As Special Counsel Phil Taliaferro’s investigation of Mayor Mike Martin moves into its next critical phase, The Martin Chronicles has a few thoughts on what the next few months may bring.
We are blessed to live in The United States of America. People elect their leadership. Elections have consequences. While complaining about Presidents, Governors, County Judge Executives, Mayors and other elected officials is our right, the removal of an elected official from office is a serious matter. An action like removal should be done for the correct reasons.
It is not correct to remove elected officials simply because you dislike them. It is not correct to remove an elected official because you disagree with their policy initiatives. It is not correct to remove an elected official because they are inarticulate or unprofessional. In many cases, it is not correct to remove an elected official because they habitually lie. Depending of course on what they are lying about. All of the preceding would be great reasons to vigorously campaign against such an official the next time they stand for re-election. That is the American Way.
The Kentucky Revised Statutes spell out the correct grounds for removal of an elected official. These grounds can be found in KRS 83A.040(9). Here they are:
1. Misconduct;
2. Incapacity; or
3. Willful neglect in the performance of the duties of the office as required by law.
· If it is determined that the mayor has been operating his business even some years without an occupational license, that is something that should be seriously considered. Despite the inexplicable comments of Judge Executive Steve Arlinghaus at the December 21/22 council meeting. A “witch hunt”, Mr. Arlinghaus?
· If it is determined that the mayor has been doing electrical or plumbing work without the required licenses, that is something that should be seriously considered. These offenses also carry the potential of fines and jail sentence.
· If it is determined that there is an intentional pattern of failure to obtain proper permits for home improvement work being done by the mayor, that is something that should be seriously considered.
· If it is determined that there has been any evasion of State, County or City taxes or fees, that is something that should be seriously considered.
· If it is determined that the mayor engaged in the willful destruction of City property, that is something that should be seriously considered. Crushing a safe open with a backhoe may be more than just an incredibly stupid thing to do.
· If it is determined that the mayor improperly utilized city equipment and/or personnel, that is something that should be seriously considered.
· If it is determined that the mayor improperly removed taxpayer-funded property from the city building, that is something that should be seriously considered. It is hard to make a credible case that computers located at employee work stations are “in storage”.
· If it is determined that the mayor provided untruthful answers to questions posed by the Ethics Committee in the course of an official investigation, that is something that should be seriously considered.
· If it is determined that the mayor made a conscious decision to interfere with the distribution of information to employees and other elected officials they require to properly perform their jobs, that is something that should be seriously considered.
· If it is determined that the mayor made the conscious decision to hold back the release of requested public documents for any reason outside the guidelines spelled out in the Kentucky Revised Statutes, that is something that should be seriously considered.
· If it is determined that the mayor engaged in retaliatory or harassing behavior against employees, or ignored warnings that others were engaging in such behavior, that is something that should be seriously considered.
Any of the preceding eleven issues, if proven, would warrant removal from office. If several of these are proven, the decision should become even clearer.
It must be noted that KRS 83A.040(9) states that misconduct, incapacity or willful neglect may result in removal from office. In a legal sense, may is a far different word than shall. There must be a unanimous vote by council to remove the mayor from office.
Anyone who has been paying attention knows that there are two members on council who will have a difficult time voting for removal. It is hard for anyone to admit they were wrong. History has shown us it is particularly difficult for these two councilmen to ever do so.
Let’s imagine that one, some or all of the preceding eleven issues are proven. (For the record, there are several more issues being examined.)Then let’s imagine that at least one of the two aforementioned councilmen still refuses to vote for removal. The voters will then be presented with the opportunity to remove these councilmen from office on Tuesday, November 6.
November 6 is 307 days away. The Martin Chronicles hopes a majority of the voters are paying far more attention than they did in 2010.
