Brady Offense No. 1776969231 - 365293996

The document is a March 16, 2026 confidential memorandum prepared for the Cincinnati City Solicitor summarizing an independent investigation into Teresa Theetge’s performance as Police Chief. The investigation examined her effectiveness as a leader and manager, her role within city government, whether she committed any policy violations, and whether she departed from policing best practices in ways that harmed public safety. Investigators interviewed 32 witnesses plus Chief Theetge, contacted 42 potential witnesses overall, and reviewed emails, letters, documents, and public statements. The memorandum states that the investigation was conducted independently and that the City did not direct the outcome.

The report’s central finding is strongly negative. It concludes that Chief Theetge was viewed by many witnesses as administratively capable but operationally weak, rigid, overly authoritarian, and ineffective at building trust or collaboration inside the Cincinnati Police Department. Witnesses described a leadership style marked by siloing, fear, poor accessibility, and weak communication, while the report notes that Chief Theetge herself believed she had performed very well and had not previously been clearly told that her performance was deficient.

A major theme is communication failure. According to the report, witnesses said important information was often withheld from command staff and rank-and-file officers, with some learning of developments from the media rather than through the chain of command. The memorandum concludes that this lack of transparency damaged morale, undermined confidence in leadership, and prevented broader input into decisions.

The report is also critical of Chief Theetge’s relationship with the broader city government. It says she struggled to work collaboratively with City Hall, resisted outside input, limited direct contact between her staff and city leadership, and mishandled the 2025 summer safety plan by failing to fully staff or implement it while not clearly communicating those gaps. The memorandum also states that she was initially reluctant to accept assistance from the State of Ohio during unrest, contributing to delay. Investigators concluded that she did not effectively align CPD operations with broader city objectives.

Another major conclusion concerns internal culture. The report says there was a strong perceived culture of retaliation within CPD, with many witnesses fearing career consequences if they spoke candidly. It also found a strong perception of favoritism or nepotism, including concerns tied to assignments and promotions involving people seen as personally connected to Chief Theetge. Even where the report stops short of proving intentional misconduct in every instance, it emphasizes that these perceptions were widespread and damaging to trust, respect, and organizational effectiveness.

The memorandum further concludes that Chief Theetge did not collaborate broadly enough, relied too heavily on a small inner circle, and resisted feedback. Investigators found that she struggled to accept accountability, often attributing problems to captains, City Hall, the mayor, survey methodology, or others rather than taking responsibility herself. The report contrasts this with witness descriptions of Interim Chief Adam Hennie, who was repeatedly characterized as more transparent, flexible, collaborative, and positive for department morale.

In overall terms, the document concludes that Chief Theetge was not an effective leader for CPD, that she failed to communicate and collaborate adequately, that she did little to counter retaliation and favoritism concerns, and that she was unlikely to be able to return and lead the department effectively. The report’s final position is that these leadership deficiencies materially harmed morale, trust, operational effectiveness, and CPD’s relationship with the City.