City council may approve investigator’s contract at Dec. 27 meeting

By JIM BROOKS
Nelson County Gazette / WBRT Radio

Tuesday, Dec. 13, 2016, 11 p.m. (Revised Dec 14, 6 p.m.) — The council’s investigation of the election-eve packet of public records targeting two members of the council up for re-election is one step closer to being launched — despite questions and criticism from some of the council.

Councilman Fred Hagan talks about the discussions he had with an attorney who is going to submit a proposal for consideration at the Dec. 27 meeting.

Councilman Fred Hagan told the council that City Attorney Tim Butler forwarded him a list of attorneys who were willing to consider taking on the type of investigation the council voted to do.

Hagan said he narrowed the list and selected an attorney who will present a contract to the council at the next council meeting. The attorney has a background in election law and local government, he explained.

If approved, the attorney would begin his investigation on Jan. 9th.

The investigation is expected to take about a week to 10 days, and will be in the $3,500 to $5,000 range, depending on the amount of time the investigation takes.

The council approved moving forward with an investigation of the packet of information that was left at the doorstep of the city council chambers prior to the start of the Nov. 1 council working session. All but one document in the packet concerned public records and fire department records of Councilwoman Kecia Copeland. One page in the packet had details on a tax issue involving Councilman Francis Lydian’s business that was cleared up years ago.

The first phase of the investigation will be determining if a city employee, city resources, or a city elected official were involved, and if that involvement was illegal or unethical, Hagan said. After that is determined, the council will decide if it wishes — or if it is necessary — to continue the investigation.

The earliest the council can expect to vote to hire the investigator is at the council’s next meeting on Dec. 27. If hired, the attorney Hagan spoke with said he could begin his investigation on Jan. 9th.

Councilman Bobby Simpson questioned why the council was rushing forward, given the fact the new council could vote down the investigation once they take office in January.

Hagan said there was no rush. “I’m a city councilman until the end of the year, I have a job to do and I’m going to do it.”

Simpson said he hadn’t been given a chance to review the list of possible investigators. Councilman Bill Buckman asked if he would be obliged to cooperate with the investigation once he is no longer a member of the city council.

Butler said he didn’t believe he would be once he was no longer on the council, but recommended he seek the advice of his personal attorney.

Buckman said he supported a quick investigation. Councilman Roland Williams said he had hoped to have the investigation complete before the new council was sworn-in.

After the meeting, Buckman called the investigation a “witch hunt” that’s now a moot point.

“It’s petty. Everything in that packet could be gotten through an open records request,” he said.

“It didn’t affect the election — she won,” he said, referring to Councilman Kecia Copeland’s successful re-election bid.

Mayor John Royalty called the city council’s investigation a “witch hunt.”

MAYOR DEFENDS ‘GAG ORDER.’ City employees have been instructed not to answer questions from members of the council or any investigator the council hires. Questions from the council must go through the mayor’s office. Royalty issued the order the day after the council voted to investigate the administration.

In an interview last week, Royalty defended the move and said the use of the term “gag order” was inaccurate because it implied no communication was being allowed.

“What I’ve done is to make sure the council members have their questions in writing and send them through the appropriate channels,” he said. “That way they can still get their questions answered.”

Royalty said his actions were taken to protecting city employees.

“Right now I have a council member going around asking questions and running a sidebar type of investigation, and those questions should be directed to the department heads and not the employees.

“My allegiance is to the employees,” he said. “They don’t need political pressure and to get involved in the politics, they have jobs to do.”

Royalty said that in his view, the investigation is a “witch hunt,” — one that’s likely to be an expensive one. He was critical of the investigation’s apparent wide scope of “the administration.”

“We have 150 people and they’re all in ‘the administration.’ ” he said. “Who are you investigating?”

Royalty said he has done his own investigation into the matter, and said the records in the packet are available to the public, and much of it is available by subscription to a court records service online.

In regard to the two fire reports that were part of the packet, at the time they were printed it wasn’t necessary to sign an open records request. Now, any one who requests records must file an open records request — which has been the policy with other city departments.

Royalty said he doesn’t blame Capt. Todd Spalding, the firefighter whose name appears on the reports that were printed. Spalding was just doing what he was asked to do, he said.

“[Hagan] said it could have influenced the election,” he said. “She got re-elected, so I don’t think it affected the election — if anything, it helped her.”

NEXT UP. The council will consider the contract for an attorney to conduct an investigation at it next meeting on Tuesday, Dec. 27, 2016.

Editor’s Note: The original version of this story incorrectly stated the council’s investigation was of “the administration” of Mayor John Royalty. While Royalty and Councilman Bill Buckman have both repeatedly referred to the investigation as one of “the administration,” Councilman Fred Hagan said his original motion about the investigation focused on an event — the arrival of the anonymous packet at the council’s Nov. 1 working session — and did not suggest or imply the investigation of any particular group, including the administration of Mayor Royalty.

In a follow-up interview on Wednesday, Dec. 7, Royalty said that in his opinion, the council’s investigation was, in fact, targeting his administration. In comments to the media after the Tuesday, Dec. 13 council meeting, Councilman Bill Buckman also referred to the investigation as one that was targeting the administration and city employees. He questioned if he had a duty to respond to questions from an investigator once he is no longer a member of the council.

-30-