire him, he needs council to approve of the termination which council is balking at. Firing him with 8 months severance still allows him to sue for more. Getting him to sign and take additional money would preclude him from suing for additional compensation.

 

what council did yesterday was just a sham. Will he take the 8 months probably not. Can they negotiate something less than 400k, lets hope.

Cranley, Black trade new charges against each other, this time concerning economic development

 

Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley accused City Manager Harry Black of calling him late on March 8 and threatening to obstruct city business, then carried out the threat the next day, Cranley said in a news release issued Friday afternoon.

 

But, in an interview, Black lobbed his own charge at Cranley, saying he had become concerned about the legality and ethics of Cranley's work regarding economic development.

 

While Cranley did not release details of the alleged obstruction, the latest charge, coming on Good Friday and Opening Day, is related to Black’s decision to cancel all future economic development meetings with Cranley.

 

Cranley said Black’s decision to obstruct city business sparked the mayor’s desire to remove Black from office, not the city manager’s decision to force David Bailey, the Cincinnati Police Department’s No. 2 official, from his job.

 

“The (March 8 ) phone call was offensive and unprofessional, but it is the fact that he then followed up on his threats with official action that I find inexcusable,” Cranley’s statement said. “In fact, I have since learned that Mr. Black made several other similarly abusive calls to city leaders that night and week. This behavior fits a pattern of retaliation that others have also alleged.”

 

Full article below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/03/30/cranley-black-trade-new-charges-against-each-other.html

Black isn't resigning in the face of an investigation, which indicates - at least for the time being - that he isn't afraid of what the investigation will turn up. 

 

https://www.wcpo.com/news/insider/two-cincinnati-city-council-members-will-lead-probe-into-city-managers-alleged-misconduct?page=2

Is Cranley already a lame duck?  Did PG just take over?

 

It sure seemed like it during yesterday's FCC stadium announcement.