By Robert Anglen
The Cincinnati Enquirer

The lawyer who slapped Cincinnati with a controversial $55,000 bill for three weeks that he spent monitoring reforms to the police department has just hit the city with another $77,492 in charges.

Kalmanoff

Berkeley, Calif., consultant Alan Kalmanoff wants a total of $132,734 for expenses that include tipping hotel maids, running errands, planning trips and reading e-mails - the same kinds of charges that left city officials demanding his ouster in October.

Now, lawyers involved in two historic legal settlements that call for the monitor say they want to send Mr. Kalmanoff an early Christmas gift in the form of a letter refusing to pay many of his charges.

"We are going to present him with a united front. If Kalmanoff is not happy with it, he can file a motion with the court," said Ken Lawson, who sued the city on behalf of the Black United Front, a group of African-American activists. "It's sort of a present for him for Christmas."

Calling the bill outrageous, retaliatory and claiming that it borders on fraud, lawyers who opposed each other during settlement talks share opposition over Mr. Kalmanoff's charges. They say they will cull through his itemized expenses and agree on which ones to pay.

"It's enormous," ACLU lawyer Scott Greenwood said of the bill. "Frankly, it shocked everybody. It is grossly excessive. It shows a total disregard for the fiscal responsibility needed to monitor this agreement."

Mr. Kalmanoff did not return calls or an e-mail about his bill.

The monitor will enforce deadlines in settlements that ended a federal civil rights investigation of the police department and suspended the Black United Front's lawsuit accusing police of discrimination. On Tuesday, lawyers for the city, the police union, the Department of Justice and the Black United Front agreed to appoint Saul A. Green, an international business and immigration lawyer in Michigan, as the new monitor.

"My whole position is that the parties equally agree the bill is problematic," City Solicitor Rita McNeil said. "The amount submitted is totally unacceptable."

The bill , includes charges from Mr. Kalmanoff and members of his 20-member team of legal experts. Among the itemized expenses Mr. Kalmanoff claims:

• Tips for airport baggage handlers, newspapers and rental car transports.

• Meeting with the manager of the hotel where he was staying.

• Airfare bills for individual trips ranging from $435 to $2,314.

• Work that began two weeks before he was officially appointed to the job.

• Working 45 consecutive days.

Mr. Kalmanoff billed the city $100 an hour. But on some days, he claims to have worked 12 to 16 hours a day.

For instance, on Oct. 22, Mr. Kalmanoff charged the city $2,314.50 for airfare, $14.40 for mileage, $57.40 in cab fare, $2 for bridge toll, $186.51 for hotel, $17.74 for breakfast and $5 in tips. He also charged $1,390 for 10 hours of work and six hours of travel on the same day.

On Oct. 13, Mr. Kalmanoff billed the city for a five-hour meeting with team member Fred Crawford. However, in his own itemized charges, Mr. Crawford said the meeting lasted one hour.

John Norwine, executive director of the Cincinnati Bar Association, said the charges sounded unusual. "But there is no rule about what is a good bill and what is a bad bill," he said. "I think anything billed beyond straight time is often subject to questions."

Mr. Norwine said the city can file a complaint about Mr. Kalmanoff with the California Bar Association.

Ms. McNeil said the city is unlikely to take any action beyond its refusal to pay. She acknowledged that Mr. Kalmanoff could sue.

"I hope wisdom and prudence would discourage him from doing so," she said. "Not paying the amount submitted speaks volumes in and of itself. The negative press and the receipt of a lesser amount will speak volumes to other jurisdictions."

Mr. Greenwood pointed to Mr. Kalmanoff's bills for hours-long meetings and said he would never bill a client in such a way.

"That is not plausible, unless he's having a meeting with himself," Mr. Greenwood said. "The whole thing is unreasonable. It is unreasonable to hop on planes at first-class rates, or walk-up rates. It's unreasonable for someone to spend 20 hours a day working."

Mr. Greenwood said Mr. Kalmanoff also hired additional staff without consulting the city or the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. One of those staffers billed the city $16,870 for work and travel expenses.

"Certainly, the city blew Kalmanoff out of the water. But the appropriate response should not have been a retaliatory bill," Mr. Greenwood said. "I consider this abusive."

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Dlott, who is overseeing the settlements, appointed Mr. Kalmanoff in October. One tumultuous month later, Mr. Kalmanoff resigned after public clashes with the mayor and City Council over the scope and cost of his job.

Mr. Kalmanoff heads the nonprofit Institute for Law and Policy Planning in Berkeley, founded in 1973. His background includes extensive work as a consultant to police departments and he was appointed to make sure California state prisons complied with a federal mandate to improve conditions.

But among the hundreds of counties and cities where Mr. Kalmanoff has been hired to streamline prison systems, conduct audits and head corruption probes, several agencies reported problems that aren't mentioned in his resume: Fights over bills, political firestorms, unfulfilled duties, exaggerated results.

Mr. Kalmanoff said his job could cost more than $7 million over the next five years. But city officials, who agreed to pay the monitor's fees as part of the settlement, demanded that costs be capped at $5 million.

When Mr. Kalmanoff submitted his $55,000 bill in November, outraged officials threatened to back out of the settlement agreements if Judge Dlott did not find a new monitor.

The monitor's job includes overseeing the police department's overhaul of training, use-of-force policies and citizen complaint procedures. A new monitor was appointed Tuesday.

By agreeing unanimously on a new monitor, the parties prevented Judge Dlott from making a second unilateral appointment.

"The win here is that the council and other parties involved saw that (Mr. Kalmanoff) was not the right choice," Councilman David Pepper said Thursday. "He didn't really do much at all except create a distraction."

We can now pick up the ball, and hopefully in a couple of months we will forget Kalmanoff."

Councilman Pat DeWine said Mr. Kalmanoff's second bill did not come as a surprise.

"This is why it was so important for the council to get rid of this guy, he said. "This is `Exhibit A' of why we were right."

"This guy sends out a bill that creates controversy and then bills us for dealing with the controversy. I think we ought to take a close look at it. As an attorney, if he is billing for time he didn't (work), that is fraud."

Councilman David Crowley also said the bill needs extensive review.

"He never missed an opportunity to make a charge," he said. "There are silly things in there that must come out. I expect it to be reduced significantly."

E-mail ranglen@enquirer.com