6 days ago
City council wants public hearing to consider impeachment of Mayor Weddle
What began as an effort to formally charge London Mayor Randall Weddle with misconduct devolved into a heated and inconclusive City Council meeting — with the legality of the vote and whether the resolution will move forward remaining unclear.
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
