Cincinnati hired an outside law firm to evaluate the leadership of its police chief. The public is paying for that review. If the city intends to use the report to justify firing her, the city must release it.
Anything less is not accountability. It is operating government in secrecy.
Police Chief Teresa Theetge was placed on paid administrative leave on Oct. 20, 2025, pending an investigation into her leadership. The law firm’s report was originally due by Dec. 31, 2025, under the initial $40,000 contract, then extended to Feb. 28, with an additional $9,000, and has now been extended again to March 31.
City leadership has made clear − both internally and publicly − that they are dissatisfied with the chief’s leadership. What they have not done is make a public case for termination.
That is not restraint born of caution. It reflects the political reality of what city leaders were doing. Removing a sitting police chief under these circumstances was guaranteed to provoke criticism, particularly given the chief’s unusual level of support − including from the police union, a group more often in conflict with police chiefs than aligned with them. When you cannot easily defend a decision publicly, you find another way to make it.
So instead of owning the decision, City Hall chose a different route.
Outsourcing accountability does not create it
The city retained FBT Gibbons ( formerly Frost Brown Todd ) to conduct what it described as an independent evaluation of the chief’s effectiveness. The structure of that choice matters. When elected and appointed officials already appear to have reached a conclusion, outsourcing the justification creates political distance. Officials can say they relied on independent experts rather than their own judgment. The decision belongs to no one in particular. Responsibility is blurred. Accountability is deferred. It is a familiar maneuver in city governments that want to avoid accountability. And Cincinnati residents should recognize it for what it is.
Investigations of this kind depend heavily on interviews with peers, subordinates, and city officials. Yet the city has not disclosed what it required of the law firm, or what evidentiary threshold had to be met to recommend retention or dismissal. The city also hasn’t disclosed whether those interviews were required to be recorded, whether statements were taken under oath, or whether interviewees were promised confidentiality.
That silence is worth noting. Governments conducting internal reviews sometimes structure them deliberately to avoid sworn, recorded testimony − because informal processes are easier to conduct. If Cincinnati’s review was conducted that way, the report would deprive the public of the facts and be vulnerable if challenged.
Chief Theetge’s legal counsel has already indicated that any termination will be contested. In that setting, a report built on unsworn, unrecorded statements − particularly anonymous or confidential ones − will be vulnerable and expose the city to damages for a wrongful termination.
And when that challenge comes, the law firm’s involvement will not shield the city. Consultants do not make termination decisions. They file reports. If the report collapses under scrutiny, responsibility will snap back to the officials who commissioned it and relied on it to justify termination.
The cost will not be abstract. Taxpayers will pay again − for litigation, for outside counsel, and for the consequences of a process that prioritized insulation over defensibility.
If the report justifies firing the chief, prove it
This is Cincinnati government. The public paid for the investigation. The public will live with the outcome. The public is entitled to understand the scope of the work requested and the final report.
City leaders may argue that releasing the report would chill cooperation or expose personnel matters. That argument does not survive examination. Redactions can be made. Sensitive details can be protected. Governments release investigative findings routinely when acting in good faith.
What they do not do − when they expect public trust − is hide the basis for terminating a public official. And they will not be able to hide from judicial scrutiny if this decision is challenged.
Mayor Aftab Pureval and the city manager now face a clear choice. If they intend to rely on this report to remove the police chief, they must release it. If they cannot release it because it would not withstand scrutiny, then it cannot be used to justify the termination. There is no third option that is consistent with accountable government.
Release the report, defend it publicly, and let the people of Cincinnati judge whether the evidence supports the decision being made in their name.
Dennis Doyle lives in Anderson Township and is a member of the Enquirer Board of Contributors.
This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: If Cincinnati fires Theetge, the evidence must be public | Opinion
Reporting by Dennis Doyle, Opinion contributor / Cincinnati Enquirer
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
