Let's get one fact straight right at the start. Those federal marshals padding around U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott's chambers are King Charles Spaniels, not Cockers.

If you've been following this week's noise over the Cincinnati Collaborative on Race Relations and Police Reform, you will know that the judge takes her little pooches to the office with her. Roger Webster and Keith Fangman, the president and vice president of the Fraternal Order of Police, have spent a lot of time since Tuesday complaining about the judge and her dogs.

The FOP has announced it wants out of the court-supervised collaborative. Only the judge has the authority to let them out. For some reason they chose to make some particularly pungent remarks about the judge's dogs. Maybe they figure the surest way to get a fast exit from Dlott's court is to beat up on little Dickens and Crumpet. I've never met these doggies, but people who know the judge say she is very fond of them. They are pictured on her page of the court's Web site.

Fangman and Webster said the judge is biased against the police, based on some of her recent rulings. They were particularly incensed by an April 7 ruling in which she said the police had violated people's civil rights in the past, were continuing to do so now and could be counted on to do so in the future.

The collaborative is, in effect, a court-supervised settlement conference that is expected to last for years. Its purpose is to settle a class action racial profiling suit against the city and the police department, and to incorporate certain reforms in police policies and practices that have been demanded by the U.S. Department of Justice.

This marriage of convenience came together about 18 months ago and originally included the city, the plaintiffs in the suit, the Black United Front, the American Civil Liberties Union and the FOP. The parties chose collaboration over litigation because they thought it would be a good idea for the city to bind up its wounds in the aftermath of the 2001 riot, which was sparked when a police officer shot and killed Timothy Thomas.

It didn't take long for all the collegiality to wear thin however. The Black United Front, representing the most vocal critics of the city and the police, continued to push their economic boycott. The police began to grind their teeth over justice department demands for changes in the use-of-force policy. And the city had conniptions over the exorbitant billings of the first court-appointed monitor, who has since been replaced.

A few weeks ago the Black United Front asked to get out of the collaborative. The group said it wanted to be free to pursue its boycott without worrying about compromising the collaborative. Some big corporate contributors to the collaborative's good works threatened to withhold their contributions if the collaborative included boycotters. In other words, the Front could no longer get away with the hypocrisy of its own position. The FOP, furious that the judge had never forced the Front to play nicely with the other kids in this particular sandbox, said this week that it wants out too. Let them go. The city and the plaintiffs are the only necessary parties to this effort. The police will have to do whatever the city agrees to anyway. The Black United Front will wither away if and when the collaborative succeeds.

The FOP will be free to trash the judge, although her involvement with police cases is likely to continue. Judge Sandra Beckwith, the only other full-time District Court judge in Cincinnati, passes on cases involving the Cincinnati Police because her husband is a retired assistant chief of the department.

The FOP's frustration with Dlott led Fangman to complain that she is unqualified for the bench. He said she never even presided over a traffic case before being appointed by Bill Clinton, an appointment Fangman credits to her husband Stan Chesley's generosity as a political donor. Actually the judge spent four years as a federal prosecutor and had a career as a high-profile litigator in civil and criminal law before being appointed. (That information is on the same Web page as the picture of the dogs.)

The dogs fall into the category of idiosyncrasy. Dlott apparently did make them honorary marshals and I have heard people say they have had one or the other sit in their lap during conferences in the judge's chambers. But to my knowledge they do not offer her legal advice.

The cops may have some legitimate complaints about the judge. But they shouldn't say they don't violate civil rights and then turn around and kick a couple of innocent dogs.

Contact David Wells at 768-8310; fax: 768-8610; e-mail: dwells@enquirer.com.