Hopkinsville Board of Ethics conducts inquiry into a pair of complaints
By Jennifer P. Brown,
2024-04-12
Five city of Hopkinsville officials — including the mayor and a city council member — each hired an attorney to be present with them Wednesday at a Board of Ethics preliminary inquiry into two undisclosed complaints.
The ethics board members — chair Susan Fernandez, Jim Monroe and Twan Doan — voted unanimously to halt the inquiry into one matter, labeled Complaint 2024-02, due to a “lack of factual basis.”
Mayor James R. Knight was represented by Harold “Mac” Johns, who is based in Elkton and is part of the English, Lucas, Priest and Owsley law firm.
Also present were:
Ward 10 Councilman Steve Keel, represented by attorney Sands Chewning, of Hopkinsville.
John Schmitt, a member of the Hopkinsville Code of Ordinance Enforcement Board, represented by attorney Ken Humphries, of Hopkinsville.
Richard Hooper, general manager of the Hopkinsville Solid Waste Enterprise, represented by attorney Bill Deatherage, of Hopkinsville.
Jenny Delawson, administrative and human resources manager for Hopkinsville Solid Waste Enterprise, represented by attorney Natasha Little, of Madisonville.
The ethics board attorney is Michael Cotthoff.
The board has not publicly identified anyone who filed a complaint or was the subject of a complaint. Nor have they released any information about the exact nature of the complaints.
However, the board chair, Fernandez, identified two “respondents” by the initials J.K. and J.S. when she read a statement about the complaint in which the board found a violation.
After the meeting concluded, Cotthoff told reporters the board’s decision would not result in a hearing on Complaint 2024-01. Instead, the board elected to use an option in the ethics code that states the board may instead issue a letter of reprimand.
Section 36.69 (E) (1) states:
“If the Board of Ethics concludes, based upon its preliminary inquiry, that the complaint is within its jurisdiction and contains allegations sufficient to establish a minimal factual basis to constitute a violation, the Board shall notify the officer or employee who is the subject of the complaint and may:
“Due to mitigating circumstances such as, lack of significant economic advantage or gain by the officer or employee, lack of economic loss to the city and its taxpayers or lack of significant impact on public confidence in city government issue, in writing, a reprimand to the officer or employee concerning the alleged violation and provide a copy of the reprimand to the Mayor and City Council or city agency.”
The meeting was unusual by local standards because of the number of parties involved.
The ethics board meets once a year to choose a new chair, and additional meetings occur on an as-needed basis when complaints are filed or someone seeks guidance on a question about a matter such as a potential conflict of interest. The board’s last meeting was in September.
Wednesday’s meeting lasted approximately three hours. Most of it was conducted in closed session under the state open meetings law exception for matters that could lead to disciplinary action against an employee.
The meeting was scheduled to start at 4:30 p.m., but it was delayed approximately 30 minutes because Doan arrived late. City Clerk Brittany Byrum said he was delayed because he drove in from Louisville.
Get updates delivered to you daily. Free and customizable.
It’s essential to note our commitment to transparency:
Our Terms of Use acknowledge that our services may not always be error-free, and our Community Standards emphasize our discretion in enforcing policies. As a platform hosting over 100,000 pieces of content published daily, we cannot pre-vet content, but we strive to foster a dynamic environment for free expression and robust discourse through safety guardrails of human and AI moderation.