By Gregory Korte
The Cincinnati Enquirer

Cincinnati City Council gave Dr. Alan Kalmanoff, the monitor appointed by the court to oversee police reforms, a unanimous vote of no confidence Wednesday.

Kalmanoff

Through its 9-0 vote, City Council instructed the city solicitor to ask U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott to remove Dr. Kalmanoff after just four weeks on the job. The monitor has already billed the city $55,241 for his time and expenses - a bill that City Council says it will refuse to pay.

City Council's action puts the historic agreement - an out-of-court settlement of a racial profiling lawsuit - in its most serious jeopardy since it was signed.

"The situation is chaotic and puts us all on the brink of failure," Mayor Charlie Luken declared before the vote.

Mr. Luken said the city is still committed to the underlying reforms in the racial profiling collaborative, and its companion agreement with the U.S. Justice Department on police use of force. But an expensive and semi-permanent monitoring scheme is unacceptable, he said.

Though the council's vote was unanimous, its message was not.

Hard-liners, like Mayor Luken, said they wanted to get rid of Dr. Kalmanoff even if it means the city needed to back out of the agreement. Liberals, like Councilman David Crowley, characterized their vote as against the monitor but for the agreement.

Those in the middle said Dr. Kalmanoff had so damaged his relationship with City Council that the argument over the bill was almost beside the point.

The vote was prompted by a $55,241 invoice Dr. Kalmanoff submitted Monday for his first month of work - an invoice that billed at $100 an hour for such tasks as packing for a trip to Cincinnati.

Dr. Kalmanoff did not return a call seeking comment.

Kenneth L. Lawson, a lawyer for the Black United Front and a plaintiff in the case, said the city is charting a dangerous course by taking unilateral action seeking to remove Dr. Kalmanoff.

The agreement provides that the city try to work out billing disputes with the monitor and the other parties before complaining to the judge.

"Had they followed the agreement, we probably could have all agreed on an appropriate resolution, and this wouldn't have turned into a fiasco," Mr. Lawson said.

E-mail gkorte@enquirer.com