City council wants public hearing to consider impeachment of Mayor Weddle
The resolution, presented during the council's Monday meeting, alleged multiple violations by Weddle. The discussed resolution proposed holding a public hearing on August 20 to consider removing the mayor from office for misconduct and willful neglect.
Council Member Anthony Ortega moved to amend the regular meeting's agenda to include the proposal, which was read aloud by Acting City Clerk Ashley Taylor and ultimately approved.
The charges against Weddle include the following allegations:
— Hired and paid individuals for city positions not formally established or approved by the City Council, violating KRS 83A.0703
— Removed and appointed members of the London Housing Authority in violation of KRS 80.090 and KRS 80.030
— Directed Housing Authority staff to ignore laws and regulations, misused police resources and made inappropriate remarks during city business
— Created a personal police protection detail using city resources
— Falsely asserted city jurisdiction over FEMA contractors working outside city limits
— Failed to meet city residency requirements
— Used a personal media outlet to target a city employee
— Refused to hold regular council meetings without the consent of a majority of council members
— Altered and rejected city contracts without notifying the legislative body
— Improperly released a recorded call between a crime victim and a city police officer.
Council Member Stacy Benge moved to table the resolution, but it failed to receive a second. Council Member Kelly Greene then moved to vote, seconded by Justin Young. The motion passed with all voting in favor except Benge.
However, the legality of the vote immediately came into question. Mayor Weddle argued that approval of the full council was required, not just a majority. City Council Attorney Conrad Cessna disagreed, stating that the higher threshold applied only at the hearing stage. City Attorney Larry Bryson maintained that a majority of the full council was required to adopt the resolution.
As tensions escalated, TJ Roberts introduced himself as outside legal counsel retained by the council, but was met with loud boos from the crowd. The mayor, pointing out that no public motion had been made to hire Roberts, told him to sit down. Roberts obliged.
Mayor Weddle then accused the council of skipping due process.
'Let's get this on the record — every accusation that you guys have made, you have a due diligence, according to KRS, to start an investigation exploratory subcommittee. How come that has not been done on any of this?' he asked. 'You have not done it — and you know why you've not done it.'
Council Member Judd Weaver then moved to hire attorney Chris Wiest. That motion passed.
'Another attorney for the city folk to have to pay, but you [couldn't] care less about the roads,' Weddle commented.
Later, Weaver made a motion for a point of clarification on whether the resolution had passed. Bryson recommended waiting for legal review before proceeding, and Roberts' second attempt to speak was again drowned out by booing from the crowd.
Carmine G. Iaccarino, attorney for Mayor Weddle, then addressed the council, stating, 'I think that Mr. Bryson's recommendation is very well advised. In order to ensure due process, and that the Kentucky Revised Statutes are in fact followed, in such an important situation as the removal and nullification of the vote of the people of London.'
Weaver asked Iaccarino whether the resolution required six votes. Iaccarino deferred, replying, 'My recommendation is to follow Mr. Bryson's recommendation.'
Weaver then asked for the determination of the chair, Mayor Weddle, to which the mayor replied, 'I think we're taking the recommendation of the city attorney.'
Weaver moved to appeal the decision, which was seconded by Greene, but no vote or discussion followed.
Weddle would go on to adjourn the meeting himself, stating, 'The chair has the ability to adjourn a meeting. We're getting nowhere. The chair is adjourning the meeting. The meeting is adjourned.'
With that, the mayor and council members dispersed, and the status of the resolution remained unresolved as of press time Tuesday.
Should the public hearing move forward, discussion indicated that it would be a special meeting set for August 20 at 9 a.m.
That meeting was confirmed Tuesday by Roberts and Cessna, though Cessna acknowledged there had been no further discussion of a legal review.
Attempts to contact Bryson for confirmation were unsuccessful as of press time.
In preliminary research, The Sentinel-Echo found no specific reference to scheduling a hearing but did find the following clause as part of KRS 83A.040 in regard to removal of city officials:
'Except in cities of the first class, any elected officer, in case of misconduct, incapacity, or willful neglect in the performance of the duties of his or her office, may be removed from office by a unanimous vote of the members of the legislative body exclusive of any member to be removed, who shall not vote in the deliberation of his or her removal. No elected officer shall be removed without having been given the right to a full public hearing. The officer, if removed, shall have the right to appeal to the Circuit Court of the county and the appeal shall be on the record. No officer so removed shall be eligible to fill the office vacated before the expiration of the term to which originally elected.'
