Background
Mark Christopher was elected mayor of Williamstown, Kentucky, for a term beginning in January 2023. After the experienced city clerk retired in 2024, Christopher appointed Alex Cummins as her replacement and supervised her work. The city’s accounting records subsequently fell into disarray: financial entries and reports were not completed, checks were returned for insufficient funds, bills went unpaid, and payroll and deposit records were neglected. Cummins also awarded herself a raise and authorized improper overtime payments to herself and the fire chief, with whom she was having an affair. Christopher signed executive orders approving the payments.
The city council charged Christopher with willful neglect based on his failure to disclose the city’s financial problems and his approval of improper compensation. Following a public removal hearing, the council deliberated in closed session and unanimously voted to remove him. The council members then publicly affirmed their votes when polled. The Grant Circuit Court upheld the removal, finding substantial compliance with Kentucky’s Open Meetings Act and sufficient evidence of willful neglect.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the mayor was a “member” of a public agency for purposes of KRS 61.810(1)(f), allowing the council to deliberate privately about his discipline or removal after providing the full public hearing required by KRS 83A.040(9). The court analogized the council’s deliberations to jury deliberations: the presentation of evidence was public, while the decision-makers could discuss the charges privately before publicly reporting their decision.
The council nevertheless should have formally moved and voted to enter and leave the closed session, and its final removal vote should have occurred in public. It also technically violated the special-meeting notice statute by failing to post notice at the courthouse after the hearing location changed. But those defects did not require voiding the removal. The hearing’s purpose was understood, the council members publicly affirmed their unanimous decision, the hearing was well attended, and Christopher showed no prejudice. The circuit court therefore did not abuse its discretion by declining to void the council’s action.
The court also held that substantial evidence supported willful neglect. Christopher failed to supervise the handling of public funds, signed orders authorizing improper compensation, withheld financial information while the city faced bounced checks and unpaid obligations, and sent a profane message directing the clerk not to answer council inquiries. Challenges to earlier council meetings were waived because Christopher had litigated them in a prior action but did not appeal the denial of relief. His agreed-upon use of a retired judge as the hearing officer also furnished no basis for reversal.
Key Takeaways
- A city council may deliberate in closed session about removing a mayor because an elected mayor qualifies as a “member” under the Open Meetings Act’s personnel exception, provided the mayor receives the statutorily required full public hearing.
- Failures to follow closed-session formalities or special-meeting posting requirements make governmental action voidable, not automatically void; prejudice, equity, and substantial compliance remain central to the remedy.
- A mayor’s failure to supervise municipal finances, approval of improper payments, and deliberate withholding of financial information can constitute willful neglect supporting removal from office.
Why It Matters
The published decision harmonizes Kentucky’s mayor-removal statute with the Open Meetings Act. It confirms that evidence and argument at a removal hearing must remain public, while permitting council members to deliberate privately about an individual mayor’s discipline or dismissal.
The opinion also warns municipal bodies to use formal motions when entering and leaving closed sessions, take final action through a public motion and vote, and post special-meeting notices at the actual meeting site. Although the procedural defects here did not undo the removal, the result depended on public notice, public confirmation of the unanimous vote, and the absence of demonstrated prejudice.