Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Settlement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances roughly $8 million settlement and police policy changes in Kenny v. City of Cincinnati
Summary
The committee advanced an ordinance authorizing settlement of Kenny v. City of Cincinnati that would pay just over $8 million and require CPD policy consolidations and a civil‑disturbance guidebook; council members pressed for details on class membership, per‑person awards and litigation risk.
The Public Safety and Governance Committee heard the city solicitor outline a proposed settlement in the federal class action Kenny v. City of Cincinnati and, by unanimous consent, moved the ordinance (Item 5) on for passage at council.
The solicitor said the agreement has two parts: nonmonetary policy commitments and a monetary payment “a little over $8,000,000,” to be funded by judgment bonds. He said $2,000,000 is expected to go to plaintiffs’ counsel, with the remainder (about $6,000,000) apportioned by a claims administrator; per‑plaintiff awards were estimated in the reporter range of $12,000–$13,000 depending on individual circumstances. The solicitor emphasized the agreement contains no admission of wrongdoing by the city.
Councilmembers questioned who qualifies for the class and what policy changes would mean in practice. Vice Mayor Jan Michelle Kearney confirmed the class was defined to include people charged with “misconduct in an emergency” (curfew violations) and to exclude people charged with additional crimes such as property damage. The solicitor said the city worked closely with CPD to consolidate relevant policies into a single civil‑disturbance operational guidebook for the disturbance response (CDRT) team, improve crowd notifications (including preprogrammed drone messaging), clarify dispersal orders and improve staging and care (shelter, food, water) during mass‑arrest processes.
Councilmember Mark Jeffries and others cited out‑of‑city precedents and said settling now could avoid higher jury awards or court‑ordered operational oversight; the solicitor said trial exposure could be substantially higher and could include court‑imposed injunctive relief that would limit the city’s ability to adapt policies.
Councilmember Seth Walsh pressed for clarity on timing and exposure; the solicitor said there is no single “drop‑dead” deadline but recommended handling the matter soon because of the complexity of implementing payments and claims administration.
Chair Scotty Johnson and other members praised the work of the law department and the police while also urging the city to move forward to end nearly five years of litigation. The committee recorded no objection and moved Item 5 on for passage to full council.
What happens next: the ordinance will be transmitted to the full council for consideration and (if approved) the court will need to review the settlement as part of the class‑action process. The solicitor said the city will fund the payment with judgment bonds and that details on individual awards will be determined by plaintiffs’ counsel and the claims administrator during the court process.