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fact check: Bank has held rates four out of nine times since Labour took power
Fact check: Bank has held rates four out of nine times since Labour took power The Labour Party has claimed that since it was elected to Government, the Bank of England has cut interest rates 'five times in a row'. The party said: 'Interest rates have now been cut five times in a row since Labour came into power.' The message was also shared in a social media graphic which read: 'Interest rates have been cut five times in a row with Labour.' Evaluation The Bank of England has cut rates five times since Labour got into power. But these cuts were not at consecutive meetings of the Bank's rate setters. At four meetings – every other meeting since July 2024 – the Bank has actually decided to hold rates unchanged. The facts Interest rates in the UK are not set by the Government, but by an independent nine-person committee run by the Bank of England. This group is called the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) and it meets eight times a year. Since Labour got into power in early July 2024, the MPC has made nine separate decisions on rates. The committee has cut rates on every other occasion it has met since the election – starting on August 1 2024 – with the most recent cut being confirmed on August 7 2025. That has produced five cuts in total. But at the other four meetings the MPC decided to hold rates unchanged. By saying 'in a row' it is possible that Labour means that there have not been any interest rate hikes in between the cuts. However, this ignores all the times that the MPC has actively voted to leave rates unchanged. At the time of publication Labour had not responded to an email asking it to clarify how the five cuts are considered to be 'in a row'. Links Post on Instagram (archived) Bank of England – Monetary policy (archived) House of Commons Library – General election 2024 results (archived) Bank of England – Minutes sitemap (archived) Bank of England – Bank Rate reduced to 5%, August 2024 (archived) Bank of England – Bank Rate reduced to 4%, August 2025 (archived)
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What Gov. Mike Braun said about redistricting in Indiana following meeting with JD Vance
Gov. Mike Braun was noncommittal about the prospect of redistricting in Indiana following a meeting with Vice President JD Vance and Indiana legislative leaders at the Indiana Statehouse on Aug. 7. When asked by reporters if the group came to a consensus on redrawing the state's congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, Braun said "We listened." He also described the conversation as "pretty good." "It was great to meet with @VPVance today," he posted on X. "We discussed a number of issues, and I was pleased to highlight some of the great things happening in Indiana," Braun tweeted after the meeting. The push in Indiana, where Republicans already hold seven of the state's nine U.S. House seats, comes as the Trump administration is looking to Republican-led states to initiate mid-decade redistricting in order to pad the GOP majority in the U.S. House of Representatives prior to 2026. The party breakdown currently stands at 219 Republicans to 212 Democrats. The effort is already underway in Republican-led Texas, where new congressional maps could give the GOP as many as five additional seats. Texas Democrats fled the state on Aug. 3 to disrupt legislative processes to approve those maps. Political analysts say, if Gov. Mike Braun calls a special session for redistricting, Republicans could easily redraw maps in Northwest Indiana to flip the 1st Congressional District, currently held by Democratic U.S. Rep. Frank Mrvan. That would put the state at eight Republican seats to one Democratic one. Redrawing the 7th Congressional District in Indianapolis, held by longtime U.S. Rep. Andre Carson, to get the state to nine Republicans would pose more challenges. Any breakup of deep blue Democratic voters in Marion County could make other Republican House districts more vulnerable in future elections, analysts said. This story will be updated. Contact IndyStar state government and politics reporter Brittany Carloni at Sign up for our free weekly politics newsletter, Checks & Balances, curated by IndyStar politics and government reporters. This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Following VP visit, will Indiana GOP start mid-decade redistricting?
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's planned 100% computer chip tariff sparks confusion among businesses and trading partners
President Donald Trump's plans for 100% tariffs on computer chips that aren't made in the U.S. are stoking confusion among businesses and trading partners — boosting stocks for leading semiconductor companies while leaving smaller producers scrambling to understand the implications. The U.S. imports a relatively small number of chips because most of the foreign-made chips in a device — from an iPhone to a car — were already assembled into a product, or part of a product, before it landed in the country. "The real question everybody in the industry is asking is whether there will be a component tariff, where the chips in a device would require some sort of separate tariff calculation,' said Martin Chorzempa, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Trump said Wednesday that companies that "made a commitment to build" in the U.S. would be spared the import tax, even if they are not yet producing those chips in American factories. 'We'll be putting a tariff of approximately 100% on chips and semiconductors,' Trump said in the Oval Office while meeting with Apple CEO Tim Cook. 'But if you're building in the United States of America, there's no charge.' Wall Street investors interpreted that as good news not just for U.S. companies like AMD, Intel and Nvidia, but also for the biggest Asian chipmakers like Samsung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company that have been working to build U.S. factories. But it left greater uncertainty for smaller chipmakers in Europe and Asia that have little exposure to the AI boom but still make semiconductors inserted into essential products like cars or washing machines. These producers "probably aren't large enough to get on the map for an exemption and quite probably wouldn't have the kind of excess capital and margins to be able to add investment at a large scale into the United States,' Chorzempa said. The announcement came more than three months after Trump temporarily exempted most electronics from his administration's most onerous tariffs. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a shortage of computer chips increased the price of autos and contributed to higher inflation. Chorzempa said chip tariffs could again raise prices by hundreds of dollars per vehicle if the semiconductors inside a car are not exempt. 'There's a chip that allows you to open and close the window," Chorzempa said. "There's a chip that is running the entertainment system. There is a chip that's kind of running all the electronics. There are chips, especially in EVs, that are doing power management, all that kind of stuff.' Much of the investment into building U.S. chip factories began with the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act that President Joe Biden signed into law in 2022, providing more than $50 billion to support new computer chip plants, fund research and train workers for the industry. Trump has vocally opposed those financial incentives and taken a different approach, betting that the threat of dramatically higher chip costs would force most companies to open factories domestically, despite the risk that tariffs could squeeze corporate profits and push up prices for electronics. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
